Irwin Sobel (born September 12, 1940) is a scientist and researcher in digital image processing. == Biography == Irwin Sobel was born in New York City. He graduated from MIT in 1961 and completed his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project (SAIL) with thesis Camera Models and Machine Perception. His Ph.D. advisor was Jerome A. Feldman. Starting in 1973, he spent nine years doing postdoctoral research at Columbia University. After 1982, he worked as a Senior Researcher at HP Labs. == Sobel operator == In 1968, Sobel gave a talk entitled "An Isotropic 3x3 Image Gradient Operator" at SAIL; this method became known as the Sobel operator. It was developed jointly with a colleague, Gary Feldman, also at SAIL.
Moj
Moj is an Indian short-form video-sharing social networking service owned by Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd, the parent company of ShareChat. Launched on 29 June 2020, shortly after the Government of India banned TikTok and several other Chinese apps, Moj quickly gained popularity as one of the leading domestic alternatives for short-form video content in India. == History == Moj was introduced by Mohalla Tech, the Bengaluru-based parent company of ShareChat, within days of the TikTok ban in India in June 2020. The app targeted the growing demand for short-form video platforms in the country. By early 2021, Moj had amassed over 100 million downloads on the Google Play Store. In February 2021, Mohalla Tech raised significant funding from investors like Tiger Global, Snapchat, and others, which supported both Moj and ShareChat’s growth. In 2022, Moj partnered with several music labels to expand its licensed music library, competing directly with global platforms such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. == Features == Short Videos: Users can create and watch videos up to 15–60 seconds. Filters & Effects: The platform provides AR filters, editing tools, stickers, and music integration. Regional Language Support: Moj supports more than 15 Indian languages including Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Marathi. Music Integration: Users can add music tracks to their videos from licensed Indian and international music libraries. Creator Program: Moj launched initiatives to support influencers and creators, offering training, monetization, and promotional opportunities. == Popularity == By mid-2021, Moj reported over 160 million monthly active users. According to reports, Moj consistently ranked among the top social media apps in India in terms of downloads. The app gained traction in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities due to its multilingual support and focus on local content. == Competitors == Moj competes with several other short video platforms in India, including: Instagram Reels (Meta) YouTube Shorts (Google) Josh (Dailyhunt/VerSe Innovation) Roposo (InMobi) MX TakaTak (later merged with Moj in 2022) RedPost (an emerging Indian social networking platform) == Merger with MX TakaTak == In February 2022, Mohalla Tech announced that Moj would merge with MX TakaTak, another leading short video app owned by Times Internet. The merger created one of the largest short-video ecosystems in India, with a combined user base of over 300 million monthly active users.
Eduroam
eduroam (a portmanteau of education and roaming) is an international Wi-Fi internet access roaming service for users in research, higher education and further education. It provides researchers, teachers, and students network access when visiting an institution other than their own. Users are authenticated with credentials from their home institution, regardless of the location of the eduroam access point. Authorization to access the Internet and other resources are handled by the visited institution. Users do not have to pay to use eduroam. In some countries, Internet access via eduroam is also available at other locations than the participating institutions, e.g. in libraries, public buildings, railway stations, city centres and airports. It is also available at many primary and secondary education institutions in Brazil and the US. == History == The eduroam initiative started in 2002 when during the preparations for the creation of TERENA's task force TF-Mobility, Klaas Wierenga of SURFnet shared the idea of combining a RADIUS-based infrastructure with IEEE 802.1X technology to provide roaming network access across research and education networks. Initially, the service was joined by institutions in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Croatia and the United Kingdom. Later, other NRENs in Europe embraced the idea and started joining the infrastructure, which was then called eduroam. Since 2004, the European Union co-funded further research and development work related to the eduroam service through the GN2 and GN3 projects. From September 2007, the European Union also funded through these projects the continued operation and maintenance of the eduroam service at the European level. The first non-European country to join eduroam was Australia, in December 2004. In Canada, eduroam started as an initiative of the University of British Columbia, which was later taken over by CANARIE as a service of its Canadian Access Federation. In the United States, eduroam was initially a pilot project between the National Science Foundation and the University of Tennessee (UTK). In 2012, Internet2 announced the addition of eduroam to its NET+ service offerings. AnyRoam LLC, a private company, was formed by former UTK staff to serve as an Internet2 active corporate member administering the US top-level servers. In 2021, Internet2 assumed direct management of the eduroam service for US-based organizations. == Technology == The eduroam service uses IEEE 802.1X as the authentication method and a hierarchical system of RADIUS servers. The hierarchy typically consists of RADIUS servers at the participating institutions, national RADIUS servers run by the National Roaming Operators, and regional top-level RADIUS servers for individual world regions. In some cases, institutions contact each other directly via DNS lookups () When a user visits a remote institution, the user's device presents their credentials to the local RADIUS server. That RADIUS server discovers that it is not responsible for the realm of the user's home institution and proxies the access request to another RADIUS server, typically the national RADIUS server. If the visited institution is in a different country than the home institution, the request is in turn proxied to the regional top-level RADIUS server, and then to the national RADIUS server of the user's home country. That national server forwards the credentials to the home institution, where they are verified. The RADIUS response travels back over the proxy-hierarchy to the visited institution and the user is granted access. In eduroam, the user credentials are always presented in the form of an EAP method (). The EAP method is responsible for ensuring that the users credentials are secure, and private. The users credentials can then travel via a number of intermediate servers, not under the control of the home institution of the user. This requirement limits the types of EAP methods that can be used. EAP methods which do not provide for security or privacy of user credentials cannot be used in eduroam. The most commonly used EAP methods in eduroam are EAP-TLS, PEAP, and EAP-TTLS. The methods used generally fall into two broad categories: those that use credentials in the form of some public-key mechanism with certificates and those that use so-called tunnelled authentication with "inner" passwords or other credentials. Most institutions use a tunnelled authentication method that requires a server certificate. These server certificates are used to set up a secure tunnel between the mobile device and the authentication server, through which the user credentials (e.g. name and password) are securely transported. A complication arises if the user's home institution does not use a two-letter country-code top-level domain as part of its realm, but a generic top-level domain such as .edu or .org. By inspection of such realms, it is not possible to determine which national RADIUS server the request should be routed to. Such domains will thus, by default, fail to work in international roaming. The workaround for this problem involves the creation of exceptions in the international RADIUS request routing tables; however, this workaround does not scale as the number of exception entries grows. Several solutions have been proposed to eliminate this workaround in the future, the most promising of which is RADIUS over TLS with Dynamic Discovery, which does not rely on static routing tables inside a RADIUS server configuration to route requests to their proper destination. Instead, the participating institution adds one NAPTR DNS resource record to its own domain's DNS zone, which states by which server eduroam authentication for the domain is handled. == Governance == GÉANT has established a lightweight global governance structure. Recognising the large variety in the organisation and funding of research and education (networking) in different countries and regions, rules imposed on the operations of eduroam are limited to technical and administrative requirements that are necessary to ensure the smooth and secure operations of eduroam worldwide. Moreover, the eduroam operators have the leading role in creating and maintaining the rules of the global eduroam governance. The Global eduroam Governance Committee (GeGC) has the central role in the global eduroam governance structure. While its structure has evolved over time, it presently has three representatives from each of five regions — mirroring those used by the Regional Internet registries — serving a two-year term. In addition, GÉANT may appoint one or more experts as non-voting members of the GeGC. == Geographical deployment == eduroam is available at selected locations in countries with a National Roaming Operator that has signed the eduroam Compliance Statement. Those sixty-seven countries are listed below. In addition, there may be pilot deployments in countries that are in the process of joining eduroam. === Middle East === eduroam is deployed in: === Europe === The NRENs that are members of the consortium of the GN3 project have joined the European eduroam confederation by signing the confederation's policy that requires its members to comply with a set of technical and organisational requirements, which are more specific than those in the global eduroam Compliance Statement. As a consequence, eduroam is deployed in the following countries: In addition, three NRENs that are associate members of the consortium of the GN3 project without voting rights joined the European eduroam confederation; they represent Belarus (UIIP), Moldova (RENAM) and Russia (Joint Supercomputer Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Finally, five NRENs not involved in the GN3 project joined the European eduroam confederation on a voluntary basis, enabling the deployment of the service in: The European top-level RADIUS servers are operated by SURFnet and Forskningsnettet. === Asia-Pacific === eduroam is deployed in the following countries and economies: The Asia-Pacific top-level RADIUS servers are operated by AARNet and by the University of Hong Kong. === North America === eduroam is deployed in: === Latin America === eduroam is deployed in: === Africa === eduroam is deployed in: The inter-African RADIUS servers are operated by West-African research and education network WACREN, the UbuntuNet Alliance and TENET.
Computer-aided software engineering
Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) is a domain of software tools used to design and implement applications. CASE tools are similar to and are partly inspired by computer-aided design (CAD) tools used for designing hardware products. CASE tools are intended to help develop high-quality, defect-free, and maintainable software. CASE software was often associated with methods for the development of information systems together with automated tools that could be used in the software development process. == History == The Information System Design and Optimization System (ISDOS) project, started in 1968 at the University of Michigan, initiated a great deal of interest in the whole concept of using computer systems to help analysts in the very difficult process of analysing requirements and developing systems. Several papers by Daniel Teichroew fired a whole generation of enthusiasts with the potential of automated systems development. His Problem Statement Language / Problem Statement Analyzer (PSL/PSA) tool was a CASE tool although it predated the term. Another major thread emerged as a logical extension to the data dictionary of a database. By extending the range of metadata held, the attributes of an application could be held within a dictionary and used at runtime. This "active dictionary" became the precursor to the more modern model-driven engineering capability. However, the active dictionary did not provide a graphical representation of any of the metadata. It was the linking of the concept of a dictionary holding analysts' metadata, as derived from the use of an integrated set of techniques, together with the graphical representation of such data that gave rise to the earlier versions of CASE. The next entrant into the market was Excelerator from Index Technology in Cambridge, Mass. While DesignAid ran on Convergent Technologies and later Burroughs Ngen networked microcomputers, Index launched Excelerator on the IBM PC/AT platform. While, at the time of launch, and for several years, the IBM platform did not support networking or a centralized database as did the Convergent Technologies or Burroughs machines, the allure of IBM was strong, and Excelerator came to prominence. Hot on the heels of Excelerator were a rash of offerings from companies such as Knowledgeware (James Martin, Fran Tarkenton and Don Addington), Texas Instrument's CA Gen and Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION toolset (DESIGN/1, INSTALL/1, FCP). CASE tools were at their peak in the early 1990s. According to the PC Magazine of January 1990, over 100 companies were offering nearly 200 different CASE tools. At the time IBM had proposed AD/Cycle, which was an alliance of software vendors centered on IBM's Software repository using IBM DB2 in mainframe and OS/2: The application development tools can be from several sources: from IBM, from vendors, and from the customers themselves. IBM has entered into relationships with Bachman Information Systems, Index Technology Corporation, and Knowledgeware wherein selected products from these vendors will be marketed through an IBM complementary marketing program to provide offerings that will help to achieve complete life-cycle coverage. With the decline of the mainframe, AD/Cycle and the Big CASE tools died off, opening the market for the mainstream CASE tools of today. Many of the leaders of the CASE market of the early 1990s ended up being purchased by Computer Associates, including IEW, IEF, ADW, Cayenne, and Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems (LBMS). The other trend that led to the evolution of CASE tools was the rise of object-oriented methods and tools. Most of the various tool vendors added some support for object-oriented methods and tools. In addition new products arose that were designed from the bottom up to support the object-oriented approach. Andersen developed its project Eagle as an alternative to Foundation. Several of the thought leaders in object-oriented development each developed their own methodology and CASE tool set: Jacobson, Rumbaugh, Booch, etc. Eventually, these diverse tool sets and methods were consolidated via standards led by the Object Management Group (OMG). The OMG's Unified Modelling Language (UML) is currently widely accepted as the industry standard for object-oriented modeling. == CASE software == === Tools === CASE tools support specific tasks in the software development life-cycle. They can be divided into the following categories: Business and analysis modeling: Graphical modeling tools. E.g., E/R modeling, object modeling, etc. Development: Design and construction phases of the life-cycle. Debugging environments. E.g., IISE LKO. Verification and validation: Analyze code and specifications for correctness, performance, etc. Configuration management: Control the check-in and check-out of repository objects and files. E.g., SCCS, IISE. Metrics and measurement: Analyze code for complexity, modularity (e.g., no "go to's"), performance, etc. Project management: Manage project plans, task assignments, scheduling. Another common way to distinguish CASE tools is the distinction between Upper CASE and Lower CASE. Upper CASE Tools support business and analysis modeling. They support traditional diagrammatic languages such as ER diagrams, Data flow diagram, Structure charts, Decision Trees, Decision tables, etc. Lower CASE Tools support development activities, such as physical design, debugging, construction, testing, component integration, maintenance, and reverse engineering. All other activities span the entire life-cycle and apply equally to upper and lower CASE. === Workbenches === Workbenches integrate two or more CASE tools and support specific software-process activities. Hence they achieve: A homogeneous and consistent interface (presentation integration) Seamless integration of tools and toolchains (control and data integration) An example workbench is Microsoft's Visual Basic programming environment. It incorporates several development tools: a GUI builder, a smart code editor, debugger, etc. Most commercial CASE products tended to be such workbenches that seamlessly integrated two or more tools. Workbenches also can be classified in the same manner as tools; as focusing on Analysis, Development, Verification, etc. as well as being focused on the upper case, lower case, or processes such as configuration management that span the complete life-cycle. === Environments === An environment is a collection of CASE tools or workbenches that attempts to support the complete software process. This contrasts with tools that focus on one specific task or a specific part of the life-cycle. CASE environments are classified by Fuggetta as follows: Toolkits: Loosely coupled collections of tools. These typically build on operating system workbenches such as the Unix Programmer's Workbench or the VMS VAX set. They typically perform integration via piping or some other basic mechanism to share data and pass control. The strength of easy integration is also one of the drawbacks. Simple passing of parameters via technologies such as shell scripting can't provide the kind of sophisticated integration that a common repository database can. Fourth generation: These environments are also known as 4GL standing for fourth generation language environments due to the fact that the early environments were designed around specific languages such as Visual Basic. They were the first environments to provide deep integration of multiple tools. Typically these environments were focused on specific types of applications. For example, user-interface driven applications that did standard atomic transactions to a relational database. Examples are Informix 4GL, and Focus. Language-centered: Environments based on a single often object-oriented language such as the Symbolics Lisp Genera environment or VisualWorks Smalltalk from Parcplace. In these environments all the operating system resources were objects in the object-oriented language. This provides powerful debugging and graphical opportunities but the code developed is mostly limited to the specific language. For this reason, these environments were mostly a niche within CASE. Their use was mostly for prototyping and R&D projects. A common core idea for these environments was the model–view–controller user interface that facilitated keeping multiple presentations of the same design consistent with the underlying model. The MVC architecture was adopted by the other types of CASE environments as well as many of the applications that were built with them. Integrated: These environments are an example of what most IT people tend to think of first when they think of CASE. Environments such as IBM's AD/Cycle, Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION, the ICL CADES system, and DEC Cohesion. These environments attempt to cover the complete life-cycle from analysis to maintenance and provide an integrated database repository for storing all artifacts of the software pr
Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory
Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory (CMTL) is an information technology (IT) computer security testing laboratory that is accredited to conduct cryptographic module evaluations for conformance to the FIPS 140-2 U.S. Government standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits CMTLs to meet Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) standards and procedures. This has been replaced by FIPS 140-2 and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). == CMTL requirements == These laboratories must meet the following requirements: NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements NIST Handbook 150-17 Information Technology Security Testing - Cryptographic Module Testing NVLAP Specific Operations Checklist for Cryptographic Module Testing == FIPS 140-2 in relation to the Common Criteria == A CMTL can also be a Common Criteria (CC) Testing Laboratory (CCTL). The CC and FIPS 140-2 are different in the abstractness and focus of evaluation. FIPS 140-2 testing is against a defined cryptographic module and provides a suite of conformance tests to four FIPS 140 security levels. FIPS 140-2 describes the requirements for cryptographic modules and includes such areas as physical security, key management, self tests, roles and services, etc. The standard was initially developed in 1994 - prior to the development of the CC. The CC is an evaluation against a Protection Profile (PP), or security target (ST). Typically, a PP covers a broad range of products. A CC evaluation does not supersede or replace a validation to either FIPS 140-1, FIPS140-2 or FIPS 140-3. The four security levels in FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 140-2 do not map directly to specific CC EALs or to CC functional requirements. A CC certificate cannot be a substitute for a FIPS 140-1 or FIPS 140-2 certificate. If the operational environment is a modifiable operational environment, the operating system requirements of the Common Criteria are applicable at FIPS Security Levels 2 and above. FIPS 140-1 required evaluated operating systems that referenced the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) classes C2, B1 and B2. However, TCSEC is no longer in use and has been replaced by the Common Criteria. Consequently, FIPS 140-2 now references the Common Criteria. FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 validation efforts can be in some parts reused in Common Criteria evaluations, specifically in areas related to entropy source and cryptographic algorithms.
WS-SecurityPolicy
WS-Security Policy is a web services specification, created by IBM and 12 co-authors, that has become an OASIS standard as of version 1.2. It extends the fundamental security protocols specified by the WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-Secure Conversation by offering mechanisms to represent the capabilities and requirements of web services as policies. Security policy assertions are based on the WS-Policy framework. Policy assertions can be used to require more generic security attributes like transport layer security
Data stream management system
A data stream management system (DSMS) is a computer software system to manage continuous data streams. It is similar to a database management system (DBMS), which is, however, designed for static data in conventional databases. A DBMS also offers a flexible query processing so that the information needed can be expressed using queries. However, in contrast to a DBMS, a DSMS executes a continuous query that is not only performed once, but is permanently installed. Therefore, the query is continuously executed until it is explicitly uninstalled. Since most DSMS are data-driven, a continuous query produces new results as long as new data arrive at the system. This basic concept is similar to complex event processing so that both technologies are partially coalescing. == Functional principle == One important feature of a DSMS is the possibility to handle potentially infinite and rapidly changing data streams by offering flexible processing at the same time, although there are only limited resources such as main memory. The following table provides various principles of DSMS and compares them to traditional DBMS. == Processing and streaming models == One of the biggest challenges for a DSMS is to handle potentially infinite data streams using a fixed amount of memory and no random access to the data. There are different approaches to limit the amount of data in one pass, which can be divided into two classes. For the one hand, there are compression techniques that try to summarize the data and for the other hand there are window techniques that try to portion the data into (finite) parts. === Synopses === The idea behind compression techniques is to maintain only a synopsis of the data, but not all (raw) data points of the data stream. The algorithms range from selecting random data points called sampling to summarization using histograms, wavelets or sketching. One simple example of a compression is the continuous calculation of an average. Instead of memorizing each data point, the synopsis only holds the sum and the number of items. The average can be calculated by dividing the sum by the number. However, it should be mentioned that synopses cannot reflect the data accurately. Thus, a processing that is based on synopses may produce inaccurate results. === Windows === Instead of using synopses to compress the characteristics of the whole data streams, window techniques only look on a portion of the data. This approach is motivated by the idea that only the most recent data are relevant. Therefore, a window continuously cuts out a part of the data stream, e.g. the last ten data stream elements, and only considers these elements during the processing. There are different kinds of such windows like sliding windows that are similar to FIFO lists or tumbling windows that cut out disjoint parts. Furthermore, the windows can also be differentiated into element-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten elements, or time-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten seconds of data. There are also different approaches to implementing windows. There are, for example, approaches that use timestamps or time intervals for system-wide windows or buffer-based windows for each single processing step. Sliding-window query processing is also suitable to being implemented in parallel processors by exploiting parallelism between different windows and/or within each window extent. == Query processing == Since there are a lot of prototypes, there is no standardized architecture. However, most DSMS are based on the query processing in DBMS by using declarative languages to express queries, which are translated into a plan of operators. These plans can be optimized and executed. A query processing often consists of the following steps. === Formulation of continuous queries === The formulation of queries is mostly done using declarative languages like SQL in DBMS. Since there are no standardized query languages to express continuous queries, there are a lot of languages and variations. However, most of them are based on SQL, such as the Continuous Query Language (CQL), StreamSQL and ESP. There are also graphical approaches where each processing step is a box and the processing flow is expressed by arrows between the boxes. The language strongly depends on the processing model. For example, if windows are used for the processing, the definition of a window has to be expressed. In StreamSQL, a query with a sliding window for the last 10 elements looks like follows: This stream continuously calculates the average value of "price" of the last 10 tuples, but only considers those tuples whose prices are greater than 100.0. In the next step, the declarative query is translated into a logical query plan. A query plan is a directed graph where the nodes are operators and the edges describe the processing flow. Each operator in the query plan encapsulates the semantic of a specific operation, such as filtering or aggregation. In DSMSs that process relational data streams, the operators are equal or similar to the operators of the Relational algebra, so that there are operators for selection, projection, join, and set operations. This operator concept allows the very flexible and versatile processing of a DSMS. === Optimization of queries === The logical query plan can be optimized, which strongly depends on the streaming model. The basic concepts for optimizing continuous queries are equal to those from database systems. If there are relational data streams and the logical query plan is based on relational operators from the Relational algebra, a query optimizer can use the algebraic equivalences to optimize the plan. These may be, for example, to push selection operators down to the sources, because they are not so computationally intensive like join operators. Furthermore, there are also cost-based optimization techniques like in DBMS, where a query plan with the lowest costs is chosen from different equivalent query plans. One example is to choose the order of two successive join operators. In DBMS this decision is mostly done by certain statistics of the involved databases. But, since the data of a data streams is unknown in advance, there are no such statistics in a DSMS. However, it is possible to observe a data stream for a certain time to obtain some statistics. Using these statistics, the query can also be optimized later. So, in contrast to a DBMS, some DSMS allows to optimize the query even during runtime. Therefore, a DSMS needs some plan migration strategies to replace a running query plan with a new one. === Transformation of queries === Since a logical operator is only responsible for the semantics of an operation but does not consist of any algorithms, the logical query plan must be transformed into an executable counterpart. This is called a physical query plan. The distinction between a logical and a physical operator plan allows more than one implementation for the same logical operator. The join, for example, is logically the same, although it can be implemented by different algorithms like a Nested loop join or a Sort-merge join. Notice, these algorithms also strongly depend on the used stream and processing model. Finally, the query is available as a physical query plan. === Execution of queries === Since the physical query plan consists of executable algorithms, it can be directly executed. For this, the physical query plan is installed into the system. The bottom of the graph (of the query plan) is connected to the incoming sources, which can be everything like connectors to sensors. The top of the graph is connected to the outgoing sinks, which may be for example a visualization. Since most DSMSs are data-driven, a query is executed by pushing the incoming data elements from the source through the query plan to the sink. Each time when a data element passes an operator, the operator performs its specific operation on the data element and forwards the result to all successive operators. == Examples == AURORA, StreamBase Systems, Inc. Archived 23 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine Hortonworks DataFlow IBM Streams NIAGARA Query Engine NiagaraST: A Research Data Stream Management System at Portland State University Odysseus, an open source Java-based framework for Data Stream Management Systems Pipeline DB PIPES Archived 24 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, webMethods Business Events QStream SAS Event Stream Processing SQLstream STREAM StreamGlobe StreamInsight TelegraphCQ WSO2 Stream Processor