AI-assisted reverse engineering (AIARE) is a branch of computer science that leverages artificial intelligence (AI), notably machine learning (ML) strategies, to augment and automate the process of reverse engineering. The latter involves breaking down a product, system, or process to comprehend its structure, design, and functionality. AIARE was primarily introduced in the early years of the 21st century, witnessing substantial advancements from the mid-2010s onwards. == Overview == Conventionally, reverse engineering is conducted by specialists who dismantle a system to grasp its working principles, often for the purposes of reproduction, modification, enhancement of compatibility, or forensic examination. This method, while efficient, can be laborious and time-intensive, particularly when dealing with intricate software or hardware systems. AIARE integrates machine learning algorithms to either partially automate or augment this process. It is capable of detecting patterns, relationships, structures, and potential vulnerabilities within the analyzed system, frequently surpassing human experts in speed and accuracy. This has rendered AIARE a critical tool in numerous fields, including cybersecurity, software development, and hardware design and analysis. == Techniques == AIARE encompasses several AI methodologies: === Supervised learning === Supervised learning employs tagged data to train models to recognize system components, their operations, and their interconnections. This method is particularly helpful in software analysis to discover vulnerabilities or enhance compatibility. === Unsupervised learning === Unsupervised learning is utilized to detect concealed patterns and structures in untagged data. It proves beneficial in comprehending complex systems where there's no evident labeling or mapping of components. === Reinforcement learning === Reinforcement learning is employed to build models that progressively refine their system understanding through a process of trial and error. This method is often implemented when deciphering a system's functionality under various circumstances or configurations. === Deep learning === Deep learning is employed for analysis of high-dimensional data. For instance, deep learning techniques can aid in examining the layout and connections of integrated circuits (ICs), substantially reducing the manual effort required for reverse engineering. == Benefits == === Usable Security === AIARE expands usable security as reverse engineering is traditionally slow and highly specialized as it produces dense, low-level information (usually in Assembly or C) when using tools like Ghidra. The use of multiple different methods to interface with models today (such as through chat bots like ChatGPT) greatly reduces the barrier to entry by providing a clear way to interact with the user and even providing meaningful decompiled source code. In addition, either done automatically or through prompt engineering, a model is capable of producing a high-level summary and explanation of its reverse engineering efforts in human-readable form that doesn't require much knowledge on code. === Speedup === AIARE is capable of processing data much faster than humans, providing a boost in speed when analyzing said data. In the context of computer security, this can greatly speed up incident management or response and malware detection as AIARE can be automated to drastically reduce the manual effort usually associated with reverse engineering. == Limitations == In an effort to improve readability for reverse engineering, AI-generated code may introduce erroneous bugs not present in the source. This compromises the correctness of the code if not carefully validated and will throw off reverse engineering efforts. Additionally, AIARE's weakness in zero-shot prompting makes gathering accurate data without reference data in the prompt more inconsistent, thus requiring a user to provide some quality data of their own that hurts its usability.
Confidential computing
Confidential computing is a security and privacy-enhancing computational technique focused on protecting data in use. Confidential computing can be used in conjunction with storage and network encryption, which protect data at rest and data in transit respectively. It is designed to address software, protocol, cryptographic, and basic physical and supply-chain attacks, although some critics have demonstrated architectural and side-channel attacks effective against the technology. The technology protects data in use by performing computations in a hardware-based trusted execution environment (TEE). Confidential data is released to the TEE only once it is assessed to be trustworthy. Different types of confidential computing define the level of data isolation used, whether virtual machine, application, or function, and the technology can be deployed in on-premise data centers, edge locations, or the public cloud. It is often compared with other privacy-enhancing computational techniques such as fully homomorphic encryption, secure multi-party computation, and Trusted Computing. Confidential computing is promoted by the Confidential Computing Consortium (CCC) industry group, whose membership includes major providers of the technology. == Properties == Trusted execution environments (TEEs) "prevent unauthorized access or modification of applications and data while they are in use, thereby increasing the security level of organizations that manage sensitive and regulated data". Trusted execution environments can be instantiated on a computer's processing components such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU). In their various implementations, TEEs can provide different levels of isolation including virtual machine, individual application, or compute functions. Typically, data in use in a computer's compute components and memory exists in a decrypted state and can be vulnerable to examination or tampering by unauthorized software or administrators. According to the CCC, confidential computing protects data in use through a minimum of three properties: Data confidentiality: "Unauthorized entities cannot view data while it is in use within the TEE". Data integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter data while it is in use within the TEE". Code integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter code executing in the TEE". In addition to trusted execution environments, remote cryptographic attestation is an essential part of confidential computing. The attestation process assesses the trustworthiness of a system and helps ensure that confidential data is released to a TEE only after it presents verifiable evidence that it is genuine and operating with an acceptable security posture. It allows the verifying party to assess the trustworthiness of a confidential computing environment through an "authentic, accurate, and timely report about the software and data state" of that environment. "Hardware-based attestation schemes rely on a trusted hardware component and associated firmware to execute attestation routines in a secure environment". Without attestation, a compromised system could deceive others into trusting it, claim it is running certain software in a TEE, and potentially compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the data being processed or the integrity of the trusted code. == Technical approaches == Technical approaches to confidential computing may vary in which software, infrastructure and administrator elements are allowed to access confidential data. The "trust boundary," which circumscribes a trusted computing base (TCB), defines which elements have the potential to access confidential data, whether they are acting benignly or maliciously. Confidential computing implementations enforce the defined trust boundary at a specific level of data isolation. The three main types of confidential computing are: Virtual machine isolation Application isolation, also known as process isolation Function isolation, also known as library isolation Virtual machine isolation removes the elements controlled by the computer infrastructure or cloud provider, but allows potential data access by elements inside a virtual machine running on the infrastructure. Application or process isolation permits data access only by authorized software applications or processes. Function or library isolation is designed to permit data access only by authorized subroutines or modules within a larger application, blocking access by any other system element, including unauthorized code in the larger application. == Threat model == As confidential computing is concerned with the protection of data in use, only certain threat models can be addressed by this technique. Other types of attacks are better addressed by other privacy-enhancing technologies. === In scope === The following threat vectors are generally considered in scope for confidential computing: Software attacks: including attacks on the host’s software and firmware. This may include the operating system, hypervisor, BIOS, other software and workloads. Protocol attacks: including "attacks on protocols associated with attestation as well as workload and data transport". This includes vulnerabilities in the "provisioning or placement of the workload" or data that could cause a compromise. Cryptographic attacks: including "vulnerabilities found in ciphers and algorithms due to a number of factors, including mathematical breakthroughs, availability of computing power and new computing approaches such as quantum computing". The CCC notes several caveats in this threat vector, including relative difficulty of upgrading cryptographic algorithms in hardware and recommendations that software and firmware be kept up-to-date. A multi-faceted, defense-in-depth strategy is recommended as a best practice. Basic physical attacks: including cold boot attacks, bus and cache snooping and plugging attack devices into an existing port, such as a PCI Express slot or USB port. Basic upstream supply-chain attacks: including attacks that would compromise TEEs through changes such as added debugging ports. The degree and mechanism of protection against these threats varies with specific confidential computing implementations. === Out of scope === Threats generally defined as out of scope for confidential computing include: Sophisticated physical attacks: including physical attacks that "require long-term and/or invasive access to hardware" such as chip scraping techniques and electron microscope probes. Upstream hardware supply-chain attacks: including attacks on the CPU manufacturing process, CPU supply chain in key injection/generation during manufacture. Attacks on components of a host system that are not directly providing the capabilities of the trusted execution environment are also generally out-of-scope. Availability attacks: confidential computing is designed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of protected data and code. It does not address availability attacks such as Denial of Service or Distributed Denial of Service attacks. == Use cases == Confidential computing can be deployed in the public cloud, on-premise data centers, or distributed "edge" locations, including network nodes, branch offices, industrial systems and others. === Data privacy and security === Confidential computing protects the confidentiality and integrity of data and code from the infrastructure provider, unauthorized or malicious software and system administrators, and other cloud tenants, which may be a concern for organizations seeking control over sensitive or regulated data. The additional security capabilities offered by confidential computing can help accelerate the transition of more sensitive workloads to the cloud or edge locations. === Multi-party analytics === Confidential computing can enable multiple parties to engage in joint analysis using confidential or regulated data inside a TEE while preserving privacy and regulatory compliance. In this case, all parties benefit from the shared analysis, but no party's sensitive data or confidential code is exposed to the other parties or system host. Examples include multiple healthcare organizations contributing data to medical research, or multiple banks collaborating to identify financial fraud or money laundering. Oxford University researchers proposed the alternative paradigm called "Confidential Remote Computing" (CRC), which supports confidential operations in Trusted Execution Environments across endpoint computers considering multiple stakeholders as mutually distrustful data, algorithm and hardware providers. === Confidential generative AI === Confidential computing technologies can be applied to various stages of a generative AI deployments to help increase data or model privacy, security, and regulatory compliance. TEEs and remote attestation can protect the integrity of data during AI model training, keep
Futel
Futel is a public arts organization in Portland, Oregon dedicated to preserving and maintaining public telephone hardware and offering free phone and basic information services. Futel was founded by Karl Anderson, a former software engineer, and Elijah St. Clair. == Technology == Karl Anderson stated that one motivation for the project was to explore the idea of urban furniture. Other reasons were to preserve an important part of hacker history, and to salvage and re-use manufactured items at the end of their lifecycle. The original Futel phones were set up in Portland, Oregon. The organization cleans and repurposes old public payphones which are often salvaged from Craigslist or scrappers. Using interface boxes, they are converted into VoIP phones which are made available publicly, with no cost for phone calls. Anderson has said the service runs on "Asterisk and OpenVPN and a lot of scripts." The payphones operate using publicly-available internet connections. The phones have automated phone trees and users can make a call to local social services, to a weather forecast line, or access local transit information. Volunteers act as telephone operators, offering information about the Futel service, or are available for conversation. Users using Futel's phones may also access voicemail boxes. The system has a "wildcard line" where people can listen to samples of audio left on the main voicemail line along with commentary from Anderson and others. == Network == In February 2021, there were 10 Futel phones in Portland and 3 in other cities. Phones were set up in Detroit and Ypsilanti, Michigan, and Long Beach, Washington. The organization has provided free phone service for a Portland-area homeless encampment after receiving funding from the Awesome Foundation. In 2019 the organization reported their phones being used to make 12,000 phone calls. Futel also said their usage went up and not down during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when they outfitted their phone kiosks with handwashing stations and used volunteers to keep the phones clean. The project is funded is primarily through grants and is staffed with volunteers. The project has inspired others such as the PhilTel project in Philadelphia and the RandTel project in Randolph, Vermont. Futel publishes a zine called Party Line.
Are We Dating The Same Guy?
Are We Dating The Same Guy?, also abbreviated AWDTSG is a series of over 200 individual Facebook groups where women share dating profiles of men they matched with on dating networks to seek the opinion of other women who may have dated the same man in the past. The first group was created by Paola Sanchez and aimed at women living in the New York City environs. The groups have over 3.5 million members as of January 2024. The group's function is to post screenshots of a man's dating profile to that city's designated Facebook group, after which the poster asks "any tea?". Other users in the group will then share information about the man and share warnings. The groups are moderated by volunteers, and have been described as a feminist group. The groups have rules saying that personal information such as addresses must not be included in the Facebook posts. Users attempting to join the group are also examined to prevent fake profiles. The group is mainly for straight women. According to Vice, the men being posted about have no way to defend against accusations made about them, and on the other hand, posters cannot prove their stories unless backed up by others. Often times, members post pictures alongside personal information such as names, which may infringe on subjects' legal right to privacy. Lawyers have said these issues can lead to defamation lawsuits, and members can make false allegations and create fabricated stories. If members tell a man that he's been talked about on the group, the "snitch" will be banned and be "exposed to the whole group". == History == The first Are We Dating The Same Guy group was created by Paola Sanchez. The first group was created in March 2022 in New York City. A male counterpart, named "Are We Dating the Same Girl NYC" was created for New York, with mostly the same guidelines and rules to the original. When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they denounced the new group. == Operations == Administrators are told not to respond to men asking to have posts about them removed, and to not remove said posts. The people being posted about have reported being questioned by their employers about things they have not done. Members of the groups sometimes criticise the physical appearance of the men being posted about. According to the Evening Standard, the groups "frequent[ly] mock" the appearance or dating profiles of the men who are posted about, despite being against the rules. For this behaviour, women are sometimes kicked out, or the group is disciplined en masse by admins. The groups have rules against hate towards men, but the rules can be difficult to enforce in large groups, with some having over 100,000 members. Some men have also been able to join the groups without being noticed. == Reception == In October 2023, Sera Bozza of Body+Soul wrote that consistently using Are We Dating The Same Guy can "affect your real-world view". She wrote that "A few stories of cheating may persuade you to believe that all men are unfaithful". Some lawyers and commentators have expressed concern that the groups fail to acknowledge the legal right to privacy and users can create false allegations and fabricated stories, and cyberbully men without them being able to defend themselves. This may lead to civil lawsuits against the author for defamation, harassment, and other related privacy torts. Netsafe, an online safety organisation in New Zealand, advises users of a similar group to familiarise themselves with the Harmful Digital Communications Act to ensure that posts do not lead to "harmful consequences". The Independent reported that men who have been posted on the dating groups have felt violated, and that even if reviewed positively by potentially thousands of strangers, the men being discussed about may have their reputation slightly decreased due to the association with being on the groups. The Independent also reported that some men believe that the groups are created to spread lies or mock them. Mashable reported that the growth of AWDTSG in recent years has led to the rise of a small industry of online reputation and content removal services, as increasing numbers of men seek assistance. A co-founder of Maximatic Media, one such agency offering these removal services, stated that many of the men contacting the firm do so in a state of panic after learning that allegations about them have circulated among tens of thousands of participants without their knowledge. Mashable similarly reported that the growing visibility of AWDTSG and similar platforms has contributed to what commentators describe as a "public trial" dynamic, where subjective accounts about dating behavior are interpreted as factual assessments and can influence a person's reputation among large audiences within their locale. The Oklahoman reported that anonymous, unverified claims in these groups have led some men to experience social and dating repercussions, although legal analysts argue that the benefits of community-based safety networks still outweigh these concerns in modern, app based dating environments. UTV/ITV News reportedly spoke to a man who was posted who alleged he attempted suicide, was clinically dead for three minutes, and spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital as a result of the posts made about him. Many other men have talked about malicious false claims made about them. Self-described men’s rights activists have taken a dislike to these groups and have gotten multiple North American groups shut down by running campaigns, threatening lawsuits, and mass Facebook reporting. They also have Reddit communities dedicated to getting rid of such groups. Women who have posted in the groups have felt that they have put their safety at risk, with some having been confronted by the men they posted about. The group has been noted for exposing men who use dating apps while already in a relationship, misrepresent their ages, or repeatedly stand up the women they meet through apps, among other bad dating behaviors. For example, some members of the group had matched on a dating site with a man who had, several years prior, killed a stranger while having a mental break. After this information came to light, members of the group were warned. The group has also been noted to be complimentary of some men. == Lawsuits == In 2023, a 41-year-old man sued the administrators of the London group for $35,000 under defamation, alleging that the group "called names, accused of sending lewd photos and of being a bad parent". In January 2024 a man sued Meta, the owner of Facebook, along with Patreon, GoFundMe, and the AWDTSG website, as well as almost 30 group members due to alleged defamation, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Claiming that the groups violate anti-doxxing laws and do not fact check, seeking $75,000 in damages. He claims that the group shared fake images of him sending women texts containing harassment, his name and photo. His attorneys claim that if the images were real, they would fall under free speech in the First Amendment. By February, groups had raised $80,000. The Washington Post said that this case caused AWDTSG to "explode into public view". The case was dismissed in 2025 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to renew the case in D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al. The plaintiff and his attorneys, Marc Trent and Aaron Walner of Trent Law Firm, were sanctioned "for frivolously appealing the dismissal of the claims," "misrepresentations of law," in connection with falsified citations included in the plaintiff's brief, and " disputing at oral argument without any evidentiary basis that [the plaintiff] client sent the text message she attributed to him." == By country == === Australia === In Australia, there are groups for multiple cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Rockhampton with many having several thousand members. The Sydney group has 30,000 members. In March 2023, the Adelaide version of the group, which had 7,000 members, was shut down. In 2024, groups titled "Sis, Are We Dating The Same Guy" stopped accepting new posts after an admin was sued for defamation and had to pay over AU$20,000 in legal fees. The case was settled out of court. The administrator announcing these closures cited a 2021 defamation High Court case involving detainee Dylan Voller, which led to the High Court saying that owners of Facebook groups can be held liable for defamatory comments, even if they did not know the comments had been made. === Canada === In 2023, a group was started for Ottawa. The founder previously was in a relationship full of "cheating and lies", which prompted her to creating the Facebook community. In 2023, the group for Vancouver and British Columbia was shut down after concerns about men being unable to protect themselves against fa
Universal Plug and Play
UPnP (originally Universal Plug and Play) is a set of Internet Protocol-based networking protocols that permits networked devices, such as personal computers, printers, Internet gateways, Wi-Fi access points and mobile devices, to seamlessly discover each other's presence on the network and establish functional network services. UPnP is intended primarily for residential networks without enterprise-class devices. Officially, only the abbreviations UPnP and UPnP+ are trademarked. UPnP assumes the network runs IP, and then uses HTTP on top of IP to provide device/service description, actions, data transfer and event notification. Device search requests and advertisements are supported by running HTTP on top of UDP (port 1900) using multicast (known as HTTPMU). Responses to search requests are also sent over UDP, but are instead sent using unicast (known as HTTPU). Conceptually, UPnP extends plug and play—a technology for dynamically attaching devices directly to a computer—to zero-configuration networking for residential and SOHO wireless networks. UPnP devices are plug-and-play in that, when connected to a network, they automatically establish working configurations with other devices, removing the need for users to manually configure and add devices through IP addresses. UPnP is generally regarded as unsuitable for deployment in business settings for reasons of economy, complexity, and consistency: the multicast foundation makes it chatty, consuming too many network resources on networks with a large population of devices; the simplified access controls do not map well to complex environments. == Overview == The UPnP architecture allows device-to-device networking of consumer electronics, mobile devices, personal computers, and networked home appliances. It is a distributed, open architecture protocol based on established standards such as the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP), HTTP, XML, and SOAP. UPnP control points (CPs) are devices which use UPnP protocols to control UPnP controlled devices (CDs). The UPnP architecture supports zero-configuration networking. A UPnP-compatible device from any vendor can dynamically join a network, obtain an IP address, announce its name, advertise or convey its capabilities upon request, and learn about the presence and capabilities of other devices. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Domain Name System (DNS) servers are optional and are only used if they are available on the network. Devices can disconnect from the network automatically without leaving state information. UPnP was published as a 73-part international standard ISO/IEC 29341 in December 2008. Other UPnP features include: Media and device independence UPnP technology can run on many media that support IP, including Ethernet, FireWire, Infrared (IrDA), home wiring (G.hn) and Radiofrequency (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi). No special device driver support is necessary; common network protocols are used instead. User interface (UI) control Optionally, the UPnP architecture enables devices to present a user interface through a web browser (see Presentation below). Operating system and programming language independence Any operating system and any programming language can be used to build UPnP products. UPnP stacks are available for most platforms and operating systems in both closed- and open-source forms. Programmatic control UPnP architecture also enables conventional application programmatic control. Extensibility Each UPnP product can have device-specific services layered on top of the basic architecture. In addition to combining services defined by the UPnP Forum in various ways, vendors can define their own device and service types. They can extend standard devices and services with vendor-defined actions, state variables, data structure elements, and variable values. == Protocol == UPnP uses common Internet technologies. It assumes the network must run Internet Protocol (IP) and then uses HTTP, SOAP and XML on top of IP, to provide device/service description, actions, data transfer and eventing. Device search requests and advertisements are supported by running HTTP on top of UDP using multicast (known as HTTPMU). Responses to search requests are also sent over UDP, but are instead sent using unicast (known as HTTPU). UPnP uses UDP due to its lower overhead, as it does not require confirmation of received data and retransmission of corrupt packets. HTTPU and HTTPMU specifications were initially submitted as an Internet Draft, but it expired in 2001; These specifications have since been integrated into the actual UPnP specifications. UPnP uses UDP port 1900, and all used TCP ports are derived from the SSDP alive and response messages. === Addressing === The foundation for UPnP networking is IP addressing. Each device must implement a DHCP client and search for a DHCP server when the device is first connected to the network. If no DHCP server is available, the device must assign itself an address. The process by which a UPnP device assigns itself an address is known within the UPnP Device Architecture as AutoIP. In UPnP Device Architecture Version 1.0, AutoIP is defined within the specification itself; in UPnP Device Architecture Version 1.1, AutoIP references IETF RFC 3927. If during the DHCP transaction, the device obtains a domain name, for example, through a DNS server or via DNS forwarding, the device should use that name in subsequent network operations; otherwise, the device should use its IP address. === Discovery === Once a device has established an IP address, the next step in UPnP networking is discovery. The UPnP discovery protocol is known as the Simple Service Discovery Protocol (SSDP). When a device is added to the network, SSDP allows that device to advertise its services to control points on the network. This is achieved by sending SSDP alive messages. When a control point is added to the network, SSDP enables that control point to actively search for devices of interest on the network or listen passively to SSDP alive messages from devices. The fundamental exchange is a discovery message containing a few essential details about the device or one of its services, such as its type, identifier, and a pointer (network location) to more detailed information. === Description === After a control point has discovered a device, it still knows very little about the device. For the control point to learn more about the device and its capabilities, or to interact with the device, it must retrieve the device's description from the location (URL) provided by the device in the discovery message. The UPnP Device Description is expressed in XML. It includes vendor-specific manufacturer information like the model name and number, serial number, manufacturer name, (presentation) URLs to vendor-specific websites, etc. The description also includes a list of any embedded services. For each service, the Device Description document lists the URLs for control, eventing and service description. Each service description includes a list of the commands, or actions, to which the service responds, and parameters, or arguments, for each action; the description for a service also includes a list of variables; these variables model the state of the service at run time and are described in terms of their data type, range, and event characteristics. === Control === Having retrieved a description of the device, the control point can send actions to a device's service. To do this, a control point sends a suitable control message to the control URL for the service (provided in the device description). Control messages are also expressed in XML using the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). Much like function calls, the service returns any action-specific values in response to the control message. The effects of the action, if any, are modeled by changes in the variables that describe the run-time state of the service. === Event notification === Another capability of UPnP networking is event notification, or eventing. The event notification protocol defined in the UPnP Device Architecture is known as General Event Notification Architecture (GENA). A UPnP description for a service includes a list of actions the service responds to and a list of variables that model the state of the service at runtime. The service publishes updates when these variables change, and a control point may subscribe to receive this information. The service publishes updates by sending event messages. Event messages contain the names of one or more state variables and their current values. These messages are also expressed in XML. A special initial event message is sent when a control point first subscribes; this event message contains the names and values for all evented variables and allows the subscriber to initialize its model of the state of the service. To support scenarios with multiple control points, eventing is designed to keep all control points equally informed
CloudHealth Technologies
CloudHealth Technologies, now CloudHealth by VMware, is a software company based in Boston, Massachusetts. The company provides cloud computing services related to cost management, governance, automation, security, and performance. == History == CloudHealth Technologies was founded by Joe Kinsella in 2012. Dan Phillips joined as CEO and co-founder in late 2012, and Dave Eicher joined as co-Founder in January 2013. In May 2016, the company announced plans to expand from its Boston headquarters with branch offices in San Francisco, London, Washington, D.C., Sydney, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv, and Singapore. Headquarters moved in Boston from Fort Point to 100 Summer Street in the Spring of 2018, tripling in square footage. In September 2017, Tom Axbey—who was previously at Rave Mobile Safety—joined as the new CEO and President. VMware announced its intention to acquire CloudHealth Technologies on August 27, 2018. The acquisition is "part of the information technology company's continued push into cloud-based software services" according to Reuters. The deal closed on October 4, 2018, and was reported to be in excess of $500 million. == Technology == Delivered through a software as a service (SaaS) model, CloudHealth Technologies's platform collects and analyzes data from cloud computing services and other IT environments so clients can report on costs, inform their business models, and project future trends. CloudHealth Technologies is compatible with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, multicloud, and hybrid cloud environments. CloudHealth Technologies has received Amazon Web Services(AWS) Education Competency status, AWS Migration Competency status and achieved SOC 2 Type 2 Compliance. == Funding == As of June 2017, CloudHealth Technologies has raised a total of $85.7 million through four rounds of funding. In March 2013, CloudHealth Technologies announced that it had secured $4.5 million in Series A funding. This round was led by .406 Ventures and Sigma Prime Ventures. In January 2015, CloudHealth Technologies secured $12 million in Series B funding. This round was led by Scale Venture Partners, .406 Ventures, and Sigma Prime Ventures, and was followed by a $3.2 million extension round. In May 2016, CloudHealth Technologies announced $20 million in Series C funding, led by Sapphire Ventures, .406 Ventures, Scale Venture Partners and Sigma Prime Ventures. In June 2017, CloudHealth Technologies secured $46 million in Series D funding led by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers with participation from Meritech Capital Partners, Sapphire Ventures, 406 Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners. == Competition == As of March 2023, CloudHealth Technologies competes with Cloudability by Apptio and CloudCheckr by NetApp.
Virtual Print Fee
Virtual Print Fee (VPF) is a subsidy paid by a film distributor towards the purchase of digital cinema projection equipment for use by a film exhibitor in the presentation of first release motion pictures. The subsidy is paid in the form of a fee per booking of a movie, intended to match the savings that occurs by not shipping a film print. The model is designed to help redistribute the savings realized by studios when using digital distribution instead of film print distribution and is intended to vanish when the transition phase is over when the vast majority of cinemas screens are equipped. == History == The first public demonstration of digital projection for cinema took place at ShoWest in 1999, and it was readily apparent that the technology was further ahead than the business model. Early technology presentations attempted to claim that the technology would pay for itself through new revenues generated by new forms of content. But exhibitors knew their audience, and could see that digital projection was only a replacement technology, creating new financial liabilities, and not new revenue. It wasn’t until the rollout of digital 3-D years later in 2005 that digital projection demonstrated that it could be used to generate additional revenue. The economics were challenging. Film projectors and platters cost in the neighborhood of US$30,000, while early digital projectors cost up to US$150,000. Further, film projectors had a lifetime of 30 years with relatively small annual expenditures in maintenance and replacement parts. On the other hand, exhibitors felt they would be lucky to get 10 years of service from a digital projector, after which there would have to be a refresh in capital expenditure. Meanwhile, distributors would realize significant savings by eliminating the high cost of film prints with corresponding shipping costs, and instead distributing digital files either by satellite or hard drive. The Virtual Print Fee was designed to better balance savings and expenditures for both exhibitors and distributors. It is intended to primarily assist in the replacement of film projectors, and not assist in the purchase of new projection equipment for new construction. To give confidence to financial institutions that digital cinema technology was stable and worthy of investment, Digital Cinema Initiatives was created in 2002, resulting in the release of the first version of the DCI Digital Cinema System Specification in 2005. The DCI Specification continues to be the core specification for digital cinema, establishing the baseline technology and system requirements for which studios will release digital movies. The first set of VPF agreements executed with four major studios were announced by Christie/AIX in November 2005. Christie/AIX at that time was a subsidiary of Access Integrated Technology, now renamed Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. The agreements were for the rollout of digital cinema technology to 4000 screens. Since that time, numerous other Digital Cinema Deployment Agreements have been executed around the world, allowing exhibitors in nearly every territory to benefit from VPF subsidies in the conversion from film projection to digital projection.