Then she had a thought: Researchers had already shown that a verifier can check a quantum computer if the verifier is capable of measuring quantum bits.
|
|
The verifier struggled when I tried it on some famed Trumpisms.
|
|
It is possible, two different teams showed, for a quantum computer to prove its computations, not to a purely classical verifier, but to a verifier who has access to a very small quantum computer of her own.
|
|
The verifier wants the provers to report the colors of connected vertices.
|
|
"Social media far more powerful verifier than spreader of false information" Bailey told TechCrunch.
|
|
Clear's biometric identity verifier is now in 24 airports (34 next year) and eight sports stadiums.
|
|
The tricky part, Mahadev realized, would be to get the quantum computer to commit to which state it was going to measure before it knew which kind of measurement the verifier would ask for — otherwise, it would be easy for the computer to fool the verifier.
|
|
We managed to build the first automated verifier for Ethereum smart contracts in the research lab and release it publicly.
|
|
Researchers later refined this approach to show that all the verifier needs is the capacity to measure a single qubit at a time.
|
|
A sketchy rumor from Israeli publication the Verifier suggests that Siri will add contextual learning and better integration into Apple services like iMessage and iCloud.
|
|
In other words, the verifier wants the provers to ask correlated questions: One prover asks about vertex ABC and the other asks about vertex XYZ.
|
|
A verifier application also runs a mathematical equation at the end — if no votes have been tampered with, that equation will produce an expected answer.
|
|
IBM's Verifier is a gadget and platform made (naturally) to instantly verify that something is what it claims to be, by inspecting it at a microscopic level.
|
|
The portal doesn't detail whom each person voted for, due to privacy concerns, but because of ElectionGuard's verifier application, it can confirm that votes were tallied accurately.
|
|
According to Israeli website The Verifier, Apple is reportedly working on an update to FaceTime, which will allow up to five people to simultaneously video chat with each other.
|
|
Similarly, they do not need to keep logs of every site users access (as potential verifier AGEify has suggested it could do for up to six months at a time).
|
|
By combining microscopy, spectroscopy, and a little bit of AI, the Verifier compares what it sees to a known version of the item and tells you whether they're the same.
|
|
In December, Mastercard announced that it was working to develop an international digital identity scheme which could be used as a flexible verifier for financial transactions, government interactions, or online services.
|
|
This means the cocoa will fit the company's internal criteria - including full traceability to ensure it doesn't contribute to deforestation - and carry a stamp of approval from a third-party verifier.
|
|
Since the computer doesn't know the makeup of the secret state but the verifier does, Mahadev showed that it's impossible for the quantum computer to cheat significantly without leaving unmistakable traces of its duplicity.
|
|
And in 2012, a team of researchers including Vazirani showed that a completely classical verifier could check quantum computations if they were carried out by a pair of quantum computers that can't communicate with each other.
|
|
Discovered by researchers at the Israeli cybersecurity defense firm Cybellum, the so-called "DoubleAgent attack" takes advantage of the Microsoft Application Verifier, a tool used for strengthening security in third-party Windows applications, to inject customized code into programs.
|
|
Privacy has always been a major concern for the new law since any verifier is going to end up creating a centralized database that potentially records the porn habits of UK citizens, which is a prime target for hackers.
|
|
A new report from Israeli tech site The Verifier claims the iPhone 8 will come with a "Smart Connector," similar to the three-pin connector on the iPad Pro, which could be used for interfacing with an AR or VR headset.
|
|
The first application IBM is announcing for its Verifier is as a part of the diamond trade, which is of course known for fetishizing the stones and their uniqueness, and also establishing elaborate supply trains to ensure product is carefully controlled.
|
|
The Verifier will be used as an aide for grading stones, not on its own but as a tool for human checkers; it's a partnership with the Gemological Institute of America, which will test integrating the tool into its own workflow.
|
|
"Governors call on the FCC to reject a proposed rule that would disrupt the existing state-federal partnership and preempt states' authority to protect consumer interest by creating a third-party National Eligibility Verifier," the group said in a statement.
|
|
Even the task of stating a specific question ("Tell me the color of XYZ vertex") is more than you, the verifier, can manage: The amount of data required to name a specific vertex is more than you can hold in your working memory.
|
|
"We are introducing a verifier component, because there is need for verification of green assets and green financing ... it's what makes it possible for issuance of green bonds," Odundo said, adding that the target was to issue one in 2019 to provide "traction" for other issuers.
|
|
But the voices of Hunters' morally good characters — FBI agent Millie Morris and Jonah's memories of his grandmother, Ruth Heidelbaum, who had been working as the group's verifier by investigating Nazi identities — warn that committing to Offerman's dark brand of justice makes heroes indistinguishable from villains.
|
|
"A critical piece of the Lifeline reforms adopted by the majority of the Commission in March included creation of an independent National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier, which will take the responsibility for verifying subscriber eligibility out of the hands of the provider and transfer it to a third party."
|
|
In collaboration with Paul Christiano, a computer scientist now at OpenAI, a company in San Francisco, they developed a way to use cryptography to get a quantum computer to build what we'll call a "secret state" — one whose description is known to the classical verifier, but not to the quantum computer itself.
|
|
Which is where Storyzy wants to help out — with a just-launched quote verifier tool which, while it's unlikely to be able to provide copper-bottomed reassurance for more obscure quotations across the full gamut of online media, might at least be able to give a thumbs up or down on words (apparently) uttered by higher-profile individuals, such as politicians, who are both widely covered in the mainstream media and widely targeted as the subjects of hoaxes.
|
|
As of August 2019, Pai's latest Lifeline proposal had not been made public, but the FCC said that the lifeline identity verifier would be rolled out in the US by the end of 2019. The Lifeline National Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) is a centralized system that determines whether subscribers are eligible for Lifeline. USAC manages the National Verifier and its customer service department, the Lifeline Support Center. During the National Verifier soft launch period, service providers will receive access to the National Verifier pre-production (test) environment to test out the system functionalities with mock data.
|
|
The Verifier refers to a proprietary fuel gauge technology, used for advanced measurement of heating oil in residential and commercial tanks ranging from 1,000 – 20,000 gallons. First developed in 2005, by U.S. Energy Group’s Jerry Pindus, Verifier technology was granted Patent Approval 11/095,914 as “The Verifier Digital Fuel Gauge” from The United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 21, 2007.“The Verifier Digital Fuel Gauge Receives Patent Approval,” Fuel Oil News, December 2007 The Verifier is also ETL SEMKO certified.
|
|
The verifier and CSP may be the same entity, the verifier and relying party may be the same entity or they may all three be separate entities. It is undesirable for verifiers to learn shared secrets unless they are a part of the same entity as the CSP that registered the tokens. Where the verifier and the relying party are separate entities, the verifier must convey the result of the authentication protocol to the relying party. The object created by the verifier to convey this result is called an assertion.
|
|
The IBM 056 was the verifier companion to the 024 Card Punch and 026 Printing Card Punch. The verifier was similar to the 026 keypunch except for a red error lens in the machine cover lower center. The verifier operator entered exactly the same data as the keypunch operator and the verifier machine then checked to see if the punched data matched. Successfully verified cards had a small notch punched on the right hand edge.
|
|
When the claimant successfully demonstrates possession and control of one or more authenticators to the verifier through an established authentication protocol, the verifier is able to infer the claimant's identity.
|
|
In each round, the verifier performs computation and passes a message to the prover, and the prover performs computation and passes information back to the verifier. At the end the verifier must make its decision. For example, in an IP[3] protocol, the sequence would be VPVPVPV, where V is a verifier turn and P is a prover turn. In Arthur–Merlin protocols, Babai defined a similar class AM[f(n)] which allowed f(n) rounds, but he put one extra condition on the machine: the verifier must show the prover all the random bits it uses in its computation.
|
|
A designated verifier signature is a signature scheme in which signatures can only be verified by a single, designated verifier, designated as part of the signature creation. Designated verifier signatures were first proposed in 1996 by Jakobsson Markus, Kazue Sako, and Russell Impagliazzo. Proposed as a way to combine authentication and off-the-record messages, designated verifier signatures allow authenticated, private conversations to take place. Unlike in undeniable signature scheme the protocol of verifying is non-interactive; i.e.
|
|
The service also verifies the user's email. # The user inputs the URL of the page she wishes to claim into the verifier service. The verifier service computes the MicroID and attempts to verify the MicroID in the claimed page. # If the MicroID in claimed page is the same as the one in the verifier service, a claim exists.
|
|
In computational complexity theory, the class QIP (which stands for Quantum Interactive Polynomial time) is the quantum computing analogue of the classical complexity class IP, which is the set of problems solvable by an interactive proof system with a polynomial-time verifier and one computationally unbounded prover. Informally, IP is the set of languages for which a computationally unbounded prover can convince a polynomial-time verifier to accept when the input is in the language (with high probability) and cannot convince the verifier to accept when the input is not in the language (again, with high probability). In other words, the prover and verifier may interact for polynomially many rounds, and if the input is in the language the verifier should accept with probability greater than 2/3, and if the input is not in the language, the verifier should be reject with probability greater than 2/3. In IP, the verifier is like a BPP machine.
|
|
The verifier asks the prover to build a labeling of a hard-to-pebble graph. The prover commits to the labeling. The verifier then asks the prover to open several random locations in the commitment.
|
|
Keyes, Ralph. The Quote Verifier. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY 2006. .
|
|
At soft launch, service providers may help consumers apply to the Lifeline Program through the National Verifier service provider portal or by mail. At the National Verifier full (hard) launch, service providers must use the National Verifier when helping consumers apply to the Lifeline Program. Consumers may also apply to the Lifeline Program on their own, through the National Verifier consumer portal or by mail. Please note that any NLAD Dispute Resolution request sent two business days before full (hard) launch will be rejected.
|
|
Keyes, Ralph. The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When, 2006.
|
|
The verifying party may be called the verifier, the device being erased the prover. The verifier must know the device's writable memory size from a trusted source and the device must not be allowed to communicate with other parties during execution of the protocol, which proceeds as follows. The verifier constructs a computational problem, which cannot be solved (in reasonable time or at all) using less than the specified amount of memory, and sends it to the device. The device responds with the solution and the verifier checks its correctness.
|
|
Generic support for 5-button mice is also included as standard and installing IntelliPoint allows reassigning the programmable buttons. Windows 98 lacked generic support. Driver Verifier was introduced to stress test and catch device driver bugs.Driver Verifier at MSDN. Microsoft.
|
|
If the password agrees with the previously shared secret, and the verifier can confirm the value of the OTP, user authentication is successful. One-time passwords are generated on demand by a dedicated OATH OTP authenticator that encapsulates a secret that was previously shared with the verifier. Using the authenticator, the claimant generates an OTP using a cryptographic method. The verifier also generates an OTP using the same cryptographic method.
|
|
In some literature the verifier is called the "certifier" and the witness the "certificate".
|
|
QIP is a version of IP replacing the BPP verifier by a BQP verifier, where BQP is the class of problems solvable by quantum computers in polynomial time. The messages are composed of qubits.J. Watrous. PSPACE has constant-round quantum interactive proof systems.
|
|
If A rejects the input, there is no accepting path, and the verifier will always reject.
|
|
July 8, 2008; Keyes, Ralph. The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and when, p. 107.
|
|
The result is that the verifier cannot "hide" anything from the prover, because the prover is powerful enough to simulate everything the verifier does if it knows what random bits it used. This is called a public coin protocol, because the random bits ("coin flips") are visible to both machines. The IP approach is called a private coin protocol by contrast. The essential problem with public coins is that if the prover wishes to maliciously convince the verifier to accept a string which is not in the language, it seems like the verifier might be able to thwart its plans if it can hide its internal state from it.
|
|
The protocol allows differing degrees of privacy. Interactions are always anonymous, but the Member/Verifier may negotiate as to whether the Verifier is able to link transactions. This would allow user profiling and/or the rejection of requests originating from a host which has made too many requests. The Member and Verifier can also elect to reveal additional information to accomplish non- anonymous interactions (just as you can choose to tell a stranger your full name, or not).
|
|
When the Verifier receives the DAA credentials from the TTP, it will verify them and send a certified AIK back to the user. The user will then be able to communicate with other trusted parties using the certified AIK. The Verifier may or may not be a trusted third party (TTP). The Verifier can determine whether the DAA credentials are valid, but the DAA credentials do not contain any unique information that discloses the TPM platform.
|
|
Not only can interactive proof systems solve problems not believed to be in NP, but under assumptions about the existence of one-way functions, a prover can convince the verifier of the solution without ever giving the verifier information about the solution. This is important when the verifier cannot be trusted with the full solution. At first it seems impossible that the verifier could be convinced that there is a solution when the verifier has not seen a certificate, but such proofs, known as zero-knowledge proofs are in fact believed to exist for all problems in NP and are valuable in cryptography. Zero-knowledge proofs were first mentioned in the original 1985 paper on IP by Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff, but the extent of their power was shown by Oded Goldreich, Silvio Micali and Avi Wigderson.
|
|
However, they proved to be unreliable and were soon rejected by the Census Bureau. Several years later Powers Accounting Machine Company advertised different types of electric card punches. Punch card verifier In 1910, Powers introduced the first card verifier, which was used to check the correctness of punching.
|
|
In any authenticated on-line transaction, the verifier is the party that verifies that the claimant has possession and control of the token that verifies his or her identity. A claimant authenticates his or her identity to a verifier by the use of a token and an authentication protocol. This is called Proof of Possession (PoP). Many PoP protocols are designed so that a verifier, with no knowledge of the token before the authentication protocol run, learns nothing about the token from the run.
|
|
In cryptography, the Feige–Fiat–Shamir identification scheme is a type of parallel zero-knowledge proof developed by Uriel Feige, Amos Fiat, and Adi Shamir in 1988. Like all zero-knowledge proofs, it allows one party, the Prover, to prove to another party, the Verifier, that she possesses secret information without revealing to Verifier what that secret information is. The Feige–Fiat–Shamir identification scheme, however, uses modular arithmetic and a parallel verification process that limits the number of communications between Prover and Verifier.
|
|
In QIP, the communication between the prover and verifier is quantum, and the verifier can perform quantum computation. In this case the verifier is like a BQP machine. By restricting the number of messages used in the protocol to at most k, we get the complexity class QIP(k). QIP and QIP(k) were introduced by John Watrous, who along with Kitaev proved in a later paper that QIP = QIP(3), which shows that 3 messages are sufficient to simulate a polynomial-round quantum interactive protocol.
|
|
A password is a secret that is intended to be memorized by the claimant and shared with the verifier. Password authentication is the process whereby the claimant demonstrates knowledge of the password by transmitting it over the network to the verifier. If the transmitted password agrees with the previously shared secret, user authentication is successful.
|
|
A password field in a sign in form. A password, sometimes called a passcode, is a memorized secret, typically a string of characters, usually used to confirm the identity of a user. Using the terminology of the NIST Digital Identity Guidelines, the secret is memorized by a party called the claimant while the party verifying the identity of the claimant is called the verifier. When the claimant successfully demonstrates knowledge of the password to the verifier through an established authentication protocol, the verifier is able to infer the claimant's identity.
|
|
The first round trip is ordinary password authentication. After the claimant authenticates with a password, the verifier sends a challenge to a conforming browser, which communicates with the U2F authenticator via a custom JavaScript API. After the claimant performs the TUP, the authenticator signs the challenge and returns the signed assertion to the verifier via the browser.
|
|
Equivalent to the verifier-based definition is the following characterization: NP is the class of decision problems solvable by a non-deterministic Turing machine that runs in polynomial time. That is to say, a decision problem \Pi is in NP whenever \Pi is recognized by some polynomial-time non-deterministic Turing machine M with an existential acceptance condition, meaning that w \in \Pi if and only if some computation path of M(w) leads to an accepting state. This definition is equivalent to the verifier-based definition because a non- deterministic Turing machine could solve an NP problem in polynomial time by non-deterministically selecting a certificate and running the verifier on the certificate. Similarly, if such a machine exists, then a polynomial time verifier can naturally be constructed from it.
|
|
The class NP is a simple proof system in which the verifier is restricted to being a deterministic polynomial-time Turing machine and the procedure is restricted to one round (that is, the prover sends only a single, full proof—typically referred to as the certificate—to the verifier). Put another way, in the definition of the class NP (the set of decision problems for which the problem instances, when the answer is "YES", have proofs verifiable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine) is a proof system in which the proof is constructed by an unmentioned prover and the deterministic Turing machine is the verifier. For this reason, NP can also be called dIP (deterministic interactive proof), though it is rarely referred to as such. It turns out that NP captures the full power of interactive proof systems with deterministic (polynomial-time) verifiers because it can be shown that for any proof system with a deterministic verifier it is never necessary to need more than a single round of messaging between the prover and the verifier.
|
|
A modification of the protocol for IP produces another important complexity class: AM (Arthur–Merlin protocol). In the definition of interactive proof systems used by IP, the prover was not able to see the coins utilized by the verifier in its probabilistic computation—it was only able to see the messages that the verifier produced with these coins. For this reason, the coins are called private random coins. The interactive proof system can be constrained so that the coins used by the verifier are public random coins; that is, the prover is able to see the coins.
|
|
Two women entering data onto punched cards at Texas A&M; in the 1950s. The woman at the right is seated at an IBM 026 keypunch machine. The woman at left is at an IBM 056 Card Verifier. She would re-enter the data and the '056 verifier machine would check that it matched the data punched onto the cards.
|
|
An interactive proof system consists of two machines, a prover, P, which presents a proof that a given string n is a member of some language, and a verifier, V, that checks that the presented proof is correct. The prover is assumed to be infinite in computation and storage, while the verifier is a probabilistic polynomial-time machine with access to a random bit string whose length is polynomial on the size of n. These two machines exchange a polynomial number, p(n), of messages and once the interaction is completed, the verifier must decide whether or not n is in the language, with only a 1/3 chance of error. (So any language in BPP is in IP, since then the verifier could simply ignore the prover and make the decision on its own.) General representation of an interactive proof protocol.
|
|
The DAA protocol is based on three entities and two different steps. The entities are the DAA Member (TPM platform or EPID-enabled microprocessor), the DAA Issuer and the DAA Verifier. The issuer is charged to verify the TPM platform during the Join step and to issue DAA credential to the platform. The platform (Member) uses the DAA credential with the Verifier during the Sign step.
|
|
Two women discussing their work while entering data onto punched cards at Texas A&M; in the 1950s. The woman at the right is seated at an IBM 026 keypunch machine. The woman at left is at an IBM 056 Card Verifier. Her job would be to re-enter the data and the verifier machine would check that it matched the data punched onto the cards.
|
|
In October 2014, Jao and Soukharev from the University of Waterloo presented an alternative method of creating undeniable signatures with designated verifier using elliptic curve isogenies.
|
|
Non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs— also known as NIZK, zk-SNARK, zk- STARK—are zero-knowledge proofs that require no interaction between the prover and verifier.
|
|
As a result, the attack surface is limited to the verifier's interface and that part of the source proxy's interface which is visible through the verifier.
|
|
Despite the technology, the basic mode of operation remained essentially the same as with the 056. Ironically, not all verifier operators appreciated the noise reduction. When used in a room also containing 029 keypunch machines, the verifier operators sometimes missed the auditory feedback provided by the loud "thunk" noise emitted by the older 056. Some were known to compensate by hitting the keys harder, sometimes actually wearing out keyboard parts.
|
|
The verifier works by forcing drivers to work with minimal resources, making potential errors that might happen only rarely in a working system manifest immediately. Typically fatal system errors are generated by the stressed drivers in the test environment, producing core dumps that can be analysed and debugged immediately; without stressing, intermittent faults would occur in the field, without proper troubleshooting facilities or personnel. Driver Verifier (Verifier.exe) was first introduced as a command- line utility in Windows 2000; in Windows XP, it gained an easy-to-use graphical user interface, called Driver Verifier Manager, that makes it possible to enable a standard or custom set of settings to select which drivers to test and verify.
|
|
An example usage for EPID is to prove that a device is a genuine device. A verifier wishing to know that a part was genuine would ask the part to sign a cryptographic nonce with its EPID key. The part would sign the nonce and also provide a proof that the EPID key was not revoked. The verifier after checking the validity of the signature and proof would know that the part was genuine.
|
|
There are three roles when using EPID: Issuer, Member and Verifier. The issuer is the entity that issues unique EPID private keys for each member of a group. The member is the entity that is trying to prove its membership in a group. The verifier is the entity who is checking an EPID signature to establish whether it was signed by an entity or device which is an authentic member of the group.
|
|
The IBM 059 was the Verifier companion to the IBM 029 Card Punch. In design, it differed radically from the earlier 056 verifier, in that it used optical sensing of card holes instead of mechanical sensing pins. This made the 059 much quieter than the 056 (which was often louder than the 024 keypunch). The optical sensors used a single light source, which was distributed to various sites within the machine via fiber-optic lightpipes.
|
|
Autonetics also programmed functional simulators and the code inserter verifier that was used at Wing headquarters to generate and test the flight program codes to go into the airborne computer.
|
|
A subset of IP is the deterministic Interactive Proof class, which is similar to IP but has a deterministic verifier (i.e. with no randomness). This class is equal to NP.
|
|
IBM 029 Card Punch. Original data was usually punched into cards by workers, often women, known as keypunch operators. Their work was often checked by a second operator using a verifier machine.
|
|
In computational complexity theory, QMA, which stands for Quantum Merlin Arthur, is the quantum analog of the nonprobabilistic complexity class NP or the probabilistic complexity class MA. It is related to BQP in the same way NP is related to P, or MA is related to BPP. Informally, it is the set of decision problems for which, when the answer is YES, there is a polynomial- size quantum proof (a quantum state) that convinces a polynomial-time quantum verifier of the fact with high probability. Moreover, when the answer is NO, every polynomial-size quantum state is rejected by the verifier with high probability. More precisely, the proofs have to be verifiable in polynomial time on a quantum computer, such that if the answer is indeed YES, the verifier accepts a correct proof with probability greater than 2/3, and if the answer is NO, then there is no proof which convinces the verifier to accept with probability greater than 1/3. As is usually the case, the constants 2/3 and 1/3 can be changed.
|
|
SDC Verifier (Structural Design Codes Verifier) is a commercial finite element analysis post-processor software with a calculation core for checking structures according to different standards, either predefined or self programmed, and final report generation with all checks. The goal is to automate routine work and speed up a verification of the engineering projects. It works as an addon for popular FEA software Ansys, Femap and Simcenter 3D. It is possible to apply complicated loads: buoyancy, tank ballast and wind.
|
|
As mentioned this might be a standard TTP, but could also be a different entity. If the Verifier accepts the DAA supplied it will produce a certified AIK. The certified AIK will then be used by the user to communicate with other trusted platforms. In summary the new version introduces a separate entity that will assist in the anonymous attestation process. By introducing the Issuer which supplies a DAA, one will be able to sufficiently protect the user’s anonymity towards the Verifier/TTP.
|
|
In 1988, Goldwasser et al. created an even more powerful interactive proof system based on IP called MIP in which there are two independent provers. The two provers cannot communicate once the verifier has begun sending messages to them. Just as it's easier to tell if a criminal is lying if he and his partner are interrogated in separate rooms, it's considerably easier to detect a malicious prover trying to trick the verifier if there is another prover it can double- check with.
|
|
The IBM 056 verifier used most of the same mechanical and electrical components as the 024/026 keypunches with the exception of the punch unit and print head. The punch unit had sensing pins in place of the punches. The holes sensed or not sensed would trip a contact bail when the configuration was other than that entered by the verifier operator. This stopped the forward motion of the card, and presented a red error light on the machine cover.
|
|
Given any instance I of problem \Pi and witness W, if there exists a verifier V so that given the ordered pair (I, W) as input, V returns "yes" in polynomial time if the witness proves that the answer is "yes" or "no" in polynomial time otherwise, then \Pi is in NP. The "no"-answer version of this problem is stated as: "given a finite set of integers, does every non-empty subset have a nonzero sum?". The verifier-based definition of NP does not require an efficient verifier for the "no"-answers. The class of problems with such verifiers for the "no"-answers is called co-NP. In fact, it is an open question whether all problems in NP also have verifiers for the "no"-answers and thus are in co-NP.
|
|
In terms of descriptive complexity theory, NP corresponds precisely to the set of languages definable by existential second-order logic (Fagin's theorem). NP can be seen as a very simple type of interactive proof system, where the prover comes up with the proof certificate and the verifier is a deterministic polynomial-time machine that checks it. It is complete because the right proof string will make it accept if there is one, and it is sound because the verifier cannot accept if there is no acceptable proof string. A major result of complexity theory is that NP can be characterized as the problems solvable by probabilistically checkable proofs where the verifier uses O(log n) random bits and examines only a constant number of bits of the proof string (the class PCP(log n, 1)).
|
|
Liquid Haskell is a program verifier for Haskell which allows developers to specify correctness properties by using refinement types. Properties are verified using an SMTLIB2-compliant SMT solver, such as the Z3 Theorem Prover.
|
|
The Skolem function f (if it exists) actually codifies a winning strategy for the verifier of S by returning a witness for the existential sub-formula for every choice of x the falsifier might make.
|
|
The cognitive trapdoor game has three groups involved in it: a machine verifier, a human prover, and a human observer. The goal of each group is that a human prover has to input the PIN by answering the questions posed by the machine verifier while an observer attempts to shoulder surf the PIN. As the countermeasures are by design harder to easily usurp, it is not easy for the observer to remember the whole login process unless the observer had a recording device.Roth, V., & Richter, K. (2006).
|
|
The notion of witness leads to the more general idea of game semantics. In the case of sentence \exists x\, \varphi(x) the winning strategy for the verifier is to pick a witness for \varphi. For more complex formulas involving universal quantifiers, the existence of a winning strategy for the verifier depends on the existence of appropriate Skolem functions. For example, if S denotes \forall x \, \exists y\, \varphi(x,y) then an equisatisfiable statement for S is \exists f \,\forall x \, \varphi(x,f(x)).
|
|
Each new Windows version has since introduced several new, more stringent checks for testing and verifying drivers and detecting new classes of driver defects. Driver Verifier is not normally used on machines used in productive work. It can cause undetected and relatively harmless errors in drivers to manifest, especially ones not digitally signed by Windows Hardware Quality Labs, causing blue screen fatal system errors. It also causes resource-starved drivers to underperform and slow general operation if the constraints imposed by Verifier are not reversed after debugging.
|
|
SDC Verifier enhances Femap with a new functionality. Together they provide an accepted and sound solution for the verification of constructions according to Structural Design Standards. SDC Verifier uses Femap as the pre-processor for the generation of a model and its graphical interface to visualize the results. • Blog of FEMAP & NX Nastran: written and maintained by Blas Molero Hidalgo from IBERISA (Spain) with videos, examples and much information about Finite Element Analysis (FEM/FEA) to support the FEMAP community all around the world.
|
|
Unlike one-time passwords, mobile push does not require a shared secret beyond the password. After the claimant authenticates with a password, the verifier makes an out-of-band authentication request to a trusted third party that manages a public-key infrastructure on behalf of the verifier. The trusted third party sends a push notification to the claimant's mobile phone. The claimant demonstrates possession and control of the authenticator by pressing a button in the user interface, after which the authenticator responds with a digitally signed assertion.
|
|
Through a zero-knowledge proof the Verifier can verify the credential without attempting to violate the platform's privacy. The protocol also supports a blocklisting capability so that Verifiers can identify attestations from TPMs that have been compromised.
|
|
The tool SDV (Static Driver Verifier)Thomas Ball, Ella Bounimova, Byron Cook, Vladimir Levin, Jakob Lichtenberg, Con McGarvey, Bohus Ondrusek, Sriram Rajamani. and Abdullah Ustuner. "Thorough static analysis of device drivers", In SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev, Vol.
|
|
The simplest application of game semantics is to propositional logic. Each formula of this language is interpreted as a game between two players, known as the "Verifier" and the "Falsifier". The Verifier is given "ownership" of all the disjunctions in the formula, and the Falsifier is likewise given ownership of all the conjunctions. Each move of the game consists of allowing the owner of the dominant connective to pick one of its branches; play will then continue in that subformula, with whichever player controls its dominant connective making the next move.
|
|
Otherwise, the statement would not be proved in zero-knowledge because it provides the verifier with additional information about the statement by the end of the protocol. A zero-knowledge proof of knowledge is a special case when the statement consists only of the fact that the prover possesses the secret information. Interactive zero-knowledge proofs require interaction between the individual (or computer system) proving their knowledge and the individual validating the proof. A protocol implementing zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge must necessarily require interactive input from the verifier.
|
|
Two-pass verification, also called double data entry, is a data entry quality control method that was originally employed when data records were entered onto sequential 80-column Hollerith cards with a keypunch. In the first pass through a set of records, the data keystrokes were entered onto each card as the data entry operator typed them. On the second pass through the batch, an operator at a separate machine, called a verifier, entered the same data. The verifier compared the second operator's keystrokes with the contents of the original card.
|
|
The woman at left is at an IBM 056 Card Verifier; to her right is a woman sitting at an IBM 026 Keypunch Data entry using keypunches was related to the concept of Batch processing - there was no immediate feedback.
|
|
If the two OTP values match, the verifier can conclude that the claimant possesses the shared secret. A well-known example of an OATH authenticator is the open-source Google Authenticator, a phone-based authenticator that implements both HOTP and TOTP.
|
|
The verifier can ask for any of the passwords, and the prover must have that correct password for that identifier. Assuming that the passwords are chosen independently, an adversary who intercepts one challenge–response message pair has no clues to help with a different challenge at a different time. For example, when other communications security methods are unavailable, the U.S. military uses the AKAC-1553 TRIAD numeral cipher to authenticate and encrypt some communications. TRIAD includes a list of three-letter challenge codes, which the verifier is supposed to choose randomly from, and random three- letter responses to them.
|
|
A number of complexity classes are defined using interactive proof systems. Interactive proofs generalize the proofs definition of the complexity class NP and yield insights into cryptography, approximation algorithms, and formal verification. General representation of an interactive proof protocol. Interactive proof systems are abstract machines that model computation as the exchange of messages between two parties: a prover P and a verifier V. The parties interact by exchanging messages, and an input string is accepted by the system if the verifier decides to accept the input on the basis of the messages it has received from the prover.
|
|
Formally, AM is defined as the class of languages with an interactive proof in which the verifier sends a random string to the prover, the prover responds with a message, and the verifier either accepts or rejects by applying a deterministic polynomial-time function to the message from the prover. AM can be generalized to AM[k], where k is the number of messages exchanged (so in the generalized form the standard AM defined above is AM[2]). However, it is the case that for all k\geq2, AM[k]=AM[2]. It is also the case that AM[k]\subseteqIP[k].
|
|
Driver Verifier is a tool included in Microsoft Windows that replaces the default operating system subroutines with ones that are specifically developed to catch device driver bugs. Once enabled, it monitors and stresses drivers to detect illegal function calls or actions that may be causing system corruption. It acts within the kernel mode and can target specific device drivers for continual checking or make driver verifier functionality multithreaded, so that several device drivers can be stressed at the same time. It can simulate certain conditions such as low memory, I/O verification, pool tracking, IRQL checking, deadlock detection, DMA checks, IRP logging, etc.
|
|
If any proof is valid, some path will accept; if no proof is valid, the string is not in the language and it will reject. Conversely, suppose we have a nondeterministic TM called A accepting a given language L. At each of its polynomially many steps, the machine's computation tree branches in at most a finite number of directions. There must be at least one accepting path, and the string describing this path is the proof supplied to the verifier. The verifier can then deterministically simulate A, following only the accepting path, and verifying that it accepts at the end.
|
|
In 2012, along with the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic and Common Cause, the Verified Voting Foundation conducted an extensive survey of "states' voting equipment and ranked the states according to their preparedness". This research specifically looked at each state's voting technology and how this correlated to the foundation's standards for overall ability to preserve the democratic process. Their combined research efforts resulted in an online "interactive" visual tool, The Verifier, where this information is accessible to voters. The Verifier is the Verified Voting Foundation's information database that provides details on "polling place equipment, accessible equipment, early voting equipment, and absentee ballot tabulation" nationwide and for each state.
|
|
Play ends when a primitive proposition has been so chosen by the two players; at this point the Verifier is deemed the winner if the resulting proposition is true, and the Falsifier is deemed the winner if it is false. The original formula will be considered true precisely when the Verifier has a winning strategy, while it will be false whenever the Falsifier has the winning strategy. If the formula contains negations or implications, other, more complicated, techniques may be used. For example, a negation should be true if the thing negated is false, so it must have the effect of interchanging the roles of the two players.
|
|
This interactive input is usually in the form of one or more challenges such that the responses from the prover will convince the verifier if and only if the statement is true, i.e., if the prover does possess the claimed knowledge. If this were not the case, the verifier could record the execution of the protocol and replay it to convince someone else that they possess the secret information. The new party's acceptance is either justified since the replayer does possess the information (which implies that the protocol leaked information, and thus, is not proved in zero-knowledge), or the acceptance is spurious, i.e.
|
|
The Verifier is also used to monitor and measure the incremental use of oil, providing daily summaries and alerts for low oil levels. With local and Internet access to all of this information, building managers can follow certain inventory control regulations and avoid stiff fines. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has recommended “in-tank monitoring systems,” like The Verifier, stating that “electronic systems which automatically measure tank inventories and continuously record changes…supply all of the information needed to perform daily reconciliations.”New York State Department of Environmental Conservation These inventory records are also encouraged by major oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute.
|
|
A verification condition generator is a common sub-component of an automated program verifier that synthesizes formal verification conditions by analyzing a program's source code using a method based upon Hoare logic. VC generators may require that the source code contains logical annotations provided by the programmer or the compiler such as pre/post-conditions and loop invariants (a form of proof-carrying code). VC generators are often coupled with SMT solvers in the backend of a program verifier. After a verification condition generator has created the verification conditions they are passed to an automated theorem prover, which can then formally prove the correctness of the code.
|
|
The two definitions of NP as the class of problems solvable by a nondeterministic Turing machine (TM) in polynomial time and the class of problems verifiable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time are equivalent. The proof is described by many textbooks, for example Sipser's Introduction to the Theory of Computation, section 7.3. To show this, first suppose we have a deterministic verifier. A nondeterministic machine can simply nondeterministically run the verifier on all possible proof strings (this requires only polynomially many steps because it can nondeterministically choose the next character in the proof string in each step, and the length of the proof string must be polynomially bounded).
|
|
The data on the card could actually be correct, since the verifier operator was just as likely to make an error as the keypunch operator. However, with three tries, the operator was less likely to repeatedly make the same error. Some verifier operators were able to guess the error on the card created by the previous keypunch operator, defeating the purpose of the verify procedure, and thus some machines were altered to allow only one entry and error notched on the second try. Cards with error notches were re-punched (using an 024 or 026) usually by "duplicating" up to the column in error, then entering the correct data.
|
|
More recently he has turned to language: researching quotations, words, and expressions.“Nice Guys Finish Seventh” and The Quote Verifier explore the actual sources of familiar quotations. I Love It When You Talk Retro is about common words and phrases that are based on past events.
|
|
A symmetric key is a shared secret used to perform symmetric-key cryptography. The claimant stores their copy of the shared key in a dedicated hardware-based authenticator or a software-based authenticator implemented on a smartphone. The verifier holds a copy of the symmetric key.
|
|
More generally, game semantics may be applied to predicate logic; the new rules allow a dominant quantifier to be removed by its "owner" (the Verifier for existential quantifiers and the Falsifier for universal quantifiers) and its bound variable replaced at all occurrences by an object of the owner's choosing, drawn from the domain of quantification. Note that a single counterexample falsifies a universally quantified statement, and a single example suffices to verify an existentially quantified one. Assuming the axiom of choice, the game-theoretical semantics for classical first-order logic agree with the usual model-based (Tarskian) semantics. For classical first- order logic the winning strategy for the Verifier essentially consists of finding adequate Skolem functions and witnesses.
|
|
Proof of secure erasure on the other hand requires the prover to be unable to convince the verifier using less than the specified amount of memory. Even this may be useful for the other protocol, however proof of space is not harmed if the prover may succeed even with significantly less space.
|
|
Retrieved 31 October 2016. It attempts to solve some of the practical design problems associated with the pebbling-based PoSpace schemes. In using PoSpace for decentralized cryptocurrency, the protocol has to be adapted to work in a non-interactive protocol since each individual in the network has to behave as a verifier.
|
|
A public-private key pair is used to perform public-key cryptography. The public key is known to (and trusted by) the verifier while the corresponding private key is bound securely to the authenticator. In the case of a dedicated hardware-based authenticator, the private key never leaves the confines of the authenticator.
|
|
The Verifier makes use of ultrasound technology, a method of using high-intensity acoustic energy which is above the limits of human hearing. Just as it has done for other fields, ultrasound technology offers unprecedented access and accuracy with The Verifier.“Ultrasound Technology Offers Precise Delivery Information,” Real Estate Weekly, July 18, 2007 The old system of measuring oil deliveries and inventory involves either climbing onto the tank and ‘sticking it’ with a ruler or pumping air into a petrometer and converting a pressure reading of the weight of the oil. These systems were developed when oil was inexpensive and when accuracy and convenience were not essential.“Advanced Fuel Gauges Offer Savings, Piece of Mind,” Apartment Law Insider, March 2007 Verifier technology confirms an oil delivery within 1/10 of an inch, recording the exact date, time and amount of heating oil delivered to the tank and checking the amount of heating oil delivered. An ultrasonic ping is sent from the device to the heating oil, an echo is received back, and the Verifier’s complex, patented algorithm then figures the time between when the ping was sent and the echo received, compensating for oil temperature variations.
|
|
A witness-indistinguishable proof (WIP) is a variant of a zero-knowledge proof for languages in NP. In a typical zero-knowledge proof of a statement, the prover will use a witness for the statement as input to the protocol, and the verifier will learn nothing other than the truth of the statement. In a WIP, this zero-knowledge condition is weakened, and the only guarantee is that the verifier will not be able to distinguish between provers that use different witnesses. In particular, the protocol may leak information about the set of all witnesses, or even leak the witness that was used when there is only one possible witness. Witness-indistinguishable proof systems were first introduced by Feige and Shamir.
|
|
In cryptography, a zero-knowledge password proof (ZKPP) is an interactive method for one party (the prover) to prove to another party (the verifier) that it knows a value of a password, without revealing anything other than the fact that it knows that password to the verifier. The term is defined in IEEE P1363.2, in reference to one of the benefits of using a password-authenticated key exchange (PAKE) protocol that is secure against off-line dictionary attacks. A ZKPP prevents any party from verifying guesses for the password without interacting with a party that knows it and, in the optimal case, provides exactly one guess in each interaction. Technically speaking, a ZKPP is different from a zero-knowledge proof.
|
|
Prior to the availability of private biometrics, research focused on ensuring the prover's biometric would be protected against misuse by a dishonest verifier through the use of partially homomorphic data or decrypted(plaintext) data coupled with a private verification function intended to shield private data from the verifier. This method introduced a computational and communication overhead which was computationally inexpensive for 1:1 verification but proved infeasible for large 1:many identification requirements. From 1998 to 2018 cryptographic researchers pursued four independent approaches to solve the problem: cancelable biometrics, BioHashing, Biometric Cryptosystems, and two-way partially homomorphic encryption. Yasuda M., Shimoyama T., Kogure J., Yokoyama K., Koshiba T. (2013) Packed Homomorphic Encryption Based on Ideal Lattices and Its Application to Biometrics.
|
|
According to Dunyong, in both form and content the certificate was questionable. Furthermore, it had no signature by the verifier at the Bureau, contrary to Chinese law. # Dunyong confirmed that "religion lies at the heart of this case." Friends of Alimjan also said they believe the true reason for his arrest is his faith.
|
|
Current usage by Intel has the Intel Key Generation Facility as the Issuer, an Intel-based PC with embedded EPID key as a member, and a server (possibly running in the cloud) as the verifier (on behalf of some party that wishes to know that it is communicating with some trusted component in a device).
|
|
More informally, this means that the NP verifier described above can be replaced with one that just "spot-checks" a few places in the proof string, and using a limited number of coin flips can determine the correct answer with high probability. This allows several results about the hardness of approximation algorithms to be proven.
|
|
By OATH OTP, we mean either HOTP or TOTP. OATH certifies conformance with the HOTP and TOTP standards. A traditional password (something you know) is often combined with a one-time password (something you have) to provide two-factor authentication. Both the password and the OTP are transmitted over the network to the verifier.
|
|
Web Services Trust Language (WS-Trust)Anderson, S. et al. (2005) Web Services Trust Language (WS-Trust). brings trust management into the environment of web services. The core proposition remain generally unchanged: the Web Service (verifier) is accepting a request only if the request contains proofs of claims (credentials) that satisfy the policy of a Web Service.
|
|
HNTB was lead designer for the SR99 Tunnel Project in Seattle. The tunnel was completed in 2017 and opened in 2019. HNTB was the independent design verifier for the Istanbul Strait Crossing tunnel in Turkey. The tunnel, also known as the Eurasia Tunnel, established a connection between the European and Asian sides of the city, and opened in 2016.
|
|
In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value , without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value . The essence of zero-knowledge proofs is that it is trivial to prove that one possesses knowledge of certain information by simply revealing it; the challenge is to prove such possession without revealing the information itself or any additional information. If proving a statement requires that the prover possesses some secret information, then the verifier will not be able to prove the statement to anyone else without possessing the secret information. The statement being proved must include the assertion that the prover has such knowledge, but not the knowledge itself.
|
|
Alternatively, the unique games conjecture postulates the existence of a certain type of probabilistically checkable proof for problems in NP. A unique game can be viewed as a special kind of nonadaptive probabilistically checkable proof with query complexity 2, where for each pair of possible queries of the verifier and each possible answer to the first query, there is exactly one possible answer to the second query that makes the verifier accept, and vice versa. The unique games conjecture states that for every sufficiently small pair of constants ε, δ > 0 there is a constant K such that every problem in NP has a probabilistically checkable proof over an alphabet of size K with completeness 1 − δ, soundness ε and randomness complexity O(log(n)) which is a unique game.
|
|
When verification is needed, the verifier uses the RSA public key for the purported interval to decrypt the timestamp token. If the original digital hash inside the token matches a hash generated on the spot, then the verifier has verified: # The hash in the time stamp token matches the data # The TSAs cryptographic binding # The requestor's digital signature These three verifications provide non-repudiable evidence of who signed the data (authentication), when it was signed (timeliness) and what data was signed (integrity). Since public keys are used to decrypt the tokens, this evidence can be provided to any third party. The American National Standard X9.95-2005 Trusted Time Stamps was developed based on RFC 3161 protocol [TSP] and the ISO/IEC 18014 standards [ISO] yet extends its analysis and offerings.
|
|
Barcode verifier standards are defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), in ISO/IEC 15426-1 (linear) or ISO/IEC 15426-2 (2D). The current international barcode quality specification is ISO/IEC 15416 (linear) and ISO/IEC 15415 (2D). The European Standard EN 1635 has been withdrawn and replaced by ISO/IEC 15416. The original U.S. barcode quality specification was ANSI X3.182.
|
|
An example of a successful MicroID claim is as follows: # A user signs up for a web service. That web service verifies the user's email, and creates public web pages for the user that contain a MicroID. That MicroID comprises the hashed email (communication URI) and the URL of the webpage. # The user then signs up for a verifier service.
|
|
Soon after arriving at Stanford, Dill and his students developed the murphi finite state verifier, which was later used to check cache coherence protocols in multiprocessors and CPU's of several major computer manufacturers. David L Dill, Andreas J. Drexler, Alan J. Hu, and C. Han Yang Protocol verification as a hardware design aid . Computer Design: VLSI in Computers and Processors, 1992. ICCD'92.
|
|
If there were no differences, a verification notch was punched on the right edge of the card. The IBM 056 and 059 Card Verifiers were companion machines to the IBM 026 and 029 keypunches, respectively. The later IBM 129 keypunch also could operate as a verifier. In that mode, it read a completed card (record) and loaded the 80 keystrokes into a buffer.
|
|
Presburger arithmetic can be extended to include multiplication by constants, since multiplication is repeated addition. Most array subscript calculations then fall within the region of decidable problems. This approach is the basis of at least five proof-of-correctness systems for computer programs, beginning with the Stanford Pascal Verifier in the late 1970s and continuing through to Microsoft's Spec# system of 2005.
|
|
The FCC also appointed a National Eligibility Verifier whose purpose would be to determine the eligibility of the independent subscribers to the program. In February 2017, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai suspended the expansion of Lifeline. While current broadband providers are technically authorized to provide subsidized broadband, the FCC itself could not point to a single company that actively provides broadband.
|
|
An example would be where a user wants trusted status and sends a request to the Issuer. The Issuer could be the manufacturer of the user’s platform, e.g. Compaq. Compaq would check if the TPM it has produced is a valid one, and if so, issues DAA credentials. In the next step, the DAA credentials are sent by the user to the Verifier.
|
|
A memorized secret is intended to be memorized by the user. A well- known example of a memorized secret is the common password, also called a passcode, a passphrase, or a personal identification number (PIN). An authenticator secret known to both the claimant and the verifier is called a shared secret. For example, a memorized secret may or may not be shared.
|
|
Given two participants in the protocol called Arthur and Merlin respectively, the basic assumption is that Arthur is a standard computer (or verifier) equipped with a random number generating device, while Merlin is effectively an oracle with infinite computational power (also known as a prover); but Merlin is not necessarily honest, so Arthur must analyze the information provided by Merlin in response to Arthur's queries and decide the problem itself. A problem is considered to be solvable by this protocol if whenever the answer is "yes", Merlin has some series of responses which will cause Arthur to accept at least of the time, and if whenever the answer is "no", Arthur will never accept more than of the time. Thus, Arthur acts as a probabilistic polynomial-time verifier, assuming it is allotted polynomial time to make its decisions and queries.
|
|
An undeniable signature is a digital signature scheme which allows the signer to be selective to whom they allow to verify signatures. The scheme adds explicit signature repudiation, preventing a signer later refusing to verify a signature by omission; a situation that would devalue the signature in the eyes of the verifier. It was invented by David Chaum and Hans van Antwerpen in 1989.
|
|
In reality it was unworkable and almost invariably users acquired a stand-alone keypunch/verifier. Later several OEM companies built 96-column keypunches, sorters, and collators. This took the 'heavy lifting' off of the MFCU and freed the System/3 for actual computing functions. Most experienced System/3 users minimized use of the MFCU as much as possible, since it was a system bottleneck.
|
|
Stewart is a recipient of the FA Advanced Youth Award and is an FA Goalkeeping Coach Educator and Internal Verifier. He currently delivers all levels of FA Goalkeeping Level 1 to Level 4 and the FA Level 3 Goalkeeping module for the UEFA B Licence. Billy also holds FA qualifications for Futsal at levels 1&2\. Stewart has worked with every age group at Liverpool.
|
|
The trusted third party verifies the signature on the assertion and returns an authentication response to the verifier. The proprietary mobile push authentication protocol runs on an out-of-band secondary channel, which provides flexible deployment options. Since the protocol requires an open network path to the claimant's mobile phone, if no such path is available (due to network issues, e.g.), the authentication process can not proceed.
|
|
The formalized proof required approximately 30,000 lines of input to the Isabelle proof verifier. results are often formalized as a series of lemmas, for which derivations can be constructed separately. Automated theorem provers are also used to implement formal verification in computer science. In this setting, theorem provers are used to verify the correctness of programs and of hardware such as processors with respect to a formal specification.
|
|
Rods went through the holes of the card and pushed the buttons placed underneath. These buttons acted as an input mechanism connected mechanically to a set of counters or a sorting device. Powers managed to invent his own system which bore no resemblance to Hollerith's one. The system included the whole set of machines, necessary for tabulating, namely, the electric card punch, card verifier, sorting machine, and printing tabulator.
|
|
One of the innovations of ISDS is that it assigns systems and software responsibilities to one or more of the roles: owner, operator, system integrator, suppliers, and independent verifier. Another important feature of ISDS is that it requires the designation of a system integrator. This can be the shipbuilder, the major automation supplier, or a specialized contractor. The ISDS defines the activities to be performed by the system integrator.
|
|
Arora and Safra's first major result was that ; put another way, if the verifier in the NP protocol is constrained to choose only bits of the proof certificate to look at, this won't make any difference as long as it has random bits to use.Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. Probabilistic Checking of Proofs: A New Characterization of NP. Journal of the ACM, volume 45, issue 1, pp. 70–122. January 1998.
|
|
A Cryptographically Generated Address is formed by replacing the least-significant 64 bits of the 128-bit IPv6 address with the cryptographic hash of the public key of the address owner. The messages are signed with the corresponding private key. Only if the source address and the public key are known can the verifier authenticate the message from that corresponding sender. This method requires no public key infrastructure.
|
|
Underhill later took this to the Association of Chief Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group to ask for the pilot to be introduced nationally, which was achieved by 2006. Underhill was also an adviser [for one day] in the case of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, who were abducted and murdered. He then moved to the Training Department in Sussex Police, having qualified as a police trainer, assessor and verifier. On retirement he moved to Dorset.
|
|
Ses ouvrages historiques ont fait naître des débats pour ainsi dire interminables, vu la difficulté qu'on éprouve aujourd'hui à verifier l'authenticité des documents don't il a fait usage. Polycarpe's ms. was used by Colombi in his history of the bishops of Valence and Die. Polycarpe claimed to have used for St. Martinus a poem written by Wulfinus, which he had read in some library in Paris, but the poem is not extant.
|
|
From 1998 to 1999, he worked as a Kosovo ceasefire verifier with the Kosovo Verification Mission. Speaking to The Guardian in 1999, he said "Our attitude is not patronising to either the Serb units or the guerrillas. We are simply trying to persuade them not to do something silly." He became the head of security for Aga Khan IV. This involved helping to create a base for the Aga Khan at Chantilly, Oise.
|
|
Milles was born Ruth Anna Maria Anderson on Örby Manor in Vallentuna near Stockholm, Sweden. She was the daughter of Chief Verifier of the brännvin manufacturing in Sweden, Emil Anderson (1843–1910), called "Mille". She had two siblings when her mother died in childbirth and gained three half siblings after her father remarried. Her brother was the sculptor Carl Milles (1875–1955) and her half brother Evert Milles (1885–1960) was an architect.
|
|
According to NIST, it is difficult to make sure that votes are coming from verified and registered voters and it has not been changed in transit. This is difficult to verify over the internet and thus makes casting votes in person and through paper ballets more effective and safe, even with the flaws that it may have. Verified Voting has a "verifier" visualizer to locate provide detail to local election equipment in various counties or cities in all states.
|
|
An exception was at SRI International in the late 1990s. Funded by the US government's NSA and DARPA, SRI studied deep neural networks in speech and speaker recognition. The speaker recognition team led by Larry Heck reported significant success with deep neural networks in speech processing in the 1998 National Institute of Standards and Technology Speaker Recognition evaluation. The SRI deep neural network was then deployed in the Nuance Verifier, representing the first major industrial application of deep learning.
|
|
The first two or three characters indicate the company submitting the application, while the following six or five characters specify the respective transformation event. The last digit serves as a verifier. All the crop varieties derived from one transformation event will share the same unique identifier. The unique identifier has been integrated in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and in the European Union legislation on the labelling and traceability of genetically modified organisms (Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003).
|
|
Christine Jasch completed secondary school in Vienna, where she matriculated in 1979 to study at the University of Vienna's Department of Economics, and at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. In 1984 she applied for a Studium Irregulare for Ecological Economics. She became a certified public accountant in 1989 and lead verifier according to the EU EMAS Regulation in 1995. In 1989 she founded the Vienna Institute for Environmental Management and Economics, IÖW.
|
|
In the simplest implementation the verifier sends a random message as large as the device's memory to the device, which is expected to store it. After the device has received the complete message, it is required to send it back. Security of this approach is obvious, but it includes transfer of a huge amount of data (twice the size of the device's memory). This can be halved if the device responds with just a hash of the message.
|
|
Proof of space is a protocol similar to proof of secure erasure in that both require the prover to dedicate a specific amount of memory to convince the verifier. Nevertheless, there are important differences in their design considerations. Because the purpose of proof of space is similar to proof of work, the verifier's time complexity must be very small. While such property may be useful for proof of secure erasure as well, it is not fundamental to its usefulness.
|
|
In a public coin protocol, the random choices made by the verifier are made public. They remain private in a private coin protocol. In the same conference where Babai defined his proof system for MA, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali and Charles Rackoff Extended abstract published a paper defining the interactive proof system IP[f(n)]. This has the same machines as the MA protocol, except that f(n) rounds are allowed for an input of size n.
|
|
Private coins may not be helpful, but more rounds of interaction are helpful. If we allow the probabilistic verifier machine and the all-powerful prover to interact for a polynomial number of rounds, we get the class of problems called IP. In 1992, Adi Shamir revealed in one of the central results of complexity theory that IP equals PSPACE, the class of problems solvable by an ordinary deterministic Turing machine in polynomial space.Adi Shamir. IP = PSPACE.
|
|
Locus is the only software vendor that is an approved greenhouse gas (GHG) verification body under the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Locus has been an accredited GHG verifier since 2010. Locus is also known for its GHG calculator, which is offered at no cost to companies for determining whether they meet the threshold requirements necessary to report their emissions data to the California Air Resources Board under (AB) 32, and specifically 95101(b)(8) legislation.
|
|
When the requestor receives the timestamp token from the TSA, it also optionally signs the token with its private key. The requestor now has evidence that the data existed at the time issued by the TSA. When verified by a verifier or relying party, the timestamp token also provides evidence that digital signature has existed since the timestamp was issued, provided that no challenges to the digital signature's authenticity repudiate that claim. Generating a timestamp for signed data.
|
|
It should be able to convince the verifier with high probability if the string is in the language, but should not be able to convince it except with low probability if the string is not in the language. PSPACE can be characterized as the quantum complexity class QIP. PSPACE is also equal to PCTC, problems solvable by classical computers using closed timelike curves,. as well as to BQPCTC, problems solvable by quantum computers using closed timelike curves.
|
|
Similar to legacy U2F, Web Authentication is resilient to verifier impersonation, that is, it is resistant to active man-in-the-middle-attacks, but unlike U2F, WebAuthn does not require a traditional password. Moreover, a roaming hardware authenticator is resistant to malware since the private key material is at no time accessible to software running on the host machine. The WebAuthn Level 1 standard was published as a W3C Recommendation on 4 March 2019. A Level 2 specification is under development.
|
|
A MicroID is essentially a content URI signed with an email address or other attribution. Since the content URI is known for comparison purposes, a MicroID claim can be forged by anybody who knows the communication URI (e.g. email address) associated with the identity. In particular, since a verifier must generate the MicroID in order to compare it, it follows that any party who is trusted to verify a user's MicroID must also be trusted to generate new authorship claims with it.
|
|
One particular development along these lines has been the development of witness- indistinguishable proof protocols. The property of witness- indistinguishability is related to that of zero-knowledge, yet witness- indistinguishable protocols do not suffer from the same problems of concurrent execution. Another variant of zero-knowledge proofs are non-interactive zero- knowledge proofs. Blum, Feldman, and Micali showed that a common random string shared between the prover and the verifier is enough to achieve computational zero-knowledge without requiring interaction.
|
|
A notary provides the extra benefit of maintaining independent logs of their transactions, complete with the types of credentials checked, and another signature that can be verified by the forensic analyst. This double security makes notaries the preferred form of verification. For digital information, the most commonly employed TTP is a certificate authority, which issues public key certificates. A public key certificate can be used by anyone to verify digital signatures without a shared secret between the signer and the verifier.
|
|
Before the TPM can send a certification request for an AIK to the remote entity, the TPM has to generate a set of DAA credentials. This can only be done by interacting with an issuer. The DAA credentials are created by the TPM sending a TPM-unique secret that remains within the TPM. The TPM secret is similar but not analogous to the EK. When the TPM has obtained a set of DAA credentials, it can send these to the Verifier.
|
|
The opposite inclusion is straightforward, because the verifier can always send to the prover the results of their private coin tosses, which proves that the two types of protocols are equivalent. In the following section we prove that IP = PSPACE, an important theorem in computational complexity, which demonstrates that an interactive proof system can be used to decide whether a string is a member of a language in polynomial time, even though the traditional PSPACE proof may be exponentially long.
|
|
A proof-of- space is a piece of data that a prover sends to a verifier to prove that the prover has reserved a certain amount of space. For practicality, the verification process needs to be efficient, namely, consume a small amount of space and time. For soundness, it should be hard for the prover to pass the verification if it does not actually reserve the claimed amount of space. One way of implementing PoSpace is by using hard-to-pebble graphs.
|
|
An authenticator is the means used to confirm the identity of a user, that is, to perform digital authentication. A person authenticates to a computer system or application by demonstrating that he or she has possession and control of an authenticator. In the simplest case, the authenticator is a common password. Using the terminology of the NIST Digital Identity Guidelines, the party to be authenticated is called the claimant while the party verifying the identity of the claimant is called the verifier.
|
|
It was possible to bypass the bytecode verifier and access the native underlying operating system. The results of this research were not published in detail. The firmware security of Nokia's Symbian Platform Security Architecture (PSA) is based on a central configuration file called SWIPolicy. In 2008 it was possible to manipulate the Nokia firmware before it is installed, and in fact in some downloadable versions of it, this file was human readable, so it was possible to modify and change the image of the firmware.
|
|
A predecessor to the SIDH was published in 2006 by Rostovtsev and Stolbunov. They created the first Diffie-Hellman replacement based on elliptic curve isogenies. Unlike the method of De Feo, Jao, and Plut, the method of Rostovtsev and Stolbunov used ordinary elliptic curves and was found to have a subexponential quantum attack. In March 2014, researchers at the Chinese State Key Lab for Integrated Service Networks and Xidian University extended the security of the SIDH to a form of digital signature with strong designated verifier.
|
|
The proof is passed to the verifier, which verifies it. A valid proof cannot be computed in a simulated hardware (i.e. QEMU) because in order to construct it, access to the keys baked into hardware is required; only trusted firmware has access to these keys and/or the keys derived from them or obtained using them. Because only the platform owner is meant to have access to the data recorded in the foundry, the verifying party must interact with the service set up by the vendor.
|
|
Kučera wrote one of the first spell checkers over Christmas break, 1981, in PL/I for VAX machines, at the behest of Digital Equipment Corporation. It was a simple, rapid spelling verifier. Further development resulted in "International Correct Spell", a spell checking program which was used on word processing systems such as WordStar and Microsoft Word as well as numerous small computer applications. Kučera later oversaw the development of Houghton-Mifflin's Correct Text grammar checker, which also drew heavily on statistical techniques for analysis.
|
|
Complexity classes arising from other definitions of acceptance include RP, co-RP, and ZPP. If the machine is restricted to logarithmic space instead of polynomial time, the analogous RL, co-RL, and ZPL complexity classes are obtained. By enforcing both restrictions, RLP, co-RLP, BPLP, and ZPLP are yielded. Probabilistic computation is also critical for the definition of most classes of interactive proof systems, in which the verifier machine depends on randomness to avoid being predicted and tricked by the all-powerful prover machine.
|
|
After graduation in 1985, de Grey joined Sinclair Research Ltd as an artificial intelligence and software engineer. In 1986, he cofounded Man-Made Minions Ltd to pursue the development of an automated formal program verifier. At a graduate party in Cambridge, de Grey met fruit fly geneticist Adelaide Carpenter whom he would later marry. Through her he was introduced to the intersection of biology and programming when her boss needed someone who knew about computers and biology to take over the running of a database on fruit flies.
|
|
All components of the system other than the Nucleus are written in managed C# and compiled by Bartok (originally developed for the Singularity project) into typed assembly language, which is verified by a TAL checker. The Nucleus implements a memory allocator and garbage collection, support for stack switching, and managing interrupt handlers. It is written in BoogiePL, which serves as input to MSR's Boogie verifier, which proves the Nucleus correct using the Z3 SMT solver. The Nucleus relies on the Kernel to implement threads, scheduling, synchronization, and to provide most interrupt handlers.
|
|
Josh, is a well-respected coach, having achieved his ECB Level III at 18 years old. He is also a tutor, assessor and field-based trainer / internal verifier for delivering coach education courses. He has recently worked with Middlesex wicket keepers; Simpson and Rossington, and has acted as their off season fielding coach to their full squad. Josh is now qualified as a UKCC ECB Level IV elite coach and is working within Middlesex County Cricket Club as West Regional Academy director and at Teddington Cricket Club as director of youth cricket and head coach.
|
|
The cards are from that year named either NSB-kort for cards produced by NSB or Ruter Reisekortet (Ruter travel card) for cards produced by Ruter. The goal of the system is to ease and quicken the process of purchasing ticket, create better information about actual travel and reduce non-paying passengers. The system utilises RFID technology on smart cards and allows an electronic payment to be made via contactless communication between the card and a verifier. There is also devoped a system of one-time tickets called Impuls.
|
|
The Video Buffering Verifier (VBV) is a theoretical MPEG video buffer model, used to ensure that an encoded video stream can be correctly buffered, and played back at the decoder device. By definition, the VBV shall not overflow nor underflow when its input is a compliant stream, (except in the case of low_delay). It is therefore important when encoding such a stream that it comply with the VBV requirements. One way to think of the VBV is to consider both a maximum bitrate and a maximum buffer size.
|
|
PROMELA is a process modeling language whose intended use is to verify the logic of parallel systems. Given a program in PROMELA, Spin can verify the model for correctness by performing random or iterative simulations of the modeled system's execution, or it can generate a C program that performs a fast exhaustive verification of the system state space. During simulations and verifications SPIN checks for the absence of deadlocks, unspecified receptions, and unexecutable code. The verifier can also be used to prove the correctness of system invariants and it can find non-progress execution cycles.
|
|
The maximum prize for the season was $200,000, and this was the only season where the announced maximum and the actual maximum were the same. In contrast to all subsequent seasons, the events of each episode were referred to as "challenges" rather than "assignments." In the years that followed, Alan Mason became the adjudicator and question researcher on the Australian version of The Weakest Link, as well as the question verifier on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, and the runner-up, Abby Coleman, is now a radio announcer on Hit 105 FM in Brisbane.
|
|
Improper interleaving will result in buffer underflows or overflows, as the receiver gets more of one stream than it can store (e.g. audio), before it gets enough data to decode the other simultaneous stream (e.g. video). The MPEG Video Buffering Verifier (VBV) assists in determining if a multiplexed PS can be decoded by a device with a specified data throughput rate and buffer size. This offers feedback to the muxer and the encoder, so that they can change the mux size or adjust bitrates as needed for compliance.
|
|
In the late 1960s agencies funding research in automated deduction began to emphasize the need for practical applications. One of the first fruitful areas was that of program verification whereby first-order theorem provers were applied to the problem of verifying the correctness of computer programs in languages such as Pascal, Ada, etc. Notable among early program verification systems was the Stanford Pascal Verifier developed by David Luckham at Stanford University. This was based on the Stanford Resolution Prover also developed at Stanford using John Alan Robinson's resolution principle.
|
|
But notice that if we are given a particular subset we can efficiently verify whether the subset sum is zero, by summing the integers of the subset. If the sum is zero, that subset is a proof or witness for the answer is "yes". An algorithm that verifies whether a given subset has sum zero is a verifier. Clearly, summing the integers of a subset can be done in polynomial time and the subset sum problem is therefore in NP. The above example can be generalized for any decision problem.
|
|
Generating a timestamp for unsigned data. Before a timestamp-service commences operations, the Time Stamp Authority calibrates its clock(s) with an upstream time source entity, such as a legally defined master clock for the jurisdiction the TSA is time-stamping evidence for. When trusted time has been acquired, the TSA can issue timestamps for unsigned and digitally signed data based on all of the jurisdictions it maintains timing solutions for. Applications using timestamps on unsigned data can provide evidence to a verifier that the underlying digital data has existed since the timestamp was generated.
|
|
Co., 1974, pp.79, 195 or (at IBM) chip box, or bit bucket. In many data processing applications, the punched cards were verified by keying exactly the same data a second time, checking to see if the second keying and the punched data were the same (known as two pass verification). There was a great demand for keypunch operators, usually women,IBM Archive: Keypunch operators, 1934, Stockholm who worked full-time on keypunch and verifier machines, often in large keypunch departments with dozens or hundreds of other operators, all performing data input.
|
|
A quantum interactive proof with two competing provers is a generalization of the single prover quantum interactive proof system. It can be modelled by zero-sum refereed games where Alice and Bob are the competing provers, and the referee is the verifier. The referee is assumed to be computationally bounded (polynomial size quantum circuit), whereas Alice and Bob can be computationally unrestricted. Alice, Bob and the referee receive a common string, and after fixed rounds of interactions (exchanging quantum information between the provers and the referee), the referee decides whether Alice wins or Bob wins.
|
|
Distance bounding protocols are cryptographic protocols that enable a verifier V to establish an upper bound on the physical distance to a prover P. They are based on timing the delay between sending out challenge bits and receiving back the corresponding response bits. The delay time for responses enables V to compute an upper-bound on the distance, as the round trip delay time divided into twice the speed of light. The computation is based on the fact that electro-magnetic waves travel nearly at the speed of light, but cannot travel faster. Distance bounding protocols can have different applications.
|
|
This is because a ZKPP is defined more narrowly than the more general zero-knowledge proof. ZKPP is defined in IEEE 1363.2 as "An interactive zero knowledge proof of knowledge of password- derived data shared between a prover and the corresponding verifier." Notice, that the definition is concerned further with password-derived data. A common use of a zero-knowledge password proof is in authentication systems where one party wants to prove its identity to a second party using a password but doesn't want the second party or anybody else to learn anything about the password.
|
|
Of these the first-fruit was his Clavis Historiae, a work of the same class as the French Art de verifier les dates, and preceding it by several years. It appeared in 1743, and passed through many editions. In 1747 was published the first volume of España Sagrada, teatro geografico-historico de La Iglesia de España, a vast compilation of Spanish ecclesiastical history which obtained a European reputation, and of which twenty-nine volumes appeared in the author's lifetime. It was continued after his death by Manuel Risco and others, and further additions have been made at the expense of the Spanish government.
|
|
For example, if S denotes \forall x \exists y\, \phi(x,y) then an equisatisfiable statement for S is \exists f \forall x \, \phi(x,f(x)). The Skolem function f (if it exists) actually codifies a winning strategy for the Verifier of S by returning a witness for the existential sub-formula for every choice of x the Falsifier might make.J. Hintikka and G. Sandu, 2009, "Game-Theoretical Semantics" in Keith Allan (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics, Elsevier, , pp. 341-343 The above definition was first formulated by Jaakko Hintikka as part of his GTS interpretation.
|
|
There is a well-known story presenting the fundamental ideas of zero-knowledge proofs, first published by Jean-Jacques Quisquater and others in their paper "How to Explain Zero-Knowledge Protocols to Your Children". It is common practice to label the two parties in a zero- knowledge proof as Peggy (the prover of the statement) and Victor (the verifier of the statement). In this story, Peggy has uncovered the secret word used to open a magic door in a cave. The cave is shaped like a ring, with the entrance on one side and the magic door blocking the opposite side.
|
|
One way this was done was with multi-prover interactive proof systems (see interactive proof system), which have multiple independent provers instead of only one, allowing the verifier to "cross-examine" the provers in isolation to avoid being misled. It can be shown that, without any intractability assumptions, all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proofs in such a system. It turns out that in an Internet-like setting, where multiple protocols may be executed concurrently, building zero-knowledge proofs is more challenging. The line of research investigating concurrent zero-knowledge proofs was initiated by the work of Dwork, Naor, and Sahai.
|
|
A casual verifier of the counterexample may not think to change the colors of these regions, so that the counterexample will appear as though it is valid. Perhaps one effect underlying this common misconception is the fact that the color restriction is not transitive: a region only has to be colored differently from regions it touches directly, not regions touching regions that it touches. If this were the restriction, planar graphs would require arbitrarily large numbers of colors. Other false disproofs violate the assumptions of the theorem, such as using a region that consists of multiple disconnected parts, or disallowing regions of the same color from touching at a point.
|
|
Unlike complicated automated theorem provers, verification systems may be small enough that their correctness can be checked both by hand and through automated software verification. This validation of the proof verifier is needed to give confidence that any derivation labeled as "correct" is actually correct. Some proof verifiers, such as Metamath, insist on having a complete derivation as input. Others, such as Mizar and Isabelle, take a well- formatted proof sketch (which may still be very long and detailed) and fill in the missing pieces by doing simple proof searches or applying known decision procedures: the resulting derivation is then verified by a small, core "kernel".
|
|
It uses a code verifier to prevent use of unsafe instructions such as those that perform system calls. To prevent the code from jumping to an unsafe instruction hidden in the middle of a safe instruction, Native Client requires that all indirect jumps be jumps to the start of 32-byte-aligned blocks, and instructions are not allowed to straddle these blocks. Because of these constraints, C and C++ code must be recompiled to run under Native Client, which provides customized versions of the GNU toolchain, specifically GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Binutils, and LLVM. Native Client is licensed under a BSD-style license.
|
|
All the information (the signed field value and the field value is stored on the AIDC) is available to verify when the data structure is read from the AIDC (barcode and/or RFID). :b fields are signed but NOT included in the DigSig envelope - only the signed field value is stored on the AIDC. Therefore the value of a b field must be collected by the verifier before verification can be performed. This is useful to link a physical object with an barcode and/or RFID tag to be used as an anti-counterfeiting measure; for example the seal number of a bottle of wine may be a b field.
|
|
The verifier needs to enter the seal number for a successful verification since it is not stored in the barcode on the bottle. When the seal is broken the seal number may also be destroyed and yielded unreadable; the verification can therefore not take place since it requires the seal number. A replacement seal must display the same seal number; using holograms and other techniques may make the generation of a new copied seal number not viable. Similarly the unique tag ID, also known is the TID in ISO/IEC 18000, can be used in this manner to prove that the data is stored on the correct tag.
|
|
Simulink Verification and Validation enables systematic verification and validation of models through modeling style checking, requirements traceability and model coverage analysis. Simulink Design Verifier uses formal methods to identify design errors like integer overflow, division by zero and dead logic, and generates test case scenarios for model checking within the Simulink environment. SimEvents is used to add a library of graphical building blocks for modeling queuing systems to the Simulink environment, and to add an event-based simulation engine to the time- based simulation engine in Simulink. Therefore in Simulink any type of simulation can be done and the model can be simulated at any point in this environment.
|
|
Catamaran Corporation (formerly SXC Health Solutions) is the former name of a company that now operates within UnitedHealth Group's OptumRX division (since July 2015). It sells pharmacy benefit management and medical record keeping services to businesses in the United States and to a broad client portfolio, including health plans and employers. Working independently of the government and insurance companies allowed it to operate as a third party verifier; the RxCLAIM online claim processing system allowed for prescription drug claims to be processed online if the customer lived in and filled his/her prescription in the United States. SXC had three separate but interrelated business segments which dealt with prescription drug programs.
|
|
Zero-knowledge proofs were first conceived in 1989 by Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, and Charles Rackoff in their paper "The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof-Systems". This paper introduced the IP hierarchy of interactive proof systems (see interactive proof system) and conceived the concept of knowledge complexity, a measurement of the amount of knowledge about the proof transferred from the prover to the verifier. They also gave the first zero-knowledge proof for a concrete problem, that of deciding quadratic nonresidues mod . Together with a paper by László Babai and Shlomo Moran, this landmark paper invented interactive proof systems, for which all five authors won the first Gödel Prize in 1993.
|
|
Such a proof must imply that the consumer can trust the compiler used by the supplier and that the certificate, the information about the source code, can be verified. The figure illustrates how certification and verification of low- level code could be established by the use of a certifying compiler. The software supplier gains the advantage of not having to reveal the source code, and the consumer is left with the task of verifying the certificate, which is an easy task compared to evaluation and compilation of the source code itself. Verifying the certificate only requires a limited trusted code base containing the compiler and the verifier.
|
|
For example, the class IP equals PSPACE, but if randomness is removed from the verifier, we are left with only NP, which is not known but widely believed to be a considerably smaller class. One of the central questions of complexity theory is whether randomness adds power; that is, is there a problem that can be solved in polynomial time by a probabilistic Turing machine but not a deterministic Turing machine? Or can deterministic Turing machines efficiently simulate all probabilistic Turing machines with at most a polynomial slowdown? It is known that P \subseteq BPP, since a deterministic Turing machine is just a special case of a probabilistic Turing machine.
|
|
The transshipment function must handle any and all data sent to it by potential attackers. To be useful the function must be implemented without it being vulnerable to attack. This can be achieved by using Guard technology that separates the implementation into three parts - a destination proxy that interacts with the message originator and extracts the business information from messages, a verifier and a source proxy that creates a new message to carry the business information and interacts with the message recipient. The verifier's role is to ensure that the source proxy is only presented with the business information using the simple data format it is expecting.
|
|
IP Address forgery is possible, but generally involves a lower level of criminal behavior (breaking and entering, wiretapping, etc.), which are too risky for a typical hacker or spammer, or insecure servers not implementing RFC 1948, see also Transmission Control Protocol#Connection hijacking. The receiving mail server receives the `HELO` SMTP command soon after the connection is set up, and a `Mail from:` at the beginning of each message. Both of them can contain a domain name. The SPF verifier queries the Domain Name System (DNS) for a matching SPF record, which if it exists will specify the IP addresses authorized by that domain's administrator.
|
|
The SRP protocol has been revised several times, and is currently at revision 6a. The SRP protocol creates a large private key shared between the two parties in a manner similar to Diffie–Hellman key exchange based on the client side having the user password and the server side having a cryptographic verifier derived from the password. The shared public key is derived from two random numbers, one generated by the client, and the other generated by the server, which are unique to the login attempt. In cases where encrypted communications as well as authentication are required, the SRP protocol is more secure than the alternative SSH protocol and faster than using Diffie–Hellman key exchange with signed messages.
|
|
The company was established by Andreas Aas-Jakobsen in 1937. For the first decade, the company specialized in shell structures, but from the 1950s, the company shifted to bridge design. The company later started designing offshore installations and became a verifier for such structures, and later also became a consultant for railway projects and major road projects, such as the Bjørvika Tunnel through Oslo. Major projects which the company has participated in include the Arctic Cathedral, Askøy Bridge, Bømla Bridge, Brønnøysund Bridge, Candaba Viaduct, Djupfjordstraumen Bridge, Drammen Bridge, Grenland Bridge, Heidrun, Helgeland Bridge, Henningsvær Bridge, Lysefjord Bridge, Mjøsa Bridge, Nordhordland Bridge, Osterøy Bridge, Rama III Bride, Sleipner A, Stord Bridge, Tromsø Bridge and Varodden Bridge.
|
|
Portability was a problem in the early days because there was no agreed upon standard—not even IBM's reference manual—and computer companies vied to differentiate their offerings from others by providing incompatible features. Standards have improved portability. The 1966 standard provided a reference syntax and semantics, but vendors continued to provide incompatible extensions. Although careful programmers were coming to realize that use of incompatible extensions caused expensive portability problems, and were therefore using programs such as The PFORT Verifier, it was not until after the 1977 standard, when the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) published FIPS PUB 69, that processors purchased by the U.S. Government were required to diagnose extensions of the standard.
|
|
One particular motivating example is the use of commitment schemes in zero-knowledge proofs. Commitments are used in zero-knowledge proofs for two main purposes: first, to allow the prover to participate in "cut and choose" proofs where the verifier will be presented with a choice of what to learn, and the prover will reveal only what corresponds to the verifier's choice. Commitment schemes allow the prover to specify all the information in advance, and only reveal what should be revealed later in the proof.Oded Goldreich, Silvio Micali, and Avi Wigderson, Proofs that yield nothing but their validity, or all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems, Journal of the ACM, 38: 3, pp.
|
|
Even though the Kernel is not formally verified, so, for example, a bug in scheduling could cause the system to hang, it cannot violate type or memory safety, and thus cannot directly cause undefined behavior. If it attempts to make invalid requests to the Nucleus, formal verification guarantees that the Nucleus handles the situation in a controlled manner. Verve's trusted computing base is limited to: Boogie/Z3 for verifying the Nucleus's correctness; BoogieASM for translating it into x86 assembly; the BoogiePL specification of how the Nucleus should behave; the TAL verifier; the assembler and linker; and the bootloader. Notably, neither the C# compiler/runtime nor the Bartok compiler are part of the TCB.
|
|
The most recent change reflects the major policy changes in social care in that ARC (which is how it is known) now stands for The Association for Real Change. ARC was incorporated as a registered charity in 1982.Charity Commission In 1992 the ARC Training Consortium was set up to support members who wanted to increase their own NVQ assessor/verifier capacity and to enable their staff to gain the appropriate NVQs and subsequently the ARC Training Centre. It is part of the coalition of charities and councils urging the British government to solve the social care crisis and was part of the campaign by the major care provider bodies around the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill.
|
|
Often programmers first wrote their program out on special forms called coding sheets, taking care to distinguish the digit zero from the letter O, the digit one from the letter I, eight from B, two from Z, and so on using local conventions such as the "slashed zero". These forms were then taken by keypunch operators, who using a keypunch machine such as the IBM 026 (later IBM 029) punched the actual deck. Often another key punch operator would then take that deck and re-punch from the coding sheets - but using a "verifier" such as the IBM 059 that simply checked that the original punching had no errors. A typing error generally necessitated repunching an entire card.
|
|
1335, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, and 1380. The council held in 1027 decreed that no one should attack his enemy from Saturday at nine o'clock to Monday at one; and that Holy Mass be said for the excommunicated for a space of three months, to obtain their conversion. The author of l'Art de verifier les Dates wrongly maintains that the Council of Elvira was held at Elne. The chief places of pilgrimage of the diocese are: Notre-Dame du Château d'Ultréra, at Sorède; Notre-Dame de Consolation, at Collioure; Notre-Dame de Font Romeu, at Odeillo; Notre-Dame de Forca-Réal, near Millas; Notre-Dame de Juigues, near Rivesaltes; the relics of Sts.
|
|
This approach permits two possibilities to detecting rogue TPMs: firstly the privacy CA should maintain a list of TPMs identified by their EK known to be rogue and reject requests from them, secondly if a privacy CA receives too many requests from a particular TPM it may reject them and blocklist the TPMs EK. The number of permitted requests should be subject to a risk management exercise. This solution is problematic since the privacy CA must take part in every transaction and thus must provide high availability whilst remaining secure. Furthermore, privacy requirements may be violated if the privacy CA and verifier collude. Although the latter issue can probably be resolved using blind signatures, the first remains.
|
|
In order to explain the verifier- based definition of NP, consider the subset sum problem: Assume that we are given some integers, {−7, −3, −2, 5, 8}, and we wish to know whether some of these integers sum up to zero. Here, the answer is "yes", since the integers {−3, −2, 5} corresponds to the sum The task of deciding whether such a subset with zero sum exists is called the subset sum problem. To answer if some of the integers add to zero we can create an algorithm which obtains all the possible subsets. As the number of integers that we feed into the algorithm becomes larger, both the number of subsets and the computation time grows exponentially.
|
|
The Goldreich-Goldwasser-Halevi (GGH) signature scheme is a digital signature scheme proposed in 1995 and published in 1997, based on solving the closest vector problem (CVP) in a lattice. The signer demonstrates knowledge of a good basis for the lattice by using it to solve CVP on a point representing the message; the verifier uses a bad basis for the same lattice to verify that the signature under consideration is actually a lattice point and is sufficiently close to the message point. The idea was not developed in detail in the original paper, which focussed more on the associated encryption algorithm. GGH signatures form the basis for the NTRUSign signature algorithm.
|
|
The Scratch and Vote system, invented by Ben Adida, uses a scratch-off surface to hide cryptographic information that can be used to verify the correct printing of the ballot.Scratch & Vote: Self-Contained Paper-Based Cryptographic Voting (2006) The ThreeBallot voting protocol, invented by Ron Rivest, was designed to provide some of the benefits of a cryptographic voting system without using cryptography. It can in principle be implemented on paper although the presented version requires an electronic verifier. The Scantegrity and Scantegrity II systems provide E2E properties, however instead of being a replacement of the entire voting system, as is the case in all the preceding examples, it works as an add-on for existing optical scan voting systems.
|
|
The distance bound computed by a radio frequency distance bounding protocol is very sensitive to even the slightest processing delay. This is because any delay introduced, anywhere in the system, will be multiplied by approximately 299,792,458 m/s (the speed of light) in order to convert time into distance. This means that even delays on the order of nanoseconds will result in significant errors in the distance bound (a timing error of 1 ns corresponds to a distance error of 15 cm). Because of the extremely tight timing constraints and the fact that a distance bounding protocol requires that the prover apply an appropriate function to the challenge sent by the verifier, it is not trivial to implement distance bounding in actual physical hardware.
|
|
An AC resembles a PKC but contains no public key because an AC verifier is under the control of the AC issuer, and therefore, trusts the issuer directly by having the public key of the issuer preinstalled. This means that once the AC issuer's private key is compromised, the issuer has to generate a new key pair and replaces the old public key in all verifiers under its control with the new one. The verification of an AC requires the presence of the PKC that is referred as the AC holder in the AC. As with a PKC, an AC can be chained to delegate attributions. For example, an authorization certificate issued for Alice authorizes her to use a particular service.
|
|
In computational complexity theory, a probabilistically checkable proof (PCP) is a type of proof that can be checked by a randomized algorithm using a bounded amount of randomness and reading a bounded number of bits of the proof. The algorithm is then required to accept correct proofs and reject incorrect proofs with very high probability. A standard proof (or certificate), as used in the verifier-based definition of the complexity class NP, also satisfies these requirements, since the checking procedure deterministically reads the whole proof, always accepts correct proofs and rejects incorrect proofs. However, what makes them interesting is the existence of probabilistically checkable proofs that can be checked by reading only a few bits of the proof using randomness in an essential way.
|
|
In recent years, the U.S. Green Building Council and numerous state, local and federal agencies and officials began a strategic campaign to decrease greenhouse gas and carbon emissions from commercial and residential buildings. For example, in New York City, the 950,000 commercial and residential buildings were responsible for 80% of the 58.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gases that the city emitted in 2005, and were responsible for 30% of the energy usage. In response to this statistic, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced PlaNYC to help New York achieve his stated goal, the cleanest air quality of any major city in America. The Verifier is part of the larger trend toward products that promote building sustainability and a reduction in carbon emissions.
|
|
The capability of a runtime verifier to detect errors strictly depends on its capability to analyze execution traces. When the monitors are deployed with the system, instrumentation is typically minimal and the execution traces are as simple as possible to keep the runtime overhead low. When runtime verification is used for testing, one can afford more comprehensive instrumentations that augment events with important system information that can be used by the monitors to construct and therefore analyze more refined models of the executing system. For example, augmenting events with vector-clock information and with data and control flow information allows the monitors to construct a causal model of the running system in which the observed execution was only one possible instance.
|
|
Nowadays, the Linux kernel runs eBPF only and loaded cBPF bytecode is transparently translated into an eBPF representation in the kernel before program execution. All bytecode is verified before running to prevent denial- of-service attacks. Until Linux 5.3, the verifier prohibited the use of loops. A user-mode interpreter for BPF is provided with the libpcap/WinPcap/Npcap implementation of the pcap API, so that, when capturing packets on systems without kernel-mode support for that filtering mechanism, packets can be filtered in user mode; code using the pcap API will work on both types of systems, although, on systems where the filtering is done in user mode, all packets, including those that will be filtered out, are copied from the kernel to user space.
|
|
Pardee Homes began building energy-efficient, green homes in 1998 and introduced LivingSmart®, a green building program, in 2001.Builder and Developer Magazine Pardee Homes received the California Governor's Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA) in 2005, for its sustainable practices.California Governor's Environmental and Economic Leadership Awards In May 2011, Pardee Homes became California's first production homebuilder to commit to getting an entire community of homes certified to the National Green Building Standard™ (NGBS) by the NAHB Research Center, and internationally recognized, independent third party. Pardee's new LivingSmart® Homes in Santa Clarita's Fair Oaks Ranch®, will all be built to the Gold-level criteria of the NGBS, inspected at least twice by an accredited green verifier, and Green Certified by the NAHB Research Center.
|
|
Screenshot of the "Root Verifier" app on a rooted Samsung Galaxy S10e Rooting is the process of allowing users of smartphones, tablets and other devices running the Android mobile operating system to attain privileged control (known as root access) over various Android subsystems. As Android uses the Linux kernel, rooting an Android device gives similar access to administrative (superuser) permissions as on Linux or any other Unix-like operating system such as FreeBSD or macOS. Rooting is often performed with the goal of overcoming limitations that carriers and hardware manufacturers put on some devices. Thus, rooting gives the ability (or permission) to alter or replace system applications and settings, run specialized applications ("apps") that require administrator-level permissions, or perform other operations that are otherwise inaccessible to a normal Android user.
|
|
Some members of the site allegedly went further by harassing the targets of their chats in real life, as well as their friends, neighbors, employers, and family."'To Catch a Predator': The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles" , By Vanessa Grigoriadis, Rolling Stone, July 30, 2007 After a falling-out over a vitriolic chat log with a phone verifier in 2004, Fencepost was dismissed from the site. "Xavier became much more oriented toward getting pedophiles arrested rather than just making them complete social pariahs in their neighborhood," says Fencepost."'To Catch a Predator': The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles" , By Vanessa Grigoriadis, Rolling Stone, July 30, 2007 Von Erck said he got the idea for the website while watching people attempt to groom young girls in chat rooms in Oregon.
|
|
If the Additional Verification fails to turn up any information, or if the Status Verifier detects discrepancies that can only be resolved by examining the applicant's documentation, SAVE provides an electronic notification to the caseworker and recommends that the caseworker submit Form G-845, Document Verification Request, with a copy of the applicant's immigration documentation. An already-filled electronic form is made available to the caseworker, who needs to print and mail it to the USCIS Immigration Status Verification Unit. If the caseworker submits these documents, Status Verifiers conduct a more thorough search using PCQS, and may also request record corrections to the USCIS Central Index System (CIS) database by contacting the USCIS Records Division. A response should generally be returned within 20 federal working days, which is usually about one calendar month.
|
|
For this reason, the number of valid values for `collCount` is limited to the range from 0 to 2. This parameter must be verified to be in this range during the CGA verification process in order to prevent an attacker from exploiting it and trying all different values without the need to perform another brute-force search for `Hash2` each time a different value is tried. By including the subnet prefix in the digest operation that results in `Hash1`, it can be prevented that an attacker is able to use a single pre- computed database to attack addresses with different subnet prefixes. A verifier can also be sure that the public key has been bound to this exact address and not possibly to an address with the same interface identifier but a different subnet prefix.
|
|
The Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier (CIPAV) is a data gathering tool that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uses to track and gather location data on suspects under electronic surveillance. The software operates on the target computer much like other forms of illegal spyware, whereas it is unknown to the operator that the software has been installed and is monitoring and reporting on their activities. The CIPAV captures location-related information, such as: IP address, MAC address, open ports, running programs, operating system and installed application registration and version information, default web browser, and last visited URL. Once that initial inventory is conducted, the CIPAV slips into the background and silently monitors all outbound communication, logging every IP address to which the computer connects, and time and date stamping each.
|
|
This is done in the same way as sending an email to the address, however the process is stopped after the mail exchanger accepts or rejects the recipient address. These are the same steps the receiving mail server would take to bounce mail back to the sender, however in this case no mail is sent. The SMTP commands sent out are: HELO verifier host name MAIL FROM:<> RCPT TO: QUIT Equivalently, the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands can be replaced by the VRFY command, however the VRFY command is not required to be supported and is usually disabled in modern MTAs. Both of these techniques are technically compliant with the relevant SMTP RFCs (RFC 5321), however RFC 2505 (a Best Current Practice) recommends, by default, disabling the VRFY command to prevent directory harvest attacks.
|
|
By using a third-party Privacy Certification Authority (PCA), the information that identifies the computer could be held by a trusted third party. Additionally, the use of direct anonymous attestation (DAA), introduced in TPM v1.2, allows a client to perform attestation while not revealing any personally identifiable or machine information. The kind of data that must be supplied to the TTP in order to get the trusted status is at present not entirely clear, but the TCG itself admits that "attestation is an important TPM function with significant privacy implications".TPM version 1.2 specifications changes, 16.04.04 It is, however, clear that both static and dynamic information about the user computer may be supplied (Ekpubkey) to the TTP (v1.1b),TPM v1.2 specification changes, 2004 it is not clear what data will be supplied to the “verifier” under v1.2.
|
|
An alternative characterization of PSPACE is the set of problems decidable by an alternating Turing machine in polynomial time, sometimes called APTIME or just AP.Arora & Barak (2009) p.100 A logical characterization of PSPACE from descriptive complexity theory is that it is the set of problems expressible in second- order logic with the addition of a transitive closure operator. A full transitive closure is not needed; a commutative transitive closure and even weaker forms suffice. It is the addition of this operator that (possibly) distinguishes PSPACE from PH. A major result of complexity theory is that PSPACE can be characterized as all the languages recognizable by a particular interactive proof system, the one defining the class IP. In this system, there is an all-powerful prover trying to convince a randomized polynomial-time verifier that a string is in the language.
|
|
The Boolean satisfiability problem is one of many such NP-complete problems. If any NP- complete problem is in P, then it would follow that P = NP. However, many important problems have been shown to be NP-complete, and no fast algorithm for any of them is known. Based on the definition alone it is not obvious that NP-complete problems exist; however, a trivial and contrived NP-complete problem can be formulated as follows: given a description of a Turing machine M guaranteed to halt in polynomial time, does there exist a polynomial-size input that M will accept? It is in NP because (given an input) it is simple to check whether M accepts the input by simulating M; it is NP-complete because the verifier for any particular instance of a problem in NP can be encoded as a polynomial-time machine M that takes the solution to be verified as input.
|
|
Microsoft Bookshelf was discontinued in 2000. In later editions of the Encarta suite (Encarta 2000 and onwards), Bookshelf was replaced with a dedicated Encarta Dictionary, a superset of the printed edition. There has been some controversy over the decision, since the dictionary lacks the other books provided in Bookshelf which many found to be a useful reference, such as the dictionary of quotations (replaced with a quotations section in Encarta that links to relevant articles and people) and the Internet Directory, although the directory is now obsolete since many of the sites listed in offline directories no longer exist. The original 1987 edition contained The Original Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, World Almanac and Book of Facts, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, The Chicago Manual of Style (13th Edition), the U.S. ZIP Code Directory, Houghton Mifflin Usage Alert, Houghton Mifflin Spelling Verifier and Corrector, Business Information Sources, and Forms and Letters.
|
|
Parliamentary Term 2006 - 2010 Pavol Pavlis was nominated for the 15th position on the SMER-SD candidate list in the 2006 Parliamentary Elections [8] In the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the NR SR) he worked in the Committee on Economic Policy [1], and in the National Security Authority Oversight Special Committee as verifier. Parliamentary Term 2010 - 2012 In the elections to the National Council of the Slovak Republic in March 2010 he was nominated to 27th candidate position for the SMER-SD.[9] He was engaged in the NR SR Committee for Agriculture and Environment [1] Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic 2012 - 2015 During the Second Cabinet of Robert Fico he served as State Secretary at the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic, and of 2014 as Minister of Economy of the Slovak Republic. At the same time he was a Member of the Board at the Export-Import Bank of the Slovak Republic.
|
|
In computational complexity theory, the complexity class FNP is the function problem extension of the decision problem class NP. The name is somewhat of a misnomer, since technically it is a class of binary relations, not functions, as the following formal definition explains: :A binary relation P(x,y), where y is at most polynomially longer than x, is in FNP if and only if there is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that can determine whether P(x,y) holds given both x and y. This definition does not involve nondeterminism and is analogous to the verifier definition of NP. See FP for an explanation of the distinction between FP and FNP. There is an NP language directly corresponding to every FNP relation, sometimes called the decision problem induced by or corresponding to said FNP relation. It is the language formed by taking all the x for which P(x,y) holds given some y; however, there may be more than one FNP relation for a particular decision problem.
|
|
A compatibility graph of partial words Two partial words are said to be compatible when they have the same length and when every position that is a non-wildcard in both of them has the same character in both. If one forms an undirected graph with a vertex for each partial word in a collection of partial words, and an edge for each compatible pair, then the cliques of this graph come from sets of partial words that all match at least one common string. This graph-theoretical interpretation of compatibility of partial words plays a key role in the proof of hardness of approximation of the clique problem, in which a collection of partial words representing successful runs of a probabilistically checkable proof verifier has a large clique if and only if there exists a valid proof of an underlying NP-complete problem. The faces (subcubes) of an n-dimensional hypercube can be described by partial words of length n over a binary alphabet, whose symbols are the Cartesian coordinates of the hypercube vertices (e.g.
|
|