Related Work. Leave not to exceed one (1) year may be granted to an employee to accept a position of fixed duration outside of State service which is funded by a government or private foundation grant and which is related to the employee's current work.
Related Work. Many GKA protocols [5, 11, 7, 4, 6, 3] have been pro- posed in literature, most being derived from the two-party Diffie-Xxxxxxx (DH) key agreement protocol. While some are secure against passive adversaries only, others do not have a rigorous security proof. A security proof typically involves showing that an attack on a protocol can be used to solve a well-known hard problem under some standard assumptions. Provably secure protocols in a well-defined model of security were first provided by Xxxxxxx et al. [4]. Their security model extended the earlier work of Xxxxxxx et al. [1]. The number of rounds in these protocols is linear in the number of participants, thus making them unsuitable for large ad hoc networks. − Xxxx et al. [6] proposed the first provably-secure con- stant round GKA protocol inspired from the works of Xxxxxxxxx et al. [5]. In the same work, they also pro- posed a scalable “compiler” to transform a GKA protocol, secure against a passive adversary, into one which is secure against an active adversary. But one round in their proto- col consists of 1 broadcast and n 1 simultaneous receives by each user. Achieving this is not possible in most net- works. Also it lacks procedures to handle group dynamism. Xxxx et al. [3] proposed an efficient constant round pro- tocol where the bulk of the computation is done by one participant, thus making it efficient for heterogeneous ad hoc networks. It is provably secure in the Random Oracle model [1] but lacks perfect forward secrecy (i.e., compro- mise of long-term key compromises all past session1 keys). We propose a provably secure and efficient protocol which 1A session refers to one instance of GKA protocol execution in some group. Protocol Expo per Ui (Max Expo) Rounds (Messages) PS [11] 3 (m) m +1 (2m − 3) No [7] log2 m +1 log2 m (m) No [4] i +1 m (m) Yes [6] 3 2y (2m) Yes [9] 2 (2myy) 2y (m) Yes Ours 2 (m) 2y (m) Yes
Related Work. The idea of using an isolated network as an environment to perform IT related tasks for the purpose of research or education is widely recognised [36–40]. There are two general approaches to create such an environment: The first approach is to create or use an isolated, physical network with physical hosts that is separated from an operational network such as a campus network [36, 41]. This isolation may be achieved by physical separation of the networks or by using components like firewalls to restrict data flow between net- work areas [42]. Within this isolated network the students can perform exercises and work with a real-world like network setup. Remote access to such a network may be granted by using remote access technologies such as Virtual Private Network (VPN) [43]. Administration and maintenance of such a lab however is labour-intensive. Students work in the lab with super-user rights and can modify system configurations at will. After a session, it is necessary to clean up system configurations, which may even require reinstalling operating systems. The second approach makes use of virtualisation technologies to create an isolated, virtual network with virtual hosts. Literature refers to such an environ- ment in the context of education or e-learning usually as a virtual lab [47, 50–54]. This approach significantly reduces the amount of physical hardware resources (e.g., switches, routers, hosts), since the required resources are created by vir- tualisation. Cleaning up or reinstalling a virtual lab simply means reloading the virtual environments, which can even be an automated task. Literature also reports two main approaches to provide an isolated network. In the first one, the environment is located at a central place, usually at the university [44–49] and students can get physical or remote access by using a secured network connection. A central place could also be a cloud [55–57] or a federated lab [58, 59]. Although such labs may be accessed remotely at any time from any place, they are generally not easily scalable. Allowing an arbitrary number of students to participate at the same time requires students to reserve timeslots in advance for working in the lab. This may impose restrictions for students in distance education, who usually study in evening hours and weekends. Provisioning a remote lab for peak access outside office hours, may result in a largely over-dimensioned lab with a low average degree of utilisation and hence a wast...
Related Work. 2.3.3.1 The Airport Authority may engage separate contractors to perform work as a part of or related to the Project (“Related Work”). The Contractor shall cooperate and coordinate with any such separate contractors, as provided in this section and in the General Conditions. If determined appropriate by the Airport Authority, a separate contractor shall have the right to monitor the construction of the Work, and the Contractor shall meet with such separate contractor at such times as the Contractor or such separate contractor deem appropriate, and the Contractor shall provide access to and accommodate representatives of such separate contractor to permit such representatives to observe the Work. If determined appropriate by the Airport Authority, the Contractor shall have the right to monitor the construction of the Related Work. The Contractor shall notify the Airport Authority immediately of any conflicts, gaps, omissions, inconsistencies, incompatibilities, delays, deficiencies or other adverse impacts (collectively, "Conflicts") which the Contractor discovers or observes at any time between or with respect to the design and/or construction of the Work and the design and/or construction of any Related Work. Such notice shall be given by the most expedient method available, with written confirmation delivered within five days after the Contractor observes or discovers such Conflict.
Related Work. The primary focus of this work is on the development of online banking in general and the security in online banking in particular. Security in online banking has been an active research subject for many years. This section notes related work. Several references are made in Section 2.1 to work that examines what makes users accept online banking, based on the technology acceptance model. Two other models that are also used to examine the acceptance of technology are the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. All three models have been examined in an online banking context. The technology acceptance model has the best fit to determine what makes online banking acceptable [Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2010]. Data was collected for the survey about methods used by banks to authenticate customers, which are discussed in Section 3. Many of these methods have also pre- viously been examined and proposed in the academic field. AlZomai et al. investi- gated the effectiveness of an information scheme that makes the customer verify transactions securely and also proposed a method that implemented such a scheme [AlZomai et al. 2008, 2010]. This scheme is known as What You See Is What You Sign (WYSIWYS). Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx proposed several methods that use WYSIWYS [Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2011]. An alternative to WYSIWYS was proposed by several ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 49, No. 4, Article 61, Publication date: December 2016. A Survey of Authentication and Communications Security in Online Banking 61:29 authors of this article under the name What You Enter Is What You Sign [Xxxxxx et al. 2014b].
Related Work. The original idea of extending the 2-party Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx scheme [15] to the multi-party setting dates back to the classical paper of Ingemarsson et al. [19], and is followed by many works [25, 13, 20, 3, 21, 26, 22] offering various levels of complexity. However, research on provably-secure group key agreement in concrete, realistic setting is fairly new. It is only recently that Bresson et al. [12, 8, 9] have presented the first group key agreement protocols proven secure in a well-defined security model which builds on earlier model of Xxxxxxx et al. [4]. The initial work [12] assumes that group membership is static, whereas later works [8, 9] focus on the dynamic case which we do not deal with here. But one drawback of their scheme is that its round complexity is linear in the number of group members. Consequently, as group size grows large, this scheme becomes impractical particularly in a wide area network with high communication latency. More recently, Xxxx and Yung [23] have proposed the first constant-round group key agreement protocol that has been proven secure in the security model of Bresson et al. [12]. They provide a formal proof of security for the two-round protocol of Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx [13], and introduce a one-round compiler that transforms any group key agree- ment protocol secure against a passive adversary into one that is secure against an active adversary. In this protocol all group members behave in a completely symmetric manner; in a group of size n, each member sends one broadcast message per round, and computes three modular exponentiations, O(n log n) modular multiplications, O(n) signature verifica- tions, and two signature generations. While this protocol is very efficient in general, the full symmetry negatively impacts on the overall performance of the protocol in our asymmetric setting; the computational cost of a mobile host is significant in a large group, due to the number of modular multiplications and signature verifications. Most recently, Bresson and Xxxxxxxx [7] have introduced another fully-symmetric proto- col which requires two rounds of communication. Interestingly, unlike previous approaches, they construct the protocol by combining the properties of the ElGamal encryption scheme [17] with standard secret sharing techniques [24]. However, with increasing number of par- ticipants, the complexity of the protocol becomes beyond the capabilities of a small mobile device. The protocol presented by Xxxx and Xxxx...
Related Work. A. Section 02070 - Selective Demolition
Related Work. A. Section 02070 - Selective Demolition: Temporary work to maintain Owner occupancy during demolition.
Related Work. Members of this International Union shall also have jurisdiction of: (1) all processes and procedures for decontamination of all contaminated areas; (2) all clean-up of any type debris caused by or during the preparation and/or application of any work described in this Section.
Related Work. A. Section 15060 - Pipes and Pipe Fittings.
