<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/css/rss20.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:pheedo="http://www.pheedo.com/namespace/pheedo" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>IEEE Security and Privacy</title>
		<link>http://www.computer.org/security</link>
		<description>Organizations relying on the Internet face significant challenges to ensure that their networks operate safely. And that their systems continue to provide critical services even in the face of attacks.
Denial of service, worms, DNS, and router attacks are increasing. To help you stay one step ahead of these and other threats, the IEEE Computer Society has published a new periodical in 2003, IEEE Security &amp; Privacy magazine.	</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:13 GMT</pubDate>
		
		<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://www.pheedo.com/api/hub/"/>
		<atom:link rel="self" href="http://feeds.pheedo.com/ieee_security_and_privacy" type="application/rss+xml"/>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: HOVER: Trustworthy Elections with Hash-only Verification</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=bdb3c7cd12e991422099113bcce0cb92</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.63</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>We propose HOVER, an end-to-end (E2E) verifiable voting system with distributed trust in which the only cryptographic primitive used in verification is a collision-resistant hash function. We believe hash-only verification has the potential to make E2E elections more accessible to audiences who do not posses a strong background in cryptography.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=bdb3c7cd12e991422099113bcce0cb92&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=bdb3c7cd12e991422099113bcce0cb92&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.63</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=08e1aaef7efc13c38ed94b1b7f476c26</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.56</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Risk-limiting audits provide statistical assurance that election outcomes are correct by hand counting portions of the audit trail--paper ballots or voter-verifiable paper records. We sketch two types of risk-limiting audits, ballot-polling audits and comparison audits, and give example computations. Tools to perform the computations are available at statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Vote/auditTools.htm.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=08e1aaef7efc13c38ed94b1b7f476c26&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=08e1aaef7efc13c38ed94b1b7f476c26&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.56</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Evidence-based elections</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=56997508ee0fe50dea39f4613db43625</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.62</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>We propose an alternative to current requirements for certifying voting equipment and conducting elections. We argue that elections should be structured to provide convincing affirmative evidence that the reported outcomes actually reflect how people voted. This can be accomplished with a combination of software-independent voting systems, compliance audits, and risk-limiting audits. Together, these yield a resilient canvass framework: a fault-tolerant approach to conducting elections that gives strong evidence that the reported outcome is correct or reports that the evidence is not convincing. We argue that, if evidence-based elections are adopted, certification and testing of voting equipment can be relaxed, saving money and time and reducing barriers to innovation in voting systems---and election integrity will benefit. We conclude that there should be more regulation of the evidence trail and less regulation of equipment, and that compliance audits and risk-limiting audits should be required.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=56997508ee0fe50dea39f4613db43625&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=56997508ee0fe50dea39f4613db43625&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.62</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Security Events Monitoring in Distributed Systems Environment</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=5afbc2aa8387ebb40a7aef15419396f4</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.61</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Today organization efficiency depends much more on IT than in the past. Services like internal portal, e-mail communication, financial and HR systems, all rely on "intangible" computers that move the business forward. These systems are under pressure to be more secure than ever as unauthorized access to confidential information is exposing company&amp;#x2019;s operational environment and reputation to high risk. One of the aspects to consider in this situation is managing security events in the IT environment. This article presents a design and implementation of two security events monitoring approaches in distributed systems environment.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=5afbc2aa8387ebb40a7aef15419396f4&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=5afbc2aa8387ebb40a7aef15419396f4&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.61</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Insecurity of Wireless Networks</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=412366ddb66af2dcb4cedbe1665bda5e</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.60</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Wi-Fi is the standard protocol for wireless networks used extensively within U.S. critical infrastructures (e.g., Smart Grid). Since the WEP (Wired Equivalency Privacy) security protocol was broken, the WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) protocol was considered the secure alternative compatible with hardware developed for the WEP. However, in November 2008 Beck and Tews developed an attack on the WPA, allowing packets to be forged. Halverson and Haugen extended these attacks by decrypting larger DHCP packets. Open source systems and methods (OSSM) have long been used to secure networks against these types of attacks. In this article, we review these OSSMs and some experimental results from recent attacks on the IEEE 802.11i WPA protocol. The methodology used recreates current attacks in a laboratory setting, recording both wired and wireless traffic. The attacks are analyzed, and then methods of intrusion detection and prevention are discussed in the context of critical &amp;#x201C;Internet&amp;#x201D; infrastructure protection.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=412366ddb66af2dcb4cedbe1665bda5e&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=412366ddb66af2dcb4cedbe1665bda5e&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.60</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: The Future of E-voting in Australia</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=04fe4c94eb45a53c8735f71205a5239c</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.59</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Australia has a long history of transparent, high-integrity secret ballot elections. As elections are increasingly dependent on electronic systems, the traditions of transparency and privacy must be extended to new technologies and new ways of scrutinising them. We examine this challenge and describe the most promising way forward. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) is undertaking a pioneering project that aims to set the standard for how Australian e-voting systems should be commissioned, developed and scrutinised. Through collaboration with the Universities of New South Wales, Melbourne, Luxembourg and Surrey, the VEC is developing the largest universally verifiable public e-voting system in the world, based on Pr&amp;#x00EA;t &amp;#x00E0; Voter.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=04fe4c94eb45a53c8735f71205a5239c&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=04fe4c94eb45a53c8735f71205a5239c&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.59</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Is Europe ready to provide a pan-European Identity Management System?</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=3c01eb99b72c5071838387c3bc0b5b48</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.58</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Nowadays European citizens&amp;#x2019; digital identity is usually based on the X.509 standard. The management of this identity by public administrations is an important challenge that sharpens when interoperability among the public administrations of different countries becomes necessary. Owing to the diversity of identity management systems, when the user of a given system seeks to communicate with governments outside the scope of their own local identity management system, both management systems must be linked and understand each other. To achieve this, the European Union has addressed the creation of an interoperability framework for Identity Management Systems or IDMs. This paper provides an overview of current state of IDMs at a pan-European level, analyzing and identifying issues where there is an agreement, those that have not been solved and which are preventing the adoption of a large-scale model.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=3c01eb99b72c5071838387c3bc0b5b48&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=3c01eb99b72c5071838387c3bc0b5b48&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.58</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Is Everything We Know About  Password-Stealing  Wrong?</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=64f7b374b9ed7dd80ee063e59a8643b8</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.57</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Federal Reserve Regulation E guarantees that US consumers are made whole when their bank passwords are stolen. The implications lead us to several interesting conclusions. First, emptying accounts is extremely hard: transferring money in a way that is irreversible can generally only be done in a way that cannot later be repudiated. Since password-enabled transfers can always be repudiated this explains the importance of mules, who accept bad transfers and initiate good ones. We demonstrate that it is the mule accounts rather than those of victims that are pillaged. We argue that passwords are not the bottle-neck, and are but one, and by no means the most important, ingredient in the cyber-crime value chain. We show that, in spite of appearances, password-stealing is a bad business proposition.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=64f7b374b9ed7dd80ee063e59a8643b8&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=64f7b374b9ed7dd80ee063e59a8643b8&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.57</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Through the Looking Glass -- Transitioning Parfait into a Development Tool</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=bf1d01d7edb350242f31d2f2b2f002b2</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.30</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>The Parfait static code analysis tool started as a research project at Sun Labs (now Oracle Labs), to address runtime and precision shortcomings of then-available C/C++ tools, as pointed out by developers within the company. After developers started to see and verify the research outcomes, they raised more practical requests, to ensure the tool would be easy to use and integrate. This helped to transition Parfait from a research artifact to a tool for developers. At present, Parfait is used on a daily basis to prevent new defects from being introduced into codebases, as well as reporting defects in existing code. It has been integrated into the build process of several organizations at Oracle. In this paper we explain the research design goals for Parfait, the practical development features that made the tool popular amongst developers, and our experiences with deploying the tool into our company's development organizations.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=bf1d01d7edb350242f31d2f2b2f002b2&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=bf1d01d7edb350242f31d2f2b2f002b2&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.30</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>IEEE Security and Privacy - March-April 2012 (Vol. 10, No. 2)</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=75b42df628b441f9b14ec8e9fdf445ba</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://opac.ieeecomputersociety.org/opac?year=2012&amp;amp;volume=10&amp;amp;issue=02&amp;amp;acronym=security</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>IEEE Security and Privacy&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=75b42df628b441f9b14ec8e9fdf445ba&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=75b42df628b441f9b14ec8e9fdf445ba&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.computer.org/portal/site/security/</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Common Criteria meets Realpolitik - Trust, Alliances, and Potential Betrayal</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=7893a2c1a9445ff9467dd43f91a7cb3e</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.29</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation has the ambition to be a global standard for IT-security certification. The issued certifications are mutually recognized between the signatories of the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement. The key element of mutual relationships is trust. A question raised in this paper is how far trust can be maintained in Common Criteria when additional signatories enter with conflicting geopolitical interests to earlier signatories. Other issues raised are control over production, the lack of permanent organization in the Common Criteria, which leads to concerns of being able to oversee the actual compliance. As Common Criteria is formulated today it is unlikely that it would survive over time. The reasons why it might fail is the rigid framework, rapid technical development makes a security target a moving target leading to instability and uncertainty, and the increased militarization in cyberspace moving from information assurance to information operations.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=7893a2c1a9445ff9467dd43f91a7cb3e&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=7893a2c1a9445ff9467dd43f91a7cb3e&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.29</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: The Blind Man's Bluff Approach to Security Using IPv6</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=48ddca7b12c36e2984792d8d970fe013</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.28</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Most networks today employ static network defenses. The problem with a static defense is that an adversary has unlimited time to circumvent it. We propose a moving target defense, based on the Internet Protocol version 6, that dynamically obscures network-layer and transport-layer addresses. Our technique can be thought of as "frequency hopping" in the Internet protocol (IP) space. By constantly moving the logical location of a host on a network, our technique prevents targeted attacks, host tracking, and eavesdropping. We demonstrate the feasibility and functionality of our design using prototypes deployed on the Virginia Tech campus-wide IPv6 network.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=48ddca7b12c36e2984792d8d970fe013&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=48ddca7b12c36e2984792d8d970fe013&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.28</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: SEcure Neighbor Discovery: Review, Challenges, Perspectives and Recommendations</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=187d9a8760bed55db00d1ac4278d2cfb</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.27</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) is one of the main protocols in IPv6 suite. However, it has no security mechanisms and it is vulnerable to various attacks. Therefore, SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) Protocol is designed to countermeasure NDP threats. SEND is based on the usage of RSA Key pair, Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA), digital signature and X.509 certification. Unfortunately, SEND deployment is still a challenge for several reasons. First, SEND is compute-intensive. Second, SEND deployment is not trivial, and the SEND Authorization Delegation Discovery (ADD) is mostly so far theoretical rather than practical. Third, operating systems lack the sophisticated implementations for SEND. In this article, we give an overview of the SEND deployment challenges, and review some of the proposals to optimize SEND to make it applicable.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=187d9a8760bed55db00d1ac4278d2cfb&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=187d9a8760bed55db00d1ac4278d2cfb&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.27</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Measuring the Value of Static Analysis Tool Deployments</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=d3e6b273dd749b9b0f02b1604d264fd6</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.4</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>For optimum success, static analysis tools must balance the ability to find important defects against the risk of false positive reports. Each reported warning must be interpreted by a human to determine if any action is warranted, and the criteria for judging warnings can vary significantly depending on the role of the analyst, the security risk, the nature of the defect, the deployment environment, and many other factors. These considerations mean that it can be difficult to compare tools with different characteristics, or even to arrive at the optimal way to configure a single tool. This paper presents a model for computing the value of using a static analysis tool. Given inputs such as engineering effort, the cost of an exploited security vulnerability, and some easily-measured tool properties, the model allows users to make rational decisions about how best to deploy static analysis.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d3e6b273dd749b9b0f02b1604d264fd6&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d3e6b273dd749b9b0f02b1604d264fd6&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.4</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: The Software Industry&amp;#x2019;s &amp;#x201C;Clean Water Act&amp;#x201D; Alternative</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=97798cd871beb9c2492d45bb983f1390</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.3</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>With water we have trust that qualities harmful to its intended use are not present. In order to avoid a regulatory &amp;#x201C;solution&amp;#x201D; to problems with &amp;#x201C;contaminants&amp;#x201D; that endanger software&amp;#x2019;s intended use, the industry needs to put in place processes and technical methods for examining software for the contaminants that are most dangerous given the intended use of specific software. The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE&amp;#x2122;) offers the industry a list of potentially dangerous contaminants to software. Common Weakness Scoring System (CWSS&amp;#x2122;) and Common Weakness Risk Analysis Framework (CWRAF&amp;#x2122;) provide a standard method for identifying which of these dangerous contaminants would be most harmful to a particular organization, given the intended use of a specific piece of software within that organization. By finding systematic and verifiable ways of identifying, removing, and gaining assurance that contaminated software has been addressed, software providers can improve customers&amp;#x2019; confidence in systems and possibly avoid regulatory solutions.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=97798cd871beb9c2492d45bb983f1390&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=97798cd871beb9c2492d45bb983f1390&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.3</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Static Analyzers: Seat Belts for Your Code</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=59b216022807440139bafe857e215aa2</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.2</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Just as seat belt use is wide spread, we argue that use of a static analyzer should be part of ethical software development. Drawing on our experience with three Static Analysis Tool Expositions (SATE) we show that static analysis report actual vulnerabilities. Even though the expression of most weaknesses is far more complex than a single bug of this type at exactly these lines of code, static analysis tools identify real vulnerabilities. Their information-rich reports and graphical interfaces help developers efficiently and correctly understand weaknesses and possible consequences. Tool's capabilities complement expert analysis. We also collected thousands of engineered reference programs with known weaknesses in the SAMATE Reference Dataset (SRD). Using SATE data and the publicly-available SRD programs, we plan to develop benchmarks so users can be confident about how much assurance the use of static analyzers provides.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=59b216022807440139bafe857e215aa2&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=59b216022807440139bafe857e215aa2&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.2</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: SAVI: Static-Analysis Vulnerability Indicator</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=19cc15369316f65b1421ae29a2cb35d1</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.1</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>While open source software presents opportunities for software acquisition, it also introduces additional risks. The question of how to select open source applications needs to be based on security risks as well as features. Risks include security vulnerabilities, of which published vulnerabilities are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the total security vulnerabilities in an application. Having the source code of an application allows us to look deeper at its security. We use static analysis to help evaluate the risks presented by application. In this paper, we introduce SAVI (Static Analysis Vulnerability Indicator), a metric designed to assess risks of using software built by external developers. This metric combines several types of static analysis data to rank application vulnerability. We analyze five open source projects studied over a four year period, finding strong correlations between static analysis metrics and the quantity of subsequently reported vulnerabilities.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=19cc15369316f65b1421ae29a2cb35d1&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=19cc15369316f65b1421ae29a2cb35d1&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.1</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Quality Measures in Biometric Systems</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=d6b5fc74d064b0013b68959e512e9055</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.178</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Biometric technology has been increasingly deployed in the last decade, offering greater security and convenience than traditional methods of personal recognition. But although the performance of biometric systems is heavily affected by the quality of biometric signals, prior work on quality evaluation is limited. Quality assessment is a critical issue in the security arena, especially in challenging scenarios (e.g. surveillance cameras, forensics, portable devices or remote access through Internet). Different questions regarding the factors influencing biometric quality and how to overcome them, or the incorporation of quality measures in the context of biometric systems have to be analyzed first. In this paper, a review of the state-of-the-art in these matters is provided, giving an overall framework of the main factors related to the challenges associated with biometric quality.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d6b5fc74d064b0013b68959e512e9055&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d6b5fc74d064b0013b68959e512e9055&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.178</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Simply Blaming Non-Compliance is too Convenient: What Really Causes Information Breaches?</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=e5aee51b435246306fbb76118d7a26b3</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.157</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>The unacceptable occurrence of information breaches demands a vigorous response. The traditional approach is by using policies to constrain and control. Information security policies inform employees about appropriate uses of information technology. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of policies in reducing losses. This paper explores the possible reasons for this, and reports on a survey carried out to detect the presence of these factors in an NHS health board. A plea is made for attention to be paid to the entire system, and not a myopic focus on individuals. The survey shows how the pressures and rules imposed by the policies often place staff in an impossible position. They sometimes feel this leaves them no option but to break the rules, simply to get their jobs done. The paper concludes by identifying areas where the policy formulation and implementation processes can be improved to alleviate these pressures.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=e5aee51b435246306fbb76118d7a26b3&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=e5aee51b435246306fbb76118d7a26b3&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.157</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Usable Secure Private Search</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=073ab4aac444b6166493b9017cdac262</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.155</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>It is a common requirement in real world applications for untrusting parties to be able to share sensitive information securely. We describe a secure anonymous database search scheme (SADS) that provides exact match capability. Using a new primitive, re-routable encryption, and the ideas of Bloom Filters and deterministic encryption, SADS allows multiple parties to efficiently execute exact match queries over distributed encrypted database in a controlled manner. We further consider a more general search setting allowing similarity searches, going beyond existing work that considers similarity in terms of error-tolerance and Hamming distance by capturing semantic level similarity in our definition. Building on the cryptographic and privacy preserving guarantees of the SADS primitive, we then describe a general framework for engineering usable private secure search systems.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=073ab4aac444b6166493b9017cdac262&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=073ab4aac444b6166493b9017cdac262&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.155</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Detecting Targeted Malicious Email Using Persistent Threat and Recipient Oriented Features</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=e4ee0a345d57b74f084bc424c666c179</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.154</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>Targeted malicious emails to enable computer network exploitation have become more insidious and more widely documented in recent years. Beyond spam or phishing designed to trick users into revealing personal information, targeted malicious email (TME) facilitates computer network exploitation and the gathering of sensitive information from targeted networks. These TMEs are not singular unrelated events, instead they are coordinated and persistent campaigns that can span years. We survey existing email filtering techniques, implement new techniques for detecting TME and compare these new techniques to two traditional detection methods, SpamAssassin and ClamAV. The new email filtering techniques are based on using persistent threat and recipient oriented features of email with a random forest classifier. Incorporating these features improves the detection of TME over SpamAssassin and ClamAV while maintaining reasonable false positive rates. During testing, the new techniques correctly classify 91&amp;#x0025; of TME as compared to the 16&amp;#x0025; identified by SpamAssassin+ClamAV.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=e4ee0a345d57b74f084bc424c666c179&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=e4ee0a345d57b74f084bc424c666c179&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.154</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PrePrint: Challenges in Power System Information Security</title>
			<link>http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=1c6b7bdb07b31b3ba3dfc49201b1fa77</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.151</pheedo:origLink>
			<description>The transition from today&amp;#x2019;s power systems to the smart grid will be a long evolutionary process. While it might introduce new vulnerabilities, it will also open up for opportunities for improving system security. In this article we consider various facets of power system security. We discuss the difficulty of achieving all-encompassing component level security in power system IT infrastructures due to its cost and potential performance implications. We then outline a framework for modeling system-wide security, which facilitates the assessment of the system&amp;#x2019;s security despite its complexity by capturing the interaction between system components. We use the example of power system state estimation to illustrate how the security of the system can potentially be improved by leveraging the knowledge of the physical processes and the significant amount of redundant information. Finally, we touch upon the problem of information availability, a key security requirement in power system control and operation systems.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=1c6b7bdb07b31b3ba3dfc49201b1fa77&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=1c6b7bdb07b31b3ba3dfc49201b1fa77&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://tags.bluekai.com/site/5148&quot;/&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://insight.adsrvr.org/track/evnt/?ct=0:8pyu3gz&amp;adv=wouzn4v&amp;fmt=3&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.151</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
