DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Webcenter for Pedagogical Freeware Collaborative Review and Retrieval

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Volume 3, Number 39 http://isedj.org/3/39/ August 9, 2005 In this issue: Towards a WebCenter for Pedagogical Freeware Collaborative Review and Retrieval Eunhee Kim Julian M. Scher New Jersey Institute of Technology New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Murray Turoff New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Abstract: A significant amount of freeware is accessible to students and faculty, from a variety of sources, and downloadable from a multitude of web-sites. Much of the freeware, often of equiva- lent quality to commercial off-the-shelf software, and many times unique and having no commercial equivalent, is underutilized by both educators and students, who generally are unaware of its avail- ability. With constraints on their financial resources, students and faculty are faced with limits on the purchase of commercial software, and would significantly benefit if they were to have a single place they could visit to obtain relevant software which is legitimately free of commercial fees. Our objective for this effort is the design and development of a WebCenter which will provide a “one-stop shopping experience” for both students and faculty who are seeking to obtain relevant freeware for their pedagogical needs. The WebCenter will satisfy the diverse needs of a community of users, who will provide links to the software titles which they use or have developed, and who, using a simple Technology Acceptance Model-like evaluation scheme, will supply collaborative feedback on the freeware titles, share their experiences with them, and provide suggestions for their usage. A preliminary taxonomy of pedagogical freeware has been designed, to categorize the freeware titles, and provide for ready retrieval by the user community. Keywords: freeware, WebCenter, pedagogical, collaborative, feedback, learning Recommended Citation: Kim, Scher, and Turoff (2005). Towards a WebCenter for Pedagogical Freeware Collaborative Review and Retrieval. Information Systems Education Journal, 3 (39). http://isedj.org/3/39/. ISSN: 1545-679X. (Also appears in The Proceedings of ISECON 2004: §4124. ISSN: 1542-7382.) This issue is on the Internet at http://isedj.org/3/39/ ISEDJ 3 (39) Information Systems Education Journal 2 The Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) of the Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP, Chicago, Illinois). • ISSN: 1545-679X. • First issue: 8 Sep 2003. • Title: Information Systems Education Journal. Variants: IS Education Journal; ISEDJ. • Phys- ical format: online. • Publishing frequency: irregular; as each article is approved, it is published immediately and constitutes a complete separate issue of the current volume. • Single issue price: free. • Subscription address: [email protected]. • Subscription price: free. • Electronic access: http://isedj.org/ • Contact person: Don Colton ([email protected]) 2005 AITP Education Special Interest Group Board of Directors Stuart A. Varden Paul M. Leidig Don Colton Ronald I. Frank Pace University Grand Valley St Univ BYU Hawaii Pace University Past President 2005 EDSIG President Vice President Secretary, 2005 Kenneth A. Grant Albert L. Harris Jeffrey Hsu Dena Johnson Ryerson University Appalachian St Univ Fairleigh Dickinson Tarleton State Univ Dir 2002-2003, 2005 JISE Editor Director, 2004-2005 Membership, 2005 Jens O. Liegle Marcos Sivitanides Robert B. Sweeney Margaret Thomas Georgia State Univ Texas St San Marcos U of South Alabama Ohio University Director, 2003-2005 Director, 2004-2005 Treasurer, 2004-2005 Director, 2005 Information Systems Education Journal Editorial and Review Board Don Colton Thomas N. Janicki Brigham Young University Hawaii University of North Carolina Wilmington Editor Associate Editor Amjad A. Abdullat Samuel Abraham Robert C. Beatty Neelima Bhatnagar Tonda Bone West Texas A&M U Siena Heights U N Illinois Univ U Pitt Johnstown Tarleton State U Alan T. Burns Lucia Dettori Ronald I. Frank Kenneth A. Grant Robert Grenier DePaul University DePaul University Pace University Ryerson Univ Augustana College Owen P. Hall, Jr Mark (Buzz) Hensel James Lawler Jens O. Liegle Terri L. Lenox Pepperdine Univ U Texas Arlington Pace University Georgia State U Westminster Coll Denise R. McGinnis Peter N. Meso Therese D. O’Neil Alan R. Peslak Robert B. Sweeney Mesa State College Georgia St Univ Indiana Univ PA Penn State Univ U of South Alabama William J. Tastle Margaret Thomas Jennifer Thomas Stuart A. Varden Charles Woratschek Ithaca College Ohio University Pace University Pace University Robert Morris Univ EDSIG activities include the publication of ISEDJ, the organization and execution of the annual ISECON conference held each fall, the publication of the Journal of Information Systems Education (JISE), and the designation and honoring of an IS Educator of the Year. • The Foundation for Information Technology Education has been the key sponsor of ISECON over the years. • The Association for Information Technology Professionals (AITP) provides the corporate umbrella under which EDSIG operates. c Copyright 2005 EDSIG. In the spirit of academic freedom, permission is granted to make and distribute unlimited copies of this issue in its PDF or printed form, so long as the entire document is presented, and it is not modified in any substantial way. c 2005 EDSIG http://isedj.org/3/39/ August 9, 2005 ISEDJ 3 (39) Kim, Scher, and Turoff 3 Towards a WebCenter for Pedagogical Freeware Collaborative Review and Retrieval Eunhee Kim ([email protected]) Julian M. Scher ([email protected]) Murray Turoff ([email protected]) Department of Information Systems, New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Abstract A significant amount of freeware is accessible to students and faculty, from a variety of sources, and downloadable from a multitude of web-sites. Much of the freeware, often of equivalent quality to commercial off-the-shelf software, and many times unique and having no commercial equivalent, is underutilized by both educators and students, who generally are unaware of its availability. With constraints on their financial resources, students and faculty are faced with limits on the purchase of commercial software, and would significantly benefit if they were to have a single place they could visit to obtain relevant software which is legitimately free of commercial fees. Our objective for this effort is the design and development of a WebCenter which will provide a “one-stop shopping experience” for both students and faculty who are seeking to obtain relevant freeware for their pedagogical needs. The WebCenter will satisfy the diverse needs of a community of users, who will provide links to the software titles which they use or have developed, and who, using a simple Technology Acceptance Model-like evaluation scheme, will supply collaborative feedback on the freeware titles, share their experiences with them, and provide suggestions for their usage. A preliminary taxonomy of pedagogical freeware has been designed, to categorize the freeware titles, and provide for ready retrieval by the user community. Keywords : freeware, WebCenter, pedagogical, collaborative, feedback, learning 1. FREEWARE: DEFINITIONS, SOURCES altruism.” Contrary to the popular usage of AND AUTHOR MOTIVATIONS the term today, Fluegelman actually encouraged users to make voluntary Freeware is generally considered to be payments for the software, and though he computer software which is available free of trademarked the term “freeware” to describe charge and distributed via the World Wide this, other software developers substituted Web. Usually (but not necessarily) freeware the term “shareware” as a more realistic is distributed without source code, and is designation which negated the gratuitous often accompanied by a license and tone of the original term. copyright which permit redistribution, but will often have limitations, such as In contrast to what we call freeware, restrictions on commercial use. The term shareware is software that is also distributed freeware was coined by Andrew Fluegelman typically via the World Wide Web, and allows in the early 1980’s, who applied it to a piece a user to try out the software for a specified of communications software he developed period of time, after which the user is for the MS-DOS platform, called PC-Talk, obligated to provide a payment to the and which he distributed to others. shareware author(s). The term shareware is Fluegelman marketed PC-Talk using the due to Bob Wallace (http://tinyurl.com/ term “freeware,” which he characterized as 5mlko ) who coined this term to describe his “an experiment in economics more than word processor, PC-Write, in the mid-1980’s. c 2005 EDSIG http://isedj.org/3/39/ August 9, 2005 ISEDJ 3 (39) Kim, Scher, and Turoff 4 A slight variant of shareware is termed altruistic? In many, but not all cases, the “crippleware,” and refers to the notion that answer is “yes” and, indeed, the original the full features of the shareware title can spirit of the internet was a free sharing of only be obtained after the payment of the knowledge, and many freeware authors see registration fee – until then, several features freeware as an opportunity to “return” will be “crippled.” something to the community which provided them with the excitement of enhanced We do note the confusion which persists knowledge and new skills. If financial today as to the
Recommended publications
  • End User License Agreement

    End User License Agreement

    MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS WINDOWS EMBEDDED STANDARD 7 These license terms are an agreement between you and YSI incorporated. Please read them. They apply to the software included on this device. The software also includes any separate media on which you received the software. The software on this device includes software licensed from Microsoft Corporation or its affiliate. The terms also apply to any Microsoft • updates, • supplements, • Internet-based services, and • support services for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so, those terms apply. If you obtain updates or supplements directly from Microsoft, then Microsoft, and not YSI incorporated, licenses those to you. As described below, using the software also operates as your consent to the transmission of certain computer information for Internet-based services. By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact YSI incorporated to determine its return policy for a refund or credit. If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below. 1. USE RIGHTS Use. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. You may use the software on the device. 2. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS a. Specific Use. YSI incorporated designed the device for a specific use. You may only use the software for that use. b. Other Software. You may use other programs with the software as long as the other programs directly supports the manufacturer’s specific use for the device, or provide system utilities, resource management, or anti-virus or similar protection.
  • Rootkit- Rootkits.For.Dummies 2007.Pdf

    Rootkit- Rootkits.For.Dummies 2007.Pdf

    01_917106 ffirs.qxp 12/21/06 12:04 AM Page i Rootkits FOR DUMmIES‰ 01_917106 ffirs.qxp 12/21/06 12:04 AM Page ii 01_917106 ffirs.qxp 12/21/06 12:04 AM Page iii Rootkits FOR DUMmIES‰ by Larry Stevenson and Nancy Altholz 01_917106 ffirs.qxp 12/21/06 12:04 AM Page iv Rootkits For Dummies® Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc. 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 www.wiley.com Copyright © 2007 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permit- ted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46256, (317) 572-3447, fax (317) 572-4355, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Trademarks: Wiley, the Wiley Publishing logo, For Dummies, the Dummies Man logo, A Reference for the Rest of Us!, The Dummies Way, Dummies Daily, The Fun and Easy Way, Dummies.com, and related trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries, and may not be used without written permission.
  • Software Licensing in the Cloud Age Solving the Impact of Cloud Computing on Software Licensing Models

    Software Licensing in the Cloud Age Solving the Impact of Cloud Computing on Software Licensing Models

    The International Journal of Soft Computing and Software Engineering [JSCSE], Vol. 3, No. 3, Special Issue: The Proceeding of International Conference on Soft Computing and Software Engineering 2013 [SCSE’13], San Francisco State University, CA, U.S.A., March 2013 Doi: 10.7321/jscse.v3.n3.60 e-ISSN: 2251-7545 Software Licensing in the Cloud Age Solving the Impact of Cloud Computing on Software Licensing Models Malcolm McRoberts Enterprise Architecture Core Technology Center Harris Corporation GCSD Melbourne, Florida, USA [email protected] Abstract—Cloud computing represents a major shift in identify key issues that require the attention of the industry information systems architecture, combining both new as a whole. deployment models and new business models. Rapid provisioning, elastic scaling, and metered usage are essential A. Characteristics of Cloud Computing (Benefits) characteristics of cloud services, and they require cloud According to the National Institute of Standards and resources with these same characteristics. When cloud services Technology (NIST) [1], cloud computing is a model for depend on commercial software, the licenses for that software enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access become another resource to be managed by the cloud. This to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., paper examines common licensing models, including open networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that source, and how well they function in a cloud services model. It can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal discusses creative, new, cloud-centric licensing models and how management effort or service provider interaction. they allow providers to preserve and expand their revenue This translates to a number of benefits for large and small streams as their partners and customers transition to the organizations alike, as well as for individuals.
  • An Introduction to Malware

    An Introduction to Malware

    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 24, 2021 An Introduction to Malware Sharp, Robin Publication date: 2017 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Sharp, R. (2017). An Introduction to Malware. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. An Introduction to Malware Robin Sharp DTU Compute Spring 2017 Abstract These notes, written for use in DTU course 02233 on Network Security, give a short introduction to the topic of malware. The most important types of malware are described, together with their basic principles of operation and dissemination, and defenses against malware are discussed. Contents 1 Some Definitions............................2 2 Classification of Malware........................2 3 Vira..................................3 4 Worms................................
  • Licencování Softwaru Software Licensing

    Licencování Softwaru Software Licensing

    Licencování softwaru Software licensing Bakalá řská práce Michal Kudrna Vedoucí bakalá řské práce: Ing. Václav Novák, CSc. Jiho česká univerzita v Českých Bud ějovicích Pedagogická fakulta Katedra informatiky Rok 2009 Prohlášení Prohlášení Prohlašuji, že svoji bakalá řskou práci jsem vypracoval samostatn ě pouze s použitím pramen ů a literatury uvedených v seznamu citované literatury. Prohlašuji, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č. 111/1998 Sb. v platném zn ění souhlasím se zve řejn ěním své bakalá řské práce, a to v nezkrácené podob ě elektronickou cestou ve ve řejn ě p řístupné části databáze STAG provozované Jiho českou univerzitou v Českých Bud ějovicích na jejích internetových stránkách. V Českých Bud ějovicích dne - 2 - Anotace Anotace Tato bakalá řská práce pojednává o možnostech licencování program ů, uvádí příklady licencování vybraných spole čností typu Microsoft Corporation, Sun Microsystems a za řazuje metody kontroly dodržování diskutovaných licencí. Abstract This work deals with ways and means of program licensing, shows examples of licensing in companies like Microsoft Corporation, Sun Microsystems and includes verification methods to observance these license rules. - 3 - Pod ěkování Pod ěkování Rád bych pod ěkoval všem, kte ří mi pomáhali po celou dobu mého bakalá řského studia, zvlášt ě však pedagogickým pracovník ům Katedry informatiky Pedagogické fakulty Jiho české univerzity v Českých Bud ějovicích, zejména pak vedoucímu této práce, panu Ing. Václavu Novákovi, CSc. - 4 - Obsah Obsah 1 ÚVOD.......................................................................................6
  • Versatility (C) Reliability (D) All of the Above

    Versatility (C) Reliability (D) All of the Above

    1. Which of the following is/are characteristics of Computer? (A) Diligence (B) Versatility (C) Reliability (D) All of the Above Answer (D) All of the Above 2. Faulty inputs lead to faulty results. It is known as _______ (A) Diligence (B) Versatility (C) GIGO (D) None of the Above Answer (C) GIGO 3. GIGO stands for______ (A) Garbage In Garbage Out (B) Gateway In Gateway Out (C) Gopher In Gopher Out (D) Geographic In Geographic Out Answer (A) Garbage In Garbage Out 4. The capacity to perform multiple tasks simultaneously is termed as ______ (A) Diligence (B) Versatility (C) Reliability (D) All of the Above Answer (B) Versatility 5. A computer does not suffer from tiredness and lack of concentration. It is known as _______ (A) Diligence (B) Versatility (C) GIGO (D) None of the Above Answer (A) Diligence 6. First Generation computers used ______ for Circuitry and ________ for memory (A) Transistor and Magnetic Core (B) IC and Magnetic Memory (C) Vacuum tubes and Magnetic drum (D) IC and Magnetic Core Answer (C) Vacuum tubes and Magnetic drum 7. Second Generation computers were based on _______ (A) IC (B) Vacuum tube (C) transistor (D) None of the Above Answer (C) transistor 8. FLOPS stands for______ (A) Floating Point Operation Per Second (B) File Processing Operation Per Second (C) Floating Processing Operation Per Second (D) File Loading Operation Per Second Answer (A) Floating Point Operation Per Second 9. Which language was used to program Second Generation computers? (A) Binary Coded language (B) Assembly language (C) Machine language (D) None of the Above Answer (B) Assembly language 10.
  • Business Models for Free and Open Source Software

    Business Models for Free and Open Source Software

    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 07 Issue: 09 | Sep 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 BUSINESS MODELS FOR FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Anikesh S M ------------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - Android Open Source Software has a great impact on how highly software dependent industry of today is developing products and delivering to the customers. The most common misconception about open source software is that, it is just enthusiastic developers who spend their time creating software as a hobby and free of cost. In the past “open source software” was synonymous with “free software.” Profit was not the primary aim of developing software with open code through group effort, but financial stability is a must for organizations to thrive in this competent world filled with proprietary software giants. [3] Things have changed today and there are numerous ways in which open source software makes profit. Lately, developers have started thinking about how to monetize their product. We're going to highlight a few common ways and business models through which the open source software is making and can make profit. Keywords--- Software, business, Open Source, Red Hat, SaaS. I. INTRODUCTION Open Sourcing Software has become an important area of research due to its fast-growing number of open source communities/forums and the availability of these software products in a big variety of domains. Business models are abstract and conceptual models that are used to represent the business and money earning logic of a company in a structured way. The traditional business models for software are being challenged by the redistribution of open source software, and the fact that the user/customer does have several additional rights not usually allowed in the tightly coupled traditional models, the idea of free redistribution is a bit hard to understand for the traditional business models.
  • Malware Analysis Sandboxing: Is Open Source Or Commercial Right for You?

    Malware Analysis Sandboxing: Is Open Source Or Commercial Right for You?

    Malware Analysis Sandboxing: Is Open Source or Commercial Right for You? Summary Sandboxing: What is the Best Fit for You? Many enterprises In the war against cybercriminals and hackers, dynamic malware analysis technology has emerged as one of the most valuable weapons for information evaluating sandboxing security teams. “Sandboxing” products help security professionals identify products find unknown malware, respond more quickly to Zero-day attacks, thwart APTs and themselves considering other advanced attacks, and perform forensic examinations of breaches. both products from Many enterprises evaluating sandboxing products find themselves considering commercial vendors and both products from commercial vendors and open source projects. The commercial solutions are more mature and feature-rich, and are supported open source projects. by the vendors; the open source alternatives are “free” and make source code available for modification. This comparison of What is the best fit for you? Do the additional features and predictable support Cuckoo Sandbox and of the commercial products justify the extra up-front cost? ThreatAnalyzer, two This white paper will help you answer those questions by comparing two dynamic malware analysis solutions: ThreatAnalyzer from ThreatTrack Security, leading dynamic malware and Cuckoo Sandbox from the Cuckoo project. analysis solutions, will We will discuss: help you determine 1. “Generic” advantages that often differentiate open source and which approach is the commercial alternatives. best fit for you. 2. What advantages actually apply to sandboxing solutions. 3. Three feature areas that are particularly important for dynamic malware analysis: - Defeating VM-aware malware. - Providing customized environments and detection rules. - Accelerating malware analysis and reporting. Generic Advantages of Open Source and Commercial Solutions Through many debates in the IT industry press, advocates of open source and commercial software have presented what might be called the generic advantages of each approach.
  • COTS-Based Software Development: Processes and Open Issues

    COTS-Based Software Development: Processes and Open Issues

    The Journal of Systems and Software 61 (2002) 189–199 www.elsevier.com/locate/jss COTS-based software development: Processes and open issues M. Morisio d,*, C.B. Seaman b,c, V.R. Basili a,c, A.T. Parra e, S.E. Kraft f, S.E. Condon e a University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA b University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA c Fraunhofer Center Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA d Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino 10129, Italy e Computer Sciences Corporation, Lanham, MD, USA f NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA Received 1 March 2001; received in revised form 1 July 2001; accepted 1 September 2001 Abstract The work described in this paper is an investigation of the COTS-based software development within a particular NASA en- vironment, with an emphasis on the processes used. Fifteen projects using a COTS-based approach were studied and their actual process was documented. This process is evaluated to identify essential differences in comparison to traditional software develop- ment. The main differences, and the activities for which projects require more guidance, are requirements definition and COTS selection, high level design, integration and testing. Starting from these empirical observations, a new process and set of guidelines for COTS-based development are developed and briefly presented. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Commercial off-the-shelf; COTS; Component-based; Empirical study; Software development process 1. Introduction [The marketplace is] characterized by a vast array of products and product claims, extreme quality The world of software development has evolved and capability differences between products, and rapidly in the last decade.
  • NIST SP 800-28 Version 2 Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile

    NIST SP 800-28 Version 2 Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile

    Special Publication 800-28 Version 2 (Draft) Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile Code Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Wayne A. Jansen Theodore Winograd Karen Scarfone NIST Special Publication 800-28 Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile Version 2 Code (Draft) Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Wayne A. Jansen Theodore Winograd Karen Scarfone C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 March 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology James M. Turner, Acting Director GUIDELINES ON ACTIVE CONTENT AND MOBILE CODE Reports on Computer Systems Technology The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analysis to advance the development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-28 Version 2 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ.
  • Architecture for Analyzing Potentially Unwanted Applications

    Architecture for Analyzing Potentially Unwanted Applications

    Architecture for analyzing Potentially Unwanted Applications Alberto Geniola School of Science Thesis submitted for examination for the degree of Master of Science in Technology. Espoo 10.10.2016 Thesis supervisor: Prof. Tuomas Aura Thesis advisor: M.Sc. Markku Antikainen aalto university abstract of the school of science master’s thesis Author: Alberto Geniola Title: Architecture for analyzing Potentially Unwanted Applications Date: 10.10.2016 Language: English Number of pages: 8+149 Department of Computer Science Professorship: Information security Supervisor: Prof. Tuomas Aura Advisor: M.Sc. Markku Antikainen The spread of potentially unwanted programs (PUP) and its supporting pay par install (PPI) business model have become relevant issues in the IT security area. While PUPs may not be explicitly malicious, they still represent a security hazard. Boosted by PPI companies, PUP software evolves rapidly. Although manual analysis represents the best approach for distinguishing cleanware from PUPs, it is inapplicable to the large amount of PUP installers appearing each day. To challenge this fast evolving phenomenon, automatic analysis tools are required. However, current automated malware analisyis techniques suffer from a number of limitations, such as the inability to click through PUP installation processes. Moreover, many malware analysis automated sandboxes (MSASs) can be detected, by taking advantage of artifacts affecting their virtualization engine. In order to overcome those limitations, we present an architectural design for imple- menting a MSAS mainly targeting PUP analysis. We also provide a cross-platform implementation of the MSAS, capable of running PUP analysis in both virtual and bare metal environments. The developed prototype has proved to be working and was able to automatically analyze more that 480 freeware installers, collected by the three top most ranked freeware websites, such as cnet.com, filehippo.com and softonic.com.
  • 4. What Is the Difference Between Commercial Software and Open Source Software

    4. What Is the Difference Between Commercial Software and Open Source Software

    4. what is the difference between commercial software and open source software Continued from 'How to Choose a CMS for Your Website?' When evaluating What is the Difference Between Commercial and Open Blog Open source software is generally free or has low-cost licensing options. Commercial. 3 main differences between Open Source and commercial software. allow lots of people to use the software and use PDF in Java for free. There is a significant difference between popular open source options such Open source software is a good choice for the following reasons. This question is often framed as a war between open source and commercial users. Your choice should be the software that is the simplest for you and your useful guide to explain the difference between open source vs licensed software. The ongoing debate on commercial software versus open source has commercial software would argue are at least comparable between both models. available for both commercial software and open source solutions to. Read our commercial CMS comparison to learn difference between open source systems and commercial software to see which is right for you. some basic differences between the business models of 4. Open Source and Commercial Software. Open source vendors create revenue from supporting. Most open source and commercial software share so much in common that it is an individual effort and team effort which are mostly paid for. To understand the difference between the two types of software and their licenses activism to make it more appealing to commercial software companies. of open source software is derived from the FSF's definition for free.