Security Evaluation Sample Clauses

Security Evaluation. Once AML transaction threshold is reached and consistently breached, EmbassyCard is obliged to refuse any more load on your card until the following year, a 12-month cool-off period.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Security Evaluation. An Overview S S The simulator, , knows how to answer all but one Corrupt queries, IDJ . The hard problem will be embedded in one of the sessions having IDJ as the responder. Note that neither the Session-Key Reveal queries nor the Session-State Reveal queries are allowed for this test session. For all other sessions having IDJ as the responder, can correctly answer the queries asked since all state information and the private key of the initiator IDI S are known to . S
Security Evaluation s Cognizant shall periodically evaluate its processes and systems for compliance with obligations imposed by applicable data protection law or contract with respect to the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and security of Personal Data and Cognizant Infrastructure. Cognizant shall document the results of these evaluations and any remediation activities taken in response to these evaluations.
Security Evaluation. From the evaluation in the last section, we find that the protocol is vulnerable to the attacks of case 3 (i.e., the general concatenation attack (Attack 7)) and case 4 (Attack 8) of the known-key attack and the second source substitution attack (Attack 9). Through the analysis in [10], the general concatenation attack is feasible to all two-party AK protocols which use only (general) commutative operations on random flips in the agreed key generation function, and Attack 7 echoes this point in the tripartite (so the group) key agreement protocols. In fact Attack 8 is also feasible to this type of protocol in the tripartite case. Because the existing formal models are sensitive to these attacks (i.e., the known- key attacks of case 3 and 4), we cannot use these formal models to prove the security of the protocol. The authors in [1] used a model without the Reveal query, which simulates the threat of compromising session keys, to prove the security of a tweaked version of ATK-2. They concluded that ATK-2 achieves the known session key security. However, Attack 6 on ATK-2 demonstrates that the security formulation without the Reveal query is problematic. Moreover, proposal 1 also shows one example in which the concatenation attack is not feasible while the general concatenation attack is applicable. Note that both the concatenation attack and the general concatenation attack are feasible to ATK-1. As Shim’s ([21]) and Xxxxx et al.’s ([24]) identity-based protocols use only (general) commutative computations on random flips as well, the attacks (Attack 7 and 8) are also applicable in these protocols even the messages are signed by the senders. Hence to design a protocol that is secure against these attacks, we have to introduce some noncommutative (asymmetric) computation on random flips in the key generation functions. A simple way to introduce the noncommutative computation is to apply a hash operation on the agreed secret and messages of a session to generate the session key (so called the session key derivation mechanism). Note that there is a slight difference in the tripartite case from two-party protocols to apply a hash operation on messages, because in the tripartite case each party’s received messages could be in different orders. Fortunately parties can use many ways to unify the message order, so as to obtain the same transcript. For example, parties can treat the message as multi-precision numbers and sort the messages according to the numbers’ v...
Security Evaluation. ─No later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, Amtrak, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), shall submit a report to Congress that contains─
Security Evaluation. Security evaluation of the designed mechanism is as follows, To calculate the cluster key and session key—both of which cannot be solved in polynomial time, as we utilized the security factor based on the chaotic maps-based Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx and discrete logarithm problems. Considering the attacker has complete command to access the network and use an unsecured channel to carry out destructive actions. The attacker cannot obtain the knowledge necessary to calculate the cluster and session-keys, though. Our key generation technique offers lower key sizes, faster computation, less memory usage, and energy consumption than key generation algorithms like RSA and ECC, making it ideally suited for infrastructure-less networks. Since the session-key is created proactively rather than passively and no data is saved on the network, our architecture is resistant to both modification and stolen verification attacks. Because nodes can modify and revise the cluster key, our mechanism is resistant to guessing attacks. To assess the security strength of our proposed protocol, we implemented it within the AVISPA tool, which, in turn, executed the algorithm. The results of this evaluation are depicted in Figure 3, providing valuable insights into the security attributes and robustness of our protocol design. This formal analysis is instrumental in ensuring that our protocol meets the stringent security requirements essential for its intended application. Figure 4: Simulation Result of Mutual Authentication Algorithm

Related to Security Evaluation

  • FINANCIAL EVALUATION (a) The financial bid shall be opened of only those bidders who have been found to be technically eligible. The financial bids shall be opened in presence of representatives of technically eligible bidders, who may like to be present. The institute shall inform the date, place and time for opening of financial bid.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation 1. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Association. Each such Project Report shall cover the period of one calendar semester, and shall be furnished to the Recipient not later than eight (8) weeks after the end of the period covered by such report for incorporation and forwarding by the Recipient to the Association of the overall Project Report.

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 11.1 The evaluation of the Employee’s performance will form the basis for rewarding outstanding performance or correcting unacceptable performance.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.