Hi everybody, my name is Abita Hawk and today I'd like to talk about our paper Logarithmic Size Linkable Threshold Ring Signatures in the Plane Model. I bolded threshold in the title because that's what I want your main takeaway to be, how we achieved the threshold. Part 1 Background and Contribution Let's start by explaining what a ring signature is. In the ring signature setting, a party wants to send out an authenticated message anonymously on behalf of a set. The set is known as a ring. Anybody can join the ring. So let's suppose we have these three characters, Alice, Bob and Charlie. Alice is going to join by publishing her verification key, VKA, and keep SKA to herself. And similarly, Bob and Charlie can publish VKB and VKC, and keep SKB and SKC to themselves respectively. Now this ring of verification keys is publicly known, so at the time of signing, a signer can pick their ring, and they can sign a message and send it over. Now any verifier can check that it came from somebody within that ring, but they can't tell exactly whom. That leads us to our security properties. A ring signature should be unforgible, meaning that you really do need to have a secret key within the ring to produce a signature. And a ring signature should also be anonymous, meaning that no external observer can tell from whom that signature came. And notice that with an external observer, that can be anybody that's not in the ring, and as well it could be non signers in the ring. So except for process of elimination where they know that it's not them, they can't tell which signer it was. Now in some cases, we don't just want a 1 out of n ring signature, but we want a threshold t out of n ring signature, or thring signature. One way to do this is by having parties interact. So let's say Alice and Bob want to sign a 2 out of 3 thring signature. Well they both know their secret keys, SKA and SKB, and they can use them and interact with each other to produce a signature, where a verifier believes that at least 2 people must have signed. Now any party external to the ring cannot tell which 2 people it was, it could be Bob and Charlie or Charlie and Alice, they don't know. And Charlie of course does know because he knows it wasn't him, but in a bigger ring wouldn't be able to tell which members it was. So that's the first way to get threshold ring signatures. Interaction between parties. Now even though external observers cannot tell which party is signed, at least the signers do have to know each other's identities. Somehow Alice had to find Bob and let him know that there was this message she wanted to sign and he had to agree to work on it with him. In some cases, like voting or a petition where the message is sensitive, signers might not want to have to seek out other people to join their message. Maybe they should be able to just sign a message by themselves and then other people can add themselves as they go, and we can remove the interaction. That's this concept of intersigner anonymous thring signatures. So this is the way that we got thresholdization in our paper with intersigner anonymity and we did it by forcing our ring signature to have a deterministic part to it. With that deterministic part, signers could just sign by themselves and a verifier could check to see if they came from different people without revealing their identities. So you start with this deterministic part and then a verifier given two signatures just checks if that part is equal. For example, let's say that a verifier sees a list of five signatures, then he can parse any two of them and he can check the deterministic part and see if that part is different or if it is the same. And he can conclude then that it came from different or the same signer. Now one thing to note is that we limited this so that the signatures have to be on the same message and ring. This makes it a little bit different from linkable ring signatures, which some people in the audience might be familiar with, where if you sign once, a linkable ring signature once, you're linked forever and a verifier can always check if a signature came from the same person. So in some sense what we've done is more fine-grained than linkability. In fact, we can add linkability to our base construction easily and figure out what scope we want signers to be linked on. So now that we understand ring signatures, let's talk about their security properties in a bit more depth. The adversary is going to ask the challenger, pretend that's me, a lot of different kinds of queries. After seeing all this kind of information, he's either going to produce a new signature, which that's trying to produce a forgery, or he will ask for two honest signers and the challenger, me, will flip a bit and send him back a signature on one of them. And he has to guess which one it is. If he can, he breaks anonymity. Now in either case, the adversary is going to have similar kinds of oracle queries that he can make to me. And those kinds of oracle queries should mimic the real-world behavior that ring signatures have. One thing I want to point out is that because ring signatures are an open setting, remember, everybody could just produce their verification key themselves and just publish it. The adversary could even be a participant in the ring. And that's why it's important to be careful about how we capture the kinds of real-world actions we think an adversary can take. So the four different kinds of queries are these oracles that we've defined to have a truly active adversary. The first one is OSIGN. So here, the adversary is going to ask for signatures on honestly generated keys. For OKGen, the adversary can ask for new keys to be added to the ring honestly. Ocorrupt means he asks on an honestly generated key for the secret key associated to it. And finally, the most important one for us is Oregister, or Oreg, where the adversary actually will produce his own key by himself and send it out. This is important to the open setting of ring signatures and it captures the fact that the adversary can actually maliciously produce a public key. Now that we have talked about ring signatures and their security properties in general, we can talk about our specific construction and proofs. We'll start with the building blocks. There are four building blocks for our construction. The first one is somewhere perfectly binding hashing, or SPB. Two, public key encryption, or PKE. Three, verifiable random function, or VRF. And four, non-interactive witness indistinguishable proof, or NEWI. I point out here that SPB, PKE, and NEWI come from a template of a ring signature scheme that we followed from Bacchus et al from Eurocrypt 19. Our novelty is the use of the VRF to get that threshold with intraciner anonymity and lead to us having to use different proof techniques. Let's explain each building block. I'll start with verifiable random function. A verifiable random function is like a pseudo random function, but you can generate a proof. What do I mean by that? Well, a pseudo random function produces an output that's pseudo random, per the name, which means that nobody can tell whether that output is truly random or it really came from this PRF. A VRF has the same thing, but there's an additional proof that the owner of the secret key can use to prove that that value really did come from the VRF. Like a PRF, there is a secret key, but there's also now a public verification key that anyone can use with the value and proof to believe that it really did come from that VRF. This is a little abstract. The point I want to get across here is that there is public verifiability of a function that produces random looking outputs. The next building block I want to talk about is public key encryption. I think most people in the audience are actually familiar with public key encryption, but there is one property that I want to point out. If there are multiple public keys and there's a ciphertext that has been encrypted on one of them, people cannot tell whose public key was used to create that ciphertext. I have here Alice and ciphertext comes from her public key pKa and Bob ciphertext coming from his public key pKb. Even with a known input, nobody can tell whether it came from Alice or from Bob, except for they themselves who know their secret key. This is a property known as key privacy. The next building block is somewhere perfectly binding hashing, which really just looks like a merkle tree. You take the ring, which is known, and you can write it as a vector and then hash it up as if you were in a tree until you get to the root. And there's the hash value and the hashing key that goes along with it. The difference between somewhere perfectly binding hashing and a merkle tree is we do have this property where at one index, it really has to be that case that we are bound to whatever that value is. That's where that name somewhere perfectly binding comes from. The last building block I want to explain is the non-interactive witness indistinguishable proof. So the non-interactive part means that our prover, Alice, can just pick her witness and statement and she can send out a proof in a single shot without having to interact with any verifier. The witness indistinguishable part means that even if there are multiple witnesses for which the relationship with the statement holds, that the verifier cannot figure out which witness it was that the prover used, even if they know what the witnesses are. One final thing. The newies that we're concerned with have perfect soundness, which means you can't prove a false statement. I think we are now ready we are now ready to start talking about the construction. Remember that a signature construction has three algorithms. Key generation, sign, and verify. We have not put them together yet. We only have building blocks, but now we're ready. And we'll start with key generation and I'll start explaining what sign looks like. The key generation uses the PKE and VRF. The secret key is the secret key of the VRF and the verification key is the verification key of the VRF and the public key of the PKE. So remember, anyone can join the ring so they can create these values on their own and just publish that VK. Then at the time of signing, the signer will start by doing this. They will use their secret key to evaluate the VRF on their message. This is a little bit simplified, but they get a value and a proof. Then they'll use the verification key and they will encrypt the proof of the VRF inside the cipher text. And because the value is pseudo-random and the cipher text hides which key it is, nobody can tell which keys were used to create these two values. We're getting started with the signature. Let's continue. Now, you can't just use any old verification key. You do have to prove membership in the ring. So the NEWI is a NEWI proof that the cipher text encrypts a valid VRF proof under some verification key in the ring and the proof verifies for that value under the VK. And then finally, we need to show that there exists an SPB opening showing that that VK is consistent with H and HK. So our signature so far looks like this. V, CT, H, and HK. None of this reveals the signer and the membership proof with the SPB opening shows that that verification key must be in the ring. So we're almost there, but this is not quite enough. Now, if I just gave you V, CT, H, and HK and gave you a proof that everything was consistent, this seems like it should work out. But we need something more for our proof of anonymity. We need to be able to swap between the witnesses. So there's one more thing that we need to add. I told you before that the SPB binds the signer to their index. They have to prove that H and HK are consistent as part of the NUI. Instead of just doing this once, the signer can do it twice and bind themselves to another index that is not his own. So that gives you H prime and HK prime. Then instead of having a NUI proof that just does everything I told you with all these values being consistent, the signer could create the same proof but for another index at J. Well, he can't actually do this if he doesn't know the secret key for J, so it won't be true. So what's actually going to happen is a NUI is going to be an OR proof where either everything is true for some index I or it's true for index J. So the entire signature ends up looking like V, CT, H, HK, and then V prime, CT prime, H prime, HK prime, where the proof pi says that either the first set of values is true and consistent or the second set of values is true and consistent. And only one of those branches has to be true in an OR proof. So the NUI proof is actually this relationship R with VKI and R with VKJ. The reason that we did this is we needed to be able to do the anonymity proof where we swapped between signers. So remember, the adversary is going to request a signature on one of two signers. He'll pick index I and index J. He'll get back a signature on one of those signers and he has to decide from whom it came. In the proof of anonymity, we show that we can swap between an honest signature for signer I and an honest signature for signer J indistinguishably, thus proving anonymity. And the way that these swaps are done are going to be via hybrid. So at the beginning with an honest signature from signer I, VI, HI, HKI and CTI, those are all true, whereas everything from J is false. An honest signer would just use random values there. Then slowly, with hybrid changes, we start making everything true. But we get to this point where VJ, the VRF associated with signer J, is still false. And something is going to happen that makes it so that we can't make it true. If both of those branches are true, then it's actually possible for an adversary to distinguish that type of signature from the previous hybrid. And the reason for that is if both of these branches for VKI and VKJ are true, then that means both of these VRF values really did come from the VRF, which means they're deterministic and they're constantly put together in this way. An adversary could, for example, just request signatures on all signers and see that these signers I and J were always somehow together, and that would not be indistinguishable from a real signature. So we have come to a problem. Those hybrid changes are not going to work for us. The other thing you could do, maybe, is could you make both branches false and make sure that VI and VJ are both just random values? Well, not really, because the knee-wee has soundness, and so if both branches are false, then the knee-wee overall will be false. So we need some way of making both branches for VKI and VKJ false while still making this overall knee-wee true. We are going to do that by adding one more or into our knee-wee. To make it so that the branch for signer I and for signer J can be false at the same time, we're going to add one more branch. F is a one-way function, and the relationship we're going to ensure is RF, which is F of SKI is equal to SKJ. So our knee-wee is going to be RVKI or RF or RVKJ. Let's look at the hybrids. In the original signature, we want to pick signer I, and so the branch for signer I is true while the remaining two branches for signer J and RF are false. Overall, the knee-wee will be true. Then, at the end, we want signer J's branch to be true while the other two branches are false. We want to hop from real signatures from signer I to real signatures from signer J using the relationship F of SKI is equal to SKJ. We'll make two changes. We can make the relationship RF true, and then we can make the relationship for RVKI be false. Overall, the knee-wee will still be true. Then, moving forward, we can make the relationship for VKJ be true as well. Then, in the final step, we'll make the relationship for RF false. This gives us a real signature from signer J. All of these steps are indistinguishable. All of the changes that we make for the signers themselves have to do with how the VRF works or the public key encryption, and the relationship for RF making that true or false is indistinguishable because one-way functions are hard to invert. But now we have a problem. Unforgibility can't be as strong as we would like it to be because a register is now trivially going to make it so that an adversary can forge. Even though honestly generated keys will never have this relationship, if we allow the adversary to register his own keys, he can easily make it so that he picks two keys such that F of SKI is equal to SKJ. And then he would be able to create as many signatures as he likes. So because of our insistence on being in the plain model and having logarithmic size ring signatures, we lost our ability to have a register. Let's conclude. Why does our work matter? Well, it gives feasibility of a logarithmic size threshold ring signature in the plain model even though it has weakened unforgibility. And it does give us one resultant research question, which is, can we do a compact ring signature with malicious registration and still be in the plain model? Thank you for your attention. If you would like to know more about our work, you can look us up on ePrint or you can email me if you have any questions. Thanks.


Pear Press presents, Do I Have Alzheimer's? Written and read by John Medina. Quote, Soon there will be two kinds of people in the world, persons that have Alzheimer's and persons that know someone that has Alzheimer's, attributed to Dr. Mehmet Oz. Another quote, We'll be friends until we're old and senile, then we'll be new friends. Anonymous. Augusta Dieter was clearly troubled.  Though she was a frail woman she could be physically assaultive, a danger to those around her. She was also mentally confused, emotionally disorganized, one interview recorded with and by her doctor began like this. What is your name? The clinician asked. Augusta was the reply. What is your husband's name? She hesitated a second. Uh, Augusta, I think. Your husband, the physician repeated. Ah, my husband, she repeated, not understanding the question. The doctor continued. Where do you live? This question surprised her. Oh, you have been to our place? She exclaimed. Are you married? The doctor asked. Dieter was hesitant, blurting out, oh, I'm so confused. She sensed something was amiss at one point declaring, you must not think badly of me. The physician continued probing. Where are you at the moment? She responded rather incoherently as if hearing another question. We will live there, is all she said. Dieter was actually in Frankfurt, Germany, interred as a mentally ill patient at the psychiatric facility. The interviewer, however, was no ordinary doctor. His name was Dr. Olois Alzheimer. He was taking notes on the very first person ever diagnosed with a disease that would eventually bear his name. Augusta Dieter died in 1906, and Alzheimer was allowed to examine her brain in detail, one piece at a time.  This damage was invoked to explain her mental condition at the time called presenile dementia. It's a condition that causes terror to this day. Am I getting Alzheimer's? Is one of the most anxious questions any senior can ask. Your brain turns into your own personal gestapo, questioning every slip of the tongue, interrogating every lost cell phone experience, feeling tortured each time a familiar person's name is forgotten. The question drives patients, clinicians and researchers alike. Sample complete. Ready to continue?


Hello and welcome to the video lecture on accessing the array elements. At the end of this video lecture, students will be able to demonstrate how to access array elements. The following topics will be discussed in this video lecture. Reading the array elements, displaying the array elements. Reading the input elements in an array. Now we will be discussing about how to read the input elements into an array. The for loop causes the process of asking for and receiving students marks from the user to be repeated 4 times. It means marks of 0, marks of 1, marks of 2 and marks of 3. The first iteration through the loop has a value 0. So the scanf function will cause the value type to be stored in the array element marks of 0, the first element of the array. The process will be repeated till i becomes 3. This is the last time through the loop which is a good thing because there is no element like marks of 4. In scanf function, we have used the address of operator and ampersand on the elements marks of i of the array. Just we have used it earlier on other variables, ampersand rate for example. In so doing, we are passing the address of this particular array elements to the scanf function rather than its value. So this whatever you are saying is address element, they are the address locations i.e. 2686728, 2686732, 2686736, 2686740, displaying the array elements. Now we will be discussing about how to display the array elements. For the given loop displayed on the screen, the for loop is the same but now the body of the loop causes each marks to be displayed until i equals 3. It means first the printer first like for i equal to 0, 0 is less than or equal to 3, so printer percentage d, so marks of 0 will be displayed that is 1 will be displayed, then marks of then afterwards i plus plus means it is nothing but 1. So marks of 1 will be displayed on the screen that is 3, then afterwards then i will be incremented from 1 to 2. So it will be marks of that is 2 that is 5 will be displayed. Now i is incremented to 2 plus plus that is 3, so marks of 3 will be displayed on the screen. Now we will be discussing how to write a program for displaying the largest element in an array through the code blocks software. Basically this will be the default program when we open the code block software that is int main printer fellow mode. So I want to find the largest element in an array. So basically I will declare an array as we have discussed in the last class how to declare an array int error of 5, it means there are 5 elements the array size is 5. So the starting value or the starting index will be 0 error of 0 then 0 1 2 3 4 then comma i to indicate the loop counter. I will be having value 0 1 2 3 4 for i equal to 0 i is less than 5. In the arrays it has been discussed with the that the starting will be from 0 that is so the last element or the last index will be array size minus 1 printf. I will be asking user to enter the different elements inputs enter the elements of the array.  Then afterwards end with the semicolon scanf %d comma and marks of i it means reading is taking place at this particular statement so I will get the inputs and marks of 0 and marks of 1 and marks of 2 and marks of 3 and marks of 4 i less than 5. So afterwards printf slash n process to find the largest element in the array slash n ending with the semicolon again as I want to check for all the elements for I am checking for i equal to 0 i is less than 5 i plus plus bracket if r of 0 is less than r of i then r of 0 will be equal to r of i so after this is done then I say printf slash n largest element equal to %d comma r of 0 so I have compiled it enter the elements of the arrays asking 1 2 3 4 5. So the largest element is nothing but equal to 5 and equal to %d comma r of 0 bracket semicolon I will go for build I will go for compile I will go for run so 1 2 3 4 5 largest element is 5 so what is happening in this program is for i equal to 0 means marks r of 0 I am given input as 1 so r of 0 is 1 r of i that is the next thing r of 0 is less than thing now i plus plus it means 1 r of 1 that is output is 2 r of 1 input is 2 so 1 is less than 2 is it true yes so r of 0 will be having a value as 2 whatever the i plus plus will be incremented to what your next location afterwards the same procedure will be repeated and finally I get a value as 5 so this is how we write a program to find the largest element in an array so whatever the largest element will be stored in the r of 0 now so this is the program written now pause this video for a few seconds and try to write answers to the following question what is the index number of the last element of an array with 29 29 elements a 29 b 28 c 0 programmer defined so what is the index number of the last element of an array with 29 elements it means the size of an array is 29 so basically when we had declared an array or whatever we had discussed with the last class or the this slide it said for i equal to 0 that is the starting reading of the array element starts from 0 location so it will be 29 elements is 29 minus 1 28 so the option will be the b this is the following reference thank you


Okay let's pray and then we'll start. Father we just want to thank you Lord for this day, we thank you for this time. Lord we believe that you are empowering us, equipping us Lord. Every time we look to you, every time we look into your scriptures Lord, we thank you for doing so God. We thank you that you are empowering us to be better, Lord ministers, we are empowering us to be better individuals Lord, that we might be in whatever role or responsibility and whatever task that we are carrying out Lord, that we might be better at it. You might be equipped to handle it well and carry out and steward things well. Father we thank you for the wisdom that is in your word. We thank you. May we continue to increase in wisdom and knowledge and understanding even as we grow in understanding of you, even as we grow in faith and we pray that you continue to lead us. We thank you. In Jesus precious name we pray. Amen. Amen. Okay just a minute please. Right okay so let's continue with life skills. We've been looking at people management right. We saw how people are a resource and we also looked at how we need to be able to have certain skills to relate to people and also to be able to manage people. We looked at people management in the last couple of classes. We looked at how we can write from identifying, selecting or even you know how to get people organized right. We talked about vision, we talked about delegation, we talked about motivation, inspiring etc. We also looked at how you know correction, how we need to bring in correction and also appraisal right. Review the work that is being done which will help us to you know help us to determine how should this person be rewarded for the work that they are doing. Unless there is a review we cannot sufficiently reward the person right or we won't know what corrections to bring about in people unless there is a unbiased formal system of reviewing and it can be a simple method. It can be as simple as you know every month monthly ones a month once in two months just sitting and discussing you know and and as a leader maybe you can ask the questions you know how's work what is happening what is challenging what is not happening and why and all you know those kind of questions why are we not able to do what we said we would do and and so on. So that would really help you know help assess where that person is and you know how that person is doing. So a good review system needs to be unbiased and it will always help us to assess the work, assess you know what needs to be done, done more you know what needs to be done better etc right. Okay so today we are in chapter 9 and again it is something in relation to in connection with people management but here it's something very very specific and it talks about conflict and a resolution of conflicts okay so if you're following in your notes it's page 35 chapter 9 and it's conflict resolution okay. So you know the thing is that when we no matter how small or big a team is you know there is always potential for conflict okay there is always potential for conflict so I think before we talk about it maybe we should just understand you know what is conflict okay when we look at the dictionary conflict is defined as a violent struggle or a contest or something that is physical something that is mental okay I'll just put it here so you know it could be it's defined as that right so now that's a when we say conflict you know that's a that's an extreme you know scenario right but we know that a conflict can start as a as a simple disagreement okay we don't agree on the same thing or it can even start as a misunderstanding you know you understand it not the right way one of the two so it can just take two people to have a misunderstanding it can take two people to have a disagreement okay and which can lead to conflict you know which can become something a little more intense right where it becomes a conflict okay so so we need to understand that okay first of all you know many of us I think that okay you know maybe I know you're thinking I'm a it's a great organization or it's a Christian organization or it's a it's a church it's a ministry so they won't be they will not be any conflicts now that's a wrong assumption like when you presume that when you you know have that kind of a thinking where say okay they will not be any conflict now that's that's a wrong assumption right that is not true because you we are all unique people we all have different likes and dislikes we all have some strong opinions about certain things or how should how the things should be done and so on so in a team when you know when we put such people together there is bound to be you know disagreements there are bound to be misunderstandings because you know one is able to communicate well maybe the other person understood it wrong or maybe because of some communication difficulty the other person understood it wrong right so whatever the case you know there there is bound to be you know these kinds of challenges okay so there is bound to be conflict okay so it should not surprise us when there are conflicts between people and you say and you're thinking oh man you know Christian organization why conflict okay well this is a this is it okay so that's a reality of it so we need to have a strategy in place to resolve conflicts okay conflicts should not be ignored it but rather it should be resolved okay this relational tensions or relational conflicts interpersonal conflicts as we call it they should not be neglected or ignored or we can we should not pretend that it's not there you know when when these things happen the best thing to do is to solve it okay and one thing about conflicts is that you know interpersonal conflicts it tends to grow if there is no intervention there is no intervention to solve it okay if you don't intervene if you don't do something to change that situation if to solve or to bring about peace to bring about an agreement right so it tends to grow okay either it can grow to become something very big right the conflict and and as a result of it the work suffers the people don't see eye to eye there's no oneness so they're not able to cooperate and work you know what we studied in the team right in christian leadership an effective team is a team that's working together right so the team is not able to work because of these tensions of these conflicts right and so the communication becomes communication shuts down okay that's a result of a conflict right where presence is I'm not going to talk to that person it's a that's the simplest thing no I don't why because I don't like that person why because he or she said this this this or you know he or she was supposed to do this didn't do this and I'm fed up you know I'm I'm not going to talk you talk so there's a shutdown of communication right so that could be one thing or whenever there's a communication whenever there is you know you have a conversation it becomes an argument it becomes an argument it becomes a shouting match right and it could happen it could happen either ways right and a lot of unhealthy things happen when there is continued conflict you know there is maybe there could be gossip you know talking behind the person's back you know so and so had a fight you know this happened that happened and then there is unnecessary division why because people say okay but actually he was right but no she was right okay so you know what we see in one court in this like the poor people saying I'm of Paul I'm of Apollos you know something like that this person is better and and so there brings about you know it it works against the unity it lacks brings about a lack of unity and brings about division so so if there is intervention if there is a resolving of conflict then you know we we're able to move on having solved it there is peace and then we get to move on okay so so let's look at this you know the whole thing of interpersonal conflict it can start as a simple disagreement but it can escalate or quickly grow into something beyond just a simple disagreement where personal feelings are involved and you know whether there is division and miss and shut down of communication and so on okay so there are there could be you know we know that a conflict is a conflict but then there could be different types of conflicts it could be a personal or a relational conflict and that occurs because of because of pride or identity or self-worth or self-image right so maybe you know because of a lack of self-image or lack of self-identity or self-worth or even you know maybe there's lack of respect there's there could be there could have been you know people betraying of confidence etc so then it becomes a personal or a relational conflict okay the other thing is about you know it could be an instrumental conflict and it could be about the goals it could be about decisions it could be about the process okay where are we heading you know there so there could be a conflict because of that because something is not very clearly defined or something is not there is no movement towards that particular goal or about the process you know we talked about you know plans and processes and maybe the process is not being followed or processes are not being adhered to right and which is affecting the productivity and so on so it can be a conflict of that nature okay or it could be about a conflict of interest where it's about resources like time money people it could be you know related to that you know how spending decisions and so on so it could be a conflict of interest okay so whatever it is you know conflict is a conflict however we you know but we we can just know these are several reasons for conflicts in a team or in an organization okay so so what is the what do we do about it right we need to resolve it okay and and the earlier we identify and the earlier we set about solving it it becomes easier okay now what is the reason for that you know well maybe there is a disagreement okay disagreement about let's say about lunchtime you know okay some some people are saying okay we should have it at one some are saying we should have it at 12 because I'm you know I have an early lunchtime and then and lunchtime is always maybe I don't know maybe at two o'clock and so people are you know there's a there's a disagreement and there's a thing so the the best way to go about it is to find out know if there is a if there's a conflict like that and and then you know with the management with the the leaders of the organization and people are being quiet about it you know they're mumbling muttering and they are quiet about it but they're not happy at all right so the first thing is of course to identify okay is there is there a problem right is there a problem is there a conflict to identify it okay and and that will happen when we when we talk or to pick up when people are talking about something you know when you ask them okay is everything okay you know are there any challenges are you able to do your work well are you able to you know maybe it can be a survey it can be a personal one-on-one conversation or it can be a you know a meeting with the team and you talk about this right so then you know these things will come up you know yeah I'm fine but then you know can we do something about this or like that so so identify the conflict once the kind conflict is identified the the earlier we set about doing it or solving it the better why because then people are not so you know entrenched or ingrained in it you know there are negative emotions and everything that is attached to it is not so strong right because if if time goes by and nothing is done then people become harder you know angrier and anger and you know about their position and about you know what is causing that conflict so so then it becomes even more difficult to solve it right so so and also it's also true that they could be gossip they could be people taking sides and and it becomes you know like a big split right so the earlier we deal with it the better but the thing is you know dealing with the conflict or you know some of us are maybe we're okay with it some of us are not right some people find it easier to to identify once this conflict is identified to say okay let me solve it okay but some people find it difficult in the sense they they're saying okay I hope I hope this this problem goes away right yeah I hope it when I suppose I wait for some time maybe this problem will solve itself okay so and then we postpone solving it you know we feel that okay because you know it's unpleasant right we have to face it it is unpleasant where people are saying you know complaining and saying this is happening this is wrong that is wrong it is unpleasant and maybe you know as a person you don't want to face those unpleasant things right and then you see it's okay I just avoid it I don't want to talk about it but the longer we don't talk about it the longer we postpone it it becomes difficult to solve it okay so the thing is to okay is there a conflict okay let's let's solve it right what is the right time to do it what is the right no that we can decide okay maybe maybe we have to consider the right time to address it and the right time to talk to the parties who are having a conflict maybe it's you know one of the parties you and there's another person so when is the right time to do it okay now maybe not in the middle of a big project or maybe somebody's you know everybody's busy you know it should be time and mentally as well that people are willing to you know talk about it right so sometimes you know it's so serious that it needs to be done immediately you know we can't wait for you know people to calm down or it needs to be done immediately because it's it's it's so serious right and the effects of the conflict could actually have a very negative effect on the on the organization or the outcome of the work so it needs to be done immediately right okay so the thing is to start early and just solve the conflict okay okay it's interesting the you know there could be certain ways to do it okay so or it could be like you know we are looking at five ways to deal with conflicts and some of these methods are not the ideal way to deal with conflicts okay but we look at them anyway right and the kind of and and we can also look at why it's not the ideal way to solve a conflict okay so because maybe you know this is what we were used to okay maybe we learned it as a child okay somebody took something from you and then you went you chased that guy you know you caught that person you pulled it out of his hand and you gave one to him and so that he'll never never again repeat that mistake that he'll never again come and you know take things from your or take it out of your hand again right so and maybe that's how we learned and then you know that's that was the in the playground is the best way you know that's those some early things are put in our hearts right so this is how we learned it therefore you know in life if anything like that happens like in life if somebody says something does something then immediately other playground is what triggers you know this is how I solved it and this is how it helped and you go ahead and you know start doing it now that may not be the ideal way it will just because something yields results okay may not be the ideal way to solve a conflict okay so let's look at some methods right right okay so the first one is to compete or to fight okay now this depends this strategy or this way of solving a conflict is is you use your strength or one person uses their strength or power or ability against another person it could be a person it could be a group right now what happens in this method like you fight and you you know you you just want to prove yourself wrong and you do what happens in this method is it always creates a winner and a loser okay so you're competing you're fighting and you're proving your point and you're doing it in a competing manner what happens is there's always a winner it could be you or maybe the other person has is much stronger has you know has more clout or influence and whatever maybe they win so what happens is there is always a winner and there is always a loser in such a scenario and the problem is the winner is part of the organization the loser is also part of the organization okay the loser is also part of the team so there is a bad nobody likes to lose right everybody likes to win so the loser ends up feeling you know bad and and then you realize that that bad feeling can also further fester and grow into maybe some kind of a bitterness etc if that person doesn't deal with it right or you know if there's no time to do such things right then the just continue we continue on you wonder you know we think we've solved it we continue on but this sense you know of this bad feeling or something the sense of loss is there and unless that needs to be addressed as well so so because just because it creates a winner and a loser now it can it can give a temporary fix right it can definitely solve things in a temporary manner and but then you know if we don't see that person again maybe it can be but then this is not what is the ideal thing okay the second one is a collaboration okay first one you compete second one is to you collaborate okay let me just put that down it's there the notes but um let me just put it down okay so what what does collaborate mean collaborate is we work together okay so we're working together and here unlike the first one where it produces a winner and a loser here it produces two winners you know both people who are who are actually having the conflict both uh end up in a win win situation right so now this would be an ideal method to our ideal strategy to resolve a conflict okay now here are two people who are not seeing i2i we're disagreeing we're having this uh you know this this fight or interpersonal conflict and we use this method where we collaborate where we work together in order to solve now that will produce two winners where both people actually come away from that conflict having resolved the conflict feeling okay uh you know i was heard or you know it ended well you know they're going back with that sense nobody's feeling you know uh that you know i'm the winner or i or that person is a loser nobody's feeling that way okay so what would it require it requires time okay now this method requires time because now you need to sit down you need to you know talk to each other you need to be able to discuss okay these are the difficulties that we are facing these are the challenges that we are facing and and it it also requires a certain sense of maturity okay and not giving vent to our emotions and feelings and not really you know giving it to that person right so it requires us uh to be a little mature to uh to objectively look at the problem okay and and rather than you know blame the other person or rather than put the blame on the other person to see okay now this is a problem that we need to solve so you reach a solution that is that is agreeable okay now now it's like the picture it is like you know you can have a table and you can have two people at opposite sides of the table one person the other side and the other person on this side and then looking at the problem which is on the table okay something that needs to be solved you know you're just looking giving your perspective you're giving your perspective and saying okay now this is your problem or giving blame but the other way to look at it collaboration would be that both are sitting on the same side of the table and looking at what is on the table which is the problem okay so you're not sitting on opposite sides okay the picture is that you're sitting on the same side which means you have the same objective what is the objective I want to solve it I want to make sure that that this ends well okay this is beneficial to both okay so so it it it would involve discussing it would involve talking about several options and maybe something may not be agreeable okay so the other person says okay let's let's talk through some more let's see so it you see that it requires a certain level of maturity to list out the issues to take time to talk through okay and find the solution and this is definitely it requires effort right it requires effort from both the parties and especially if it is you know if it's gone on for some time and the problem is deeply rooted right now it's going to take that extra effort but it will result in the result will be good okay now that's a collaboration the third one is a compromise okay or it's a you know like a you negotiate something and you compromise something now this is definitely better than the first one which is compete right I compete to win I'm creating a winner and a loser now this is definitely better where we are we arrive at a compromise and we're saying okay now it's not win-win because you know there is some kind of a sacrifice that's happening here okay one person is saying okay I need to give up this in order to reach this okay the other person is also you know saying I need to you know you need to give up that okay I'm giving up this you give up that okay see I've already done this so it's only fair that you need to give up certain things and that person also says okay so there's a negotiation okay what are you willing to give up what are you willing to do extra right both the parties right so this person okay okay I'll do this and the other person says okay I'll do this this person says okay I'll give up this okay I don't need this I'll sacrifice this the other person also says okay this I can sacrifice so there is a compromise but because of this sacrifice and because of this taking on of certain things you know we arrive at a solution but you know the thing is that it's not you know you arrive at something you solved issue but there is a sacrifice involved okay I've lost something the other person also has lost something but it's good right it's definitely better than competing and so that is a compromise reached where it's it reached you reach a peaceful solution say okay let's move on let's go beyond this problem let's move on and that works as well okay so the only thing is sometimes what happens is and it's a compromise you know the the commitment to continuing in that manner okay continuing in that solution continuing in that state of being resolved may not be very strong why because the person feels oh I had to do this in order to solve this I had to give this up and the person is like recounting the cost and always reminded of that and so you know so the thing is commitment to continue in that same manner may not be there okay it can be also but may not be there okay okay so what are the other two ways to you know solve or to approach a conflict you know the other way is that is to pretend that there is no problem okay so talking about everything and except the issue now this is this is not a method at all this is not a strategy at all but this happens right so this is denial complete denial as you're denying there is a problem okay so everybody's avoiding it you're not talking about it and you know and you're talking not talking about the you know there is a conflict you know there is an issue but nobody's talking about it okay now can this be used you know this avoiding talking about it avoiding the issue can it be used it can be okay it can be but it has to be in conjunction or it has to be with another strategy like a compromise or a collaboration okay so maybe things are two you know things are going beyond the point it's reached boiling point it is reached a flash point where you know even mentioning this will result in a you know a big fight okay so the thing is to kind of separate the parties and say okay we will you know cool down for some time you won't address it now okay because it's it's two people are too involved in it and too emotionally involved in it and definitely it's not going to be it's not going to be fruitful right i'm sure you know going up in school the colleges show you face situations like that right people are swinging at each other and then they are just you know being separated and say you know you cool down you calm down and then you you know you're able to at least talk about it okay so it can it can help it can be a helpful strategy but it needs to be you need to understand that that will not solve it completely for that moment it will help okay for that moment it will help and it can be a precursor or it can be something that like a starter but you need to go on to actually solving it we can either use a collaborative method or a compromise method and you know there is it would help to have someone facilitate this resolution conflict resolution um so um so unless we uh we move on from this method and use this method but then we move on to you know employ any other method of um uh resolving what would happen is that everybody's keeping it stuffed you know uh just maybe avoiding maybe denying that there's a problem and even you know they're they're not uh they're not coming out with it so it it actually becomes detrimental like to the organization it actually becomes uh becomes a bigger problem right so we need to denial okay for that particular thing it's okay you avoid raising the issue avoid solving the issue but it needs to always you need to understand that it's it's for a short time and maybe uh for that particular instance but something else has to follow okay um then the other one is uh you know it's like uh smoothing over a problem so what does that mean so that means that um um on the top of it you know superficially there is harmony and peace and everybody's fine um and but but on the other hand you know deeper than there is still conflict that is bubbling okay there is still conflict that is that is there uh and waiting to just come up and throw its head right so um so so what is happening is your all the effort is um just you know you're just putting in the effort in order to maintain that relationship or preserve that relationship you know just being polite and and so on whereas uh you know dealing with the conflict okay so so it is it is uh again similar to the previous one uh we are avoiding the solving of it and it is okay for a for a short term it is if it it's okay uh for that particular time instant but um but it needs to be addressed okay it needs to be addressed it needs to be because it becomes a deeper thing it becomes a something which is which is far more serious right so it needs to be something that needs to be addressed okay so um if you look at page 37 there is uh you know maybe I'll just uh I'll just project it just one second there is uh yeah it is interesting uh illustration I hope you can see it um let me see okay there it is okay so you see you know uh there's a on on the graph you see on the you know on this um there's a y-axis you see concern for self and here concern for others if concern for others is low and concern for self is also low then there is a you know there is a denial okay if concern for others is more and but uh concern for self is low you know then there is smoothing over okay you don't want uh to rock the board just want things to continue you don't want that relationship to you know suffer but you whereas it's not you know you are you are still you are still suffering but you don't want to address it you don't want the relationship suffer and so you know just going on but the problem is existing okay now these are temporary things right um the conf when we when it's a compromise you know it is uh it's like a middle of middle of the line right so uh concern for self concern for others is also there but there is a sacrifice there is a giving away by both parties so there is a compromise um if concern for others is low and concern for yourself is high then it's a very selfish um strategy where you compete and fight and you don't care what happens to the other person right so there is there in the top left whereas if concern for self and for others is high then there is a collaboration that happens okay so um so we see this uh okay so what skills do I need okay let me just put that also what skills do I need in order to uh resolve a conflict okay okay the first one is that um even before we think about uh you know assertiveness um the first one is uh definitely I'll just stop uh first one is that definitely an awareness right self awareness uh and awareness of others and what we would uh we would look at you know um something called emotional quotient right we would look at it in the following chapters we'll address that um so there is an awareness as an empathy okay so um emotional awareness are you aware of what is going on in the inside of you emotionally and and you have a sense of understanding of what could be what could be the other person going through right and uh and that's something which is very very important right uh to be able to identify to be able to uh you know say that okay I'm aware that I'm you know I'm getting tensed up or I'm aware that I'm feeling uh feeling low because of this okay because if that awareness is not there then uh we will not even identify that there is a problem or there is a conflict right we'll just feel that okay I'm just feeling bad I'm just feeling terrible and you know and we just go with it okay maybe today I'm feeling this way and we go with it but we need to be able to identify you know be uh we self aware and also have the emotional awareness emotional quotient um to be able to uh uh be aware to be to be able to empathize and also to uh sense okay what could be um the other person going through emotionally right to be sensitive to that um okay and secondly you know being assertive okay but without being aggressive okay that's the other thing you know to be able to you know in solving the conflict definitely one needs to communicate right you need to be able to talk and you need to be able to express your views you need to be able to say that you are hurt by the other person's action but you know to be able to say it assertively but without being aggressive okay um and and sometimes what and it's a skill again right what happens is when we when we think about that person and what they have done and immediately you know our voice increases you know the volume the pitch and everything increases right it goes to one level we are not able to think clearly we're not even able to speak sometimes right I'm sure I don't know if you have that experience uh yeah or maybe maybe you notice someone have there they're so upset uh where they are not able to even you know every time they talk about that they're so upset that they are they're either screaming or shouting or they're so angry they're not able to you know assert so what happens then is that they will blame rather than objectively share what has happened okay so this is your fault this is what you have done this is what you should do now that will not solve right that will not solve the issue this is what you should do this is not what you have done this is what you have done you know I'm feeling so bad you made me feel this and well all that is true right and and it's because of that you know maybe you're hurt and you're going through but then that will not help solve the problem solve the conflict right so to be able to communicate to be able to share assertively but in a non-aggressive manner okay to to be able to express our feelings and and and also to talk about okay this is what would help this is what we can do this is what that can such be avoided okay so to be able to to be able to do that like to be able to express the situation and express our feelings and specify what we want done okay so let's look at that you know the three things describe the situation right let me just put that is there the notes but I'm just going to put it in the chat as well describe so that's about situation so it could be circumstance it could be about what went wrong okay so that you're describing okay this is what this is what actually happened you know this triggered this this person said this and this is what happened this is the problem we have now okay the second one is to express when you say express we are expressing our feelings okay you know I felt this I felt bad or I felt rejected or I felt you know I was I felt I was I was very disappointed right and I felt a lot of hurt and pain when this happened or I you know I I felt very very angry right so you're expressing your feelings because of the situation right you describe the situation and you can express your feelings and you're going to look at you know how to express that without without blaming right blaming the person and not getting personal right and third one is to specify okay so we're saying clearly okay this needs to be done as per my understanding this needs to be done so you describe you express describe the situation express the feelings and specify the tasks that need to be done in order to resolve it okay so and the other person would also be able to do that as well okay so when we describe the situation you know how do we communicate that situation okay how do we communicate the problem so the most effective way you know and we've seen this earlier is to use those I statements you know when you said this this this it made me feel this this this okay if it's if it's something about people you know raising their voice and maybe they exist they've had it you know they've been saying a lot of things to each other and and a lot of you know hurt because of that so in order to say that you know you need to describe it right you need to describe the situation so how do you do that you know you shouted at me you may you you you you know you this thing and you're always like this you're always angry so instead of doing that to communicate the same thing okay to communicate the truth but if this would help right like I felt bad when you said this like when you said this when you did this when you took this decision without consulting you know the team or whatever you know when you you know this process when you actually disregard this this process I mean we I felt this so it's it's definitely better than saying you know you you never obey the rules right that's that now that's a very personal remark and you know you're always like this you're always late you're always you know shabby your work is always shabby instead of doing that you know to that is the truth but you're conveying the truth without attacking the person right so so that would help that would help you know communicate it and you will also specify what needs to be done okay where okay what is the solution okay what is the solution how do we go about solving this and so that you know after you express this you realize that you're not emotionally stirred up okay as emotionally stirred up as you were you would have been if you actually shouted at that person and said you know you're always like this okay when you use these I statements you know when you said this I felt this I felt this you're saying you're you're actually what are you doing there you're disconnecting you know you're separating okay I as a person I felt this emotion you know I as a person I felt this emotion I as a person person felt this this was what going on in my mind when I when I as a person I felt this so when we disconnect that in our words when we express it then we don't feel that as much and at the same time we have also expressed our feelings right and and the third thing would be to you know specify okay this would help this would this is what needs to be done this is what needs to be rectified okay solve okay so if we don't feel confident okay then we can always have a mediator for resolving the conflict okay so maybe someone who can be who can give an unbiased judgment okay unbiased meaning who will not for you know for who will not have favorites personal favorites right so that person can actually help intervene someone who is maybe higher up in the organization someone who's a peer but who's who's mature enough to you know bring in that so bring in that's all that issue and to give perspective and say you know I I feel I sense that you know this will help us so rather than you know lean on one particular side that person is able to give an objective solution okay so that will help solve the issue of course you know this is a very simple way of looking at it of course as believers you know even before we go to the person we can pray through the whole situation right we pray through the whole situation and say pray for the person right and then you know that helps us cool down right we are feeling very very you know angry or very upset you know pray about the situation and pray for the person but don't stop there right many times as believers we do that you know I pray God you know you do it whatever it is you do it and then we stop there stop with the praying but we need to move to you know a peaceful confrontation in order to solve the conflict right a peaceful confrontation or a Christ-like confrontation to solve the conflict that needs to be done right so this is something that I hope this was helpful this is something that we all need to grow into that we all need to employ every day you know maybe in some situations in some places that we need to have this as a skill as a necessary skill okay okay so we'll stop here and have a good week we'll meet again we're meeting again tomorrow for our Corinthians class but yeah life skills we'll meet again next week okay we'll stop here thank you God bless right see you thank you sir right see you bye


We all have a responsibility to make a contribution for future generations. And the pathway to net zero is something we need to do together, because that future is ours to shape and design, to cooperate in a way to bring climate solutions. What I'm doing actually is for future generations.


We will now see a real example of a flow-based intrusion detection system that has been developed at the University of Toronto, Shikur. Shikur is a flow-based intrusion detection system dedicated to the detection of OS compromised by SSH dictionary attacks. Let's first have a look at why we need flow-based intrusion detection. There are several factors that can limit the processing speed of an IDS, especially for increasing line speed and link load. First, the network card with IDS host will introduce a first limitation to the number of packets that can be captured and processed. Second, the detection engine is often implemented in software. And third, the detection engine will need a certain processing time that depends on the complexity of the detection algorithms to identify an attack. Complimentary to this, we should also consider that line speed is still increasing. For example, the link connecting the University of Toronto and the Dutch research and education network surfnet is 40 gigabits per second. The Energy Science Network ESNet in the US has recently upgraded to 100 gigabits per second link. The question is then, what are the alternatives to DPI? A possibility to cope with increasing line speed and network load is to work with aggregated data, such as network flows. We have already seen when discussing the taxonomy that network flows provide a few desirable characteristics. For example, since no payload is available, they are more privacy friendly than DPI. Also, algorithms using flows are not affected by encryption. Scalability is another advantage of flows. Also, flows are already largely deployed in backbone networks for monitoring and accounting. The disadvantage is clearly the lack of payload, meaning that any algorithm with design working on flows need to cope with this. We will see now an example of flow-based intrusion detection. Let's introduce Shikir. Shikir is an intrusion detection system developed at the University of Toronto that targets SSH dictionary attacks. It might seem unlikely that nowadays SSH attacks are still successful, but we have to find out that this is in fact the case. A study conducted by the Pony Money Institute reporting that in 2014 more than 50% of the survey organization have been involved in a security accident involving SSH. Sadly, there are still quite a lot of vulnerable hosts out there. In particular, Shikir aims at detecting SSH dictionary attacks. An SSH dictionary attack aims at gaining unlawful access to hosts that run SSH daemon. What allows an attacker to gain access is that the host typically has an account with weak credentials. Possible credentials can be found in so-called dictionaries, pre-compiled lists of user names and password. Shikir performs detection in a completely flow-based fashion. Moreover, Shikir focuses on compromise detection, meaning that the goal is not to identify an attack, but to identify a report on a successful attack, which we name a compromise. Compromise detection is high on the wish list of security operators because it lowers the number of alerts that need to be manually checked. Let's then have a look about how SSH looks like when we have only flow data available for our analysis. We can observe two aspects. First, if we consider the source and destination IP, and in particular the flows from an attacker to his targets, a clear pattern emerges. In this picture, you can observe the evolution in time on SSH dictionary attacks against the Austro-University turn-to-network. On the y-axis, we have an host identifier. On the x-axis, we have time. The picture shows that this attacks progress in three phases. First, the attacker scans the target network looking for SSH demons. Second, the attacker intensively contacts the host in subset of the target network address space. This is when an attacker brute-forces the SSH demo using dictionary file. It does so efficiently, only for hosts that have been previously identified. Finally, we observe some residual traffic, either to the attacker or to a small subset of the host in the network. If we then consider how many packets and bytes were exchanged, we obtain this picture. On the x-axis, we have time again. On the y-axis, we have instead the number of packets per flow exchanged during the attack. This number vary between 1 packet per flow to roughly 16 packet per flow in this example. However, what is important is that we have a confirmation that the attack progresses through three main phases. Keep in mind that although the attack pattern remains the same, the attacks can show some variability. For example, in the number of connection of the packets per flow values. Let's now see how Sheikir tackles the detection of this attack. Sheikir models the behavior of SSH dictionary attack in three states. A scan state during which the scanner identifies possible victims. A brute-force state in which the attacker tests the dictionary against possible victims. And finally, a compromise state that implies that at least one of the user name puzzle combination in the dictionary was successful. An SSH dictionary attack can start either in the scan state or directly in the brute-force state. This is due to the fact that either the scan has been performed at an earliest time or by a different host. From the brute-force state, the attack will either end directly if the attack was unsuccessful or progress to the compromise state and finally end. We have seen that for this SSH dictionary attack we are able to identify a clear pattern at the flow level that is using only flow information about the time evolution of the attack. Sheikir uses this pattern as a way to identify the attack state. However, in practice, we have seen that only the scan and brute-force state can be quite easily identified. The compromise state presents a lot more challenges. For example, traffic from the target host back to the attacker could be caused by tools like fail to ban, which locally rejects connection from possibly offended host, while we in reality think that we are dealing with a compromise host. This is where our domain knowledge comes ending. To better characterize attacks, the developer Sheikir's have embedded into the detection algorithm a set of behaviors upon compromise that can be observed at the flow level when serving a set of attack tools. The picture above summarizes these findings. The analysis of attack tools shows that when a compromise takes place, the attack tool can either continue the dictionary for the compromised target or abort it. In addition, a tool can either maintain the successful connection open or log out immediately. When Sheikir analyzes data, it does so in five minutes intervals, which we call a data chunk. The tool behavior can either be observable within the same data chunk, like in the first and third column of the picture, or span over chunks, like in the middle column. Sheikir actively monitors flow data related to hosts that are involved in a brute force phase and search for instances of the highlighted behaviors. If any of the six options in the picture is identified, the attack has generated a compromise. This has proven to be a happy design choice that keeps the false positive rate low while still being able to identify the successful attacks. There are a few takeaway messages that we can bring home after studying Sheikir. First of all, we should not underestimate an attack. Several examples in this course show that no matter how simple or old an attack is, until poorly managed hosts exist, the attacker can still be powerful. This applies to SS8 dictionary attacks as well. Secondly, Floppy's approach likely benefits from specific domain knowledge. One can argue that this is a general rule in intrusion detection, but I would add that it is even more the case if you work with aggregated data. Last, the future of intrusion detection is in compromise detection, in the sense that operators and security specialists are ready to move toward a situation in which the number of alerts is kept small and the confidence that an attack is successful is high. If you are interested in more information about Sheikir, have a look at the Sheikir GitHub repository.


Jennifer says when us when is the right time to say I love you neither of us have said it yet but it seems like we both feel it so when is the right time to say I love you I mean you can say it whenever you want to really if you want to play the game you can get him to say it first right there's there's different ways to do that or you can accuse him of feeling that way for you and see how he reacts to that which is which is kind of funny we've had a few women do that in our community I've suggested it a couple times and it it tends to work out really well as if you you because you can't really tell right so there's certain things that people do where they can't really tell because they're doing it right and so if you're doing something and you don't know that you're doing it it and that that happens a lot right like a lot of people can do you might end up like if you're looking at somebody you you don't know how you're looking at them you might have a smile on your face not even realize you're smiling you might be frowning you might be questioning right and they're like hey look at his face right I've had that happen to me before in the past and where somebody was like like why are you are you mad right now and you're like oh I didn't realize I had that on my face right and so you can always accuse him of looking at you in a way where he's looking at you like he's totally in love or that he's falling in love or something like that where you're like you know you keep looking at me like you're totally in love with me right and and usually if you say something like that to a guy he'll probably end up trying to deny it but what you can say is what you just say is no it's okay I like it right so you accuse him of looking at you in a way that makes it so that you you're showing him that you know that he's falling in love with you and then when he denies it which he might or he probably will sometimes they don't sometimes he might just be like you're right I do if he's really confident in himself but if he denies it you can say no it's okay I like it right which gives him permission to feel that way and it shows that you're on the same page with that and so it makes that whole conversation a lot easier to have and it makes him feel more comfortable saying it


Hey friends, I'm Tyler Patner and today we're going to talk a little bit about custom work on your air guns. Now all the rage, just putting bells and whistles and doodads and all that sort of stuff onto your air guns to make it your own. I get it, trust me. I do it myself, but there are some things we do here at Pyramid Air that can help you have a better experience from a customization perspective. So number one, it's kind of difficult sometimes to know what parts go with what guns and things like that. If you scroll down a product page, for example, on this beautiful FX impact air gun, if you go to our website, you scroll down that page, you've got a little section that's going to show you all the parts that are compatible with it. Now, this is not necessarily just add-ons, you know, maybe like a saber tactical this or that, but you also have a lot of the actual FX OEM parts that we list there, so you know what's compatible with the gun. You are looking at the same thing goes for pretty much everything on our website. Now as far as custom work goes, one of the things, the reason I have an Avenger here and an impact, we do offer tune services on these PCP rifles so that you can get the performance that you want right out of the box because quite frankly, sometimes making all of these little adjustments, fine-tuning them to their best performance, it's a time-consuming thing and we understand that not all of you want to take that on yourself. So we have these services available for purchase on our website and our tech guys, they're well-trained, trust me, they are going to go in and make sure your gun is exactly the way you want it when it comes to you out of the box and you don't have to fiddle with it. The last thing I'll touch on, just know that if you do take on some custom work yourself and actually modify the guns, you're probably going to avoid a warranty. So just something to be aware of obviously, any of the work that we do in-house, we're going to warranty for you and any of the add-ons or OEM additional parts that you're going to bolt onto a gun are obviously not going to impact your warranty, but just something to be aware of if you do decide to like dig into the gun and start modifying things. Warranty is a consideration that you should be making before you do that. Hopefully you guys enjoyed the video, this was just a quick kind of overview of some custom options you can find here on Pyramid Air's website. If you have any other questions, shoot us an email, send us a DM, whatever. Let us know down in the comments what kind of custom options you'd like to see us offer in the future and we'll see you next time.