Coming up on DTNS, a bad Linux bug that will make anyone a sandwich, Google Kills, but open sources tilt brush for VR and Molly Wood explains to us why GameStop stock is worth more than my car. This is the Daily Tech News for Wednesday, January 27th, 2021 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Redwood. I'm Sarah Lane. From Salt Lake City. I'm Scott Johnson. I'm the show's producer, Roger Chang. Joining us as I mentioned, host of Marketplace Tech and my good friend, Molly Wood. Welcome back. Hello. Thanks for having us. It's been forever. What a delight. It is. It's a delight to have you. We need you today to explain this whole GameStop mess to us. We were just talking with Molly a little bit about the GameStop stuff, also about the Go-Go's and Generation X. If you want that wider conversation, get our expanded show, Good Day Internet. Become a member at patreon.com slash DTNS. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. While launch its first Z desktop graphics cards offering three 4K display outputs with HDR support and supports decoding AV1 content. These cards will have four gigabytes of memory and 80 execution units. The cards were meant for prebuilt systems paired with 9th Gen Coffee Lake S and 10th Gen Comic Lake S processors. So no, they won't work with AMD. They won't even work with all Intel processors. This is Intel's first desktop graphics card since the Intel i740 series released way back in 1998. Apple's got a Q1 earnings report coming Wednesday, but research firms CounterPoint and Cyber Media Research estimate Apple shipped more than 1.5 million iPhone units in India. In the quarter that ended in December, doubling the market share there to 4%, that would be Apple's best quarter in India to date. More sales of older generation iPhone 11, iPhone XR, iPhone 12 and iPhone SE models helped move product as did opening its own online India store with plans for the first actual retail store in India coming later this year. Ring announced its smallest, cheapest video doorbell yet. The ring video doorbell wired costs $59.99 which is $40 less than the ring video doorbell that has a battery. It's available for pre-order shipping February 24th. And Amazon is also taking pre-orders for the Echo Show 10. That's the smart display that was announced back in September. That has a swivel that automatically moves the display to face people and follow them around. Well, you know, it's still in one place, but it can follow you around. It's got a bit of a range of motion. It's $250 shipping February 25th. Following reports of Iranian users having issues connecting to the messaging app Signal, the app's Twitter account claimed Iranian officials are now dropping all signal traffic in the country. This comes after the app was removed from local app stores Cafe Bazaar and Micot on January 14th. One-plus founder Carl Pay announced his next venture, a company called Nothing. Yes, not a Seinfeld reference is really the name of the company, focused on making consumer smart devices with its first hardware expected to ship in the first half of 2021. Nothing will initially release hardware focused on simpler categories hoping to differentiate its offerings by using custom made components in its products at launch. All right, let's talk a little more about GameStop. GameStop stock started January at $18 a share. Quite a bit up from the $3.30 a share it had been trading at in the summer, but it rose even more. 69% January 22nd, triggering a halt to its trading. Then Monday, this past Monday, January 25th, its trading was halted nine times. It reached $224 a share on Tuesday evening and was past $300 early Wednesday. Molly Wood, why is this happening? How did this start? I feel like that's what I was afraid you were going to ask me. Yeah, I know. Why is this happening? I was like, GameStop was always so fun because you'd go and then they would never take your game back at the price that you thought that they should take it out. This is happening because I guess the shortest possible version is that the internet has discovered the world's largest casino. You have this confluence of things happening. Trading is way more accessible in part because of Robinhood. You named an app Robinhood. What did you think was going to happen? People remain super furious about things like the 2008 financial collapse and also shorting, and there's no small amount of Tesla fanboy rage that's playing into what were happening here. People were angry at all of this shorting of GameStop that also left markets totally vulnerable to what we're seeing today, and they've suddenly figured out how to apply crowd sourcing and actually what I've been calling Google Bombing to the stock market. The simplest answer here is they're all buying the same thing all at once. So you've got thousands of people. Where are they coming from? I'm sorry, yes. They're coming from primarily this Reddit board called Wall Street Bets, this subreddit, and it's existed for a long time, and it's a place to, you know, it's got like hardcore day traders in it. Some people who might have at some point been working for the same firms that are engaged in this activity right now, retail investors, they're called just individual humans buying into the stock market. And for whatever reason, this again, this combination of events, maybe a little extra money, maybe more time on their hands about the pandemic, maybe just this kind of like pent up rage about inequality and this kind of edgelord troll sensibility that just said, like, we can do this thing for the walls, we can like ruin a hedge fund. Hey, guys, if it turns out that GameStop is shorted at 140 percent of the outstanding shares, which means, you know, basically, there's no way mathematically that it can go below zero. If we buy, hey, guys, if we buy enough of this stock, then this hedge fund, and we all know that there's such dirtbags and they try to put Tesla out of business with shorting, there's no way they'll be able to cover their losses and they'll go out of business. Let's try it.   What is short selling exactly? Is it legal? Is it wrong? Short selling is super legal, yes. And I should, I don't want to like overgeneralize the people on this subreddit, right? That is probably a lot of the people who were originally there. Some people are there going, geez, I lost my job in this pandemic. And I need to buy food. And this is a get rich quick scheme. Short selling is in a nutshell, making a bet that the price of a stock is going to go down.  And then you can put out a bunch of articles saying, here's why this stock is going to go down and help drive the price down, right? Like it's just a, it's kind of a dirty thing to do. And it has a long history of these activist investors saying, this company is garbage, and I'm going to do everything, I'm going to short it and then do everything in my power to make sure that my short bet comes true, that the price goes down. And if the, you know, you set your short purchase to expire on a certain day, right? So a bunch of these hedge funds have placed short bets on GameStop dating back months and months. Like maybe Melvin Capital actually, which is the hedge fund that sort of appears to have gone bankrupt today as a result of this movement with the GameStop stock, actually probably play some of these short bets like 10 months ago. Okay, I think that this stock is going to be at $4. So if the stock then, when that short sale is about to expire is actually trading at $400, Melvin has to buy all those stocks or sell all those, sorry, Melvin has to sell all the stocks it bought in GameStop at $4. So they can't just wait it out and be like, let's wait till Reddit moves on to something else and then buy the crappy stock again. They have to buy it because they've run out of time. Yeah, exactly. And then what they do is they try to buy more as the price goes up to try to cover the difference. I am probably getting a lot of these details wrong, but this is like the general understanding. Yeah, if I understand it, I'm sorry, I've been on the Wikipedia page for a day and a half. Let me just jump in here. Oh, no, well, essentially what happens is when you buy, you buy a security, the value attached to that security doesn't matter. You, you own that one security, you own the number of shares. What happens is short sellers borrow for a fee. They pay a spot. They pay a fee to borrow those, those shares, which means they have to return those shares eventually. Say they buy 10 shares of something that they are they borrowed 10 shares or something, they can sell it for 100 bucks a share right now on the expectation that it's going to go down to $40 in a month. Right. And so all they have to do is to return back those 10 shares. They only need to lay out $400 to buy 10 $40 shares instead of $1,000. So in effect, they made 600 bucks. But what Molly's saying is if the price of the share goes up, they still have to return those 10 shares back. And if it goes from 100 to 1000, now they got to spend $9,000 and that comes out of their account whether again, the value doesn't matter. They need to return those shares back because they just borrowed them. Right. And they have to pay the difference. Yeah. So if the difference is one point is 13 billion dollars or whatever, which apparently I think with Melvin it was, then they have to borrow that money from someone else to get it or they have to buy shares at the inflated value hoping that it won't go any higher than that. And then they got themselves even into more trouble because they borrowed or bought more, I think in this case, borrowed more shares, trying to short at what they thought the $110 is as high as it's possibly going to go. Nope. Well, as you came this roll of snowball, sorry. As you put this, no, you're fine.   I mean, I think it is just a dirty old trick that internet trolls figured out how to exploit. Like so far, all of it is legal. There are that we know of, right? There are certain rules around market manipulation, but I think that like organizing all your friends out in the open to all buy the same stock probably does not violate those rules. Short selling at least now doesn't violate any rules. And to be honest, if I, if I thought there was going to be a regulatory response to this, I would imagine that it would protect the hedge funds and not the redditors. Like, I don't think they're going to make rules against short selling. If anything, if they, if there is regulation that results from this, it will probably hurt individuals who want to buy into the stock market. And that's actually very bad. Like the worst outcome here is that by showing how manipulatable this system is and by doing things that are perfectly acceptable behavior when they're done by hedge funds or even investment banks, it's possible that you would have regulators come in and go like, maybe we, maybe everybody who buys into the stock market has to be accredited or maybe if there's a certain amount of volatility and everybody's trying to buy the same stock at once, we just don't let them. And considering how few Americans are invested in the stock market anyway, that would be bad. I mean, Chamath Palapati of social capital, he was on CNBC today this argument because CNBC is having like a meltdown over this because they're, they're like the church of the stock market is under attack by barbarians. And he's like, really? Cause it seems to me that you built the world's biggest casino and you shouldn't be surprised that gamblers showed up and that anything that you're going to do is just going to like further entrenched property. It's going to be like, oh, I'm sorry, individuals, it's, it's literally like the financial crisis writ large again, right? The people who got bailed out will get bailed out. The individuals will pay for it. So any rules to come in to try to stop this might cut in the wrong direction. Yeah, as I understand it, what's going on in Reddit isn't lying, right?  And it's not true. That's red. It's not saying GameStop is going to make a comeback. They're just saying, let's all pile in and buy it and screw over these short sellers. So you would have to find another way to say they're doing something illegal and you'd have to figure out who to prosecute. There's not a particular ring leader, right? And so it's like, which one do you pick or do you go after them all? There's hundreds of thousands of them in there. The other thing is I noticed is the short sellers, sure, they've lost about five billion dollars so far, but they're also placing new short selling bets because, hey, if I can borrow a bunch of stock and sell it at three hundred dollars a share, and I know this red, it's going to get bored and wander off. And that amount is going to plunge right back down, let's say to eighteen dollars, not even four dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money because then I can buy it at eighteen dollars and boom, you know, I've got the difference between three hundred and eighteen. A hundred percent. And the hedge funds to be clear are all part of the same giant pool of money that just gets moved around from firm to firm to firm. And so there's this kind of whole other complicated part that Roger's Priority of Wikipedia did about how a lot of big firms have bought basically the rights to early trading information on Robinhood. They can they can essentially front run these trades. So like a firm called Citadel might realize that everybody's buying into GameStop, get on board with that, make a ton of money and then loan that money to bail out Melvin Capital and then have that money be invested later and make money on it. Right. So like at the end of the day Citadels, by the way, if you're out there to read in this, their Citadel securities, which has a deal with Robinhood, and then there's Citadel, which is doing what Molly's talking about. And they're both going to benefit from this and they're both going to benefit. Exactly. Like at the end of the day, we shouldn't shed too many tears for what we think of the establishment investors, because all of those same investors are going to make money. Some retail investors on Reddit are going to make a lot of money. Some retail investors on Reddit are going to be left holding the bag because right now there's a lot of pressure on them not to sell, even though the stock is really high and they could have made a lot of money. And so then now you're going to have this weird game theory thing to see who sells first, which will cause the price to go back down. And some individuals may lose an incredible amount of money. It's a very dangerous game. I don't want to get I mean, this is the whole thing is a dangerous game. It's twisted and crazy. I just can't believe it's all over a company. I used to trade Madden 05 in for it for 10 bucks. You know what I mean? They've turned to AMC theaters, another one that's not probably going to go up any type tune. Blackberry is another one that's being targeted. So yeah. Yeah. Blockbuster. It's got a real nostalgia vibe to it. I feel like if you look at the stocks they're choosing to inflate, you can really determine exactly how old they are. And it's basically this room. I mean, is there any scenario where any of the companies that are sort of on that short sell list benefit at all from this? Well, they definitely benefit in the short term because they get a huge infusion of capital. Sure. Yeah. I mean, if they're executive sell or their employees have any shares in the equity in the company that they can sell, which I suppose a lot of these companies didn't do that. The companies are in a weird position too, though, because right, it's like it's not like they can go out and spend a ton of money if they think the stock price is then going to collapse again to $4 and they won't have access to that money. But there could be some certainly benefit to at least the individual shareholders within the companies. Mike Aikens, I put out a editor's desk about this to patrons. So if you're a patron at the five dollar a month level and up, you've already got that in your feed. Mike Aikens responded that said, note the behavior of unfettered short selling and the massive price movements you are seeing are prohibited in many other countries, this sort of option and short selling stock manipulation is illegals in the countries is illegal in the countries I have and do work in and Mike's in Australia and works in other countries as well. So so there are regulations you could put in place to put brakes on this sort of behavior. Like Molly said, you may not we're sorry we are starting to see some of that like TD America, I think was like, OK, no more trading in GameStop. But the thing about this sort of legal thing, though, that's just TD Ameritrade saying that's just that being like whoa, it's in our best interest. Yeah, and the thing is now it's a school of sharks, right? Now I know that sharks don't move in schools, but now you got this school of predatory fish.  So sharks are going to school, sharks are going to school title. Molly, thank you so much for taking time out of a very busy schedule to help us understand this. If folks want to follow up on this and other stories, where should they go? Please go to marketplace.org or makemesmart.org, where we're just going to recover in this until the end of time. And Marketplace Tech will have an episode about this exact thing with Edward. I forgot his name already, even though I talked to him this morning, Edward from Vice, who wrote about this a couple of days ago and just really had the like seminal story on I've been on Wall Street bets for 10 years. And this is what's going on now. It's great. Thanks again, Molly. Hi, Molly. Microsoft reported revenue was up 70 percent last quarter and net income up 33 percent. That is mostly due to growth from cloud, surface and Xbox. Cloud's probably the least surprising office 365 commercial revenue grew 21 percent. Server products in cloud revenue grew 26 percent. Azure revenue grew 50 percent. And Microsoft 365 consumer subscribers grew 28 percent to forty seven point five million. So go and start consumer demand for PCs grew a lot in 2020. So not surprising that Windows OEM non pro revenue rose 24 percent because that's the windows that goes on consumer level desktops. Overall, Windows revenue only rose one percent, but that's because enterprise level windows had already mostly upgraded from Windows 7, so they weren't expecting a lot of growth there. Sales of surface devices two percent up top two billion dollars in the quarter. Not amazing, but growth. And I know you all want to hear about how the Xbox series Dax and S did in the first half quarter of their existence. They debuted November 10th. Xbox content and service revenue rose 40 percent on the year. Overall gaming revenue for Microsoft is up 51 percent, passing five billion dollars in a quarter for the first time. Overall Xbox hardware up 86 percent. Game pass subscribers rose 20 percent to 18 million subs. Satya Nadella said, quote, the launch of the Xbox series X and series S was the most successful in our history with the most devices ever sold in a launch month, but Microsoft never announces actual numbers. You just get that 86 percent increase. Also, Microsoft CFO Amy Hood said that the supplies will continue to be constrained. So even though they're selling a lot, there's a lot of demand. That doesn't mean they magically are able to make more of them. Yeah, demand remains high for both them and Sony. But this is interesting because Microsoft's push into subscriptions is the story here.  We may as well spend a chunk of money on our home entertainment and some of that is gaming. That is absolutely a factor in their growth. And I'm sure other numbers we're going to hear from others. But a big part of this is that coincided with them also doing what they had always planned to do ahead of the series X launch and S was to push game game pass ultimate and regular game pass and PC game pass really hard and really fast and try to get people unified on that platform to be ready for these new consoles. And I think that worked. And in some ways they got really lucky. I hate to say there's any luck during a pandemic. But from a financial perspective, they were lucky to be in the position that they were in, making the moves they were making that year. And also had that year be a year where a lot of people are stuck at home and a lot of people are spending money on stuff like Xboxes and games for it. So this is huge for them. These are really, really good numbers. I do wish they gave us actual numbers and not percentage growth. That would be cool because I just love to hear it. But those are great numbers and what Sony will present whenever they talk about theirs and what success they had or didn't have with the PS5 will be interesting because they are also heavily constrained in terms of production to meet demand. But yeah, like out of the gate for a new console launch. I don't know if you could ask for more if I were them. Well, and especially with, you know, a constrained supply chain and really good numbers like this, the numbers may spill over into the next quarter more than they might have otherwise. I mean, sure, you could have had more of a blowout quarter, but good numbers, two quarters in a row is often better because it's more it's sustained growth. They also, I think, carried through and like succeeded on the promise that was game pass. And by that, I mean they provided for what is relatively a low price, the price of 15 bucks a month, which is, you know, a good Netflix subscription or if you play World of Warcraft, it's one game you're paying for. They gave that to people with hundreds, literally hundreds of games through an EA play on top of it, which is EA's games all available to play all under the same roof for a very low price. Suddenly, suddenly the world changed for people who were like, wait, I don't want to spend 70 bucks a pop every couple of months or every month on a new game. Instead, you pay this low fee and you get access to everything. And I think they just I think they succeeded on that sale and it happened in a year where that sale made a ton of sense. So, you know, I guess good on them. We'll see if they can maintain. Hey, folks, if you want to talk about this or I don't know, studies show that viewers like things with X X in the name. That's actually something Jerry Heiselman just said in our discord and you can join and talk to him about it by linking to a Patreon account at patreon.com slash D T N S. A bug in the Linux utility pseudo called Baron same edit was patched after being discovered by security researchers at QALIS two weeks ago. The bugs would allow attackers that gained access to a low privileged account to then elevate them to route access. The bug impacts almost all pseudo installs and was introduced into the app's code in July of 2011. This is both the worst security story of the day and not as bad as maybe you think, depending on how you look at it. Pseudo elevates you to route access. So it's bad because anybody that gets into your Linux system can get root access. And one of the things that you are recommended to do is not run in route all the time. That way, if somebody does compromise your user account, they can't take over the machine because they don't have your route account. So this gets rid of that. They still have to crack into one of your user accounts to do this. This doesn't just magically give them easy access. It just makes it easier to get to the full machine control, which is bad. I'm not trying to downplay that. On the other hand, so many Windows and Mac OS users run as route anyway, that it's sort of bringing Linux down to the level of what a lot of people do on Windows and Mac OS. So it could be worse, is what I'm saying. The problem is this is going to happen to somebody who knows better, whereas with Windows and Mac OS, often it's not. But it's it's not the end of the world. It's a really bad bug and you should patch it right away, though. Yeah, it's funny because the Linux folks, they really pride themselves on their security, like security is a built in part of the ecosystem of why everyone loves Linux and can't wait to run their servers on it, whatever. So yeah, this seems worse because of that, I think, are in light of that. Whereas your average Windows or Mac users, like, what does root even mean? Like, yeah, they don't even know what you're talking about. So if you're kind of like fuzzy on pseudo, like you basically say, I want to do this thing and the operating system says you can't do that thing. You don't have root access and you're like, I don't want to have to log out and log back in.  And so the configuration file that goes with that is what's at the heart of this vulnerability. The most famous exploitation of pseudo is the XKCD, make me a sandwich, do it yourself. Sudo, make me a sandwich. OK, I guess I'll go make it. Perfect, perfect reference. Google announced it as ended active development of its VR painting app, Tilt Brush. Now don't get too excited yet, you guys. There's details here. For once, they didn't kill it. They open sourced it, which I wish they do more often. Anyway, Tilt Brush gives users virtual art tools like brushes to make art, including sculptures and virtual reality is a lot of particle effects and all sorts of stuff. You can create fire in that world. It's very cool. Source code is published on GitHub for developers to build on the app and they will continue to be make it available on the VR app stores. Tilt Brush co-creator Patrick Hackett left Google earlier this month to join the I allusions VR game studio Hackard or Hackett rather tweeted on Tuesday quote to some this may look like the end of Tilt Brush. To me, this is immortality. I'm really glad that Tilt Brush is not going away. Scott, you are the artist of the group here. I have no talent, but I liked Tilt Brush a lot. I think it was something that was in the Oculus store because I have the original Oculus Quest. It was like, oh, this is one of the, you know, the games of the year or something like that. And so I downloaded it because I just, I don't know, wanted to check out a bunch of different VR games I was getting into it.  I'm not really, I don't really have a goal. Is there really anything I'm necessarily going to share with anybody? I could if I wanted to. But it was just a fun kind of meditative creative little VR experience.  So it feels like going open source gives it more life than it even had before potentially more life because you've got other creative people saying, you know what I always wanted it to have? Let's add that. Let's add that version. It's entirely possible that it gets new life from this. On the other hand, it could gain some obscurity because it's not a mainline Google produced product. Probably their name wouldn't be on it anymore. Who knows, but I do think probably it's got a long life ahead of it. It was a really cool thing. And even if your goal was just to be inspired, you could go in there and pull up community creations that others have done and then walk around in the stuff they made and add to it, remove from it, like mess around in whatever they created. And some people were beyond crazy how cool the stuff they were making. So it was really, really, I think a very special experience. And two of my most memorable experiences on VR so far have been messing about with tilt brush and what possibilities lied there in and the Google Maps integration that basically gave you Google Earth to walk around in.  And for whatever reason, every time Google tries something in VR, it's really awesome. But it's usually like just a fun one off or a goofy idea they had. And tilt brushes are certainly not a profit center for Google or anything they plan to do much more with. So I guess in this case, I'm a little sad that they don't see the value in continuing to be, you know, to flagship it. But on the other hand, they didn't put it in the ground like most of the stuff they cancel. That's a step up in my opinion. So tilt brush, you have a future, we hope. We hope. All right, let's check out the mailbag. We get a lot of emails, but we get a lot of questions and comments and great ideas in lots of places. Discord is one of those places. And this one comes from Doctor who says, listening to the January 26 rewind bonus show, that's where we go back five years and talk about what was happening right about now, back then. Doctor says, thinking about Elon Musk at the time talking about using summon across the country, assuming that charging was available across the country, could be accessed by an unattended car. And laws allowed for such and had provisions for if an accident occurred with an unattended vehicle. Wouldn't it be faster though to just get the car shipped across country? Maybe cheaper with all that charging. Yeah, well, that's the thing, right? I guess it would be faster because they wouldn't have to stop as much. And maybe cheaper, if they had to pay for the charging, but sometimes Tesla users can get bargains. But yeah, I told Doctor at the Discord, I was like, you just get an electric autonomous truck. Take your car for you.  I love that. It's like, my car needs to go cross country. I will not be in that car. It's too expensive for my car to drive itself even though it can. So I want an electric big truck to put my car on with other cars like mine. Right, split the cost of the bunch of other people. It all makes sense, it's just, yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, it's a lot of layers there. Hey, if you've got feedback for us, feedback at Daily Tech News Show is a great place to send it. Thank you in advance. Also shout out to patrons at our master and our grandmaster levels. Today they include Chris Benito, John and Becky Johnston and Gadget Virtuoso. Thank you, Scott Johnson for being with us today. We learned a lot about stocks. We talked about art, talked about Microsoft and everything in between work and people keep up with the rest of your work. Well, there's a lot going on. I know that people tune into this show partly because they get daily access to great tech headlines and commentary and synopsis. And so if you're like, man, I really like daily content. I make a morning show and have for 10 years now. We hit our 10 year anniversary this last weekend and still going strong, having a great time with it. It's a little more light and fun, but Tom comes on Wednesdays and talks about what's happening in tech.  Anyway, go check it out. It's that the morning stream, you can find it wherever you get your podcast or you can find it over at frogpants.com slash TMS. Everything else is also there and you can always follow me on Twitter. I'm at twitter.com slash Scott Johnson. Hey, we have great patron rewards and one of them is that every week I do an editor's desk. Sometimes it's about how we do the show. Sometimes it's about my thoughts on stories. And today, as I mentioned earlier, it's about this GameStop stock situation. So if you want me to hear me take some time to explain short selling, call options, how this is all fitting together, it's a longer version of what you would get in Daily Tech News Show. You have to be at the $5 level a month or above and you go to dailytechnewshow.com slash Patreon. Folks, we are live Monday through Friday, 4.30 p.m. Eastern. That's 21.30 UTC. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live and put it on your calendar. We'll be back tomorrow with Justin Robert Young. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. The Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program. Thank you.


Welcome to Toffy TV. It is the start on 11. So, the first start on 11 prediction show of the new season. Crystal Palace away on Saturday, three o'clock kick off at Sellers Park. Let's get into it. In goal for Everton, Jordan Pickford. We might have signed Jonas Lasall in the summer, but Pickford still firmly Everton's number one, hoping for a good season from Jordan. Right back, Seamus Coleman. Big season for Seamus, obviously got some competition now for his position with Jibril Sadiabi coming in. So, big season needed from Seamus. Left back, Luca Dean. He had an absolutely fantastic season last season. Didn't even hope when that he continues that, what a player. And then the two centre backs, Jeri Mina, who needed big season. Injury ravaged. Last year, ruined his season. Couldn't get any head of steam up, but he's first choice this time round. And he will be partnered by Michael Keane, who was fantastic last season for Everton. Recovered after a poor season, the season before. We need them to build a solid partnership at the heart of our defence. Into midfield, no Fabian Delph, so I've gone with Jean-Philippe Barman. Obviously, we've lost Adrissa Ghan agai, which will be a big loss for us this season, but hopefully Barman will come in and settle. He's been this a bit earlier than probably I would have liked, but no Delph means that he plays for me. And he's partnered in there with Andre Gomez, who made his move from Barcelona to Everton, permanent this summer. And we're hoping now that he's settled fully, that he'll be even better than he was last season. Needs a little bit more creativity, had a few goals as well, but he was excellent for Everton last season. Further ahead of them, we've got Guilfee Sigarton, 13 Premier League goals from his position last season for Guilfee. We need that again. Obviously, this Everton side needs to score more goals when Guilfee can be key in that bringing the goals from midfield. Over on the left hand side, Bernard, hoping that he can keep that partnership going with Luca Deane down the left. Again, another one started slowly, but when he got into it, particularly those last 10 games of the season, him and Luca Deane were fantastic, and that's what we need this time around as well. Over on the right hand side, Ray Charlison, excellent season from him last year, 15 goals. We need him to be doing that again. He was brilliant at times last season, a little bit more consistency throughout this season. We could see him go up another level again. Up front, I've gone with our new number nine for the season, Dominic Calvert-Lewin. The temptation really was there to put Moise Keane in, but he's only done a weak training, so I would start him on the bench in this one and hopefully bring him off the bench with half an hour to go, but I go with Dom. He's a little bit more up to speed. Did well the back end of last season, and it's up to him, the goal that has been thrown down, the Dominic Calvert-Lewin, to add goals to his all-round game, and this is his opportunity. We're in the number nine shades to get out there and show Marco Silva that he can do it. That is my predicted start and line up for this week's game. Let me know what you think in the comments section below. I'm sure a few of you will be saying why isn't Keane playing, and that's fine. I've just gone with Dom for this one. Let me know in the comments section below. If you haven't subscribed, please do so. Take a second. Give this video a big thumbs up, and if you want more content, including live content every day, make sure you become a patron. See you later.


This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Guys, and we are back live here in the studio with Think Tech Studios Hawaii. This is the Prince of Investment, right here live, and I'm your host, Prince Dyches, and we're here on Episode 12, and we still haven't gotten canceled. So that's always a good thing. But as you guys can already see in the description box, as you guys can see into the title, whether you're here from the podcast, watching it live, just watch the replay on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, whatever the case may be. You guys see in the description box, we're going to be talking about one of the most essential things out there, starting a business. Entrepreneurship seems to be so cool and easy and all that good stuff like that. But getting started, getting the ball rolling sometimes could be a heck of a situation. So today, we're going to talk about how you can start a business and doing it successfully. You need to start one, but to do it successfully is a different story. So today, as always, I brought on a very, very special guest to come in and talk about this, Ms. Ellen Seminole. And if you don't know who Ms. Ellen Seminole is, she is one of the founding vice presidents of Yahoo. Before that, she started Frontier, and she sold a company to Adobe for hundreds of millions of dollars, 500 million, I think, or something like that it says, reportedly. She's done so many phenomenal things around Silicon Valley and all that great stuff. So we're glad to have her here today. Ms. Ellen, how are you doing? Awesome, awesome. Now, for people out there who don't know who you are, I know I just gave you an introduction, but can you kind of give people a background in your business and you into the business world, all the great things you've done so far? Princeton and economics, I've done the whole pre-med curriculum. My father swore to me that that would be useful to me, and I'm still waiting. I have an MBA from Stanford Business Development, as well as another bunch of their various business units, so we took that company from handful of employees to a much bigger company. Then I ran Efficient from Spear, which was one of the very early algorithmic restrictions in marketing firms. Thank you for the flood. We wound up selling that company from almost half a billion dollars to Adobe, and now I'm CEO of Shrews and I'm in the online education world. Oh, wow. That's a very, very impressive resume. What was your education from having an MBA from Stanford and going all the way to building an Efficient Frontier to selling the company for half a billion dollars and stuff like that? You've seen a lot of things from the ups and downs, especially, are you in Silicon Valley right now? Is that correct? I am in Silicon Valley. I'm in California. Okay. The thing about it is when people want to get out, they want to start a business, are they thinking about starting a business? One of the first things a lot of people have issues with is financing. Hey, I have this great idea. It sounds good, but getting the finances, because if you don't have the finances to create the products or the material or anything like that, what would be your advice or what would you have to tell someone to even try to get started in a situation like that? I've always been associated with, had what you call very early traction and were stressed before they actually ever raised financing. The biggest challenge is the less you have and the more expensive that money is in terms of both the valuation, the terms, and the life. The more traction you have going in, the easier it's going to be for you to raise money to build up a company. So let's take some examples. With Yahoo, one of the biggest things that Jerry and David did when they signed the company was they actually were students at Stanford. So if you're a student today and you can be in a position where you can get something going while you're at school, that's it. Because your room is covered, usually your food is covered, and you can actually get some of the hardest visible signs of progress before you have to raise real money. So even financing, which is very early state financing, the problem is if you can't track as long as you can before you stop raising money. Okay. So what you were saying there is pretty much the best way to do this is to get traction first. And for someone out there that says traction, what does that mean? What do you say traction? Well, you have a lot of users. If you're a consumer based site and you can show that you can attract users and be viral in some way shape or form, that's one way to get traction. Two is to have customers. So if you can get one or two customers or you can get a couple advertisers if you're a consumer based business, just to show that you have a revenue model and that you tested it in a little sort of business development deal where you can come partnership with a bigger company. But the revenue isn't that right away. It should show that there are people who want to work to have some practice. You can get some of the right about the concept and the revenue concept, whether it's... Okay.  You say, hey, the best way is to go out and start traction first whether you start a website or whatever the case may be. Get some users, some people to download it if it's an app or if it's a game or something like that to prove you have traction first, then maybe go out and seek finances. Is that correct? That was difficult. Unless you're a business employee, please invest and see from them. Yeah, that's got to make sense. But as soon as we're going to do, we're going to take a quick break, quick one-minute break, and we're going to come right back here live from Honolulu, Hawaii with the Prince of Investing, and this is your host, Prince Dix. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. Hello Austin here folks, your host on Where the Drone Leads, our weekly show at noon on Thursdays here on Think Tech. We talk about drones, anything to do about drones, drones, remotely piloted aircraft, unmanned aircraft, whatever you want to call them, emerging into Hawaii's economy, educational framework, and our public life. We talk about things associated with the use, the misuse, technology, engineering, legislation with the local experts, as well as people from across the country. Please join us noon on Thursdays and catch the latest on what's taking place in the world of drones that might affect you. Guys, we're back live here at Think Tech Studios, Hawaii. I'm your host, Prince Dix. We was having a little bit of technical difficulties there with the audio, but we got that all straight now. And plus, on top of that, we still have Ms. Ellen Simronoff, one of the founding vice presidents. She says, yahoo, here, live with us. Now, one of the things we wanted to mention that she was speaking about early, people always say, hey, I need to have money to be able to start a company. I need all this money to be able to start a business. And she said, hey, first create a product, get some traction on the product, then go out and seek people that may want to invest in your product to seek the funding that way, which is great. So if you do get investors, that's great. But now I have a question. Now, you can do, I don't know what the key to success is, but I do know you will never get there alone. You need other people. You need the right people. Now, when you're going forward and stuff like that, my question is, what do we have to think of as far as building a team? When you build your team, when you find people, how do you find people? Let's say if you can't afford them. What do you have to say to that, Alan? When you're looking to build a team and maybe you may not have the funding to pay everybody like you would like to pay them. Any good entrepreneur, hopefully you have a good idea. And if you have a good idea, your first sale is really to sell others to work with you and to be excited about your idea. In almost any company that's in Silicon Valley, you need a good tech lead. So either you have technical chops or you need to get someone who does it. The second is you want to have someone who can help with sales, marketing, those kind of things because you're going to want to get either users or revenue in one sort of way. There are lots of other positions that are really important, but that's the start. I mean, obviously, depending on what business you're in. The key is you're going to have to sell people on your idea because if you can't pay them cash, because we've just talked about we want to put points on the board before you actually go out and raise money, then you're going to have to give them either very low salaries, that they're going to just have to believe that if the company does better, you'll increase what you pay them. Or you're going to have to give them equity in some way, shape or form in the company. And that can be in the form of stock outright or options. But at the end of the day, a lot of wealth can be created that way, but also it's risky for the people coming on board. So they have to really believe in what you're doing. Okay. So essentially, now, sometimes you have people that say, hey, well, you have people that may come around, right? They may say, hey, well, I can provide a service that can potentially help your company, maybe help do some type of service where bringing more customers, maybe get some people to sponsor all that great stuff like that. Do you look to pay those particular people or would you rather just say, hey, maybe give them stock options and use that money to market? What would you say? Or would you just try to find a team that really believes into the company and give them equity in the company? You can give people some mix where you can give them some cash so that they can feed themselves and some equity in the company. You generally want your early team to really be on board. The best way is if they feel they have a stake in the company. The more they bring in in terms of experience and expertise, the more you're willing to pay them in terms of the company or in terms of cash if you have it. The key thing to keep in mind with any early-stage startup is likely you will be raising a big around at some point so everyone will face some level of dilution, which means that they'll accept some other investors and the pot will get a little bit thinner. So you really have to think carefully about that early team. Okay. Why do you say the early team is so crucial? Because at that time you're kind of selling an idea and a concept both to the marketplace at large and to potential partners. And you want people who are on board who are excited, who are going to work hard because it's rarely a 9-5 job and who are going to help you execute. If you have a company of a thousand people and one person is a stinker, it's not going to kill your company. If you have a company of five people and one person is a stinker and that person's in charge of a pretty big function, that's a problem. So be very crucial about the team and if you can't afford to pay your team either, you know, they have to take a pretty low salary or factor off giving them equity into the company. Now, those don't want to say hey, I have a company and they may start at LLC or whatever they may start. How will one, you know, they may not know the steps to how do I give away equity in my company? Do I need to get a lawyer? What would your advice be on that? We actually have a great section if I can plug my company Schmoop at www.schmoop.com We actually have a great area on finance and we're building out more and more every day about how do you structure a company. And there are a lot of different formats where you can structure a company. There's limited partnerships, there's different corporations that you can set in place and there's full partnerships. All of them have different levels of liability and control and you have to decide which way you're going to go. You definitely want to probably go in a direction where you're going to have limited liability. So either a limited liability corporation or a full corporation in general. In terms of how you structure it there are lots of pretty inexpensive ways that you can set up a company in its early days. There are legal services that you can do online. There are lawyers that you can go to who can do this relatively inexpensively. It used to be really expensive to set up a company but it's a lot easier today and a lot of it can be done online. Got it. So you said www.schmoop.com www.schmoop.com Okay you actually have a finance course there online that one can take and help them to see what they will like to whether they want to go to LLC, a limited liability incorporation or whether the case may be that sort of thing. Exactly. We have a full range of different educational topics and finance is a big one. One of the areas we've discovered is that people don't often take a finance course in high school and some people are afraid to take one in college. Yet it is probably the single most important skill that you need to have. We all take out eventually that either you're signing a rental agreement or you're signing a mortgage but eventually we all need to understand finance and if you don't understand how to set up your company how can you grow and build it and you're likely to have someone take advantage of you which is just terrible. Wow. Very great point there and you know to get the education and get the financial education and the financial literacy show somewhere that someone can tune in and listen to someone who's been there done it at a major level and all the other great stuff. Now when you say shmoop what made you go from building you know algorithms to you know sell pretty much like what we know as Google ads today selling this company for half a billion dollars from Yahoo being in Silicon Valley to hey you know what education platform we got you into that. And I think there are a couple times in your life you get really interested in education when you actually are getting educated yourself although at that time you might not be as interested in education as you are getting through it when you become a parent and apparently when you become a grandparent because you really care then and one of the things I noticed is that there's not equal access to awesome educational materials in this country and around the world and we wanted to provide really great materials that students would actually use so everything about shmoop takes the education part very seriously but we're fun and funny and built for the digital age so our view is studying for the SAT learning about finance learning about math and literature shouldn't feel like a root canal it should be interesting it should be fun and you should be able to learn it without being in pain that is very true because I was looking around on your site and I saw that it wasn't typical hey you know here's this big long power porn here's this big long pdf file you got to read all through it with books that are gigantic you know it was very very keen stuff that you can use and utilize so it was and it was fun you know it was like fun and you know you have some animated stuff there and it wasn't approaching it in a you know funny dorky type way versus what we know is oh education is usually I have to finance I have to learn all these formulas and go through this you know massive program where the case may be whereas this is just taking it and making it simple so we like to think of it as storytelling so we actually run through various companies and we make up our own company names to show people how you would finance a company or how you would understand what a stock option is which is probably one of the more important terms that someone should understand but if you make it mind numbingly boring no one's going to engage in it we live in a world today where students and all of us quite frankly are used to constant communication lots of video lots of engagement and we need to expect our learning resources to act in the same way and that's very true where we live in the age now everything is fast we have so much information at our fingertips via social media via all our phones and stuff like that now that everybody carries around 24-7 but now we can have so much information where sometimes it can be too much information and that's great that you found a new way to attack it and bring it now for someone out there that's interested and want to take a course how much does the course cost? Actually it's an all you can eat unlimited models so for under 25 bucks a month you can take over 400 courses and if you finish in a month you're great and if you want to continue you can do that we also now have community college accepted courses on Schmoop so you can actually get credit towards your degree so we're really excited about that Awesome so you could sign up for parents during the summer time they could take a course paid 25 bucks a month and maybe the kids can sit down and take an online course for the whole month or the summer have access to anything they want to take for the whole summer In fact one of the things most parents find is over the summer so many kids go backwards in school and they spend the first three or four months of the next year relearning material that they had learned the year before just because they weren't exercising their brains enough over the summer Okay that makes sense Well that's great on top of that we're building Schmoop to building things like that Now let's go back to our original topic of having your own business and starting stuff like that What are some of the most common pitfalls that you see people fall into and what are some ways they can avoid them The biggest pitfalls people have is not being thinking about the growth of the market and how big a market they're trying to reach and how to go after that market So I think some people go into it without doing some basic investigation is how big is this market and how do I make money in it That's sort of the first problem people face The second problem people face is that they don't think about what kind of people they need to make the team great and for me I am what I call an opportunistic hirer When I find someone awesome and I think they're going to impact the business I try not to worry as much about like is there the perfect job for them as much as I give them a bunch of stuff that needs to get done and when there's awesome people they'll get it done So you say don't try to hey this person is not fitting in this way, fitting in this way you're just saying hey just find great people and great people will do just make it happen There's nobody who's a great person who will not like find a way to make them self-worth file So I mean don't hire 100 people if you don't have any revenue but if you find one or two people who you think are game changers got it that's a very smart way to look at it most people look at the particular skills to say hey this person needs to have I'm looking for this particular person this is what I need to have but that's the way you look at it and say hey just find great people and if you have great people then you can just if you have great people good ways to get the job done and then you know with me I'm very big on honesty and integrity and I think that's crucial when you're starting out in the beginning phases because you could have someone that could be great at a technical piece but they don't have the honesty and integrity and like you said when you're so small it's so crucial that you could end up losing your whole company based off of you know like I forgot the words you used earlier so you got one stinker so if you got one stinker that doesn't have the integrity at the beginning phases that can be very detrimental to your company versus you know if you have someone with honesty and integrity that believes in what you're doing and believe in the mission that can help you out tremendously and you made a great point because in the beginning phases people are going to be multi-tastic you know they're going to be making phone calls sending emails setting up things and they're going to say yes people are not going to follow through and they have to be pretty resilient to be able to make it do that stuff I totally agree that you need people who are ethical that's just a very important point especially because today sometimes the people who work with you won't be necessarily located in the same city I mean we're finding that a lot of people you know outsourced other countries or other cities to work remotely and a lot of it has to do with trust and integrity and having just a team that's really dedicated that's very true Alan is there anything else you want to say here that you want to leave the bands and listeners and follow-up isn't your research there awesome shows like yours plus your podcast where they give a lot of great information and people should remember to do their homework starting a company because there's so much fantastic information out there that you can draw on got it all right lenders and gentlemen and children who are listening around the globe my name is Prince Dykes this is Ms. Ellen Semenoff we want to thank her for taking time out of her day to sit back you know out of her business skills as well as accomplished as she is to sit back and give you so much knowledge and things like that you kind of hear some stuff that you you've heard before but it's not a bad deal to hear it again I'd like to hear it again so I learned it a lot personally I hope you guys took away something from it as always guys this is Prince Dykes this is The Prince of Investment until the next podcast, video, cartoon, book whatever you see me do crazy around the globe peace be safe and I'm out thank you


Hello here's an Android quick tip for you power users looking at the screen here I have my desktop shell on the left and my Android device on the right You can get into the system settings by pulling down from the top twice and clicking the gear icon Or of course you can always go to your app drawer and click on settings But let's say you don't want a user to be able to access the settings on the device Well with ADB enabled you can ADB shell and then run PM Disable dash user calm dot Android dot settings and when you hit enter now You can try going to settings and you will see the icon is missing from here And if we pull down twice from up here and click the gear icon it doesn't open so you can disable that This is great if you want to limit someone from getting into that for maybe a kiosk situation Of course, you can always re-enable it again on your desktop using ADB shell and this time just use PM enable calm dot Android dot settings and now that we do that if we go into our app drawer You'll see the settings icon is back And of course you can still get into it by pulling down twice and clicking the gear icon there That is a quick and easy way to disable system settings for a user on Android devices Thank you for watching. Please visit filmsbychrist.com. That's Chris the K as always Thank you for watching and I hope that you have a great day


I'm Darren Marlar and this is a Weird Darkness Bonus Byte. From Paranormality Magazine, Painting of a Cursed Girl Sparks Intrigue and Online Frenzy by Brandon Grimes. A mysterious and unsettling painting of a young girl has caused quite a stir, earning a reputation as Cursed after being returned twice to a charity shop due to its eerie vibes. The artwork depicting a girl in a red dress with an uncanny facial expression and eyes that seemed attract observers was donated to the Hastings Advice Representation Center, or Hark Shop, in St. Leonard's on-sea. The painting's peculiar aura prompted two separate buyers to return it shortly after purchasing, citing its unsettling and creepy nature. The manager of Hark, Steve, confirmed the uncanny phenomenon of the painting's eyes seemingly following viewers around the room. The painting's origin story traces back to a middle-aged man who donated a collection of old pictures and frames among which the eerie portrait was included. Upon first encountering the painting, Steve was taken aback by the strange expression on the girl's face, exclaiming, oh my god, look at her face. Acknowledging its disconcerting quality, he agreed with a customer's observation that it had a creepy quality. The painting was initially sold for €25, but the initial buyer swiftly returned it, claiming it exuded an unsettling aura. In response, the painting was placed back in the shop window, this time with a markdown and a cautionary note about its potential curse. Despite the warning, another customer braved the purchase, securing the painting for €20. However, this buyer also soon returned the painting, shaken and distressed, insisting she never wanted to see it again. The painting reappeared in the shop window, accompanied by a new note that humorously announced its return with the phrase, she's back, sold twice and returned twice, are you brave enough? The second buyer took to social media to share her experience, attracting attention from an international community of art enthusiasts who have a penchant for peculiar second-hand art pieces. The painting gained a devoted following as users shared their thoughts, with some suggesting it had an evil vibe, others commented on its potential to bring misfortune. Amid the comments, the painting even earned comparisons to a young Nicole Kidman. The post's popularity eventually led the second buyer to reconsider. She returned to the shop, requesting to reclaim the painting due to its newfound online fame. Steve gladly obliged, letting her have the painting back for free, eager to part ways with the unsettling artwork. In the end, this enigmatic painting of a little girl managed to capture the attention of both local shoppers and a global online audience, solidifying its place as an intriguing and memorable piece of art with a mystique that continues to captivate. See a photo of the painting and find the link to the original story in the show notes. And find more news on the Weird News and Blog at WeirdDarkness.com


Hi everyone. In this talk we are going to look at a very classical topic in cryptography, namely that of security of password hashing algorithms in the presence of pre-processing attacks. My name is Pria Farsim and this is joint work with Stefano Tissaro from University of Washington. So passwords are one of the most commonly used authentication mechanisms in cryptography and security and typically we would use a hash of a password in place of the password itself for authentication. This is to provide some form of resilience against for example leakage of a database of password passwords where you would get to see the hash of passwords but not the passwords themselves. In fact, sometimes we even go beyond this and we use hash of password as a secret key in some application. For example, we might drive a secret key from a password and then use it to encrypt data. The setting that we are considering here is one where an attacker is interested in attacking multiple users and it is not targeting any particular user but is basically trying to compromise as many users as it can. In doing this, it may use pre-processing techniques such as use of rainbow tables to speed up its attack and typically in such settings the hash function is actually assumed to be secure in the sense that it behaves like a random oracle. And what the adversary tries to do is to exploit the low entropy of human generated passwords. The main wisdom here is that instead of hash of passwords, we actually are going to store salt attaches of password. That is we have some public land randomness assault. And we are going to hash this salt together with the password and start this in our database. And the general idea is that this something will defeat pre-processing because if you, for example, have distinct salts, the distinct salts here will actually result in a domain separation of this hash function, which means that basically a separate effort will be needed for cracking each password. In fact, if these passwords, these salts are also unpredictable. Actually, we are going to defeat pre-processing because essentially the hash function that we are going to use in hashing the password is going to be unpredictable because we don't notice salt part of the hash function. So the goal of this talk is to formalize this conventional wisdom. So, there are two lines of related works here. One is a long series of works on pre-processing, starting with the work of the Genar and Travisan in 2000. And then a work of Ungal from 2007, which looked at random oracles with auxiliary input. Going to the work of the Travisan and Telsiani, and then a number of work by Dodis et al, which develops techniques in proving security in the presence of pre-processing. In this talk, we are particularly going to rely on the work by Coretti Dodis school and Steinberger from 2018, which introduced the technique of bit fixing random oracle to prove results in the pre-processing. Another important work here is that of Bellara Aristampard and Desaro from crypto 2012, where they highlighted the need for multi-instance security in password-based crypto. Let's look at these two settings in a little bit more detail. So here's the pre-processing setting where the adversary A0, which is the pre-processing adversary, gets the random oracle fully, the full table of the random oracle, and output some auxiliary information sigma. And then in the online phase of the attack, A1 is going to run with sigma and the hash function in the game to win some security here. So this is a general template to upgrade notions of security from setting without pre-processing to one with pre-processing in idealized models. What about multi-instance security in the multi-instance setting? The adversary, for example, gets a bunch of passwords, hash of password one to hash of password M, and its goal is to recover all of these passwords. So note that the setting is somewhat different from multi-user security, where you would again get a bunch of passwords, but your goal is to recover only one of them. So here we are interested in recovering all of them because we are interested in adversaries that are trying to recover passwords of as many users as they can. Okay. So the perspective here is that in such a multi-instance setting, ideally the effort that the adversary needs to put to compromise M passwords should scale linearly with M. In this setting, however, where we have not used salts, one can see that the adversarial advantage is actually bounded below by T over M, where M is the, let's say, the size of the domain where these passwords are taken from, and T is the number of queries that the adversary makes around the molecule. In fact, you can see this as an adversary which makes T queries to this hash function is going to recover the ice password with probability T over M for each single instance, and then essentially these games are independent. So the probability that you're going to recover all of them is T over M to the M. So if you think about a pass and an adversary which actually queries all of the domain where T equals N, and you can see that the adversary can actually recover all of the passwords. So put differently, if you have T over M over M is roughly equal to one, and we get that T is roughly equal to M. And as you see here, the time required by the adversary is not scaling at all with M, the number of users. Now, if you come, if you come to the salted setting where we are using salts to hash passwords, we do actually get bound to that scales with M, at least for certain adversaries. So here we have an, you can consider an adversary which has a budget of T queries, and then it distributes them over all these M different hashed keys with different salts, and then tries to guess the password using the budget of T over M queries per salt. And then we will get a bound like this. So now if you do a calculation like before, if you set this roughly equal to one, and we will get that T is roughly equal to M times M. And here you see that the time required by the adversary is scaling linearly enough. So one of the contributions of this paper is actually proved also upper bounds on the adversarial advantage. Okay, so as I mentioned, the goal of this paper is to understand password hashing in the presence of multiple instances and pre processing effort. And put together, we have these two settings, and we are actually combining them in this work. So, in this work we are going to consider three different notions. There are three different settings. One is the setting without salts and distinct salts. These are interesting from a historical point of view and also a more theoretical point of view related to amplification. But also, we are going to look at random salts, and this is the setting which is most relevant to practice, but is also of course, interesting from a theoretical point of view. So to gain some intuition towards this problem, let's look at the multi instance extension of the helman's space-time trade-off algorithm. So here we have a permutation pi, and we create a graph, a functional graph, where we start from some point, and then we repeatedly apply the permutation. And let's assume for now that this permutation, this permutation has one cycle in the sense that this permutation, this functional graph basically covers the old domain of the permutation. So this is the graph that we built. And what we do next is that we take s points on this graph, which are of distance n over s apart. And for each of them, we store a point, we store the former pointer to t over m steps behind. Okay, so these are pointers to t over m steps behind. This means that if I have a point, say this red point here that I want to recover, if this red point happens to be in the segment, all I need to do is to start applying the permutation here, get to this point, chase the pointer back, apply the permutation further, and stop right before I get to this point, and then I have recovered the preimage. So what's the probability that this point ends up being in the segment, the length of the segment is t over m, the length of the segment is n over s. So this is the probability that one of them ends up being there. So the probability that all of them ends up being there is st over mn to power of m. So keep that bound in mind when we come to our security bounds later on. So, to get any form of security in password based cryptography, we actually need to have passwords which are unguessable. And for this we actually need some form of measure of unguessibility for passwords. So the DRT formulated such a notion, they considered a setting, an unguessibility password where passwords are generated, vector passwords are generated together perhaps with some leakage information set. And the adversary is run with a test oracle and a corrupt oracle, where the corrupt oracle will simply return the I to password in on query I, and the test oracle gets a guess password from the adversary, and an index I, and checks whether this password matches the and the goal of the adversary here is to actually win all of these instances that is set all of these flags to be true. And we measure the advantage here by considering the maximum advantage of an adversary of any adversary industry. Now how does this relate to the known notions of unguessibility for distributions. So, if you consider a setting where you have M guesses, and is the number of passwords in the system that's the number of passwords as it might be. And it's not too hard to see that this measure is actually related to the mean entropy of the password or in this case average and entropy of the passwords. So, the advantage of corruptions is a little more complicated, and there doesn't seem to be a notion in information theory that captures this nicely. So for that purpose, we're actually going to look at the case where the adversary does C queries and does M minus C test queries so C corruptions M minus C guesses, as our basic measure, then there are corruptions. So the first theorem is a theorem that relates the unguessibility of passwords when the adversary has two queries to this basic measure that we have. And the actual proof for this is not too complicated. Suppose that I have an adversary here, and I want to convert it to an adversary here which can only make M minus C queries. So what I'm going to do this is that I'm actually going to guess which of these M minus C queries out of the T queries that the adversary makes to the test oracle are going to return true either going to be the correct guesses. I'll guess that that set of indices. So these, these queries are then relate to the oracle that the adversary gets in this game with M minus C test queries. The rest of the queries are answered with F, the bottom, but false, and the correction queries are also relate. So the C corruption queries are related to the adversary's oracle here, the adversary, the adversary's corrupt oracle here. So if I have guessed this set of M minus C indices out of T correctly, then this reduction is perfect. And whenever this adversary wins here, this adversary here with only M minus C queries to the test oracle wins here. This argument, this rather simple argument actually resolved an open question left in BRT where the author actually considered the setting where there's a bound TI, a priori bound TI for each I. And this is a somewhat important restriction in the sense that actually an adversary in practice could actually adapt the number of queries that it is making as it makes progress in different instances. Okay, so far we have looked at the undisputability of passwords and how it relates to our basic basic measures of undisputability. And next we are going to actually look at hashed and salted passwords. So for this, let me start with a notion of security for unrecoverability of passwords in the auxiliary input random oracle model. So this is a game which goes like this, a random oracle is chosen from some domain and range. Then the adversary is given the full code of the random oracle and output some pre processing information sigma. This is as in the pre processing template. Then the passwords are picked. And then we generate salts. So there could be multiple salts per password. So M is the instance count and L is the number of, let's say sessions per user. So you have L passwords per user. Then the password is, is, is hashed together with these salts, and the keys are computed. And the adversary is now provided with the keys the salts, the sigma, the auxiliary information related to the random oracle, and Z, which is some leakage information on passwords, and it's called is to guess the whole vector of passwords. While the adversary is doing it during this, of course it has access to the random oracle age, as well as a corrupt query where it can corrupt users and get their passwords. So this is a very national notion of unrecoverability of passwords in the auxiliary input model. So actually to analyze this analyze such games in the auxiliary input random oracle model. There are a number of techniques. One of them is the compression technique, which has been used successfully in various works before. So here we are actually going to look at the, a different technique known as the pre sampling or the bit fixing random oracle technique, where, instead of a pre processing information that depends on the random oracle, you're going to concern with the property which outputs preprocessing information which is independent of the random oracle. But instead, it gets to output a list of presignments L, which contain entries of the form point Xi maps to why I. So what we do then in the online phase of the game is that we are going to run the game with respect to a random oracle, which is random everywhere, except for points in L there. It should be compatible with the assignments in L. So that is the bit fixing random oracle model. And Coretti Jodesko and Steinberger in 2018 proved that if you have bounds in the bit fixing random oracle model, then you can actually drive bounds in the auxiliary input random oracle model. So what we do in the paper we apply this technique and we drive a unrecovered deep end in the bit fixing random oracle model for the case where the KDF function is the random oracle itself. Solts are uniform in K. There are possibly L instances of salts per password, and we have a password sampler which outputs M passports. I won't go into this bound here, but in a second I will come to the to what this bound actually means. So in the paper we also drive bounds for other cases where we have a general soft generation algorithm not uniform one. And I refer you to the paper to check those theorems. So what are our main bounds. So, we have six main bounds corresponding to the cases where we have no salts. We have three known distinct salts and uniform salts, and we have the case where there is no processing. So S was the, the big length of the preprocessing information sigma, or we have some large amount of preprocessing. We get these bounds one by one. So for the case where we have no salts and no preprocessing we get a bound of the form t to the end over M. Recall that this matches the bound we had earlier on the lower bound on the adversarial advantage that we had earlier. This is an upper bound. For the case with distinct sound salts, we get an upper bound which is of the form t over M with an M in the denominator, showing that the adversarial effort will scale linearly and as long as salts are distinct. And for the uniform case we also get a similar bound. For example, if NL over K is a small because the K, the size of the salt space is large. We actually get the same amount. So let's look at the case with preprocessing, which is the focus of the work. So in this case we get an upper bound. For the case with no salts we get an upper bound of the form s t over M and note that this matches the multi instance helmet algorithm that we have for the known distinct cell case we get a bound of this form with the end squared in the denominator. What this is basically saying is that in order to match this found here for multi instance helmet that we have the for example have to do M times as much preprocessing one for each salt. So if s is replaced with NS because we are increasing our preprocessing effort, then the M's will cancel out when we get this. The most, the most relevant bound for practice that we have is the bound over here. About the case with lead proposed preprocessing and uniform salts. So in this bound if you see, we have a term which is independent of s and the term which is dependent on this. And this term is multiplied by a value which is ML over K. And if the result of so to space is big, then this, this term is basically negligible. And we fall back to a setting where we have T over and meaning that the adversarial effort scales linearly with M and second preprocessing is defeated. There's no dependency on this. In the paper, let me just briefly mentioned that we also look at a composable notion of KDF security with auxiliary information. This is following the work of the Laura wrist important to sorrow. And the proven appropriate composition theorem for this notion in the sense that security in a multi instance environment with auxiliary input is upper bounded by the advantage in this KDF game with auxiliary input, plus the advantage in the guessing game in a multi instance guessing game, and plus advantage in a single instance of the game with a random with random keys. So, here we don't have a multi instance term, only a single instance term. And this is of no concern because the keys here are random and this, this term is still, I should mention that it's one is looking at, look at this from a theoretical perspective. One may want to drive even sharper bound than this. And in the paper, we look at the security of a iterated hash function where we take a hash function and the iterated R times, and we drive a BF KDF bound for this in the bit fixing random oracle model. And then we apply the CDGS machinery and optimize for P to get a bound in the auxiliary input. And that concludes my.