scholarly journals Third-Party Evaluation and Certification for Biometrics under the Common Criteria

Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Kaneko
Author(s):  
Olaf Henniger

For establishing trust in the security of IT products, security evaluations by independent third-party testing laboratories are the first choice. In some fields of application of biometric methods (e.g., for protecting private keys for qualified electronic signatures), a security evaluation is even required by legislation. The common criteria for IT security evaluation form the basis for security evaluations for which wide international recognition is desired. Within the common criteria, predefined security assurance requirements describe actions to be carried out by the developers of the product and by the evaluators. The assurance components that require clarification in the context of biometric systems are related to vulnerability assessment. This chapter reviews the state of the art and gives a gentle introduction to the methodology for evaluating the security of biometric systems, in particular of behavioral biometric verification systems.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrej Sarjaš ◽  
Rajko Svečko ◽  
Amor Chowdhury

This paper presents the synthesis of an optimal robust controller with the use of pole placement technique. The presented method includes solving a polynomial equation on the basis of the chosen fixed characteristic polynomial and introduced parametric solutions with a known parametric structure of the controller. Robustness criteria in an unstructured uncertainty description with metrics of normℋ∞are for a more reliable and effective formulation of objective functions for optimization presented in the form of a spectral polynomial with positivity conditions. The method enables robust low-order controller design by using plant simplification with partial-fraction decomposition, where the simplification remainder is added to the performance weight. The controller structure is assembled of well-known parts such as disturbance rejection, and reference tracking. The approach also allows the possibility of multiobjective optimization of robust criteria, application of mixed sensitivity problem, and other closed-loop limitation criteria, where the common criteria function can be composed from different unrelated criteria. Optimization and controller design are performed with iterative evolution algorithm.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.


1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix R. Homberger ◽  
Peter E. Thomann

Pathogen-free sentinel mice were placed in 7 animal rooms with different housing conditions and were serologically screened for antibodies to mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), pneumonia virus of mice (PVM), Sendai virus, reovirus 3, Theiler's mouse encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV), ectromelia virus and Mycoplasma pulmonis by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, at intervals after introduction. The most commonly detected antibody was against MHV, which was found in mice from 4 rooms, followed by PVM antibody in mice from 3 rooms. Seroconversion to Sendai virus and TMEV was detected in mice from one room each. No seroconversion to any of the antigens was found in 2 rooms. The common criteria of these 2 rooms were that they housed pathogen-free animals from a single source and that the access to the rooms was, purposely or not, restricted to people who had no contact to other mice. The study demonstrated the importance of husbandry and hygienic regimen on the prevalence of infectious agents in laboratory mice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document