The Experts below are selected from a list of 394158 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lisbeth Strandmark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Vera Eory, Sylvain Pellerin, Gema Carmona Garcia, Heikki Lehtonen, Ieva Licite, Hanna Mattila, Thøger Lund-sørensen, John Muldowney, Dina Popluga, Lisbeth StrandmarkAbstract:Combatting climate change has risen to the top of the international policy discourse. Effective governance necessitates the generation of concise information on the costs-effectiveness of policy instruments aimed at reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) approach is a framework commonly used to summarise information of potential Mitigation effort, and can help in identifying the most cost-effective managerial and technological GHG Mitigation options. Agriculture offers key opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions and utilise carbon (C) sink potentials. Therefore, a number of countries have developed national agricultural MACCs in the last decade. Whilst these MACCs have undoubtedly been catalysers for the information exchange between science and policy, they have also accentuated a range of constraints and limitations. In response, each of the scientific teams developed solutions in an attempt to address one or more of these limitations. These solutions represent ‘lessons learned’ which are invaluable for the development of future MACCs. To consolidate and harness this knowledge that has heretofore been dispersed across countries, this paper reviews the engineering agricultural MACCs developed in European countries. We collate the state-of-the-art, review the lessons learnt, and provide a more coherent framework for countries or research groups embarking on a trajectory to develop an agricultural MACC that assesses Mitigations both within the farm gate and to the wider bioeconomy. We highlight the contemporary methodological developments, specifically on 1) the emergence of stratified MACCs; 2) accounting for soil carbon sequestration 3) accounting for upstream and downstream emissions; 4) the development of comprehensive cost-calculations; 5) accounting for environmental co-effects and 6) uncertainty analyses. We subsequently discuss how the Mitigation potential summarised by MACCs can be incentivised in practice and how this Mitigation can be captured in national inventories. We conclude that the main purpose of engineering MACCs is not necessarily the accurate prediction of the total abatement potential and associated costs, but rather the provision of a coherent forum for the complex discussions surrounding agricultural GHG Mitigation, and to visualise opportunities and low-hanging fruit in a single graphic and manuscript.
Jeanpierre Seifert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
software Mitigations to hedge aes against cache based software side channel vulnerabilities
IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2006Co-Authors: Ernie Brickell, Gary L Graunke, Michael Neve, Jeanpierre SeifertAbstract:Hardware side channel vulnerabilities have been studied for many years in embedded silicon-security arena including SmartCards, SetTop-boxes, etc. However, because various recent security activities have goals of improving the software isolation properties of PC platforms, software side channels have become a subject of interest. Recent publications discussed cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities of AES and RSA. Thus, following the classical approach — a new side channel vulnerability opens a new Mitigation research path — this paper starts to investigate efficient Mitigations to protect AES-software against side channel vulnerabilities. First, we will present several Mitigation strategies to harden existing AES software against cache-based software side channel attacks and analyze their theoretical protection. Then, we will present a performance and security evaluation of our Mitigation strategies. For ease of evaluation we measured the performance of our code against the performance of the openSSL AES implementation. In addition, we also analyzed our code under various existing attacks. Depending on the level of the required side channel protection, the measured performance loss of our Mitigations strategies versus openSSL (respectively best assembler) varies between factors of 1.35 (2.66) and 2.85 (5.83).
-
Software Mitigations to hedge AES against cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities. IACR ePrint Archive, Report 2006/052
2006Co-Authors: Ernie Brickell, Gary L Graunke, Michael Neve, Jeanpierre SeifertAbstract:Abstract. Hardware side channel vulnerabilities have been studied for many years in embedded silicon-security arena including SmartCards, SetTop-boxes, etc. However, because various recent security activities have goals of improving the software isolation properties of PC platforms, software side channels have become a subject of interest. Recent publications discussed cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities of AES and RSA. Thus, following the classical approach — a new side channel vulnerability opens a new Mitigation research path — this paper starts to investigate efficient Mitigations to protect AES-software against side channel vulnerabilities. First, we will present several Mitigation strategies to harden existing AES software against cache-based software side channel attacks and analyze their theoretical protection. Then, we will present a performance and security evaluation of our Mitigation strategies. For ease of evaluation we measured the performance of our code against the performance of the openSSL AES implementation. In addition, we also analyzed our code under various existing attacks. Depending on the level of the required side channel protection, the measured performance loss of our Mitigations strategies versus openSSL (respectively best assembler) varies between factors of 1.35 (2.66) and 2.85 (5.83)
Vera Eory - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Vera Eory, Sylvain Pellerin, Gema Carmona Garcia, Heikki Lehtonen, Ieva Licite, Hanna Mattila, Thøger Lund-sørensen, John Muldowney, Dina Popluga, Lisbeth StrandmarkAbstract:Combatting climate change has risen to the top of the international policy discourse. Effective governance necessitates the generation of concise information on the costs-effectiveness of policy instruments aimed at reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) approach is a framework commonly used to summarise information of potential Mitigation effort, and can help in identifying the most cost-effective managerial and technological GHG Mitigation options. Agriculture offers key opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions and utilise carbon (C) sink potentials. Therefore, a number of countries have developed national agricultural MACCs in the last decade. Whilst these MACCs have undoubtedly been catalysers for the information exchange between science and policy, they have also accentuated a range of constraints and limitations. In response, each of the scientific teams developed solutions in an attempt to address one or more of these limitations. These solutions represent ‘lessons learned’ which are invaluable for the development of future MACCs. To consolidate and harness this knowledge that has heretofore been dispersed across countries, this paper reviews the engineering agricultural MACCs developed in European countries. We collate the state-of-the-art, review the lessons learnt, and provide a more coherent framework for countries or research groups embarking on a trajectory to develop an agricultural MACC that assesses Mitigations both within the farm gate and to the wider bioeconomy. We highlight the contemporary methodological developments, specifically on 1) the emergence of stratified MACCs; 2) accounting for soil carbon sequestration 3) accounting for upstream and downstream emissions; 4) the development of comprehensive cost-calculations; 5) accounting for environmental co-effects and 6) uncertainty analyses. We subsequently discuss how the Mitigation potential summarised by MACCs can be incentivised in practice and how this Mitigation can be captured in national inventories. We conclude that the main purpose of engineering MACCs is not necessarily the accurate prediction of the total abatement potential and associated costs, but rather the provision of a coherent forum for the complex discussions surrounding agricultural GHG Mitigation, and to visualise opportunities and low-hanging fruit in a single graphic and manuscript.
Ernie Brickell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
software Mitigations to hedge aes against cache based software side channel vulnerabilities
IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2006Co-Authors: Ernie Brickell, Gary L Graunke, Michael Neve, Jeanpierre SeifertAbstract:Hardware side channel vulnerabilities have been studied for many years in embedded silicon-security arena including SmartCards, SetTop-boxes, etc. However, because various recent security activities have goals of improving the software isolation properties of PC platforms, software side channels have become a subject of interest. Recent publications discussed cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities of AES and RSA. Thus, following the classical approach — a new side channel vulnerability opens a new Mitigation research path — this paper starts to investigate efficient Mitigations to protect AES-software against side channel vulnerabilities. First, we will present several Mitigation strategies to harden existing AES software against cache-based software side channel attacks and analyze their theoretical protection. Then, we will present a performance and security evaluation of our Mitigation strategies. For ease of evaluation we measured the performance of our code against the performance of the openSSL AES implementation. In addition, we also analyzed our code under various existing attacks. Depending on the level of the required side channel protection, the measured performance loss of our Mitigations strategies versus openSSL (respectively best assembler) varies between factors of 1.35 (2.66) and 2.85 (5.83).
-
Software Mitigations to hedge AES against cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities. IACR ePrint Archive, Report 2006/052
2006Co-Authors: Ernie Brickell, Gary L Graunke, Michael Neve, Jeanpierre SeifertAbstract:Abstract. Hardware side channel vulnerabilities have been studied for many years in embedded silicon-security arena including SmartCards, SetTop-boxes, etc. However, because various recent security activities have goals of improving the software isolation properties of PC platforms, software side channels have become a subject of interest. Recent publications discussed cache-based software side channel vulnerabilities of AES and RSA. Thus, following the classical approach — a new side channel vulnerability opens a new Mitigation research path — this paper starts to investigate efficient Mitigations to protect AES-software against side channel vulnerabilities. First, we will present several Mitigation strategies to harden existing AES software against cache-based software side channel attacks and analyze their theoretical protection. Then, we will present a performance and security evaluation of our Mitigation strategies. For ease of evaluation we measured the performance of our code against the performance of the openSSL AES implementation. In addition, we also analyzed our code under various existing attacks. Depending on the level of the required side channel protection, the measured performance loss of our Mitigations strategies versus openSSL (respectively best assembler) varies between factors of 1.35 (2.66) and 2.85 (5.83)
Hanna Mattila - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Vera Eory, Sylvain Pellerin, Gema Carmona Garcia, Heikki Lehtonen, Ieva Licite, Hanna Mattila, Thøger Lund-sørensen, John Muldowney, Dina Popluga, Lisbeth StrandmarkAbstract:Combatting climate change has risen to the top of the international policy discourse. Effective governance necessitates the generation of concise information on the costs-effectiveness of policy instruments aimed at reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) approach is a framework commonly used to summarise information of potential Mitigation effort, and can help in identifying the most cost-effective managerial and technological GHG Mitigation options. Agriculture offers key opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions and utilise carbon (C) sink potentials. Therefore, a number of countries have developed national agricultural MACCs in the last decade. Whilst these MACCs have undoubtedly been catalysers for the information exchange between science and policy, they have also accentuated a range of constraints and limitations. In response, each of the scientific teams developed solutions in an attempt to address one or more of these limitations. These solutions represent ‘lessons learned’ which are invaluable for the development of future MACCs. To consolidate and harness this knowledge that has heretofore been dispersed across countries, this paper reviews the engineering agricultural MACCs developed in European countries. We collate the state-of-the-art, review the lessons learnt, and provide a more coherent framework for countries or research groups embarking on a trajectory to develop an agricultural MACC that assesses Mitigations both within the farm gate and to the wider bioeconomy. We highlight the contemporary methodological developments, specifically on 1) the emergence of stratified MACCs; 2) accounting for soil carbon sequestration 3) accounting for upstream and downstream emissions; 4) the development of comprehensive cost-calculations; 5) accounting for environmental co-effects and 6) uncertainty analyses. We subsequently discuss how the Mitigation potential summarised by MACCs can be incentivised in practice and how this Mitigation can be captured in national inventories. We conclude that the main purpose of engineering MACCs is not necessarily the accurate prediction of the total abatement potential and associated costs, but rather the provision of a coherent forum for the complex discussions surrounding agricultural GHG Mitigation, and to visualise opportunities and low-hanging fruit in a single graphic and manuscript.
