Intrusion detection systems have undergone numerous years of study and yet a great deal of problems remain; primarily a high percentage of false alarms and abysmal detection rates. A new type of threat has emerged that of Advanced Persistent Threat. This type of attack is known for being sophisticated and slow moving over a long period of time and is found in networked systems. Such threats may be detected by evaluation of large numbers of state variables describing complex system operation and state transitions over time. Analysis of such large numbers of variables is computationally inefficient especially if it is meant to be done in real time. The paper develops a completely new theoretical model that appears to be able to distill high order state variable data sets down to the essence of analytic changes in a system with APT operating. The model is based on the computationally efficient use of integer vectors. This approach has the capability to analyze threat over time, and has potential to detect, predict and classify new threat as being similar to threat already detected. The model presented is highly theoretical at this point with some initial prototype work demonstrated and some initial performance data.

Shakespeare, Co-Author is unique among attribution studies, in that it isn't one, in the strictest sense. Instead, Brian Vickers devotes the majority of the book to a survey of the attribution scholarship that has been done on Shakespeare's co-authored plays since the early nineteenth century to the present. While Vickers claims in his preface that 'I have not attempted to write a history of Shakespeare authorship studies ... here I am only interested in the pertinent arguments that scholars have made, addressing the concrete evidence ... and using valid methodologies' (x), Shakespeare, Co-Author is essentially a reconstruction of the developments in authorship studies and a mapping out of the scholarly tradition. The endeavor is both worthwhile and necessary. The truth of the matter is that the history of attribution/authorship studies has been a fractured one, with attributionists often, as Vickers periodically notes, working in isolation, unaware of each others' contributions to the field. If one pays attention to the dates of Vickers' sources, one can observe that these studies often skip entire generations, as the tradition shifts in and out of vogue in academic circles-with the result that many of these studies quickly become obscure, difficult to track down, and cavalierly disregarded or rejected. Vickers collects these studies and revitalizes them, demonstrating their enduring relevance to the authorship debate and the (in some cases) remarkable continuity between their arguments. But this is a partisan history. Vickers unabashedly approaches the issue from the perspective of the attributionists, and consequently his agenda in Shakespeare, Co-Author is not just to reconstruct the history of attribution studies, but to prove the attributionists right. He amasses this body of scholarship in order to demonstrate the efficacy of various tests of attribution and, concomitantly, to defend the divisions of authorship they have adduced in Shakespeare's co-authored plays. In championing the attributionists, Vickers opposes the Shakespeare 'conservators', those who attempt to preserve for Shakespeare sole domain over these disputed plays. I share Vickers' frustration with critics and editors who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the great genius Shakespeare would deign to collaborate with his fellow playwrights. Such blind bardolatry is naïve; it presents a skewed picture of Shakespeare's practices and position in the theatre, and hence does a disservice to both Shakespeare scholarship and Renaissance theatre history. But as Vickers presents the issue, one either supports attribution or is labeled a fundamentalist-there is no middle