cross stage identification of unknown clients in numerous...

© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 400

Impact Factor Value: 4.029 ISSN: 2349-7084 International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends Volume 4, Issue 10, October-2017, pp. 400-406 www.ijcert.org

Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients

in Numerous Online Networking Systems 1 Ms. Tamreen Fatima, 2 Dr. G.S.S Rao

1Pursuing MTech(CSE),

2Professor & HOD

1,2,Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of Engineering and Technology, Hyd

Email: [email protected],[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Abstract: A previous couple of years have witnessed the emergence and evolution of a vivacious analysis

stream on an oversized sort of online Social Media Network (SMN) platforms. Recognizing anonymous,

nonetheless, same users among multiple SMNs continues to be AN intractable downside. Cross-platform

exploration could facilitate solve several issues in social computing in each theory and applications. Since

public profiles are often duplicated and impersonated merely by users with entirely different functions, most

current user identification resolutions, which principally specialize in text mining of users’ public profiles, are

fragile. Some studies have tried to match users supported the placement and temporal order of user content

also as a genre. However, the locations are distributed within the majority of SMNs, and genre is tough to pick

out from the short sentences of leading SMNs like Sina Microblog and Twitter. Moreover, since on-line SMNs

are quite regular, existing user identification schemes supported network structure don't seem to be effective.

The real-world friend cycle is extremely individual, and just about no 2 users share a congruent friend cycle.

Therefore, it's additional correct to use a relationship structure to investigate cross-platform SMNs. Since

same users tend to line up partial similar relationship structures in many SMNs, we tend to project the Friend

Relationship-Based User Identification (FRUI) algorithmic rule. FRUI calculates an equal degree for all

candidate User Matched Pairs (UMPs), and solely UMPs with high ranks are thought of as equal users. We

tend to conjointly develop 2 propositions to enhance the potency of the algorithmic rule. Results of intensive

experiments demonstrate that FRUI performs far better than current network structure-based algorithms.

Keywords: Cross-Platform, Social Media Network, Anonymous Identical Users, Friend Relationship, User

Identification

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---

http://www.ijcert.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


1. Introduction

In the last decade, many sorts of social networking

sites have emerged and contributed vastly to large volumes

of real-world information on social behaviors. Twitter 1, the

most critical microblog service, has quite 600 million users

and produces upwards of 340 million tweets per day [1].

Sina Microblog, a pair of, the first Twitter-style Chinese

microblog website, has quite five hundred million accounts

and generates run over one hundred million tweets per day

[2]. As a result of this diversity of online social media

networks (SMNs), folks tend to use entirely different SMNs

for various functions. For example, Ren Ren 3, a Facebook-

style however autonomous SMN, is employed in China for

blogs, whereas Sina Microblog is used to share statuses

(Fig. 1). In alternative words, each existent SMN satisfies

some user wants. Regarding SMN management, matching

anonymous users across entirely different SMN platforms

will offer integrated details on every user and inform similar

laws, like targeting services provisions. In theory, the cross-

platform explorations enable a bird’s-eye read of SMN user

behaviors. However, nearly all recent SMN-based studies

specialize in one SMN platform, yielding incomplete

information. Therefore, this study investigates the strategy

of crossing multiple SMN platforms to color a full image of

those behaviors.

Nonetheless, cross-platform analysis faces different

challenges. As shown in Fig. 1, with the expansion of SMN

platforms on the web, the cross-platform approach has

incorporated numerous SMN platforms to form richer

information and an entire SMNs for social computing tasks.

SMN user’s kind the natural bridges for these SMN

platforms. The first topic for cross-platform SMN analysis is

user identification for various SMNs. Exploration of this

subject lays a foundation for more cross-platform SMN

analysis.

User identification is additionally known as user

recognition, user identity resolution, user matching, and

anchor linking. Though no resolution will determine all

same anonymous SMN users, some SMN parts are also

wont to determine some of the users across multiple SMNs.

Several studies have addressed the user identification

downside by examining public user profile attributes, as

well as screen name, birthday, location, gender, profile

photograph, etc. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Since these attributes don't

need exclusivity and are simply faked by users for various

functions (including malicious users), these schemes are

quite fragile. Some researchers have leveraged public user

activities to acknowledge user’s mistreatment post time,

location and genre [18], [19], [20], [21]. Since location

information is tough to get and genre is tough to extract

from short sentences, these techniques are full of limitations.

Though connections are often collected and are tough to

impersonate in nearly all SMNs, our literature review

discovered solely a couple of studies that explored using

user friends to spot users [22], [23], [24]. Regarding

knowledge security and privacy, Narayanan and Shmatikov

(NS for short) [22] de-anonymized a social network graph

by correlating it with famous identities. NS was the primary

effort to acknowledge users strictly by mistreatment

connections and with success matched half-hour of the

accounts with a twelve-tone music error rate. Bartunov et al.

[23] projected a Joint Link-attribute algorithmic rule (JLA)

to match 2 social networks and obtained some of the

identified users. Korula and Lattanzi [24] used the degrees

of chartless users, also because the range of common

neighbors, to reconcile SMNs.

SMN connections make up 2 categories: single-

following connections and mutual-following connections.

Single following connections are known as following

relationships or following links. If user A follows user B,

then user A and user B have the following relationship

Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,

International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.


(single-way fans of which one is aware of the opposite,

however not vice versa). Following associations are

common in microblogging SMNs, like Twitter and Sina

Microblog. Likewise, mutual-following connections are

known as friend relationships. In microblogging SMNs, a

loving relationship refers to the following mutual

relationships between 2 users. In most alternative SMNs,

like Facebook, RenRen, and Wechat, a lover relationship

forms on condition that one user ships a lover request and

confirmed by the different user. Friend relationships are

desperate to pretend by malicious users, and thus mirror

real-world connections far better. as a result of their

responsibility and consistency, friend relationships are

additional strong in user identification tasks. Moreover,

since unified friend relationships are shaped, our algorithmic

rule may be applied to SMNs with a heterogeneous network

structure, like Twitter and Facebook.

2. Existing Systems

Existing algorithms FRUI chooses candidate

matching pairs from presently famous identical users instead

of chartless ones. This operation reduces procedure quality

since solely a tiny portion of chartless users are concerned in

every iteration. Moreover, since exclusively mapped users

are exploited, our resolution is climbable and may be

extended merely to on-line user identification applications.

In distinction with current algorithms, FRUI needs no

management parameters. The most question within the on

top of the situation is that the overlap of the users’ friends.

To deal with this issue, we tend to discuss the overlap of

SMNs, as well as node and edge overlap, below. Node

overlap. Several studies have verified that varied users are

overlapped in numerous SMNs. Nearly all cross-platform

user identification studies mention node overlap as a result

of it's the basic assumption to unravel this issue. Early in

2007, sixty-fourth of Facebook users had MySpace

accounts.

3.Proposed Systems

Proposing a completely unique Friend

Relationship-based User Identification (FRUI) algorithmic

rule. In our analysis of cross-platform SMNs, we tend to

deeply strip-mine friend relationships and network

structures. Within the universe, folks tend to own largely a

similar friend in numerous SMNs, or the friend cycle is

extremely individual. The additional matches in 2 chartless

users’ famous friends, the upper the likelihood that they

belong to a similar individual within the universe. Supported

this truth, we tend to project the FRUI algorithmic rule. A

preprocessor is intended to accumulate as several Priori

UMPs as doable. Currently, there's no common approach on

the market to get UMPs between 2 SMNs. Mere ways

should be developed in line with given SMNs. Though no

unified method is appropriate for the Preprocessor, some

algorithms are often adopted in line with the appliance, e.g.,

email address, screen name, URL, etc. Edge overlap. Till

terribly recently, no applied mathematics studies quantified

relationship overlap in 2 SMNs. However, some studies

noted that these relationships overlap to a precise extent. NS

that identifies users strictly through networks in ground-

truth datasets proved that users have similar associations in

Twitter and Flickr. Paridhi conjointly found that users tend

to attach with a section of similar folks across SMNs, and

introduced network structure to enhance the accuracy of

user identification between Twitter and Facebook.

ADVANTAGES: Advances in SMN services,

additional SMNs enable users to bind their accounts with

major alternative SMNs. During this case, previous

information is often obtained with sure data. For instance,

begetter and ChangBa, 2 major mobile applications (apps)

in China, encourage users to link their Sina Microblog

accounts for business interests, bridging their websites with

an essential microblog service in China. Twitter provides




AN attribute, known as a uniform resource locator, for user

self-identification. Preprocessors will directly use URLs to

match a Twitter account to Facebook or alternative SMN

accounts. Once no additional data except the network

structure are often utilized, the seed identification approach

in NS and also the de-anonymization attacks in are

alternatives for the Preprocessor.

4. Implementation

Implementation is that the stage of the project once

the theoretical style is clad into an operating system. so it is

often thought of to be the foremost vital stage in achieving a

prospering new system and in giving the user, confidence

that the new system can work and be effective.

The implementation stage involves careful coming up

with, investigation of the present system and its constraints

on implementation, coming up with of ways to realize

transmutation and analysis of transmutation ways.

Cross-Platform:

Cross-platform software package (multi-platform,

or platform freelance software package) is pc software

package that's enforced on multiple computing platforms

Cross-platform software is also divided into 2 types; one

needs individual building or compilation for every platform

that it supports, and also the alternative one is often directly

run on any platform while not special preparation, e.g.,

software package is written in AN understood language or

pre-compiled transportable bytecode that the interpreters or

run-time packages are common or commonplace parts of all

platforms.

Fig 4.1 Cross stage research to merge variety of

SMN’s

5. Modules

I). Cross-Platform SMN’s

ii). Anonymous Identical User

iii). Friends and Relation

Cross-PlatforminSMN’s: -

SMN connections make up 2 categories: single-following

connections and mutual-following connections. Singles

following contacts are known as following relationships or

following links. If user A follows user B, then user A and

user B have the following relationship (single-way fans of

which one is aware of the opposite, however not vice versa).

Following associations are common in microblogging

SMNs, like Twitter and Sina Microblog. Likewise, mutual-

following connections are known as friend relationships. In




microblogging SMNs, a loving relationship refers to the

following mutual relationships between 2 users. In our

analysis of cross-platform SMNs, we tend to deeply strip-

mine friend relationships and network structures. Within the

universe, folks tend to own largely a similar friend in

numerous SMNs, or the friend cycle is extremely individual.

The additional matches in 2 chartless users’ famous friends,

the upper the likelihood that they belong to a similar

individual within the universe. Supported this truth, we tend

to project the FRUI algorithmic rule.

Fig 5.1 Uniform solution framework. The network structure-

based user identification first obtains Priori UMPs through a

Preprocessor and then identifies more UMPs through the

Identifier in an iteration process.

Anonymous Identical User: -

Anonymous could be a loosely associated international

network of activist and hacktivist entities. a website

nominally related to the cluster describes it as "a net

gathering" with "a loose and suburbanized command

structure that operates on concepts instead of directives”.

The cluster became famous for a series of well-publicized

message stunts and distributed denial-of-service attacks on

government, religious, and company websites. Though no

unified method is appropriate for the Preprocessor, some

algorithms are often adopted in line with the appliance, e.g.,

email address, screen name, URL, etc. AN email address

seems to be a novel feature for every account and may be

wont to collect Priori UMPs. Node overlap. Several studies

have verified that varied users are overlapped in many

SMNs. Nearly all cross-platform user identification studies

mention node overlap as a result of it's the basic assumption

to unravel this issue. The symbol finds UMPs mistreatment

connections among users and Priori UMPs. As noted on top

of, an identical degree for every candidate umpire ought to

be calculated before. NS formulates the matching degree

mistreatment in- and out-degrees in directed networks.

Friends and Relation

The friend relationship needs confirmation by the 2 users

and is way additional reliable and consistent in SMNs. Thus,

it will cut back the noise introduced by a discretionary

single-following relationship. Creating use of the friend

relationship in purposeless networks, JLA defines the

matching degree as, for any 2 SMNs, SMNA and SMNB are

often thought of as mirrors of the $64000 world. Suppose

that individuals discovered random relationships within the

real world; then the likelihood of a friendship between any 2

persons is p (0 < p < 1), and for any relationship, Storm

Troops (0 < Storm Troops < 1) and sb (0 < sb <

1) are possibilities that it exists in SMNA and SMNB,

severally. Therefore, the chances that a relationship exists in

SMNA and SMNB are protein and psb, severally. We tend

to use ground truth datasets to gauge the user identification

resolution. So as to verify FRUI in numerous kinds of

SMNs, we tend to collect information from 2 heterogeneous




SMNs: Sina Microblog and RenRen. The Sina Microblog

dataset was captured from the Sina Microblog search page,

whereas the Ren Ren dataset was directly obtained from its

Open API. As shown in, the Sina Microblog dataset

consisted of one.17 million users and one.9 million friend

relationships, and every user had a mean of three.2 friends.

The Ren Ren dataset was comprised of five.5million nodes

and fourteen.6 million edges, and every user had a mean of

five.3friends. Therefore, the Ren Ren dataset was abundant

denser than Sina Microblogs.

Algorithms: -

FRUI (Friends and Relation User Identifier)

In the implementation, the symbol 1st calculates matrix

dashing Proposition one and initializes the matching degree.

Then it iterates, and identifiesUMPs mistreatment operates

till no umpire are often known. In every iteration, once the

UMPs are known, the things are off from the Candidate

umpire list, and RI’s recalculated supported proposition a

pair of. The method is summarized in algorithmic rule one.

Suppose that there are valid Priori UMPs in any iteration.

Lines 4-11in algorithmic rule 1remove the known UMPs

and update the most match degree, and also the time quality

prices O(s) + O(min(vA, vB))=O(min(vA, vB)), wherever

vAandvBdenote the numbers of the users in SMNAand

SMNB, severally.Lines 12-19update the Candidate umpire

list and also the most match degree mistreatment Proposi-

tions1 and a pair of.

FRUIalgorithm: -

Input: SMNA, SMNB, Priori UMPs: PUMPs

Output: Identified UMPs: UMPs

1: functionFRUI (SMNA, SMNB, PUMPs)

2: T = {}, R = dict (), S = PUMPs, L = [], max = 0, FA = [],

FB = []

3: while S is not empty do

4: Add S to T

5: if max > 0 do

6: Remove S from L[max]

7: while L[max] is empty

8: max = max – 1

9: if max == 0 do

10: return UMPs

11: Remove UMPs with mapped UE from L[max]

12: foreachUMPA~B (i, j) in S do

13: foreach UEAa in the unmapped neighbors of UEAi do

14: FA[i] = FA[i] + 1

15: foreach UEAb in the unmapped neighbors of UEAj do

16: R[UMPA~B(a, b)] += 1, FB[j] = FB[j] + 1

17: Add UMPA~B(a, b) to L[R[UMPA~B(a, b)]]

18: if R[UMPA~B(a, b)] > max do

19: max = R[UMPA~B(a, b)]

20: m = max, S = {}

21: while S is empty do

22: Remove UMPs with mapped UE from L[max]

23: C = L[m], m = m - 1, n = 0

24: S = {un-Controversial UMPs in C }

25: while S is empty do

26: n = n + 1, I = {UMPs with top n Mij in C using (5)}

27: S = {un-Controversial UMPs in I}

28: if I == C do

29: break;

Clustering:

Cluster analysis or bunch is that the task of clustering a

group of objects in such how that objects within the same

group (called a cluster) are additional similar (in some sense

or another) to every aside from to those in alternative teams

(clusters). Cluster analysis itself isn't one specific

algorithmic rule, however, the final task to be solved. It is

often achieved by numerous algorithms that disagree

considerably with their notion of what constitutes a cluster

and the way to with efficiency notice them. in style notions

of clusters embody teams with tiny distances among the




cluster members, dense areas of the info house, intervals or

explicitly applied mathematics distributions. bunch will,

therefore, be developed as a multi-objective improvement

downside.

6. Conclusion

This study addressed the matter of user

identification across SMN platforms and offered an

innovative resolution. As a key facet of SMN, the network

structure is of predominant importance and helps resolve de-

anonymization user identification tasks. Therefore, we tend

to project a regular net-work structure-based user

identification resolution. We tend to conjointly develop a

completely unique friend relationship-based algorithmic rule

known as FRUI. To enhance the potency of FRUI, we tend

to represent 2 propositions and addressed the quality.

Finally, we tend to verify our algorithmic rule in each

artificial networks and ground-truth networks. Results of our

empirical experiments reveal that network structure will

accomplish vital user identification work. Our FRUI

algorithmic rule is easy, nonetheless economical, and

performed far better than NS, the present state-of-art

network structure-based user identification resolution. In

situations, once raw text information is distributed,

incomplete, or arduous to get as a result of privacy settings,

FRUI is very appropriate for cross-platform tasks. Results

of our empirical experiments reveal that network structure

will accomplish vital user identification work. Our FRUI

algorithmic rule is easy, nonetheless economical, and

performed far better than NS, the present state-of-art

network structure-based user identification resolution. In

situations, once raw text information is distributed,

incomplete, or arduous to get as a result of privacy settings,

FRUI is very appropriate for cross-platform tasks.

References

[1]Wikipedia,"Twitter, "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter. 2014.

[2] Xinhuanet, "Sina Microblog Achieves over 500

MillionUsers,"

http://news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2012-02/29/c_122769084.htm. 2014.

[3] J. Liu, F. Zhang, X. Song, Y.I. Song, C.Y. Lin, and

H.W. Hon, "What's in a name?: an unsupervised

approach to link users across communities," Proc. of

the 6th ACM international conference on Web search

and data mining(WDM’13), pp. 495-504, 2013.

[4] O. Goga, D. Perito, H. Lei, R. Teixeira, and R.

Sommer, "Large-scale Correlation of Accounts across

Social Networks," Tech- nical report, 2013.

[5] K. Cortis, S. Scerri, I. Rivera, and S. Handschuh,

"An ontology-based technique for online profile

resolution," Social Informatics, Berlin: Springer, pp.

284-298, 2013.

[6] F. Abel, E. Herder, G.J. Houben, N. Henze, and D.

Krause, "Cross-system user modeling and

personalization on the social web," User Modeling and

User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 23, pp. 169-209, 2013.

[7] N. Korula and S. Lattanzi, "An efficient

reconciliation algorithm for social networks," arXiv

preprint arXiv:1307.1690, 2013.

[8] P. Jain, P. Kumaraguru, and A. Joshi, "@ i seek 'fb.

me': identifying users across multiple online social

networks," Proc. of the 22nd International Conference

on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 1259-1268,

2013.

[9] X. Kong, J. Zhang, and P.S. Yu, "inferring anchor

links across multiple heterogeneous social networks,"

Proc. of the 22nd ACM International Conf. on

Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’13),

pp. 179-188, 2013.

[10] O. Goga, H. Lei, S.H.K. Parthasarathi, G.

Friedland, R. Sommer, and R. Teixeira, "Exploiting

innocuous activity for correlating users across sites,"

Proc. 22nd international conference on World Wide

Web (WWW’13),pp. 447-458, 2013.

[11] R. Zafarani and H. Liu, "Connecting users across

social media sites: a behavioral-modeling approach, "

Proc. of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International

Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

(KDD’13), pp.41-49, 2013.

[12] S. Bartunov, A. Korshunov, S. Park, W. Ryu, and

H. Lee, "Joint link-attribute user identity resolution in

online social networks," The 6th SNA-KDD

Workshop ’12, 2012.

[13] P. Jain and P. Kumaraguru, "Finding Nemo:

searching and re-solving identities of users across

http://news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2012-02/29/c_122769084.htm.%202014

http://news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2012-02/29/c_122769084.htm.%202014




online social networks," arXiv preprint

arXiv:1212.6147, 2012.

[14] M. Almishari and G. Tsudik, "Exploring

linkability of user re- views," Computer Security–

ESORICS 2012 (ESORICS’12), pp. 307- 324, 2012.

[15] D. Perito, C. Castelluccia, M.A. Kaafar, and P.

Manils, "How unique and traceable are usernames?,"

Privacy Enhancing Technol- ogies (PETS’11), pp. 1-

17, 2011.

[16] A. Acquisti, R. Gross and F. Stutzman, "Privacy

in the age of aug- mented reality," Proc. National

Academy of Sciences, 2011.

[17] T. Iofciu, P. Fankhauser, F. Abel, and K. Bischoff,

"Identifying users across social tagging systems,” Proc.

of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs

and Social Media, pp. 522-525, 2011.

[18] B. Zhou and J. Pei, "The k-anonymity and l-

diversity approaches for privacy preservation in social

networks against neighborhood attacks," Knowl. Inf.

Syst, vol. 28, no. 1,pp. 47-77, 2011.

[19] E. Raad, R. Chbeir, and A. Dipanda, "User profile

matching in social networks," Proc. Of the 13th

International Conference on Network-Based

Information Systems (NBiS’10), pp.297-304, 2010.

[20] P. Erdős and A. Rényi, "On random graphs I,"

Publ. Math. De- brecen, vol. 6, pp. 290-297, 2010.

[21] R. Zafarani and H. Liu, "Connecting

corresponding identities across communities," Proc. of

the 3rd International ICWSM Con- ference, pp. 354-

357, 2009.

[22] M. Motoyama and G. Varghese, "I seek you:

searching and matching individuals in social

networks," Proc. of the 11th international workshop

on Web Information and Data Management

(WIDM’09), pp. 67-75, 2009.

[23] J. Vosecky, D. Hong, and V.Y. Shen, "User

identification across multiple social networks," Proc.

Of the 1st International Confer- ence on Networked

Digital Technologies, pp.360-365, 2009.

[24] A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov, "De-

anonymizing social networks," Proc. Of the 30th

IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SSP’09),

pp. 173-187, 2009.

[25] B. Zhou and J. Pei, "Preserving privacy in social

networks against neighborhood attacks," Proc. Of the

24th IEEE International Conference on Data

Engineering (ICDE’08), pp. 506–515, 2008.

[26] L. Backstrom, C. Dwork, and J. Kleinberg,

"Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social

networks, hidden patterns, and structural

steganography," Proc. of the 16th international con-

ference on World Wide Web(WWW’07), pp. 181-190,

2007.

[27] R. Zheng, J. Li, H. Chen, and Z. Huang, "A

framework for au- thorship identification of online

messages: writing‐ style fea‐ tures and classification

techniques," J. of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 3,

pp. 378-393, 2006.

[28] O. De Vel, A. Anderson, M. Corney, and G.

Mohay, "Mining e-mail content for author

identification forensics,” ACM Sigmod Record, vol.

30, no. 4, pp. 55-64, 2001.

[29] A. L. Barabasi and R. Albert, "Emergence of

scaling in random networks," Science, vol. 286, no.

5439, pp. 509-512, 1999.

[30] D.J. Watts, and S.H. Strogatz, "Collective

dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, vol.393,

no.6684, pp. 440-442, 1998.

[31].K.Arun ,A.SrinageshandM.Ramesh,”Twitter

Sentiment Analysis on Demonetization tweets in India

Using R language.”International Journal of Computer

Engineering in Research Trends., vol.4, no.6, pp. 252-

258, 2017.

[32]TekurVijetha, M.SriLakshmi

andDr.S.PremKumar,”Survey on Collaborative

Filtering and content-Based

Recommending.”International Journal of Computer

Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2, no.9, pp. 594-

599, 2015.

[33]N.Satish Kumar, SujanBabuVadde,”Typicality

Based Content-BoostedCollaborative Filtering

RecommendationFramework.”International Journal of

Computer Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2,

no.11, pp. 809-813, 2015.

[34]D.Ramanjaneyulu,U.Usha Rani,”In Service-

Oriented MSN ProvidingTrustworthy Service

Evaluation.”International Journal of Computer

Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2, no.12, pp.

1192-1197, 2015.

[35]B.Kundan,N.Poorna Chandra Rao and

DrS.PremKumar,”Investigation on Privacy and Secure

content of location based Queries.”International

Journal of Computer Engineering in Research Trends.,

vol.2, no.9, pp. 543-546, 2015.

cross stage identification of unknown clients in numerous...

Documents