Malicious agents may add noise or override the signal sent to the device with the purpose of diminishing or expunging the control of the user over the application, or even hijacking the victim's voluntary control.
In order to resist routine unmalicious degradations (e.g., noising, compression) and other malicious attacks (e.g., cropping, rotation), the more invariant features are extracted, the more robust a hash scheme is.
The watermark should survive malicious attacks such as random cropping and noise adding.
Their watermarking scheme is blind and is robust against JPEG compression but extremely sensitive to malicious manipulation such as filtering and random noising.
To guarantee secure transmission of the cellular link, every multi-antenna base station employs the artificial noise-assisted transmission scheme to confuse malicious eavesdroppers.
Malicious alterations can be distinguished from content preserving operations like resampling, white noise pollution, and G.711 and G.721 speech coding with very low error probabilities.
Thus, if the noise level is very high (e.g., all user feedback are from malicious users), the performance of the system will not be acceptable.
In Christie v Davey, the defendant was deliberately creating a noise to frustrate the claimants; based on this, it was held that their actions were malicious, unreasonable, and amounted to a nuisance.
The design idea of the artificial noise assisted scheme is that legitimate transmitters inject artificial noise into their transmission signals to confuse malicious eavesdroppers.
In this case the interference from the jammer is much higher than the additive noise but much smaller than the power of the received signal at the destination and the malicious node.
