Are you looking to add Application Shielding to your arsenal of tools? Maybe for your business or personal use only, whatever it is – it’s always a good idea to know more about the most important Application Shielding statistics of 2024.
My team and I scanned the entire web and collected all the most useful Application Shielding stats on this page. You don’t need to check any other resource on the web for any Application Shielding statistics. All are here only 🙂
How much of an impact will Application Shielding have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your business? Should you invest in Application Shielding? We will answer all your Application Shielding related questions here.
Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any word. 🙂
On this page, you’ll learn about the following:
Best Application Shielding Statistics
☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 84 Application Shielding Statistics on this page 🙂Application Shielding Market Statistics
- Over the next five years the Electromagnetic Shielding Coating market will register a CAGR % in terms of revenue and the global market size will reach USD in million by 2028. [0]
- The global RF Shielded Windows market was valued at USD million in 2020 and it is expected to reach USD million by the end of 2027, growing at a CAGR of % during 2021. [1]
Application Shielding Latest Statistics
- Data breaches have exposed an estimated 36 billion+ records in the first half of 2020. [2]
- Here are a few solid reasons to invest time and efforts in app shielding Over 67% of financial institutions have confirmed an increase in cyber attacks leading to credential leaks. [2]
- 2.2 million clinically extremely vulnerable people were advised to shield and 95% report either completely or mostly following government shielding guidance. [3]
- An estimated 785,000 (35%). [3]
- While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number of people who were completely shielding, 62% reported that they were fully following official advice.”. [3]
- In initial estimates, 62% of CEV people self reported that they are completely following shielding advice and 33% reported mostly following the shielding guidance. [3]
- However, 49% also reported leaving the house at least once since they received shielding guidance and 13% of CEV individuals reported they had received visitors in the last seven days who were not a nurse, support or care worker. [3]
- Both behaviours are not consistent with shielding and would suggest that less than 62% of people are completely following shielding guidance. [3]
- Percentage of clinically extremely vulnerable individuals following shielding guidance, England, 28 May to 3 June 2020 Source Office for National Statistics Shielding Behavioural Survey. [3]
- Of the CEV, 46% have not registered for support. [3]
- people advised to shield, almost half (49%, an estimated 1,106,000). [3]
- had left the house since receiving advice to shield and 40% had left home at least once in the previous seven days. [3]
- A range of reasons were given for leaving the house and garden and the most popular reasons were for exercise (53%), GP or hospital appointment (26%) and to shop for essentials (24%). [3]
- Percentage of clinically extremely vulnerable people who left home by reasons for leaving their home or garden, England, 28 May to 3 June 2020 Source Office for National Statistics Shielding Behavioural Survey. [3]
- For this reason, percentages will not sum to 100%. [3]
- An estimated 627,000 (28%). [3]
- The percentage employed (28%). [3]
- Of those who normally worked, 36% are now working from home and 5% are continuing to work outside the home. [3]
- Of those who continue to work outside the home, an estimated 19,000 would be unable to meet their financial obligations if they stopped working. [3]
- 31%) been furloughed but could work from home (5%) stopped working (17%) received self employment income support scheme as cannot work from home (6%). [3]
- Percentage of clinically extremely vulnerable people who usually work by their current working situation, England, 28 May to 3 June 2020 Source Office for National Statistics Shielding Behavioural Survey. [3]
- Of those clinically extremely vulnerable people who normally work, 36% are now working from home and 5% are continuing to work outside the home 5. [3]
- The majority (61%, an estimated 1,369,000). [3]
- However, 35% of CEV individuals report their mental health and well being as worsening during the coronavirus pandemic; 29% of CEV people report it becoming slightly worse and 6% report their mental health becoming much worse. [3]
- Of CEV people aged under 50 years and aged between 50 and 59 years, almost half report worsening mental health (46% and 45% respectively). [3]
- More females reported a worsening of mental health (40%) compared with males (28%). [3]
- Percentage of clinically extremely vulnerable by change in their mental health, England, 28 May to 3 June 2020 Source Office for National Statistics Shielding Behavioural Survey. [3]
- Since receiving shielding guidance, 61% of clinically extremely vulnerable individuals reported no difference in their mental health, while 35% reported it having become worse or much worse 6. [3]
- However, 20% of CEV people report being unable to access certain types of care and 10% report being unable to access any care since receiving shielding advice. [3]
- Percentage of clinically extremely vulnerable by change in their GP or hospital care, England, 28 May to 3 June 2020 Source Office for National Statistics Shielding Behavioural Survey. [3]
- However, 20% of CEV people state that their condition has got worse. [3]
- Overall employment of radiologic and MRI technologists is projected to grow 9 percent from 2020 to 2030, about as fast as the average for all occupations. [4]
- For the steel fiber content of greater than 0.5%, the number of contact points between the steel fibers increased significantly, and the relationship between the fiber content and the number of contact points was observed. [5]
- While existing shielding materials exhibit a shielding effectiveness of approximately 60 dB or more (99.9999%). [5]
- In the case of cement paste that contains stainless steel fiber with a length of 6 mm and a diameter of 8 μm, the effectiveness is 58 dB at 1 GHz , as attained using the steel fiber at 0.90 vol.% [1]. [5]
- At a steel fiber content of 2.0%, a shielding effectiveness of 30 dB was measured at frequencies in the range between 1.8 and 8.0 GHz. [5]
- At a steel fiber content of 2.0% and a graphene oxide content of 10%, 40 dB SE was measured at a frequency that ranged from 1.8 to 8.0 GHz [6]. [5]
- Cement paste containing 1 vol.% type B PAN based carbon fiber yielded a shielding effectiveness of 30 dB at 1 GHz [7], while a 0.4% carbon fiber/cement composite yielded an SE of 19.2 dB. [5]
- The cement based composites with 2 wt.% helical carbon fiber, 60 vol% expanded glass beads, and a thickness of 20 mm exhibits 17.8 dB of EM wave absorption performance [9]. [5]
- The incorporation of Fe3O4 nanoparticles (5 wt.%). [5]
- With 0.4 wt.% GO deposited CF/cement composites , a shielding effectiveness was 34 dB in the frequencies between 8.2 and 12.4 GHz, that is 31% higher than that of CF/cement. [5]
- The amount of carbon black cement based composites (CC). [5]
- For CBCC containing 2.5 wt.% of CB, the lowest reflectivity was 20.30 dB in the frequency range of 8–26.5 GHz [13]. [5]
- The HPFRCC easily forms a conductive network because it is generally mixed with approximately 1.5–2% steel fibers and does not contain nonconductive coarse aggregates. [5]
- When mixed with 1.0% of CNTs, it showed a shielding effectiveness of 20 dB at a frequency of 1 GHz. [5]
- In that study, the shielding effectiveness was obtained only with CNTs without using steel fibers, and it was found that the formation of the conductive pathway was well formed by setting a percolation threshold at approximately 1% of the CNT content. [5]
- The measurements of fiber orientation according to the casting procedure in UHPC were conducted in [19] using X. [5]
- Steel fibers were added to the HPFRCC from 0.1 to 2.5 vol.% of HPFRCC. [5]
- 99% in sealed conditions during first 24 h. [5]
- The shielding effectiveness of the HPFRCC samples was measured according to the military standard MILSTD188. [5]
- Flow test was conducted according to the method suggested by Ferraris and De Larrard. [5]
- The unconfined compressive strength test was carried out with using a 3000 kN universal testing machine according to ASTM C39 [26], and the strength was measured with three samples for each variable in Table 3. [5]
- The fibers were then segmented based on the threshold value estimated by the triangular selection algorithm [27]. [5]
- The SF0 sample without steel fiber yielded a slump flow of 200 mm at 1.6% of SP amount. [5]
- The slump flow remained unchanged at the same level of SP up to 0.3 vol.% of steel fiber content and was decreased slightly to 190 mm at 0.4 vol.% of steel fiber content. [5]
- From 0.5 vol.% of the steel fiber content, the SP content was increased to 1.8% to secure the slump flow of 200 mm. [5]
- The slump flow decreased to 170 mm at a steel fiber content of 2.5 vol.% despite the SP content of 1.8%. [5]
- No Hit) Superplasticizer Amount (%). [5]
- It is noteworthy that the real part of the impedance decreased by approximately 1500 Ω when the steel fiber content increased from 0% to 0.1%, and it decreased by approximately 1000 Ω when the steel fiber content increased from 0.1% to 2.5%. [5]
- As shown in Figure 4, the resistance of the composite decreased significantly up to 1.0% of the steel fiber content but decreased only slightly from 1.0% to 2.5% of the steel fiber content. [5]
- Meanwhile, from the results of the distribution on the xz plane at 2.5% of steel fiber content, it was verified that a larger amount of steel fibers was distributed near the bottom of the specimen. [5]
- Therefore, mixing 2.5% of steel fiber content is not recommended for the stable distribution of the fiber. [5]
- A notable fact is that in the distributions on xy plane at 1.5%, 2.0%, and 2.5% of steel fiber contents, the centroid of the steel fiber is not distributed in the middle part. [5]
- From the proposed image processing techniques, the 3D coordination of individual fibers was investigated according to their orientation. [5]
- There is no correlation between the steel fiber content and the number of contact points up to 0.4% of the steel fiber content. [5]
- When the fiber content was greater than 0.5%, the number of contact points increased significantly, and the relationship between the fiber content and the number of contact points was observed. [5]
- Figure 12 shows the value obtained by dividing the number of contact points by the total number of individual steel fibers according to the fiber content. [5]
- The value was lower than 0.2% up to 0.4% of steel fiber content, and it tended to be consistent in the range of 0.4–0.45 for fiber contents >0.5%. [5]
- This implies that the distribution of steel fibers is very homogeneous for fiber contents >0.5%. [5]
- In the case where the range of microCT scanning was smaller than the size of the specimen, the fiber content should be greater than 0.5% to ensure a valid micro. [5]
- Up to the steel fiber content of 0.4%, the shielding effectiveness increased with the steel fiber content. [5]
- At the steel fiber content from 0.5% to 2.5%, it increased along with the steel fiber content only at the frequencies below 1.2 GHz while it tended to remain constant regardless of the steel fiber content at the frequencies above 1.2 GHz. [5]
- Although the electrical conductivity increased when the steel fiber content increased, the shielding effectiveness did not increase for contents equal or above 1.5%. [5]
- This result shows that there is a minor effect associated with the increase in the shielding effectiveness from 1.5% or more of the steel fiber content. [5]
- The real part of the impedance decreased by approximately 1500 Ω when the steel fiber content increased from 0% to 0.1%, and it decreased by approximately 1000 Ω when the steel fiber content increased from 0.1% to 2.5%. [5]
- It was found that the resistance of the composite decreased significantly up to 1.0% of the steel fiber content, but it decreased only slightly from 1.0% to 2.5% of the steel fiber content. [5]
- The resistivity was 5000 Ω·cm at 2.5% of the steel fiber. [5]
- There is no correlation between the steel fiber content and the number of contact points between the steel fibers up to 0.4% of the steel fiber content. [5]
- Meanwhile, when the fiber content was greater than 0.5%, the number of contact points increased significantly, and the relationship between the fiber content and the number of contact points was observed. [5]
- The value obtained by dividing the number of contact points by the total number of individual steel fibers was lower than 0.2% up to 0.4% of steel fiber contents, and tended to be consistent in the range of 0.4–0.45 for the steel fiber contents >0.5%. [5]
- This implies that the distribution of steel fibers is very homogeneous in the HPFRCCs for the steel fiber contents >0.5%. [5]
- Although the electrical conductivity increased when the steel fiber content increased, the shielding effectiveness did not increase for the steel fiber contents equal to or above 1.5%. [5]
I know you want to use Application Shielding Software, thus we made this list of best Application Shielding Software. We also wrote about how to learn Application Shielding Software and how to install Application Shielding Software. Recently we wrote how to uninstall Application Shielding Software for newbie users. Don’t forgot to check latest Application Shielding statistics of 2024.
Reference
- marketwatch – https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/electromagnetic-shielding-coating-market-growth-statistics-2024-global-trend-industry-size-share-business-strategies-emerging-technology-product-portfolio-countries-data-demand-status-and-forecast-2028-2024-04-19.
- newschannelnebraska – https://southeast.newschannelnebraska.com/story/45603764/rf-shielded-windows-market-growth-statistics-2024-by-share-industry-statistics-global-trends-evaluation-geographical-segmentation-business-challenges.
- appsealing – https://www.appsealing.com/app-shielding/.
- ons – https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronavirusandshieldingofclinicallyextremelyvulnerablepeopleinengland/28mayto3june2020.
- bls – https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/radiologic-technologists.htm.
- nih – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696092/.
How Useful is Application Shielding
But just how useful is Application Shielding in today’s ever-evolving cybersecurity landscape? Some experts argue that while it can provide an additional level of protection, it should not be relied upon as the sole security measure for an organization. Instead, it should be used in conjunction with other security measures to create a more robust defense system.
One of the main benefits of Application Shielding is its ability to protect against both known and unknown vulnerabilities. By encrypting and obfuscating the code within an application, hackers will have a harder time reverse-engineering it to identify weaknesses or exploit vulnerabilities. This can help mitigate the risks of zero-day attacks, which can be particularly damaging to an organization.
Furthermore, Application Shielding can also help with compliance requirements. Many industries have regulations in place that require companies to implement certain security measures to protect sensitive data. By employing Application Shielding, businesses can ensure they are meeting these requirements and avoiding potential fines or legal repercussions.
However, despite the benefits of Application Shielding, some critics argue that it is not foolproof. Hackers are constantly finding new ways to breach security measures, and it is possible for them to eventually circumvent the protections put in place by Application Shielding. Additionally, there is a concern that relying too heavily on this technology could lead to a false sense of security, causing businesses to neglect other important security measures.
Another issue with Application Shielding is its potential impact on application performance. By adding layers of encryption and obfuscation, there is a risk that the application could slow down or become less user-friendly. This could negatively impact the user experience and ultimately harm the reputation of the business.
In conclusion, while Application Shielding can be a useful tool in bolstering an organization’s cybersecurity defenses, it should not be viewed as a silver bullet. It is important for businesses to take a comprehensive approach to security, including implementing other measures such as regular security audits, employee training, and network monitoring. By using Application Shielding in conjunction with other security measures, businesses can create a more resilient defense system against cyber threats.
In Conclusion
Be it Application Shielding benefits statistics, Application Shielding usage statistics, Application Shielding productivity statistics, Application Shielding adoption statistics, Application Shielding roi statistics, Application Shielding market statistics, statistics on use of Application Shielding, Application Shielding analytics statistics, statistics of companies that use Application Shielding, statistics small businesses using Application Shielding, top Application Shielding systems usa statistics, Application Shielding software market statistics, statistics dissatisfied with Application Shielding, statistics of businesses using Application Shielding, Application Shielding key statistics, Application Shielding systems statistics, nonprofit Application Shielding statistics, Application Shielding failure statistics, top Application Shielding statistics, best Application Shielding statistics, Application Shielding statistics small business, Application Shielding statistics 2024, Application Shielding statistics 2021, Application Shielding statistics 2024 you will find all from this page. 🙂
We tried our best to provide all the Application Shielding statistics on this page. Please comment below and share your opinion if we missed any Application Shielding statistics.