Cryptanalysis researchers demonstrated flaws in HDCP as early as 2001. In September 2010, an HDCP master key that allows for the generation of valid device keys was released to the public, rendering the key revocation feature of HDCP useless. Intel has confirmed that the crack is real, and believes the master key was reverse engineered rather than leaked. In practical terms, the impact of the crack has been described as "the digital equivalent of pointing a video camera at the TV", and of limited importance for consumers because the encryption of high-definition discs has been attacked directly, with the loss of interactive features like menus. Intel threatened to sue anyone producing an unlicensed device.
On 14 September 2010, Engadget reported the release of a possible genuine HDCP master key which can create device keys that can authenticate with other HDCP compliant devices without obtaining valid keys from The Digital Content Protection LLC. This master key would neutralize the key revocation feature of HDCP, because new keys can be created when old ones are revoked. Since the master key is known, it follows that an unlicensed HDCP decoding device could simply use the master key to dynamically generate new keys on the fly, making revocation impossible. It was not immediately clear who discovered the key or how they discovered it, though the discovery was announced via a Twitter update which linked to a Pastebin snippet containing the key and instructions on how to use it. Engadget said the attacker may have used the method proposed by Crosby in 2001 to retrieve the master key, although they cited a different researcher. On 16 September, Intel confirmed that the code had been cracked. Intel has threatened legal action against anyone producing hardware to circumvent the HDCP, possibly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
I have an Exchange 2010 server in the environment. I want to add a Exchange 2013 server, however when I try, it asks me for the OrganizationName. I beleive this is only required when installing the first exchange server in the environment. Not sure what am I missing. Any help would be great.
In our environment we have one VM which host both DC (Win2012) and Exchange server (2010). i built a new VM for DC (Win2012) and another new VM for Exchange server (2013). My existing domain name was XXXX.local and i create new domain with XXXX.com.sa. Is there any document which will help me to setup my new exchange server 2013 by seeing existing configuration of exchange server 2010. I need step by step document to configure exchange server 2013 for sending and receiving emails external and through web mail.
I have followed your Migration book since beginging and there was no issue so far,. i have recently installed the New Exchange 2013 in running exchange 2010 Enviroment but i am not being able to Login in the exchange admin center.
I have 3 DC with win server 2003 sp2.already, we have exchange 2010, that server crashed.know we install win server 2012 R2.i want to install exchange 2013 .user that i logged in server with it is Administrator of domain that is member of all nesseary group.when run this command :
Hi Paul,i have installed exchange 2013 on a new server 2012R2 in an existing domain environment with 2 sites, one with exchange 2007 and one with exchange 2010, the goal is to combine all three exchange into the new 2013 exchange server and dismiss the other tow. now here is the problem, i followed all the instruction and after finished the installation i cant get into the /ecp on the new server because when i try to log in with the administrator credential it redirects me to the exchange 2010 where the administrator mailbox is. i cant move on to next step and configure the new server.any ideas ?
Badly need some help here. Before he left the company my ex-collegae did a fubar on our passive 2013 exchange server. Now we are able to create database and even manually (commandline) migrate mailboxes from 2010 to 2013 but whenever we try to single or batch migrate users using ECP we get this message:
I am migrating an existing Exchange organization to office 365. First step in this migration is a migration to exchange 2013. At the moment we have 5 Exchange 2010 servers with all roles installed. We would like to setup 2 Exchange 2013 in the datacenter. In this datacenter we also have one exchange 2010 server.
Retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act The FSA made the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-220) retroactive so that currently incarcerated offenders who received longer sentences for possession of crack cocaine than they would have received if sentenced for possession of the same amount of powder cocaine before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act can submit a petition in federal court to have their sentences reduced.
Operators must understand the consequences of using the same keys across many peers. Unique keys are more secure than shared keys because they reduce both the attack target size and the attack consequence size. In this context, the attack target size represents the number of unique routing exchanges across a network that an attacker may be able to observe in order to gain security association credentials, i.e. crack the keys. If a shared key is used across the entire internal domain of control, then the attack target size is very large. The larger the attack target, the easier it is for the attacker to gain access to analysis data, and greater the volume of analysis data he can access in a given time frame, both of which make his job easier. Using the same key across the network makes the attack vulnerability surface more penetrable than unique keys. Consider also the attack consequence size, the amount of routing adjacencies that can be negatively affected once a breach has occurred, i.e. once the keys have been acquired by the attacker. Again, if a shared key is used across the internal domain, then the consequence size is the whole network. Ideally, unique key pairs would be used for each adjacency.
The idea of forecasting oil price movements using information fromthe crack spread futures market is based on two different arguments. Thefirst argument relies on the proposition that the price of crude oil largelydepends on the demand from oil refiners (Verleger, 1982; Verleger, 2011). Therationale behind this proposition is that oil refiners are most concernedwith the crack spread, and therefore, they cut their levels of productionwhen the price of crude oil is too high compared with the prices of theirrefined products (i.e., when the crack spread is too low). A decrease inproduction of refined products will, in turn, lower the price of crude oilthrough the lower demand for input (Verleger, 2011). This relationshipsuggests that we should be able to forecast future oil price movements basedon information from the crack spread markets. Assuming that the efficientmarket hypothesis holds, then the prices of futures contracts based on crackspreads are the optimal forecasts of the crack spreads (e.g., Chinn &Coibion, 2014; Lean, McAleer & Wong, 2010; Ma, 1989). Accordingly,information contained in crack spread futures should at least partiallyexplain future oil price movements. 2b1af7f3a8