Compliance: CIS 2.3.4.1 (L1) Make sure that & # 39; Devices: allowed to format and eject removable media & # 39; is configured as & # 39; Administrators and interactive users & # 39;

I am implementing CIS on Windows 10 1803 and I can not resolve this control.


Description:
This policy setting determines who has permission to format and eject removable NTFS media. You can use this policy setting to prevent unauthorized users from deleting data on one computer to access it on another computer on which they have local administrator privileges.
The recommended state for this configuration is: Administrators and Interactive Users.

Fundamental reason:
Users can move data on removable disks to a different computer where they have administrative privileges. The user could then take possession of any file, grant himself total control and view or modify any file. The fact that most removable storage devices eject media by pressing a mechanical button decreases the advantage of this policy setting.


For starters, I've never met anyone who does not have permission to eject and format removable media (assuming hard drives, USB drives, etc.).

But I'm even less sure why the control asks me to set it in "Administrators and interactive users" when the default is simply "Administrators".

CSC CIS Windows 1803:
The recommended state for this configuration is: Administrators and Interactive Users. The default value is Administrators only. Administrators and interactive users can format and eject removable NTFS media.

docs.microsoft:
It is recommended to set Permitted to format and eject removable media to Administrators. Only administrators can eject removable media in NTFS format.

Would this configuration also affect the software that manages USB devices, such as Checkpoint removable media encryption?

3. l1

BlackHatKings: cryptographic speculation and investment
Posted by: ThomasLound
Time of publication: June 29, 2019 at 05:42 PM.

Indian citizens – US visa B1 / L1; Will it be rejected by the blank spouse's name?

Background:
I got married in 2012, my husband left me in a few months. I renewed my Indian passport in 2013. I did not have a marriage certificate that time, so I renewed my passport as a single on the application.
Marital status is not mentioned in the passport and the name of the spouse is blank in the passport.
He later divorced legally in 2014.
Now, while I apply for the B1 or L1 visa, I am putting the actual status "divorced" and the date of marriage 2012 and divorce 2014. I have a court decree to back it up.

Question:
Will the visa officer notice that the passport was renewed in 2013 after the marriage, even the spouse's name is blank?
Will they reject my visa?

Linear algebra – Minimization uniqueness l1

Leave $ A in mathbb {R} ^ {m times n} $.

It is true that $$ min limits_ {Q} | I – QA | _ { infty} < frac {1} {2} $$ It is criterion for the singularity of the solution to

$ min limits_ {x text {s.t.} Ax = y} | x | _1 $ For any $ and $.
If so, where can I read about this result? I'm not sure that I have the criteria correctly.

To update. $ | M | _ { infty} = max limits_ {i, j} | M_ {ij} | $

Does it involve $ L_1L_2 = L_2L_1 $ $ L_1 = L_2?

Leave $ L_1, L_2 subseteq Sigma ^ * $ be two languages, where $ Sigma $ It is a finite alphabet.

Make $ L_1L_2 = L_2L_1 $ to imply $ L_1 = L_2 $?

What if $ L_1 $ Y $ L_2 $ Are they regular languages?

Can you give counterexamples?

demonstrating L1 * ∪ L2 * ⊆ (L1∪L2) *

x∈ L1 * ∪ L2 * ⇔ x∈ L1 * ∨ x ∈L2 * ⇔ x ∈ (L1) * ∨ x∈ (L2) * ⇔ x ∈L1 * ∪ L2 * ⇔ x∈ (L1∪L2) *

Is it enough to try it this way?

Functional analysis. Does this ideal in $ B (L_1) $ have a correct approximate identity (bounded)?

I will take an indirect way of defining this ideal, because (a) this route is the way my collaborators and I get to it (b) this alternative definition, instead of the standard, can suggest a direct attack on the question asked in title.

Notational conventions: $ L_p $ It's a short hand for $ L_p ([0,1]$ with the measure of Lebesgue in $[0,1]$. Yes $ E $ It is then a Banach space. $ L_ infty (E) $ It denotes the space of essentially delimited and strongly measurable functions. $[0,1] a E $ (equivalence module a.e.).

In the case where $ E = L_1 $, we will consider elements of space. $ A = L_ infty (L_1) $ As functions of two variables that are $ L_ infty $ at second variable and $ L_1 $ at First variable. This convention has the advantage that given $ f in A $ Y $ xi in L_1 $ We can define $ T_f ( xi) in L_1 $ by
$$
T_f ( xi) (s) = int_0 ^ 1 f (s, y) xi (y) , dy
$$

The map $ f mapsto T_f $ It is an isometric incrustation of $ A $ as a closed subalgebra of $ B (L_1) $. By die $ f, g in A $, We can define
$$
(f g) (s, t) = int_0 ^ 1 f (s, x) g (x, t) , dt
$$

So $ f glet in A $ Y $ T_fT_g = T_ {f glet g} $. The picture of $ A $ in $ B (L_1) $ Under this inlay, which we will denote by $ J $, turns out to be an object very studied in the theory of the operators in $ L_1 $: Is the set of representable operators of $ L_1 $ Likewise.

QUESTION: does $ J $ (or the equivalent $ (A, $) $) Do you have an approximate identity of bounded right? What happens if we eliminate the delimitation requirement?

Keep in mind that the naive attempt to take simple functions in $ L_ infty (L_1) $ that approximate the "Dirac" measure concentrated on the diagonal in $[0,1]^ 2 $ will not work, because such functions are sent through our incorporation into elements of $ K (L_1) $, which is adequately contained in $ J $ (look down).


Some observations for the background context, which may be relevant for a solution.

It can be shown that $ J $ it does not have an approximate identity to the left (limited or otherwise). I would like to thank W. B. Johnson for indicating why this is the case; Below is an expanded and paraphrased version of his explanation.

From some theory of vector measurement, we know that $ J $ contains the ideal $ W (L_1) $ of weakly compact operators. Further, $ J $ is contained in the ideal $ CC (L_1) $ of completely continuous operators; "completely continuous" means that weakly convergent sequences are assigned to the convergent sequences of the norm).

(The containment $ J subseteq CC (L_1) $ it follows from a Lewis and Stegall theorem, which characterizes the operators in $ J $ as those that factor through $ ell_1 $. This also shows that $ J $ is a $ 2 $from an ideal side in $ B (L_1) $, not just a subalgebra.

It follows that if $ S in W (L_1) $ Y $ T in J $, so $ TS in K (L_1) $. Since there are weakly compact operators $ S $ in $ L_1 $ that are not compact (for example, take any non-compact map $ L_1 a ell_2 $ and then compose with an isometric incrustation. $ ell_2 a L_1 $), it follows that there is no network $ (T_ alpha) $ in $ J $ such that $ Vert T_ alpha S – S Vert to 0 $.

Analysis and classic odes – L1 linear approximation by parts of the convex function of a variable

Consider a convex function f (x) of a variable x in some interval [a,b].

Question:
What is known about the approximation L1 of f (x) by linear functions in parts?
How to find nodes?
Are there some algorithms and / or theoretical results?

Geometrically it means that we need to find a linear curve by sections that is below it, it is the closest area below f (x), in other words, the area of ​​secters is minimal.

If you need to find a single node, a clear geometry is easily obtained.
solution: place the node at the point x where the tanget is parallel to the chord f (a) -> f (b). (See figure 1).
If we have many points, this gives the condition of connection node with the neighboring nodes, so one could think of the nodes as in some system with peer interaction.

enter the description of the image here

I have a dynamic programming algorithm, but I think you should know a lot in s

Figure 2: Approximation with two nodes.

Functional analysis. Minimum intersection of two Lp-norm balls separated by a fixed distance L1.

Given two $ ell_p $ balls of the norm, $ B_a (x) = {z in mathbb {R} ^ d: | x – z | _p leq to } $ Y $ B_b (x + delta) = {z in mathbb {R} ^ d: | x + delta – z | _p leq b } $ with $ x in mathbb {R} ^ d, a, b> 0 $ and the restriction that $ delta in mathbb {R} ^ d: | delta | _1 = v $ (for some $ v> 0 $), and I have the following optimization problem:

$ min _ { delta in mathbb {R} ^ d: | delta | _1 = v} text {Vol} (B_a (x) cap B_b (x + delta)), $
where $ text {Vol} () $ Denotes the volume.

I suspect that optimal solutions should always be the whole. $ {- ve ^ i, ve ^ i } _ {i = 1} ^ d $ for all $ p geq 1 $ ($ e ^ i $ means a hot vector in the coordinate $ i $). Does anyone know how to prove it? Even the case when $ p = 1 $ It seems difficult for high dimension. Any thought is very welcome!

L1 and Ln cache: when are they written?

I've been following Georgia Tech's "High Performance Computer Architecture" course (also on YouTube) and, unless I've missed something, I can not see where the following has been explained:

If I have a multilevel cache, L1 / L2 / L3 / Ln:

1) What decides what level of this hierarchy is initially set a block recovered from memory?

2) If I evict a block of L1, does it mean that it moves to L2 (replacing one block of L2 depending on the replacement policy), and so on for L2 to L3, and L3 to Ln, until the block is evicted from The last cache level is written into memory?

P.S. And yes, I've searched for this, so do not decide if I assume it's not 🙂