Quest 2 is even easier than Quest 1 (if you have studied logic gates). Basically, the idea is to go through the circuit given and arrive at the code which will provide for a 1 on the final output. The combination of gates that are TRUE needs to be mentioned in CTF{}. The rest of the gates can be ignored.

There is a very simple way to solve it. We do a reverse traversal from the final gate to the input gates. The idea is to basically have the final value as true and then look at the gates input. Determine the input values so that the final value is true. Do the reverse traversal in an iterative fashion until one reaches the inputs defined.

I have been doing reverse engineering (RE) since my childhood days and that always helps freshen up my technical skills as well as understand the intrinsic working details of a particular piece of code and/or software. I have used tools such as IDA, x64dbg/Ollydbg, hiew, and more recently Ghidra. In the past I had also used SoftICE and quite a few other things. Those were the golden days when one can play around and I had all the time to learn stuff.

Home Alarm (Hemlarm in Swedish) systems market in Sweden is pretty monopolistic with 2 big companies (Verisure and Sector Alarm) dominating the home alarm market. Alarm systems needs to be connected to the central alarm system which is the one monitoring and calling in emergency services (Police & fire departments) in case of break-ins or fire. HomeAlarm systems from the big companies can cost as much as 500 SEK per month. In many cases, I have seen people spending more than 600 SEK per month.

Climate change is for real and multiple scientific evidence that has been provided by scientists and climate change activists to ask for increased action by corporates and individuals alike to actively work towards reversing and/or stopping the phenomena. Corporates especially are increasingly challenged to incorporate visible and meaningful action on climate change in their day to day activities. Investors are also requesting for transparency on corporate greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and looking forward to strategies to reduce them. This resulted in a shift towards market responses, i.e. proactive managerial and technological measures, such as the establishment of carbon inventories, investments in ‘green’ products and cleaner production processes[1][2].

The literature on climate change strategies converges on 4 main strategic intents namely governance, innovation, compensation, and legitimation. The figure below identifies a corporate climate change strategy framework. The different corporate activities are grouped into 4 strategic intent with a focus of interaction / self-containment levels in each of those activities[1].

Governance which is defined as an organization’s ability to deal with risks and opportunities deals with GHG (Green House Gas) management and associated policy development, organization involvement and risk management. All of these corporate activities are mostly internal to the company and if done properly can be effectively used to formulate and strategize the corporate vision around climate change. Innovation is geared towards the improvement of existing products and processes as well as embracing any new technologies that can accelerate and conform to the various standards related to climate change activities and impact reduction. Compensation is the action taken by an organization to reduce its carbon footprint like buying CO2 credits or enhancing carbon sinks. The organization’s own technological assets and competencies remain unaltered. Legitimation encompasses the activities aimed at retaining or gaining legitimacy around the various activities done by the organization.

VSM stands for the Viable System Model and it introduces the concept of a viable organization and its ability to survive in a changing environment. VSM consists of a number of systems that correspond to the needed roles in an organization for it to be viable and self-producing. There are four underlying principles for VSM according to Beer[1]. These four principles and relevant comments on my behalf are presented below.

(Vasudha Chhotray and Stoker, 2010) define corporate governance as, “Governance is about the rules of collective decision-making in settings where there is a plurality of actors or organizations and where no formal control system can dictate the terms of the relationship between these actors and organizations”[1]. The Australian Stock Exchange[2] publishes a list of principles for corporate governance which can also be applied to 3P (project, program, and portfolio) governance.

Maturity has various meanings but from an organizational sense, it is the ability of the organization to act on its experience, to learn, change and improve, essentially what is known as the learning organization[1]. Maturity is seen as being the integration of attitude, knowledge, and action across the management of projects, programs and portfolios. A more mature organization does have a higher rate of project success.

“The central hypothesis behind the OPMM is that an organization’s ability to manage projects successfully can be assessed by analyzing key attributes that define how well project management is being carried out”[2]. OPMM is a 4-level model used to communicate maturity. The 4 stages of OPMM are: