Which of the following best explains why internal exploits are hard to detect? Because users are authorized on the network and their actions can go undetected unless they make a careless mistake or discuss their behaviors with others Because internal exploits often use advanced techniques that are hard to detect Because companies often limit the number of employees who can access sensible information
Added by James B.
Step 1
Internal exploits are actions taken by individuals who already have authorized access to a network or system. This means they can operate within the system without raising immediate suspicion. Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Akash M and 78 other AP CS educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
Security personnel generally have two goals when using a honeypot. A honeypot can deflect or redirect threat actors' attention away from legitimate servers by encouraging them to spend their time and energy on the decoy server, distracting their attention from the data on the actual server. A honeypot can also trick threat actors into revealing their attack techniques. Once these techniques are discovered, it can then be determined if actual production systems could thwart such an attack. However, honeypots can introduce risk. A honeypot, once attacked and compromised, could be used as a launching pad to attack and infiltrate other systems, either those of the organization itself or another organization. Although honeypots should be designed to "capture" the threat actor, a misconfiguration could inadvertently give an attacker an actual platform to attack other systems. If a threat actor were able to do this, would the organization that set up the honeypot then be liable? How would you define "without authorization"? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) imposes both criminal and civil liability on someone who intentionally accesses a computer "without authorization" or "exceeds authorized access" to obtain information from the computer. Some businesses argue that "without authorization" also applies to security researchers who are probing programs or apps for vulnerabilities. Often these businesses do not want security researchers looking into their security (or lack of it). One such company filed a brief in a court case stating that "necessary research and testing can be performed by authorized parties... and shows how unauthorized research and public dissemination of unvalidated or theoretical security vulnerabilities can actually cause harmful effects." Should "without authorization" be used to prohibit security researchers who want to pinpoint vulnerabilities? Or can it still allow for security researchers to find unknown vulnerabilities in software—even if they have not been asked to?
Akash M.
Some of the activities in this lab were flagged as being considered potentially hostile unless you have permission to do them. Why would a company want to keep network users from using these type of tools?
Tavis L.
Do you agree that the most effective way to obtain adequate system security is to rely on the integrity of company employees? Why or why not? Does this seem ironic? What should a company do to ensure the integrity of its employees?
Diwakar M.
Recommended Textbooks
Computer Science and Information Technology
Introduction to Programming Using Python
Computer Science - An Overview
Transcript
18,000,000+
Students on Numerade
Trusted by students at 8,000+ universities
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD