- Email support@dumps4free.com
Topic 1, Introduction to Ethical Hacking
Which of the following act in the united states specifically criminalizes the
transmission of unsolicited commercial e-mail(SPAM) without an existing business
relationship.
A.
2004 CANSPAM Act
B.
2003 SPAM Preventing Act
C.
2005 US-SPAM 1030 Act
D.
1990 Computer Misuse Act
2004 CANSPAM Act
Explanation: The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) establishes requirements for those who send commercial
email, spells out penalties for spammers and companies whose products are advertised in
spam if they violate the law, and gives consumers the right to ask emailers to stop
spamming them. The law, which became effective January 1, 2004, covers email whose
primary purpose is advertising or promoting a commercial product or service, including
content on a Web site. A "transactional or relationship message" – email that facilitates an
agreed-upon transaction or updates a customer in an existing business relationship – may
not contain false or misleading routing information, but otherwise is exempt from most
provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act.
What is "Hacktivism"?
A.
Hacking for a cause
B.
Hacking ruthlessly
C.
An association which groups activists
D.
None of the above
Hacking for a cause
Explanation: The term was coined by author/critic Jason Logan King Sack in an article
about media artist Shu Lea Cheang. Acts of hacktivism are carried out in the belief that
proper use of code will have leveraged effects similar to regular activism or civil
disobedience.
ABC.com is legally liable for the content of email that is sent from its systems,
regardless of whether the message was sent for private or business-related purpose.
This could lead to prosecution for the sender and for the company’s directors if, for
example, outgoing email was found to contain material that was pornographic, racist
or likely to incite someone to commit an act of terrorism.
You can always defend yourself by “ignorance of the law” clause.
A.
True
B.
False
False
Explanation: Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for
"ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a
public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for
violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons
have presumed knowledge of the law. Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in
jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been
defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".
What is the essential difference between an ‘Ethical Hacker’ and a ‘Cracker’?
A.
The ethical hacker does not use the same techniques or skills as a cracker.
B.
The ethical hacker does it strictly for financial motives unlike a cracker.
C.
The ethical hacker has authorization from the owner of the target.
D.
The ethical hacker is just a cracker who is getting paid.
The ethical hacker has authorization from the owner of the target.
Explanation: The ethical hacker uses the same techniques and skills as a cracker and the
motive is to find the security breaches before a cracker does. There is nothing that says
that a cracker does not get paid for the work he does, a ethical hacker has the owners
authorization and will get paid even if he does not succeed to penetrate the target.
The United Kingdom (UK) he passed a law that makes hacking into an unauthorized
network a felony.
The law states:
Section1 of the Act refers to unauthorized access to computer material. This states
that a person commits an offence if he causes a computer to perform any function
with intent to secure unauthorized access to any program or data held in any
computer. For a successful conviction under this part of the Act, the prosecution
must prove that the access secured is unauthorized and that the suspect knew that
this was the case. This section is designed to deal with common-or-graden hacking.
Section 2 of the deals with unauthorized access with intent to commit or facilitate
the commission of further offences. An offence is committed under Section 2 if a
Section 1 offence has been committed and there is the intention of committing or
facilitating a further offense (any offence which attacks a custodial sentence of more
than five years, not necessarily one covered but the Act). Even if it is not possible to
prove the intent to commit the further offence, the Section 1 offence is still
committed.
Section 3 Offences cover unauthorized modification of computer material, which
generally means the creation and distribution of viruses. For conviction to succeed
there must have been the intent to cause the modifications and knowledge that the
modification had not been authorized
What is the law called?
A.
Computer Misuse Act 1990
B.
Computer incident Act 2000
C.
Cyber Crime Law Act 2003
D.
Cyber Space Crime Act 1995
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Explanation: Computer Misuse Act (1990) creates three criminal offences:
Unauthorised access to computer material
Unauthorised access to a computer system with intent to commit or facilitate the
commission of a further offence
Unauthorised modification of computer material
| Page 2 out of 153 Pages |
| Previous |