MENU
Jim performed a vulnerability analysis on his network and found no potential problems. He runs another utilitythat executes exploits against his system to verify the results of the vulnerability test. The second utilityexecutes five known exploits against his network in which the vulnerability analysis said were not exploitable.
What kind of results did Jim receive from his vulnerability analysis?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium ECSAv10 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
30 comments · newest first
AL
Alona
11 months ago
I thought true positives were the ones that actually got exploited?
MA
Marshall
11 months ago
Definitely false negatives, that analysis was off.
DA
Dahlia
11 months ago
Wait, are you sure? Could be true negatives, right?
HE
Helga
12 months ago
Totally agree, he missed some vulnerabilities!
MA
Mary
12 months ago
Sounds like false negatives to me.
LI
Lindsey
1 year ago
I’m confused about the terms, but I feel like if the analysis said everything was fine and then exploits worked, that sounds like false positives.
TE
Tegan
1 year ago
I practiced a similar question, and I believe if the analysis missed vulnerabilities, it would be false negatives.
ST
Stevie
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about true negatives being when no vulnerabilities are found. Could this be true negatives?
FR
Fredric
1 year ago
I think Jim's results were false negatives since the vulnerability analysis said there were no issues, but the exploits showed otherwise.
AN
An
1 year ago
The key here is that the vulnerability analysis missed some real vulnerabilities that the exploit tool was able to find. So the vulnerability analysis produced false negatives in this case. Gotta remember that vulnerability scanners aren't perfect and need to be verified.
AL
Alexia
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. If the vulnerability analysis said there were no problems, but the exploit tool found issues, does that mean the vulnerability analysis gave false positives? Or is it the other way around?
TI
Tish
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident this is a case of false negatives. The vulnerability analysis missed some real vulnerabilities that the exploit tool was able to find. Gotta be careful not to rely too heavily on those vulnerability scans alone.
CH
Chauncey
1 year ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the definitions of true negatives, false negatives, false positives, and true positives to figure out the right answer.
MA
Ma
1 year ago
Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. The vulnerability analysis said there were no problems, but then the exploit tool found issues. So it sounds like the vulnerability analysis produced false negatives, right?
TY
Tyra
2 years ago
False negatives, eh? Guess Jim's network is like a stealth bomber - super stealthy, but still vulnerable to a good old-fashioned rocket launcher. Gotta love those undetected exploits!
MA
Mabelle
2 years ago
C) False positives
IS
Isabella
2 years ago
B) False negatives
LI
Lillian
2 years ago
A) True negatives
ME
Melvin
2 years ago
I believe Jim received false negatives because the exploits were successful.
AN
Annette
2 years ago
False negatives, huh? Sounds like Jim's network is more secure than Fort Knox, or maybe he just missed a few landmines. Either way, I wouldn't want to be the one trying to break in!
GE
Georgene
2 years ago
I think Jim might have gotten false positives instead.
OC
Ocie
2 years ago
Ooh, looks like Jim's vulnerability test missed a few exploits! Guess he needs to upgrade his hacking skills to find all the juicy vulnerabilities.
GE
German
2 years ago
C) False positives
FE
Felix
2 years ago
B) False negatives
HE
Helene
2 years ago
D) True positives
DI
Dick
2 years ago
A) True negatives
EM
Emmanuel
2 years ago
C) False positives
TY
Ty
2 years ago
B) False negatives
TA
Tarra
2 years ago
A) True negatives
JO
Joana
2 years ago
Jim probably received false negatives from his vulnerability analysis.