Eccouncil ECSAv10 Exam - Topic 2 Question 80 Discussion

Actual exam question for Eccouncil's ECSAv10 exam

Question #: 80
Topic #: 2

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?

ATrue negatives

BFalse negatives

CFalse positives

DTrue positives

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Octavio at Sep 18, 2024, 05:29 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ECSAv10 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Alona

9 months ago

I thought true positives were the ones that actually got exploited?

upvoted 0 times

...

Marshall

9 months ago

Definitely false negatives, that analysis was off.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dahlia

10 months ago

Wait, are you sure? Could be true negatives, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Helga

10 months ago

Totally agree, he missed some vulnerabilities!

upvoted 0 times

...

Mary

10 months ago

Sounds like false negatives to me.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

10 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tegan

11 months ago

I practiced a similar question, and I believe if the analysis missed vulnerabilities, it would be false negatives.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stevie

11 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about true negatives being when no vulnerabilities are found. Could this be true negatives?

upvoted 0 times

...

Fredric

11 months ago

I think Jim's results were false negatives since the vulnerability analysis said there were no issues, but the exploits showed otherwise.

upvoted 0 times

...

An

11 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alexia

11 months 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?

upvoted 0 times

...

Tish

11 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chauncey

11 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ma

11 months 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?

upvoted 0 times

...

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!

upvoted 0 times

Mabelle

2 years ago

C) False positives

upvoted 0 times

...

Isabella

2 years ago

B) False negatives

upvoted 0 times

...

Lillian

2 years ago

A) True negatives

upvoted 0 times

...

Melvin

2 years ago

I believe Jim received false negatives because the exploits were successful.

upvoted 0 times

...

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!

upvoted 0 times

...