GAQM CPEH-001 Exam - Topic 5 Question 68 Discussion

Actual exam question for GAQM's CPEH-001 exam

Question #: 68
Topic #: 5

There are two types of honeypots- high and low interaction. Which of these describes a low interaction honeypot? Select the best answers.

AEmulators of vulnerable programs

BMore likely to be penetrated

CEasier to deploy and maintain

DTend to be used for production

EMore detectable

FTend to be used for research
Explanations:
A low interaction honeypot would have emulators of vulnerable programs, not the real programs.
A high interaction honeypot is more likely to be penetrated as it is running the real program and is more vulnerable than an emulator.
Low interaction honeypots are easier to deploy and maintain. Usually you would just use a program that is already available for download and install it. Hackers don't usually crash or destroy these types of programs and it would require little maintenance.
A low interaction honeypot tends to be used for production.
Low interaction honeypots are more detectable because you are using emulators of the real programs. Many hackers will see this and realize that they are in a honeypot.
A low interaction honeypot tends to be used for production. A high interaction honeypot tends to be used for research.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A, C, D, E

by Iluminada at Mar 30, 2023, 02:29 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CPEH-001 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Luke

4 months ago

Really? I’m surprised they don’t get hacked more often.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carmelina

4 months ago

Yeah, but they’re still useful for production.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantell

4 months ago

I thought low interaction ones were more detectable?

upvoted 0 times

...

Toshia

4 months ago

Totally agree, they're easier to set up!

upvoted 0 times

...

Joanne

4 months ago

Low interaction honeypots use emulators, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Jose

5 months ago

I feel like low interaction honeypots are definitely easier to set up, but I wonder if that makes them less effective in some cases.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tammi

5 months ago

I practiced a question like this before, and I think low interaction honeypots are used for production, but I’m confused about the part regarding research.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alline

5 months ago

I remember that low interaction honeypots use emulators, but I can't recall if they are more likely to be penetrated or not.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jarod

5 months ago

I think low interaction honeypots are easier to deploy and maintain, but I'm not entirely sure if they are more detectable.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jade

5 months ago

Okay, I think I've got it. The correct calculation is W x 1.732, which is option B. I'm feeling confident about this one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iluminada

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The question mentions "development" measures, but I'm not sure if that's the same as testing approaches. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bobbye

5 months ago

I'm not completely sure, but I feel like the CPU on these switches might not handle I/O the same way as in servers, which could be a reason for not needing iostat.

upvoted 0 times

...