Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

GAQM CPEH-001 Exam - Topic 5 Question 68 Discussion

There are two types of honeypots- high and low interaction. Which of these describes a low interaction honeypot? Select the best answers.
A) Emulators of vulnerable programs and C) Easier to deploy and maintain and D) Tend to be used for production and E) More detectable
B) More likely to be penetrated
F) Tend 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.

GAQM CPEH-001 Exam - Topic 5 Question 68 Discussion

Actual exam question for GAQM's CPEH-001 exam
Question #: 68
Topic #: 5
[All CPEH-001 Questions]

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

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Luke
10 months ago
Really? I’m surprised they don’t get hacked more often.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmelina
10 months ago
Yeah, but they’re still useful for production.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantell
10 months ago
I thought low interaction ones were more detectable?
upvoted 0 times
...
Toshia
10 months ago
Totally agree, they're easier to set up!
upvoted 0 times
...
Joanne
11 months ago
Low interaction honeypots use emulators, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jose
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
...

Save Cancel