- Ideas for trainers
This page was intended to be broken up into sections, allowing an easy way to have students be asked questions. A classroom environment may wish to have the questions be answered throughout a class: this is recommended to help re-inforce concepts early on. In some circumstances, teachers may wish to have answers submitted for evaluation. Submitting answers throughout a course is recommended, even if the evaluation occurs at the end of the course. That way, students are working with the material throughout the experience.
Having all of the sections being required at the end may be a good way to review lots of topics, even after students submitted answers earlier. This could allow students to get a higher average grade if they learned more throughout the course. (If a student misses the question the first time, but gets it a second time, then the student may get half of the points, rather than none of the possible points.)
- Current status
Creating this was just a “spur-of-the-moment” idea, which was then forgotten about (but the results were found later). Since it was forgotten about, it is not very developed.
These questions are about topics that may be sensibly looked at even before an operating system gets installed onto a physical machine. So this may be done during a “planning stage”.
- Machine name
If a machine is named WWW (or “www” if lowercase names are required or preferred), then is that machine required to actively provide HTTP services on TCP port 80 in order to be compliant with IETF BCP 17?
- (Hint: At the time this question was written, RFC 2219 section 4 was intended to provide this answer. (Specifically, not the last couple of paragraphs of that section, which discuss what may be recommended. The earlier part of the section discusses what can be safely expected.) If IETF BCP 17 has not yet been updated to point to a newer RFC, then that is where the expected answer may reside.)
- Who fell?
Identify the response of the team of people who develop the component that was responsible for the OpenBSD operating system's first recognized “remote hole”. What was the official estimate of computers that were actually broken into before OpenBSD's first remote hole had a fix available?
- (This is discussed by: OpenBSD's remote holes
- The Second
What percentage of users were likely affected by OpenBSD's second remote hole? (This is discussed by OpenBSD's remote holes.)
- The vast majority
- Well over half
- Approximately half
- Exactly half
- Around a quarter
- Five to Ten percent
- Less than 1%
- Nobody, because the affected code wasn't deployed yet
- Vendor Recognition
Who is PNAELV?
- No Linking!
Which vendor sent a legal demand to not hyperlink to their website, sending a lawyer-written litter stating “our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission.”