Question
A software developer created a program that allowed
unauthorized access to a bank's network to expose vulnerabilities. The developer released this program without permission claiming it was for "ethical hacking." Under the IT Act, which statements are correct? Statement 1: The developer can claim exemption under Section 66 because the intent was to expose vulnerabilities. Statement 2: Unauthorized access remains an offence under Section 66 regardless of the stated purpose. Statement 3: The developer can be prosecuted under Section 66 for unauthorized access. Statement 4: Section 66 provides a defense if the access was for security testing purposes. Which statements are correct?Solution
Unauthorized access is prohibited regardless of intent—Statement 2 is correct. Prosecution under Section 66 is possible—Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect—good intent does not exempt unauthorized access. Statement 4 is incorrect—Section 66 provides no such defense. Statements 2 and 3 are correct.
N has only two daughters U and P. P is married to O. O is father of S. U is married to V. B is daughter-in-law of P. How is S related to N?
How is G related to F?
If “J#K^P%R#O”, then How O is related to J?
How is W related to mother of Z?
What is the relation of E with respect to G?
_____ is the father of _____.
I. V, U
II. P, Q
III. U, T
D is the brother of C. E is the sister of F, who is the son of B. G is the daughter-in-law of C. F is married to G. C is not a male. How is D related to B?
How is P related to O?
Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W are from two generations and four married couple. V and T are married couples. P is father in law of U, who is s...
How is R related to S’s brother?