A major annual tech conference was disrupted when a crucial presentation on cybersecurity unexpectedly crashed. The organizers identified three key suspects: Jordan, the lead technician; Taylor, a rival tech company representative; and Alex, a disgruntled former employee.
Jordan had access to all technical setups but claimed to be fixing another issue when the crash occurred. Taylor had publicly criticized the conference’s content but lacked direct access to the systems. Alex had knowledge and access but was seen at a nearby café during the incident.
The investigation revealed that the presentation system received an external command to shut down. Surprisingly, no unauthorized external connections were detected on the network during the time of the incident.
Questions:
- Who had the technical expertise to execute the shutdown?
A) Jordan
B) Taylor
C) Alex
D) Jordan and Alex
2. If no unauthorized connections were detected, what does this imply about the suspect?
A) They used a sophisticated hacking method.
B) They had authorized access.
C) They were physically present at the conference.
D) They acted spontaneously without planning.
3. Considering Alex’s alibi, what can be inferred?
A) Alex has no connection to the incident.
B) Alex may have used remote access.
C) Alex’s presence at the café is irrelevant.
D) Alex was falsely accused.
4. What motive could Taylor have for disrupting the presentation?
A) Personal grudge against the organizers.
B) To embarrass a rival tech company.
C) To demonstrate the vulnerability of the conference’s security.
D) No clear motive.
If Jordan was occupied with another issue, how might this affect suspicions against them?
A) It confirms Jordan’s innocence.
B) It provides a convenient alibi.
C) It implies Jordan’s involvement in a different issue.
D) It raises doubts about Jordan’s responsibility for technical setups.
Answers
- Answer: D) Jordan and Alex
- Explanation: Both Jordan and Alex have the technical expertise required for such an operation. Jordan as the lead technician and Alex as a former employee would know the systems well.
- Answer: B) They had authorized access.
- Explanation: The lack of unauthorized connections suggests that the person responsible used an authorized access point, indicating an inside job.
- Answer: B) Alex may have used remote access.
- Explanation: Alex’s presence at the café doesn’t rule out involvement, as the disruption could have been executed remotely.
- Answer: B) To embarrass a rival tech company.
- Explanation: Taylor, representing a rival company, might have a motive to disrupt the presentation to embarrass the competition or undermine their credibility.
- Answer: B) It provides a convenient alibi.
- Explanation: Being occupied with another issue at the time of the incident could be a convenient alibi for Jordan, but it doesn’t necessarily confirm innocence.
Do join the whatsapp group to stay updated.