Honeypots In Organizational Network Systems Essay Example

Introduction

With the advent and evolution of information technology (IT), there is an increase in the rate of cybercrimes, which have forced organizations to identify and implement effective network security strategies. The present reactive measures are sometimes insufficient in protecting information infrastructures in organizations. Therefore, there is a need to keep track of the new threats presented by potential hackers. One common technique of learning about hackers is through the use of honeypots. This paper aims to discuss the various types of honeypots and their efficiency in securing organizational network systems.

Uses of Honeypots

Honeypots are among the oldest IT security procedures (Verma, 2019). They are known as intrusion detection systems whose values depend on the unauthorized or illicit use of such resources. A honeypot allows a hacker into a “mimicked” system with the purpose of acting as an early detection system, slowing down automated attacks, and designing better security systems. It achieves this through gathering intelligence on emerging threats. There are several types of honeypots that organizations can employ, each depending on their functions. However, the two main types of honeypots include research and production honeypots (Sokol, Míšek, & Husák, 2017).

Research honeypots function to add value to research in cybersecurity by providing a platform to study the threat. This data could then be utilized for a variety of purposes consisting of identifying black hats, trend analysis, identifying new cybersecurity tools, and early warning and prediction. The amount of information on threats gathered by research honeypots is relatively more than that collected by other technologies (Sokol et al., 2017).

They are usually used in military organizations, governmental organizations, and education entities. Such honeypots are more challenging to deploy, maintain and have a complex architecture. An example of a research honeypot is “The Worm Propagation Model and Control Strategy Based on Distributed Honeynet.” On the other hand, production honeypots are used in organizations to prevent, detect, and respond to risks. As compared to the former, they are easy to deploy; nevertheless, they only capture limited information. They are usually placed in the production network with other production servers to enhance security. Commercial companies and corporations mainly use them. Furthermore, based on the level of interaction, high-interaction honeypots are employed in collecting information, while low-interaction honeypots are utilized for production purposes.

Effectiveness of Honeypots

Honeypots can be useful only if they are capable of deceiving black hats into thinking that they are typical computer systems. Hence they are of limited value if the hacker does not interact with such interfaces (Kambow & Passi, 2014).

They have several advantages which comprise reduced false positives thus making it efficient in detecting attacks; since all information present is malicious, they can be fragmented into smaller data sets; they require minimal resources; they collect malicious data that only a few technologies can collect, and they are flexible and easy to use. Regardless of their several advantages, honeypots are not a comprehensive security solution. This is because they are insignificant if the attackers do not use them. Moreover, they pose high-security risks to organizational networks. Low-interaction honeypots present low risks, while high-interaction honeypots present high risks (Kambow & Passi, 2014).

Overall, the use of a honeypot security system is very traditional. Although it is unconventional with a few legal issues intertwined, honeypots are an unavoidable necessity. This is because it is the only technology with the capability of luring attackers, collecting information, and monitoring their activities to aid in the creation of new defense systems that will deter future threats.

References

Kambow, N., & Passi, L. (2014). Honeypots: The need of network security. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 5(5), 6098-6101.

Sokol, P., Míšek, J., & Husák, M. (2017). Honeypots and honeynets: Issues of privacy. EURASIP Journal on Information Security, 4, 1-9. Web.

Verma, N. (2019). Honeypot: A ploy to lure and catch cyber attackers

Is Google Evil According To Catholic Social Teachings And Ethics?

Google is an enormous company that influences the daily lives of billions of people. For a long time, its code of conduct has advised the employees not to be evil. However, recently the line has been removed, which did not go unnoticed by the community. Furthermore, Google has come under criticism for morally questionable practices. This essay aims to examine the company and determine whether it is evil according to Catholic social teachings and ethics.

Definition of Evil

According to Sharpe, the Catholic doctrine recognizes three kinds of evil: physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil describes everything that harms man, including bodily harm but also poverty, oppression, and disease. Moral evil means deviation from the moral order and the actions that result from that departure. Metaphysical evil is the most complicated of the three, as it concerns various parts of the natural world obstructing each other’s proper growth. The evils of interest in this essay are physical and moral ones, as metaphysical evil is a theoretical concept that is difficult to apply to the situation.

Evidence for the Motion

Google has recently been receiving sharp criticism for its recent decision to return to China and comply with the government’s requirements. According to Pham, the company’s original Chinese version of the popular search engine had incorporated censorship, functioning until 2010. The reason Google decided to shut down the service was the alleged hacker attacks by the Chinese government that targeted human rights activists who lived out of the country.

Since then, the only Google services available in the country have been the translator, a file organizer, and an AI game, and users who try to access the other resources are redirected to the Hong Kong version of the website.

While Google’s choice to return to China is economically sound, the company will continue complying with the censorship laws, serving as an instrument of oppression. According to Pham, the government is now able to track people through the collection of various information such as their preferences and location. It will be able to legally request Google to transfer those data, and the company would likely have to comply. When viewed through the scope of Catholic doctrine, Google intends to commit an act of physical evil.

Another frequent concern critics have about Google is its continuously growing power and influence, as well as its ability and willingness to abuse that power. According to White, Google has been discovered to illegally copy content from other websites for its purposes and threaten those websites with the omission from search results if they pressed the issue (29). Although the behavior was not punished in the United States, the European Union determined it was punishable, and it departs from the moral norm. As such, Google can be declared guilty of moral evil, as well.

Evidence against the Motion

Although Google has some issues, it is not an entirely malicious organization. As a business, its first and foremost priority is to provide customers with the highest quality services possible. As such, the company wants to give the user a positive impression, which is achieved by avoiding acts of evil and maintaining a positive image. To that end, Google has accomplished things that challenge the policies outlined in the section above.

The company may utilize anticompetitive practices and sometimes employ illegal methods, but it has also done much to improve the present internet landscape. According to White, Google had significantly contributed to the net neutrality proposal, which advocated for equal treatment of all people and organizations when it came to traffic priorities (17-18). The company continues to support the initiative, even as the new government considers repealing it.

Google also attempts to combat some practices that have been described as predatory. White describes its fight against the payday loan industry, which targets people with low income who cannot get a loan otherwise and offers them small amounts of money with high interest (24). However, even if the company’s goal is to help its users, its methods, which involved removing providers’ websites from search results, are not morally clear.

Lastly, Google’s choice of removing its “Don’t be evil” motto may be interpreted as a move away from evil, not toward it. Mayer suggests that telling someone to avoid doing negative things is not a sufficient incentive for success, as “not bad” is not the same as “good.” The performance of positive deeds has to be promoted to achieve goodness, and that is the paradigm Google has possibly decided to adopt.

Summary

Google has been caught doing evil deeds, in smaller matters as well as company policy. However, it also promotes positive concepts and maybe trying to move toward greater goodness. It is my opinion that the company’s evil is a reflection of the evil inherent in modern businesses, particularly large ones, which stems from their primary objective of obtaining money. As such, my conclusion is that Google is not evil, but it has to commit evil deeds due to its nature and environment. Nevertheless, this lack of intent does not excuse the company’s acts, and it cannot be declared good either.

Works Cited

Mayer, David. “Why Google was Smart to Drop its “Don’t Be Evil” Motto.Fast Company. 2016. Web.

Pham, Sherisse. “Google Might Return to China. Here’s Why That’s So Controversial”. CNN Tech. 2018. Web.

Sharpe, A. B. “Evil.Catholic Answers. Web.

White, Adam J. “Google.gov.” The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, no. 55, pp. 3-34.

Analysis Of Rowe’s And Hick’s Ideas

There are some topics on which people have been arguing for centuries and still cannot come to a consensus as there is no such evidence that no one would doubt. Some of those questions are God’s existence, the nature of evil, and the human soul. William Rowe and John Hick were philosophers and professors of religion and theology, and their ideas still excite the most inquiring minds. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of suffering that results in achieving the best and the soul-making process.

There is a statement that intense animal and human suffering always leads to greater goods. Rowe does not agree with this belief and discusses this and the idea of God in his book. To begin with, it is best to concentrate on a clear case of evil that is “intense human and animal suffering” as it constantly appears all over the world (Rowe, 2017, p. 54). “There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse” (Rowe, 2017, p. 57).

So, if God existed and cared about people’s well-being, he would undoubtedly stop and prevent any intense suffering. That is the main reason why the philosopher states that God does not exist and doubts that suffering always leads to greater goods.

I support Rowe because, for me, it seems unlikely that intense suffering, for example, the death of a child, may lead to something good. If the statement is true and pain does lead to greater goods, I still do not believe that God “could not have achieved at least some of those goods without permitting the instances of intense suffering that are supposedly related to them” (Rowe, 2017, p. 55). Of course, sometimes misery and pain can be like a test of a person’s endurance. However, I suppose that some goods may be achieved without suffering and sacrifices.

Hick believes that there are two kinds of evil: the moral and the nonmoral. Moral evil is a consequence of free will; nonmoral evil’s existence is an essential condition for the process of soul-making. According to Hick (2016), the soul-making process is the theory that people can develop their souls by living, becoming, and choosing good only if bad exists. So, God allows suffering and evil to develop people into pure and honest creatures capable of following his will, and the soul-making process is of such great value that it approves all the animal and human suffering involved in it.

I believe that Rowe’s criticism of the soul-making theory is rather convincing. He says that the strength and the amount of suffering and evil exceed what is needed for the soul-making process (Rowe, 2017). Also, nowadays, evil is some kind of fashion that is not related to people’s stage of development. Soul-making may happen without any bad experience; for instance, by learning from noble people, a person develops his or her moral qualities.

It is hard to disagree that all people strive for world without suffering. However, Hick (2016) states that personal growth is impossible in a place where people experience “a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain” (p. 308). The best human personality characteristics only appear provided that “there are obstacles to be overcome, tasks to be performed, goals to be achieved, problems to be solved, and dangers to be met” (Hick, 2016, p. 362).

As for me, I can imagine a world with less pain and suffering, yet in which the soul-making process takes place. The reason for me to believe in it is that less suffering does not mean no suffering at all, so there still will be evil that is necessary for people’s development. Of course, humans are not able to stop suffering from death and natural disasters, but they can at least give up on causing each other’s pain and hurting the world around them. It will immediately reduce the suffering people experience but will not stop the soul-making process.

References

Hick, J. (2016). Evil and the God of love. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Rowe, W. L. (2017). William L. Rowe on philosophy of religion: Selected writings. N. Trakakis (Ed.). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

error: Content is protected !!