Questões de Concurso Público TCM-RJ 2011 para Analista de Informação
Foram encontradas 75 questões
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Provas:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Engenheiro
|
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379773
Ética na Administração Pública
A Administração Pública é regida por princípios constitucionais, que visam a assegurar uma atuação impessoal, proba, legítima, moral e eficiente para o atendimento do interesse público. Configura um ato de improbidade administrativa a seguinte conduta:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Provas:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Engenheiro
|
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379774
Ética na Administração Pública
A Constituição da República contém inúmeras regras e princípios. Embora estes tenham menor densidade normativa do que aquelas, é possível se extrair deles comandos bastante definidos. Do princípio da moralidade decorre o seguinte comando:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Provas:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Engenheiro
|
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379775
Ética na Administração Pública
Embora os princípios constitucionais que disciplinam a Administração Pública admitam uma interpretação mais aberta, depreende-se deles, em especial do princípio da moralidade, que:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379777
Português
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda, a seguir, a questão proposta:
Muita gente deu risada, nos últimos dias, com uma pesquisa italiana a respeito do melhor jeito de dar promoções no trabalho. Os três cientistas da Universidade de Catânia concluíram que promover funcionários com base no mérito não é a melhor estratégia. Em vez disso, a empresa que quisesse acumular a maior “quantidade” possível de competência deveria promover os funcionários na louca, aleatoriamente. Num dos cenários do estudo, também seria bom negócio promover sempre os piores funcionários.
Talvez você esteja pensando “opa, meu trabalho já aplica isso aí…” Pois é, os italianos tocaram num tema interessante no tal estudo. Como eles chegaram a essa conclusão? Eles aplicaram uma piadinha de administração dos anos 60, o “Princípio de Peter”. Segundo esse princípio, o funcionário vai sendo promovido (ou seja, removido) enquanto for competente, até chegar a um nível em que é incompetente (e ali permanece, pelo menos por um tempo, antes de ser demitido). Em outras palavras, a empresa sempre tira as pessoas dos cargos em que elas são boas e as leva para outros, em que elas podem ser péssimas. O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo. Ou seja, só porque você era o melhor vendedor da empresa, não quer dizer que será um bom coordenador de vendedores - o que faz muito sentido.
Os pesquisadores italianos Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda e Cesare Garofalo testaram o Princípio de Peter num modelo matemático, para simular uma empresa com 180 funcionários e seis níveis hierárquicos. Eles experimentaram a lógica do senso comum, de que a pessoa leva com ela a maior parte da competência mostrada no cargo anterior, e a lógica do Princípio de Peter, de que mostrar competência no novo cargo não tem nada a ver com o cargo anterior. Para cada lógica, experimentaram três diferentes políticas de promoção dos funcionariozinhos virtuais: promover sempre os melhores, promover sempre os piores e promover aleatoriamente.
Na média dos seis resultados, a promoção aleatória foi a melhor para acumular competência na empresa. Também foi possível, pela lógica de Peter, ter bom resultado promovendo sempre os piores (já que os melhores continuavam fazendo o que faziam bem) e intercalando promoções dos melhores e dos piores.
Organizações e equipes de todos os tamanhos deveriam tentar fugir do Princípio de Peter. Até as empresas já têm algumas ideias novas: testar o funcionário com desafios do cargo que ele deve assumir, antes de promovê-lo; permitir que o funcionário que já mostrou competência possa ser testado em mais de uma função; sair da estrutura de pirâmide e tentar jeitos novos de se organizar, com menos hierarquia e mais flexibilidade; ter caminhos variados para o funcionário avançar na carreira.
O trabalho recebeu em Harvard um prêmio Ig Nobel, dado a pesquisas excêntricas “que fazem pessoas rir antes de pensar”, como é definido pela entidade que o concede, a Improbable Research (“Pesquisa Improvável”).
E você, acha que o mundo consegue escapar do Princípio de Peter?
(Giffon, Carlosi. A empresa em que os piores funcionários
ganham as promoções. In: Época. 2.10.2010)
Em seu penúltimo parágrafo, o texto faz uma referência à pesquisa que lhe serve de tema mediante o seguinte juízo:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379778
Português
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda, a seguir, a questão proposta:
Muita gente deu risada, nos últimos dias, com uma pesquisa italiana a respeito do melhor jeito de dar promoções no trabalho. Os três cientistas da Universidade de Catânia concluíram que promover funcionários com base no mérito não é a melhor estratégia. Em vez disso, a empresa que quisesse acumular a maior “quantidade” possível de competência deveria promover os funcionários na louca, aleatoriamente. Num dos cenários do estudo, também seria bom negócio promover sempre os piores funcionários.
Talvez você esteja pensando “opa, meu trabalho já aplica isso aí…” Pois é, os italianos tocaram num tema interessante no tal estudo. Como eles chegaram a essa conclusão? Eles aplicaram uma piadinha de administração dos anos 60, o “Princípio de Peter”. Segundo esse princípio, o funcionário vai sendo promovido (ou seja, removido) enquanto for competente, até chegar a um nível em que é incompetente (e ali permanece, pelo menos por um tempo, antes de ser demitido). Em outras palavras, a empresa sempre tira as pessoas dos cargos em que elas são boas e as leva para outros, em que elas podem ser péssimas. O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo. Ou seja, só porque você era o melhor vendedor da empresa, não quer dizer que será um bom coordenador de vendedores - o que faz muito sentido.
Os pesquisadores italianos Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda e Cesare Garofalo testaram o Princípio de Peter num modelo matemático, para simular uma empresa com 180 funcionários e seis níveis hierárquicos. Eles experimentaram a lógica do senso comum, de que a pessoa leva com ela a maior parte da competência mostrada no cargo anterior, e a lógica do Princípio de Peter, de que mostrar competência no novo cargo não tem nada a ver com o cargo anterior. Para cada lógica, experimentaram três diferentes políticas de promoção dos funcionariozinhos virtuais: promover sempre os melhores, promover sempre os piores e promover aleatoriamente.
Na média dos seis resultados, a promoção aleatória foi a melhor para acumular competência na empresa. Também foi possível, pela lógica de Peter, ter bom resultado promovendo sempre os piores (já que os melhores continuavam fazendo o que faziam bem) e intercalando promoções dos melhores e dos piores.
Organizações e equipes de todos os tamanhos deveriam tentar fugir do Princípio de Peter. Até as empresas já têm algumas ideias novas: testar o funcionário com desafios do cargo que ele deve assumir, antes de promovê-lo; permitir que o funcionário que já mostrou competência possa ser testado em mais de uma função; sair da estrutura de pirâmide e tentar jeitos novos de se organizar, com menos hierarquia e mais flexibilidade; ter caminhos variados para o funcionário avançar na carreira.
O trabalho recebeu em Harvard um prêmio Ig Nobel, dado a pesquisas excêntricas “que fazem pessoas rir antes de pensar”, como é definido pela entidade que o concede, a Improbable Research (“Pesquisa Improvável”).
E você, acha que o mundo consegue escapar do Princípio de Peter?
(Giffon, Carlosi. A empresa em que os piores funcionários
ganham as promoções. In: Época. 2.10.2010)
Transcrevem-se abaixo algumas frases do texto seguidas de suas paráfrases. A alternativa em que a nova redação implica mudança significativa do sentido original é:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379779
Português
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda, a seguir, a questão proposta:
Muita gente deu risada, nos últimos dias, com uma pesquisa italiana a respeito do melhor jeito de dar promoções no trabalho. Os três cientistas da Universidade de Catânia concluíram que promover funcionários com base no mérito não é a melhor estratégia. Em vez disso, a empresa que quisesse acumular a maior “quantidade” possível de competência deveria promover os funcionários na louca, aleatoriamente. Num dos cenários do estudo, também seria bom negócio promover sempre os piores funcionários.
Talvez você esteja pensando “opa, meu trabalho já aplica isso aí…” Pois é, os italianos tocaram num tema interessante no tal estudo. Como eles chegaram a essa conclusão? Eles aplicaram uma piadinha de administração dos anos 60, o “Princípio de Peter”. Segundo esse princípio, o funcionário vai sendo promovido (ou seja, removido) enquanto for competente, até chegar a um nível em que é incompetente (e ali permanece, pelo menos por um tempo, antes de ser demitido). Em outras palavras, a empresa sempre tira as pessoas dos cargos em que elas são boas e as leva para outros, em que elas podem ser péssimas. O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo. Ou seja, só porque você era o melhor vendedor da empresa, não quer dizer que será um bom coordenador de vendedores - o que faz muito sentido.
Os pesquisadores italianos Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda e Cesare Garofalo testaram o Princípio de Peter num modelo matemático, para simular uma empresa com 180 funcionários e seis níveis hierárquicos. Eles experimentaram a lógica do senso comum, de que a pessoa leva com ela a maior parte da competência mostrada no cargo anterior, e a lógica do Princípio de Peter, de que mostrar competência no novo cargo não tem nada a ver com o cargo anterior. Para cada lógica, experimentaram três diferentes políticas de promoção dos funcionariozinhos virtuais: promover sempre os melhores, promover sempre os piores e promover aleatoriamente.
Na média dos seis resultados, a promoção aleatória foi a melhor para acumular competência na empresa. Também foi possível, pela lógica de Peter, ter bom resultado promovendo sempre os piores (já que os melhores continuavam fazendo o que faziam bem) e intercalando promoções dos melhores e dos piores.
Organizações e equipes de todos os tamanhos deveriam tentar fugir do Princípio de Peter. Até as empresas já têm algumas ideias novas: testar o funcionário com desafios do cargo que ele deve assumir, antes de promovê-lo; permitir que o funcionário que já mostrou competência possa ser testado em mais de uma função; sair da estrutura de pirâmide e tentar jeitos novos de se organizar, com menos hierarquia e mais flexibilidade; ter caminhos variados para o funcionário avançar na carreira.
O trabalho recebeu em Harvard um prêmio Ig Nobel, dado a pesquisas excêntricas “que fazem pessoas rir antes de pensar”, como é definido pela entidade que o concede, a Improbable Research (“Pesquisa Improvável”).
E você, acha que o mundo consegue escapar do Princípio de Peter?
(Giffon, Carlosi. A empresa em que os piores funcionários
ganham as promoções. In: Época. 2.10.2010)
Entre as alternativas abaixo, a que NÃO apresen- ta impropriedade gramatical é:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379780
Português
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda, a seguir, a questão proposta:
Muita gente deu risada, nos últimos dias, com uma pesquisa italiana a respeito do melhor jeito de dar promoções no trabalho. Os três cientistas da Universidade de Catânia concluíram que promover funcionários com base no mérito não é a melhor estratégia. Em vez disso, a empresa que quisesse acumular a maior “quantidade” possível de competência deveria promover os funcionários na louca, aleatoriamente. Num dos cenários do estudo, também seria bom negócio promover sempre os piores funcionários.
Talvez você esteja pensando “opa, meu trabalho já aplica isso aí…” Pois é, os italianos tocaram num tema interessante no tal estudo. Como eles chegaram a essa conclusão? Eles aplicaram uma piadinha de administração dos anos 60, o “Princípio de Peter”. Segundo esse princípio, o funcionário vai sendo promovido (ou seja, removido) enquanto for competente, até chegar a um nível em que é incompetente (e ali permanece, pelo menos por um tempo, antes de ser demitido). Em outras palavras, a empresa sempre tira as pessoas dos cargos em que elas são boas e as leva para outros, em que elas podem ser péssimas. O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo. Ou seja, só porque você era o melhor vendedor da empresa, não quer dizer que será um bom coordenador de vendedores - o que faz muito sentido.
Os pesquisadores italianos Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda e Cesare Garofalo testaram o Princípio de Peter num modelo matemático, para simular uma empresa com 180 funcionários e seis níveis hierárquicos. Eles experimentaram a lógica do senso comum, de que a pessoa leva com ela a maior parte da competência mostrada no cargo anterior, e a lógica do Princípio de Peter, de que mostrar competência no novo cargo não tem nada a ver com o cargo anterior. Para cada lógica, experimentaram três diferentes políticas de promoção dos funcionariozinhos virtuais: promover sempre os melhores, promover sempre os piores e promover aleatoriamente.
Na média dos seis resultados, a promoção aleatória foi a melhor para acumular competência na empresa. Também foi possível, pela lógica de Peter, ter bom resultado promovendo sempre os piores (já que os melhores continuavam fazendo o que faziam bem) e intercalando promoções dos melhores e dos piores.
Organizações e equipes de todos os tamanhos deveriam tentar fugir do Princípio de Peter. Até as empresas já têm algumas ideias novas: testar o funcionário com desafios do cargo que ele deve assumir, antes de promovê-lo; permitir que o funcionário que já mostrou competência possa ser testado em mais de uma função; sair da estrutura de pirâmide e tentar jeitos novos de se organizar, com menos hierarquia e mais flexibilidade; ter caminhos variados para o funcionário avançar na carreira.
O trabalho recebeu em Harvard um prêmio Ig Nobel, dado a pesquisas excêntricas “que fazem pessoas rir antes de pensar”, como é definido pela entidade que o concede, a Improbable Research (“Pesquisa Improvável”).
E você, acha que o mundo consegue escapar do Princípio de Peter?
(Giffon, Carlosi. A empresa em que os piores funcionários
ganham as promoções. In: Época. 2.10.2010)
Há equívoco quanto à conjugação verbal na seguinte alternativa:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379781
Português
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda, a seguir, a questão proposta:
Muita gente deu risada, nos últimos dias, com uma pesquisa italiana a respeito do melhor jeito de dar promoções no trabalho. Os três cientistas da Universidade de Catânia concluíram que promover funcionários com base no mérito não é a melhor estratégia. Em vez disso, a empresa que quisesse acumular a maior “quantidade” possível de competência deveria promover os funcionários na louca, aleatoriamente. Num dos cenários do estudo, também seria bom negócio promover sempre os piores funcionários.
Talvez você esteja pensando “opa, meu trabalho já aplica isso aí…” Pois é, os italianos tocaram num tema interessante no tal estudo. Como eles chegaram a essa conclusão? Eles aplicaram uma piadinha de administração dos anos 60, o “Princípio de Peter”. Segundo esse princípio, o funcionário vai sendo promovido (ou seja, removido) enquanto for competente, até chegar a um nível em que é incompetente (e ali permanece, pelo menos por um tempo, antes de ser demitido). Em outras palavras, a empresa sempre tira as pessoas dos cargos em que elas são boas e as leva para outros, em que elas podem ser péssimas. O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo. Ou seja, só porque você era o melhor vendedor da empresa, não quer dizer que será um bom coordenador de vendedores - o que faz muito sentido.
Os pesquisadores italianos Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda e Cesare Garofalo testaram o Princípio de Peter num modelo matemático, para simular uma empresa com 180 funcionários e seis níveis hierárquicos. Eles experimentaram a lógica do senso comum, de que a pessoa leva com ela a maior parte da competência mostrada no cargo anterior, e a lógica do Princípio de Peter, de que mostrar competência no novo cargo não tem nada a ver com o cargo anterior. Para cada lógica, experimentaram três diferentes políticas de promoção dos funcionariozinhos virtuais: promover sempre os melhores, promover sempre os piores e promover aleatoriamente.
Na média dos seis resultados, a promoção aleatória foi a melhor para acumular competência na empresa. Também foi possível, pela lógica de Peter, ter bom resultado promovendo sempre os piores (já que os melhores continuavam fazendo o que faziam bem) e intercalando promoções dos melhores e dos piores.
Organizações e equipes de todos os tamanhos deveriam tentar fugir do Princípio de Peter. Até as empresas já têm algumas ideias novas: testar o funcionário com desafios do cargo que ele deve assumir, antes de promovê-lo; permitir que o funcionário que já mostrou competência possa ser testado em mais de uma função; sair da estrutura de pirâmide e tentar jeitos novos de se organizar, com menos hierarquia e mais flexibilidade; ter caminhos variados para o funcionário avançar na carreira.
O trabalho recebeu em Harvard um prêmio Ig Nobel, dado a pesquisas excêntricas “que fazem pessoas rir antes de pensar”, como é definido pela entidade que o concede, a Improbable Research (“Pesquisa Improvável”).
E você, acha que o mundo consegue escapar do Princípio de Peter?
(Giffon, Carlosi. A empresa em que os piores funcionários
ganham as promoções. In: Época. 2.10.2010)
“O autor dessa sacada, o psicólogo canadense Laurence Peter, considerava que as habilidades exigidas numa empresa não se acumulavam e que as habilidades de um nível hierárquico não eram semelhantes às exigidas no nível abaixo.
” Reescreve-se essa frase do texto em cada alter- nativa abaixo. A nova redação é gramaticalmente inaceitável em:
” Reescreve-se essa frase do texto em cada alter- nativa abaixo. A nova redação é gramaticalmente inaceitável em:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379782
Inglês
Texto associado
Text 1: Software That Fixes Itself
A professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed to have developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes. Normally when a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it usually takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems. The professor, however, hopes that the new software, called Fixer, will speed this process up, making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
In the first paragraph the professor claims that Fixer can:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379783
Inglês
Texto associado
Text 1: Software That Fixes Itself
A professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed to have developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes. Normally when a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it usually takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems. The professor, however, hopes that the new software, called Fixer, will speed this process up, making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
The word ‘resilient’ in “making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack” (Paragraph 1) could best be replaced by :
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379784
Inglês
Texto associado
Text 1: Software That Fixes Itself
A professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed to have developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes. Normally when a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it usually takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems. The professor, however, hopes that the new software, called Fixer, will speed this process up, making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
According to Paragraph 2, Fixer works:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379785
Inglês
Texto associado
Text 1: Software That Fixes Itself
A professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed to have developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes. Normally when a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it usually takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems. The professor, however, hopes that the new software, called Fixer, will speed this process up, making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
In Paragraph 2, the phrase “It then comes up with several potential patches...” can be understood as “The Fixer:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379786
Inglês
Texto associado
Text 1: Software That Fixes Itself
A professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed to have developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes. Normally when a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it usually takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems. The professor, however, hopes that the new software, called Fixer, will speed this process up, making software significantly more resilient against failure or attack.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Fixer works without assistance from humans and without access to a program’s underlying source code. Instead, the system monitors the behavior of a binary. By observing a program’s normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, Fixer detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, Fixer throws up the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to push the software into following the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) Fixer analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, Fixer rejects it and tries another.
Fixer is particularly effective when installed on a group of machines running the same software. In that case, what Fixer learns from errors on one machine, is used to fix all the others. Because it doesn’t require access to source code, Fixer could be used to fix programs without requiring the cooperation of the company that made the software, or to repair programs that are no longer being maintained.
But Fixer’s approach could result in some hiccups for the user. For example, if a Web browser had a bug that made it unable to handle URLs past a certain length, Fixer’s patch might protect the system by clipping off the ends of URLs that were too long. By preventing the program from failing, it would also put a check on it working full throttle.
Paragraph 4 suggests that a possible hiccup inherent to Fixer’s is that its:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379787
Inglês
Texto associado
Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
The dilemma referred to in the Paragraph 1 involves at least a choice between:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379788
Inglês
Texto associado
Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
The expression ‘data breach disclosures’ as used in Paragraph 2 means a/an:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379789
Inglês
Texto associado
Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
The last paragraph claims that encryption “is about as close to rocket science” because the process:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379790
Inglês
Texto associado
Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
The implication of the phrase “Lose the key and you effectively lose your data!”, is that the:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379791
Inglês
Texto associado
Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.
Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”
An adequate title for the three paragraphs above, which would summarize their content, could be:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379792
Redes de Computadores
A rede de computadores do TCMRJ integra 7 sub-redes, configuradas por meio do esquema de máscara de tamanho fixo. A alternativa que apresenta a faixa total de endereços de host que inclu o IP 143.226.120.195 com uma máscara representativa de 12 bits de sub-rede é:
Ano: 2011
Banca:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Órgão:
TCM-RJ
Prova:
Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 2011 - TCM-RJ - Analista de Informação |
Q379793
Redes de Computadores
Uma rede de computadores utiliza, dentre as máquinas conectadas, um microcomputador do tipo “diskless”. Essa máquina realiza o boot a partir do servidor de rede e, nesse processo, emprega um protocolo da arquitetura TCP/IP, fornecendo o endereço MAC para receber em resposta o endereço IP. Esse protocolo opera na camada internet e é conhecido pela sigla:
Conheça nossos planos