Questões de Concurso
Comentadas para analista do ministério público – especialidade análise de sistemas
Foram encontradas 78 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42887
Engenharia de Software
Uma página Web pode ser composta de gráficos sendo que estes gráficos também são componentes de uma pasta do site. O relacionamento de associação do tipo todo-parte aí estabelecido entre página Web e gráfico é de
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42886
Engenharia de Software
Considerando os tipos COM = comportamental e EST = estrutural na UML 2.0, classifique correta e respectivamente os seguintes diagramas UML:
I. State Machine Diagram
II. Sequence Diagram
III. Composite Structure Diagram
I. State Machine Diagram
II. Sequence Diagram
III. Composite Structure Diagram
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42885
Engenharia de Software
Texto associado
"É possível que ocorram distintas implementações de uma operação de classe e que, no entanto, o nome e os parâmetros dessa operação sejam os mesmos."
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
...implementações de uma operação...
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42884
Engenharia de Software
Texto associado
"É possível que ocorram distintas implementações de uma operação de classe e que, no entanto, o nome e os parâmetros dessa operação sejam os mesmos."
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
...distintas implementações de uma operação de classe e que, no entanto, o nome e os parâmetros dessa operação sejam os mesmos.
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42883
Engenharia de Software
Texto associado
"É possível que ocorram distintas implementações de uma operação de classe e que, no entanto, o nome e os parâmetros dessa operação sejam os mesmos."
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
Dentro do contexto da frase, relacione os textos apresentados nessas questões com a respectiva definição, significado ou conceito.
...o nome e os parâmetros dessa operação...
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42882
Engenharia de Software
Uma instância de classe em um determinado momento é
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42881
Noções de Informática
No Windows XP, estando no Painel de controle, é possível visualizar eventos do sistema por intermédio de
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42880
Arquitetura de Computadores
O ciclo de processamento busca-execução realizado por uma CPU, é medido e regulado especificamente
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42879
Engenharia de Software
"A utilização de um sistema orientado a objetos não deve depender de sua implementação interna, mas de sua interface." Esta afirmação remete ao conceito de
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42878
Arquitetura de Computadores
O endereço binário de memória de mais baixa ordem, expresso por 10010011, é representado pelo hexadecimal
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42877
Arquitetura de Computadores
O resultado da multiplicação hexadecimal 3D por FE é
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42871
Raciocínio Lógico
Dois veículos partiram simultaneamente de um mesmo ponto da cidade de Aracaju e percorreram 200 km até chegar a uma cidade X. Considere as seguintes informações:
? ao longo da viagem, as velocidades médias dos dois veículos, em quilômetros por hora, eram distintas entre si e menores que 100 km/h, além de serem ambas expressas por números inteiros que diferiam entre si apenas pelos algarismos das unidades;
? decorridas 2 horas do início da viagem, a distância do veículo mais lento à Aracaju era igual ao triplo da distância que faltava para o outro veículo chegar à cidade X.
De acordo com as informações dadas, pode-se concluir corretamente que as velocidades médias dos dois veículos, em quilômetros por hora, eram
? ao longo da viagem, as velocidades médias dos dois veículos, em quilômetros por hora, eram distintas entre si e menores que 100 km/h, além de serem ambas expressas por números inteiros que diferiam entre si apenas pelos algarismos das unidades;
? decorridas 2 horas do início da viagem, a distância do veículo mais lento à Aracaju era igual ao triplo da distância que faltava para o outro veículo chegar à cidade X.
De acordo com as informações dadas, pode-se concluir corretamente que as velocidades médias dos dois veículos, em quilômetros por hora, eram
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42867
Raciocínio Lógico
Considere as seguintes proposições:
(1) Se Jonas implantar um sistema informatizado em sua empresa, então poderá fazer o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(2) Se Jonas não implantar um sistema informatizado em sua empresa, então ele não poderá fazer o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(3) É falso que, Jonas implantará um sistema informatizado em sua empresa e não fará o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(4) Jonas faz o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade ou não implanta um sistema informatizado em sua empresa.
Relativamente a essas proposições, é correto afirmar que são logicamente equivalentes apenas as de números
(1) Se Jonas implantar um sistema informatizado em sua empresa, então poderá fazer o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(2) Se Jonas não implantar um sistema informatizado em sua empresa, então ele não poderá fazer o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(3) É falso que, Jonas implantará um sistema informatizado em sua empresa e não fará o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade.
(4) Jonas faz o monitoramento de seus projetos com mais facilidade ou não implanta um sistema informatizado em sua empresa.
Relativamente a essas proposições, é correto afirmar que são logicamente equivalentes apenas as de números
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42866
Inglês
Texto associado
Title:_____________
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
No texto, a expressão it would be years before the chip was even prototyped significa que
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42865
Inglês
Texto associado
Title:_____________
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
Segundo o autor do texto, a razão principal do fiasco do processador de Itanium deve-se a fato de
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42864
Inglês
Texto associado
Title:_____________
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
One could summarize the first paragraph by saying that the computer industry
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42863
Inglês
Texto associado
Title:_____________
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
January 26, 2009
By John C. Dvorak
It's no coincidence that the computer industry peaked around the year 2000, went into a serious decline, stabilized at the low point a couple of years ago, and has since collapsed again.
A confluence of reasons is responsible for this, but when it comes to the industry bringing this on itself, one major event may have taken down the entire business.
I'm speaking about the announcement of the Itanium processor. This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years, and not because Intel blew too much money on its development or that the chip performed poorly and will never be widely adopted. It was the reaction and subsequent consolidation in the industry that took place once this grandiose chip was preannounced.
We heard that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing - sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.
Because this chip was supposed to radically change the way computers work and become the driving force behind all systems in the future, one promising project after another was dropped. Why? Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money on good ideas that didn't include it?
The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor sealed the fate of Intel - and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next level.
It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that the next level was below us, not above.
(Adapted from PCMAG.COM)
Um título adequado para o texto acima seria
Ano: 2009
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
MPE-SE
Prova:
FCC - 2009 - MPE-SE - Analista do Ministério Público – Especialidade Análise de Sistemas |
Q42857
Inglês
Texto associado
January 23, 2009
Worm Infects Millions of Computers Worldwide
By JOHN MARKOFF
A new digital plague has hit the Internet, infecting millions of personal and usiness computers in what seems to be the first step of a multistage attack. The world's eading computer security experts do not yet know who programmed the infection, or what the next stage will be.
In recent weeks a worm, a malicious software program, has swept through corporate, educational and public computer networks around the world. Known as Conficker or Downandup, it is spread by a recently discovered Microsoft Windows vulnerability, by guessing network passwords and by hand-carried consumer gadgets like USB keys.
Experts say it is the
infection since the Slammer worm exploded through the Internet in January 2003, and it may have infected as many as nine million personal computers around the world.
Worms like Conficker not only ricochet around the Internet at lightning speed, they harness infected computers into unified systems called botnets, which can then accept programming instructions from their clandestine masters.
Many computer users may not notice that their machines have been infected, and computer security researchers said they were waiting for the instructions to materialize, to determine what impact the botnet will have on PC users. It might operate in the background, using the infected computer to send spam or infect other computers, or it might steal the PC user's personal information.
Microsoft rushed an emergency patch to defend the Windows operating systems against this vulnerability in October, yet the worm has continued to spread even as the level of warnings has grown in recent weeks.
Earlier this week, security researchers at Qualys, a Silicon Valley security firm, estimated that about 30 percent of Windows-based computers attached to the Internet remain vulnerable to infection because they have not been updated with the patch, despite the fact that it was made available in October.
Unraveling the program has been particularly challenging because it comes with encryption mechanisms that hide its internal workings from those seeking to disable it.
The program uses an elaborate shell-game-style technique to permit someone to command it remotely. Each day it generates a new list of 250 domain names. Instructions from any one of these domain names would be obeyed. To control the botnet, an attacker would need only to register a single domain to send instructions to the botnet globally, greatly complicating the task of law enforcement and security companies trying to intervene and block the activation of the botnet.
Several computer security firms said that although Conficker appeared to have been written from scratch, it had parallels to the work of a suspected Eastern European criminal gang that has profited by sending programs known as "scareware" to personal computers that seem to warn users of an infection and ask for credit card numbers to pay for bogus antivirus software that actually further infects their computer.
One intriguing clue left by the malware authors is that the first version of the program checked to see if the computer had a Ukrainian keyboard layout. If it found it had such a keyboard, it would not infect the machine, according to Phillip Porras, a security investigator at SRI International who has disassembled the program to determine how it functioned.
(Adapted from The New York Times)
Worm Infects Millions of Computers Worldwide
By JOHN MARKOFF
A new digital plague has hit the Internet, infecting millions of personal and usiness computers in what seems to be the first step of a multistage attack. The world's eading computer security experts do not yet know who programmed the infection, or what the next stage will be.
In recent weeks a worm, a malicious software program, has swept through corporate, educational and public computer networks around the world. Known as Conficker or Downandup, it is spread by a recently discovered Microsoft Windows vulnerability, by guessing network passwords and by hand-carried consumer gadgets like USB keys.
Experts say it is the
infection since the Slammer worm exploded through the Internet in January 2003, and it may have infected as many as nine million personal computers around the world.Worms like Conficker not only ricochet around the Internet at lightning speed, they harness infected computers into unified systems called botnets, which can then accept programming instructions from their clandestine masters.
Many computer users may not notice that their machines have been infected, and computer security researchers said they were waiting for the instructions to materialize, to determine what impact the botnet will have on PC users. It might operate in the background, using the infected computer to send spam or infect other computers, or it might steal the PC user's personal information.
Microsoft rushed an emergency patch to defend the Windows operating systems against this vulnerability in October, yet the worm has continued to spread even as the level of warnings has grown in recent weeks.
Earlier this week, security researchers at Qualys, a Silicon Valley security firm, estimated that about 30 percent of Windows-based computers attached to the Internet remain vulnerable to infection because they have not been updated with the patch, despite the fact that it was made available in October.
Unraveling the program has been particularly challenging because it comes with encryption mechanisms that hide its internal workings from those seeking to disable it.
The program uses an elaborate shell-game-style technique to permit someone to command it remotely. Each day it generates a new list of 250 domain names. Instructions from any one of these domain names would be obeyed. To control the botnet, an attacker would need only to register a single domain to send instructions to the botnet globally, greatly complicating the task of law enforcement and security companies trying to intervene and block the activation of the botnet.
Several computer security firms said that although Conficker appeared to have been written from scratch, it had parallels to the work of a suspected Eastern European criminal gang that has profited by sending programs known as "scareware" to personal computers that seem to warn users of an infection and ask for credit card numbers to pay for bogus antivirus software that actually further infects their computer.
One intriguing clue left by the malware authors is that the first version of the program checked to see if the computer had a Ukrainian keyboard layout. If it found it had such a keyboard, it would not infect the machine, according to Phillip Porras, a security investigator at SRI International who has disassembled the program to determine how it functioned.
(Adapted from The New York Times)
A palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é
Conheça nossos planos