The Jing An Telescope Factory (JATF): A Network Security Case Study

This case—an examination of a real world break-in to a Web server—provides a forensic examination of what happened to the Jing An Telescope Factory (JATF) and a suggested model for preventing such attacks. The case specifically focuses on the “hack” break-in that is commonplace with Web servers and illustrates the well-known mistakes made in the security arrangements by JATF. Select hacking techniques and an overview of network vulnerabilities, as well as discussions about tools and techniques that security professionals use are discussed in this paper. The authors propose a set of techniques and models that business should follow to guard against similar attacks. Students are encouraged to assess and implement solutions using the tools and techniques presented in the case

The Layered Virtual Reality Commerce System (LaVRCS): An Approach to Creating Viable VRCommerce Sites

In this paper, the authors argue that Virtual Reality (VR) does have a place in an e-commerce environment. However, VR is not yet ready to supplant standard e-commerce Web interfaces with a completely immersive VR environment. Rather, Virtual Reality in e-commerce (VRCommerce) must rely on a mixed platform presentation to account for various levels of usability, user trust, and technical feasibility. The authors propose that e-commerce sites that want to implement VRCommerce offer at least three layers of interaction to users: a standard Web interface, embedded VR objects in a Web interface, and semi-immersive VR within an existing Web interface. This system is termed the Layered Virtual Reality Commerce System, or LaVRCS

To License or Not to License Reexamined: An Updated Report on Licensing of Digital Examiners Under State Private Investigator Statutes

In this update to the 2015 study, the authors examine US state statutes and regulations relating to licensing and enforcement of Digital Examiner functions under each state’s private investigator/detective statute. As with the prior studies, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly distinguish between Private Investigators (PI) and Digital Examiners (DE), and when they do, they either explicitly require a license or exempt them from the licensing statute. As noted in the previous 2015 study there is a minor trend in which some states are moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. We examine this trend as well as look at some additional information in terms of exemptions including those relating to practicing attorneys, employer/employee relationships, expert testimony, and penalties for violation of the PI statutes where it is believed a PI license is required. As with the previous studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015) we reviewed all state statues relating to PI licensing. Where statutory language did not explicitly address exemption or inclusion of Digital Examiners, we contacted the relevant state regulatory body (i.e., Secretary of State’s office, State Police, regulatory agency) to assess the applicability of Digital Examiners under the respective state statues. Based on this statutory review and regulatory feedback we present the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight

To License or Not To License Updated: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

In this update to the 2009 year\u27s study, the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. After identification and review of Private Investigator licensing requirements, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners, but do see a trend of more states making some distinction. The authors contacted all state regulatory agencies where statutory language was not explicit, and as a result, set forth the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. As was the case in the previous two iterations of this research, the authors conclude that states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight

A Legal Examination of Revenge Pornography and Cyber-Harassment

This paper examines the current state of the statutes in the United States as they relate to cyber-harassment in the context of revenge porn . Revenge porn refers to websites which cater to those wishing to exploit, harass, or otherwise antagonize their ex partners using pornographic images and videos which were obtained during their relationships. The paper provide examples and illustrations as well as a summary of current statute in the United States. The paper additionally explores some of the various legal remedies available to victims of revenge pornography

To License or Not to License Reexamined: An Updated Report on State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

In this update to the 2012 year\u27s study, the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. As before, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners. There is a small trend in which some states are changing definitions or moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. However, we look at some additional information in terms of practicing attorney exemptions that may cloud the licensing waters. As with the previous research studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012) the authors contacted all state regulatory agencies where statutory language was not explicit, and as a result, set forth the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight. In this update to the 2012 year\u27s study, the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. As before, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners. There is a small trend in which some states are changing definitions or moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. However, we look at some additional information in terms of practicing attorney exemptions that may cloud the licensing waters. As with the previous research studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012) the authors contacted all state regulatory agencies where statutory language was not explicit, and as a result, set forth the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight

To License or Not to License: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

In this paper the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. After identification and review of Private Investigator licensing requirements, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners. After contacting all state agencies the authors present a distinct grouping organizing state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. The authors conclude that states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight

To License or Not to License Revisited: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

In this update to the previous year\u27s study, the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. After identification and review of Private Investigator licensing requirements, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners. After contacting all state agencies the authors present a distinct grouping organizing state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. The authors conclude that states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight