Learning Outcomes
- Apply ethics, Indian cyber-law awareness, authorization, rules of engagement, privacy, stop conditions, and responsible disclosure.
- Design a bounded technical assessment and operate an isolated, restorable, evidence-conscious practice lab.
- Interpret networking, DNS, HTTP, TLS, ports, addressing, routing, and packet-level observations for security assessment.
- Use Linux and Windows operating-system, permissions, process, service, and logging concepts to analyze lab evidence safely.
- Perform authorized reconnaissance and OSINT, validate asset ownership, and build a documented attack-surface map.
- Plan scans, interpret enumeration and vulnerability results, reduce false positives, validate safely, and prioritize remediation.
- Map web applications and recognize OWASP Top 10:2025, identity, session, authorization, input-handling, and business-logic risks.
- Evaluate password, MFA, wireless, and human-layer controls while designing safe, explicitly authorized simulations.
- Explain exploitation and post-compromise risk, map evidence to ATT&CK v19, and contain validation within approved lab boundaries.
- Write evidence-based findings, communicate risk, recommend controls, perform retesting, and complete a bounded capstone assessment.
Certificate : DTF AI Academy
Course Features
- Lectures 60
- Quizzes 11
- Duration Lifetime access
- Skill level All levels
- Language English
- Students 8
- Certificate Yes
- Assessments Self
- 11 Sections
- 60 Lessons
- Lifetime
- Ethics, Law, Authorization, and Professional Conduct7 Items
Outcome: Define ethical hacking, distinguish authorized assessment from unauthorized activity, and interpret scope, rules of engagement, evidence handling, and responsible disclosure.
Case: A junior analyst is told verbally to test a company website but receives no written scope, time window, emergency contact, or third-party authorization.
Tools: Authorization gate, Rules-of-engagement review, Stop-condition drill
- 1.1Ethical hacking begins with permission
- 1.2Indian cyber-law context changes the risk
- 1.3Rules of engagement translate permission into constraints
- 1.4Safety and privacy duties continue during testing
- 1.5Stop conditions protect people and operations
- 1.6Responsible disclosure is a controlled communication
- 1.7Module 1 Assessment — Ethics, Law, Authorization, and Professional Conduct5 Minutes5 Questions
- Assessment Planning and Safe Lab Operations7 Items
Outcome: Design a bounded assessment, prepare an isolated lab, select evidence, manage risk, and follow a repeatable testing lifecycle.
Case: A team has a vulnerable training VM, a scanner, and two hours, but no network isolation, snapshot, success criteria, or restoration plan.
Tools: Lab-isolation checklist, Assessment plan, Evidence register
- 2.1A test plan connects objectives to evidence
- 2.2Isolation is the first lab control
- 2.3Pre-engagement checks prevent avoidable incidents
- 2.4Testing follows a controlled lifecycle
- 2.5Evidence should be reproducible and sanitized
- 2.6Tool choice follows risk, not fashion
- 2.7Module 2 Assessment — Assessment Planning and Safe Lab Operations5 Minutes5 Questions
- Networking and Protocol Foundations for Testers7 Items
Outcome: Interpret network layers, addressing, routing, ports, DNS, HTTP, TLS, and packet evidence for defensive security assessment.
Case: A lab application works by IP address but fails by name, while a scanner reports an unexpected service on a high port.
Tools: Protocol map, Packet-reading worksheet, Service exposure matrix
- 3.1Layers make network observations explainable
- 3.2Addresses and routes define reachability
- 3.3Ports suggest services but do not prove them
- 3.4DNS is both infrastructure and evidence
- 3.5HTTP messages expose application behavior
- 3.6TLS protects transport when correctly configured
- 3.7Module 3 Assessment — Networking and Protocol Foundations for Testers5 Minutes5 Questions
- Operating Systems and Command-Line Foundations7 Items
Outcome: Use Linux and Windows concepts, files, permissions, processes, services, logs, and command-line evidence safely in an isolated lab.
Case: A lab service runs with excessive privileges, stores a secret in a world-readable file, and leaves inconsistent evidence across Linux and Windows hosts.
Tools: Permission-analysis lab, Process and service map, Log-evidence worksheet
- 4.1The command line is an observation tool
- 4.2Linux permissions express authority
- 4.3Windows security depends on identities and control boundaries
- 4.4Processes and services reveal running behavior
- 4.5Logs support reconstruction
- 4.6Hardening converts findings into controls
- 4.7Module 4 Assessment — Operating Systems and Command-Line Foundations5 Minutes5 Questions
- Reconnaissance, OSINT, and Attack-Surface Mapping7 Items
Outcome: Distinguish passive and active discovery, collect only authorized information, map attack surfaces, validate ownership, and manage reconnaissance evidence.
Case: A team discovers domains, cloud endpoints, leaked documents, and employee details but cannot tell which assets belong to the client or are permitted for testing.
Tools: Passive-discovery log, Ownership validation matrix, Attack-surface map
- 5.1Reconnaissance answers what exists
- 5.2Search results require verification
- 5.3Metadata can reveal unintended information
- 5.4Attack-surface maps connect assets to entry points
- 5.5People-focused OSINT has strict boundaries
- 5.6Reconnaissance becomes useful through documentation
- 5.7Module 5 Assessment — Reconnaissance, OSINT, and Attack-Surface Mapping5 Minutes5 Questions
- Scanning, Enumeration, and Vulnerability Analysis7 Items
Outcome: Interpret discovery and vulnerability-scan results, tune safe scans, enumerate services in a lab, reduce false positives, prioritize findings, and plan validation.
Case: An automated scanner produces hundreds of results, including duplicate assets, stale signatures, uncertain services, and one potentially critical lab finding.
Tools: Scan-planning worksheet, False-positive triage, Risk-prioritization board
- 6.1Scanning is measurement with side effects
- 6.2Service enumeration turns ports into hypotheses
- 6.3Vulnerability scanners have coverage limits
- 6.4Validation should be bounded and non-destructive
- 6.5Risk combines likelihood, impact, and context
- 6.6Triage produces an actionable queue
- 6.7Module 6 Assessment — Scanning, Enumeration, and Vulnerability Analysis5 Minutes5 Questions
- Web Application Security Foundations7 Items
Outcome: Map web applications, interpret OWASP Top 10:2025 risks, analyze identity and session controls, recognize input-validation failures, and design safe verification.
Case: A training application exposes undocumented endpoints, weak object authorization, verbose errors, insecure cookies, and inconsistent server-side validation.
Tools: Application map, OWASP risk classifier, Sanitized request-review lab
- 7.1Map the application before testing controls
- 7.2OWASP Top 10:2025 is an awareness lens
- 7.3Authentication and sessions must work together
- 7.4Authorization must be enforced server-side
- 7.5Input handling should preserve intent
- 7.6Business logic needs human reasoning
- 7.7Module 7 Assessment — Web Application Security Foundations5 Minutes5 Questions
- Authentication, Wireless, and Human-Layer Security7 Items
Outcome: Evaluate password and MFA controls, explain credential attacks defensively, assess wireless architecture, recognize social-engineering risk, and design authorized simulations.
Case: An organization wants to test passwords, office Wi-Fi, and phishing resilience but has not defined accounts, audiences, data capture, exclusions, or safety controls.
Tools: Identity-control review, Wireless architecture worksheet, Simulation safety plan
- 8.1Password security is a system property
- 8.2Credential testing requires special authorization
- 8.3MFA changes but does not eliminate risk
- 8.4Wireless assessment starts with ownership and architecture
- 8.5Social engineering tests people and process
- 8.6Human-layer findings should improve systems
- 8.7Module 8 Assessment — Authentication, Wireless, and Human-Layer Security5 Minutes5 Questions
- Exploitation Concepts and Post-Compromise Risk7 Items
Outcome: Explain exploitation at a conceptual level, validate impact safely in a lab, recognize privilege and lateral-movement paths, protect evidence, and connect behavior to defensive detections.
Case: A lab weakness provides limited code execution; the learner must prove impact without persistence, uncontrolled payloads, credential theft, or movement beyond the assigned host.
Tools: Impact-validation plan, Privilege-path diagram, ATT&CK-to-detection map
- 9.1Exploitation validates a security consequence
- 9.2Proof of concept should minimize change
- 9.3Privilege escalation is a control-chain failure
- 9.4Lateral movement depends on trust and credentials
- 9.5ATT&CK turns observations into defensive language
- 9.6Cleanup and restoration close the test
- 9.7Module 9 Assessment — Exploitation Concepts and Post-Compromise Risk5 Minutes5 Questions
- Reporting, Remediation, Retesting, and Capstone7 Items
Outcome: Write evidence-based findings, communicate risk, recommend practical remediation, support retesting, and complete an end-to-end authorized assessment capstone.
Case: A sponsor receives raw scanner output with no scope statement, evidence quality, business impact, remediation owner, or retest criteria.
Tools: Finding-writing clinic, Executive summary, Capstone assessment pack
- 10.1A finding is a defensible argument
- 10.2Severity needs transparent reasoning
- 10.3Recommendations should be actionable
- 10.4Executive communication is concise and honest
- 10.5Retesting verifies closure
- 10.6Capstone: conduct a bounded foundation assessment
- 10.7Module 10 Assessment — Reporting, Remediation, Retesting, and Capstone5 Minutes5 Questions
- Final Examination1 ItemFinal assessment for Ethical Hacking Foundation. Passing score: 70%.
Certificate
