Question 1

Do network routers forward packets toward their destinations and, based on routing metrics, attempt to select efficient paths across interconnected networks?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Routers are core devices in packet-switched networks. They use routing tables and protocols to decide where to send IP packets next. The question probes a foundational understanding of routing behavior and path selection. Given Data / Assumptions: Routers operate primarily at the network layer. They consult routing tables built via static entries or dynamic protocols (e.g., OSPF, BGP). “Efficient pathway” refers to routes optimized by metrics like cost, hop count, latency, or policy. Concept / Approach: Routers examine destination IP addresses, look up the best next hop, and forward packets accordingly. Dynamic routing protocols compute paths using algorithms and metrics, striving for efficiency or policy compliance. Thus, saying routers forward packets and try to use efficient pathways is correct. Step-by-Step Solution: Receive an IP packet on an interface.Consult routing table for the longest-prefix match to destination.Select next hop based on metrics/policy.Forward packet; update counters; repeat for subsequent packets. Verification / Alternative check: Observe traceroute outputs: routers along the path forward traffic hop by hop following routing decisions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Incorrect: contradicts networking fundamentals. “Only in a LAN”: routers interconnect different networks, not just a single LAN. Switches work at the data link layer using MAC forwarding; they are not routers. Common Pitfalls: Confusing routers with switches; assuming “most efficient” always means shortest path—policy-based routing may choose otherwise. Final Answer: Correct

Question 2

Considering programming language design, is the claim “C++ is an object-oriented language and is simpler than Java” accurate?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item asks you to evaluate a comparative statement about two mainstream languages. Both C++ and Java support object-oriented programming, but their complexity profiles differ substantially due to memory management, multiple inheritance, templates, and low-level features present in C++. Given Data / Assumptions: C++ supports multiple paradigms (procedural, OO, generic, metaprogramming) and low-level control (pointers, manual memory, RAII). Java emphasizes managed memory (garbage collection), a simpler inheritance model (single class inheritance, multiple interfaces), and a standardized runtime (JVM). “Simpler” refers broadly to language features, memory model, and typical learning curve. Concept / Approach: While both enable OO, C++ includes manual memory management, operator overloading, templates with complex type deduction, and multiple inheritance, which increase cognitive load. Java’s design intentionally removes many of these complexities, trading low-level control for safety and simplicity. Therefore, the statement that C++ is simpler than Java is inaccurate. Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm OO support in both languages.List C++ features that add complexity (pointers, ownership, templates, MI).Recall Java’s GC, single inheritance, and simpler type system.Conclude the claim “simpler than Java” is false. Verification / Alternative check: Introductory curricula often teach Java as an easier first OO language, citing fewer footguns and standardized runtime behavior. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Correct or partial-accuracy options ignore the broader complexity of C++. Templates/generics comparison does not flip overall complexity. Common Pitfalls: Equating performance or control with simplicity; overlooking Java’s omission of pointers and destructors as a simplification. Final Answer: Incorrect

Question 3

In Java web technology, are servlets stored and executed on the server side rather than packaged with or executed directly by a client application?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Servlets are core server-side Java components that handle HTTP requests and generate responses. This question ensures you understand their deployment model and how they differ from client-side technologies like applets or JavaScript running in a browser. Given Data / Assumptions: A servlet runs inside a servlet container (e.g., Tomcat, Jetty) on the server. Clients send requests (usually HTTP/HTTPS) to the server; the servlet processes them and returns responses. Servlets are part of the Jakarta/Java EE server-side stack. Concept / Approach: Servlets are deployed to the server and invoked per request by the container, which manages lifecycle methods (init, service, destroy). They are not downloaded and executed on the client. Any dynamic content they generate is delivered to the client as standard HTTP responses (HTML, JSON, etc.). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify servlet role: server-resident component.Recall container responsibilities: mapping URLs, threading, lifecycle.Note client role: send requests, render responses; no servlet code execution client-side.Conclude the statement is accurate. Verification / Alternative check: Typical deployment: WAR files deployed to a servlet container; clients never run servlet bytecode locally. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Incorrect: contradicts the server-side nature of servlets. JSPs compile into servlets; both run server-side. Servlet containers (which include application servers) always host servlets server-side. Common Pitfalls: Confusing servlets with applets or client-side scripts; assuming “Java = runs on client.” Final Answer: Correct

Question 4

Do modern web browsers natively provide bookmarking, address bar, and searching, but not inherently include full e-mail and instant messaging clients as built-in core features?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question distinguishes core browser capabilities from services accessed through the browser. Browsers universally include navigation tools (address bar), bookmarks, and built-in search integration. However, e-mail and instant messaging are typically delivered as web applications or separate clients, not as native browser subsystems. Given Data / Assumptions: Browsers ship with bookmarking and search/address bar features. E-mail and IM are accessible via web apps (e.g., Gmail, web chat), extensions, or standalone clients. “Most browsers support” should be interpreted as native, out-of-the-box functionality rather than access through websites. Concept / Approach: The original statement lumps access to services via web pages together with built-in browser features. Browsers inherently provide navigation and bookmarking; they do not natively implement full e-mail or IM stacks as first-class, protocol-specific clients. Therefore the claim that “most browsers support e-mail, instant messaging, bookmarking, and addressing and searching” as built-ins is inaccurate. Step-by-Step Solution: List native features: address bar, bookmarks, integrated search → yes.Assess e-mail/IM: provided by sites or extensions, not core browser engines.Therefore, grouping them as native “support” is misleading.Conclude the statement is not correct as written. Verification / Alternative check: Review release notes for major browsers: features focus on rendering, privacy, tabs, bookmarks, password managers—not integrated e-mail/IM clients. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Correct: would incorrectly treat web-accessible services as native browser features. Mobile-only or extension caveats miss the conceptual distinction being tested. Common Pitfalls: Equating “can access via the web” with “built-in client.” Final Answer: Incorrect

Question 5

In the XML/XSL family, is XSL (including XSLT) a language used to create stylesheets or transformations that derive presentation or other outputs from XML documents?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) is a family that includes XSL Transformations (XSLT), XPath, and XSL Formatting Objects (XSL-FO). Its purpose is to transform or style XML data into other forms such as HTML, text, or paginated output. Given Data / Assumptions: XML documents store structured data with tags. XSLT specifies rules to transform source XML into a target representation. XSL-FO can express page layout for print/PDF-like outputs. Concept / Approach: Stylesheets written in XSLT define templates that match nodes in an XML tree and produce output trees. As such, saying “XSL is used to develop style sheets from XML documents” is broadly correct, acknowledging that the transformation is defined by stylesheets applied to XML sources to generate styled or otherwise transformed results. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the source: XML document.Identify the mechanism: XSLT stylesheet with templates and XPath expressions.Apply stylesheet using an XSLT processor to produce HTML/text/FO.Conclude: XSL facilitates styling/transformation from XML. Verification / Alternative check: Typical pipelines: XML + XSLT → HTML for web display; XML + XSL-FO → paginated documents. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Incorrect: contradicts standard usage. “Only HTML” is too narrow; outputs include many formats. XLink is unrelated to styling; it handles linking in XML. Common Pitfalls: Confusing XSL (family) with CSS; forgetting that XSLT can generate non-visual formats as well. Final Answer: Correct

Question 6

Standards bodies: Is the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) the primary standards body for HTML, while HTTP is primarily standardized elsewhere?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Web technologies are standardized by different organizations. Understanding who owns which standard helps avoid confusion about protocol versus markup languages. Given Data / Assumptions: HTML is standardized by the W3C (and WHATWG for the living standard in modern practice). HTTP, the transport protocol for the web, is standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The statement claims W3C is the chief standards body for both HTTP and HTML. Concept / Approach: Separate concerns: markup vs. protocol. W3C focuses on web standards like HTML, CSS, DOM, and accessibility guidelines. HTTP specifications (methods, headers, status codes, semantics) are IETF RFCs. Therefore, attributing HTTP standardization to W3C is incorrect, even though W3C is central to HTML. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify HTML steward: W3C (historically; modern living standard maintained with WHATWG).Identify HTTP steward: IETF via RFCs.Evaluate claim: “W3C is chief standards body for HTTP and HTML.”Conclude: false, because HTTP is IETF; statement over-assigns to W3C. Verification / Alternative check: Check the provenance of HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3 (RFCs by IETF) versus HTML specs (W3C/WHATWG). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Correct or XHTML-only would still incorrectly credit HTTP to W3C. Browser choice does not affect the standards bodies. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single body governs all web technologies; conflating HTML (content) with HTTP (transport). Final Answer: Incorrect

Question 7

Web protocols and security:
Is plain Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) considered secure for transmitting data over the network, or is security provided only when using HTTPS (HTTP over TLS/SSL)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests foundational web security knowledge: whether plain HTTP protects confidentiality and integrity of data in transit, or whether security requires HTTPS (HTTP layered over Transport Layer Security). Given Data / Assumptions: HTTP refers to the clear-text protocol on port 80 by convention. HTTPS refers to HTTP over TLS/SSL, commonly on port 443. Attackers may observe, modify, or inject traffic on untrusted networks. Concept / Approach: HTTP itself provides no encryption, integrity checking, or endpoint authentication. Anyone on the path can eavesdrop or tamper with requests and responses. HTTPS introduces encryption, integrity, and server authentication using certificates. Therefore, describing plain HTTP as “secure” is inaccurate; only HTTPS provides the necessary protections against passive and active network threats. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the protocol: HTTP (no TLS) or HTTPS (with TLS).Evaluate security properties: HTTP = no encryption/integrity/authentication; HTTPS = encryption + integrity + certificate-based authentication.Conclude that security is achieved via HTTPS, not plain HTTP. Verification / Alternative check: Use a network sniffer on a test network. You will see readable headers and payloads for HTTP, while HTTPS traffic appears as opaque ciphertext. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Secure only on private LANs” is unsafe—internal networks can be hostile. “Secure with basic auth” is wrong because basic auth sends credentials in a reversible encoding unless used with TLS. Marking “Correct” would wrongly imply HTTP alone is sufficient. Common Pitfalls: Confusing authentication with encryption; believing that obfuscation or custom headers make HTTP secure; assuming VPNs always protect end-to-end (they do not if traffic exits the VPN). Final Answer: Incorrect

Question 8

Client-side scripting comparison:
Is VBScript fundamentally similar to JavaScript for web development, or are they distinct languages with different syntax and engines?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question checks whether VBScript and JavaScript are meaningfully “similar.” Understanding their differences matters for legacy application maintenance and standards-based web development. Given Data / Assumptions: VBScript derives from Visual Basic syntax and historically ran primarily in Internet Explorer. JavaScript implements the ECMAScript standard and runs across all modern browsers and many runtimes. Modern web development emphasizes cross-browser, standards-based code. Concept / Approach: JavaScript and VBScript are distinct languages: they use different syntaxes, object models, and runtime engines. JavaScript is ubiquitous and standardized; VBScript was vendor-specific and is not supported by modern browsers. While both are scripting languages, calling them “similar” suggests interchangeability, which is false in practice and design. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare syntax: JavaScript uses C-like syntax; VBScript uses Basic-like syntax.Compare availability: JavaScript runs on all modern browsers; VBScript was limited to IE and deprecated.Compare standards: JavaScript follows ECMAScript; VBScript lacks a cross-vendor standard.Conclude they are not fundamentally similar or interchangeable. Verification / Alternative check: Attempt to run VBScript in a modern Chromium- or Firefox-based browser; it will not execute. JavaScript executes natively. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Correct” overstates similarity. “Identical on IE only” is still wrong—languages remained different even where both could run. File extensions do not determine language equivalence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all “scripting languages” are similar; ignoring the security and compatibility issues of VBScript. Final Answer: Incorrect

Question 9

Markup vs. scripting:
Is XML a scripting language that (with XHTML) could replace HTML, or is XML a markup meta-language rather than a scripting language?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question distinguishes between markup and scripting. It asks whether XML is a scripting language poised to replace HTML, or a markup meta-language used to define structured data. Given Data / Assumptions: XML stands for Extensible Markup Language and defines rules for encoding documents in a machine-readable, self-describing format. HTML is a markup language for presentation of documents in web browsers. Scripting languages (e.g., JavaScript) provide logic and dynamic behavior. Concept / Approach: XML is not a scripting language; it provides structure and semantics for data. It neither executes logic nor controls browser behavior by itself. XHTML is an XML-compliant reformulation of HTML; it did not “replace” HTML on the web. In modern practice, HTML5 remains dominant, while XML is used where structured data serialization is needed (e.g., configuration, feeds, documents, some APIs). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify language class: XML = markup meta-language; JavaScript = scripting.Compare roles: HTML/XHTML present content; scripting manipulates behavior.Conclude XML cannot replace HTML as a scripting language because it is not one. Verification / Alternative check: Open a raw XML file in a browser; it displays data structure but does not execute behavior. JavaScript, in contrast, runs code. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Calling XML a scripting superset or a replacement for JavaScript is conceptually wrong. Marking “Correct” would conflate distinct language categories. Common Pitfalls: Confusing XHTML (an XML serialization of HTML) with a wholesale replacement of HTML; assuming any text-based language is “scripting.” Final Answer: Incorrect

The Internet Database Environment Questions