Ethical hacking/penetration testing are career fields that solely relies on nonbiased views and a strict understanding of the mission at hand. This type of career is one that is along the more difficult and more decisive occupations within the cybersecurity world, and it takes a lot of knowledge, trust in self, and enigmatic decision making to work in. However, this career also pertains to a lot of the ideals and principles within the social sciences. Being a penetration relies on a deep understanding of social dynamics and policies and applying it to certain situations to best control or halt them. It also is beneficial to be able to completely comprehend and utilize each social science principle into everyday life to implement it into the workplace.

            One of the main principles that penetration testers must adhere to when handling situations is the principle of objectivity. This principle refers to the idea that scientist don’t use past opinion or bias to shape the way they handle/ research topics and situations (Armistead 2023). In this case, penetration testers must make sure that when they are breaching an organization, they aren’t making common mistake in the workplace due to a potential worker conflict or a belief about the business that they don’t like. Scientist often asks themselves questions regarding the value of the operation at hand. Relating this to penetration testers, they may have the option to ask themselves questions that pertain to the ethical value of them exploiting a system or organization (Hartley 2015). Also, being able to prepare for engagement and invasion is a key factor with how objectivity pertains itself to the job (Harthorne 2002). Being able to gather information while keeping a stable ground, a balanced mind, and control over impulses is key to being successful in the world of ethical hacking.

            The second principle that pertains to cybersecurity fields, especially ethical hacking, is the principle of ethical neutrality. This principle in social sciences is quite literally the main point being ethical hacking, which is that scientist adhere to ethical standards when they do their research (Armistead 2023). This can be defined to a penetration tester as the ability to make rational and ethical decisions while also thinking like a hacker and being very irrationally and unethically in the situation. Making sure that a companies’ defense is top-notch while also validating the level of security this company has defines the principle of ethical neutrality. Understanding the tools that cybercriminals use to breach organizations and using it in a benign way as their job to further improve an organizations defense also tests the confines of ethical neutrality (Harthorne 2002). A professional in this career field is always at odds with this predicament, choosing how to use unethical tools and actions to make ethical and cordial improvements among organizations. A professional penetration tester can also relate this to how individuals within society make these types of ethical decisions in everyday life (Hartley 2015). Individuals choosing to do right by others or wronging others with small and big effects, while also feeling conflicted with their own ideals defines what ethical neutrality really is.

            Ethical hacking splits the line between social ethics and individual ethics. Society deems these types of ethics separately all the time, even though they cross more times than not. Having personal doubts on actions taken upon others, to a select group making a collective decision that impacts the majority is a good example of that line between ethics (Hatfield 2019). This can be said for the decision that penetration testers must face when in the environment of security testing. Human factors are considered when testers realize the amount of unknown and random factors in each situation (Armistead 2023). An individual could easily distract the tester as they are trying to break into a system to hack it, or a security guard could catch on if the tester is physically in the organizations building trying to exploit them. Psychology is shown through these types of tribulations, where a tester must persuade another person to stray their attention from the real issue at hand (Hatfield 2019). These changes can be sudden, and a tester must be able to make quick witted decisions in this accord.

            Finally, penetration testers must be able to live within the mind of their counterpart hackers, having to understand the stakes and motivations of the hacker themselves. This can be described with the addition of psychological theories used within social sciences. Cognitive theories explain the way hackers may think and process information as they commit their crimes (Hartley 2015). Penetration testers must realize the paths these individuals will take to make these exploits work.

References

Dr. Armistead, L. (2023) CYSE 201S. Module Notes.

Harthorne, J. (2002). Penetration testing: A duet | IEEE conference publication – IEEE xplore. IEEE Xplore . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1176290/

Hartley, R. D. (2015). Ethical hacking pedagogy: An analysis and overview of teaching students … Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=jitim 

Hatfield, J. M. (2019). Virtuous human hacking: The ethics of Social Engineering in penetration-testing. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016740481831174X?casa_token=ugwnHH0x61wAAAAA%3A3heCr0qF-cPsK7-dPlcOc__abCOaVSsZHObh1UcJdesBF3vkerpsm9_DQcqbaSVyC_JFl-qH4Q

Online purchases are the bane of most of the population. It can control and keep a hold of customers attention, all while making sure they get the latest product through the security of the worldwide web. The topic of this review stems around the idea and effect of online purchasing on the mind and actions of individuals, ranging from how the person may feel or their intentions when buying product, to the reputation and “social presence” having said item will entail. This topic displays a wide variety of the principles behind social sciences strictly based off the idea behind online purchasing and content. Immediately, the first two principles that are displayed here are objectivity and ethical neutrality. Objectivity in the case where customers will use their past and future intentions to approve of their choices when choosing to buy a product. This also relates to some types of vulnerabilities when having the option to buy some types of product. Alnaim explains that “Researchers have defined vulnerability as the customer’s perception of the possibility of identity theft or theft” (Alnaim 2022). Being able to properly understand the future effects of online purchasing and even just normal purchasing proves to be beneficial to the long-term goals and though process of said individual.

            Alnaim’s studies are based on the methods of determining whether the individuals’ choices are based on situational factors or individual factors. Individual factors can range from perceived identity theft to individual attitude (Alnaim 2022). Situational factors can range from the quality of said websites to the effectiveness and social presence the item will bring for said individual. He created a questionnaire which stemmed on the ideas of respondents with this topic.  Being based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree, the respondents were initially asked about their interests and demands when it comes to shopping online.  

            He created a table which showed exactly the averages of each topic regarding the respondents’ choices on the subject. These included measurements like the security of the website, social presence, perceived threat to identity, perceived usefulness, and cognitive trust. This survey resulted in the top one being “Attitude” which is essentially how the customer felt about getting the product, and the effect the product had on their emotions and actions afterwards (Alnaim 2022).

            This challenge heavily relates and displays the struggles of the average person on their conquest of getting items online. The intentions and attitudes of the individual are relied on when making decisions, and understanding how it may affect your attitude towards other people is very important (Alnaim 2022). Depending on the type of shopping you do, how frequently you may do it, and the reasoning behind doing it can stem from the different categories explained within this article. Alnaim did a great job exercising the importance of how technology heavily impacts the thought process of many individuals, especially when using their money to gain items and necessities online. The websites reputation also has a huge impact on how frequently shoppers may visit their website (Alnaim 2022). The quality and range of variety are smaller yet needed things to look at when trying to understand the reasoning behind said individuals.

            This topic spreads awareness to the heavy use of technology in today’s society, and how having a little bit of self-control can go a long way for your mental health and physical health. It opens the mind up for the more important questions, and it stems the need for increased knowledge on the subjects like this for the future. Since this type of shopping will not be going away anytime soon, being able to answer those questions just in case will help in the long run in our society.

References

Alnaim, A. F. (2022). Effects Of Individual (Perceived Identity Theft, Cognitive Trust,  and  Attitude)  and  Situational  (Website  Quality, Perceived  Reputation,  Social  Presence)  Factors  on Online  Purchase  Intention: Moderating  Role  of  Cyber Security. View of effects of individual (perceived identity theft, cognitive trust, and attitude) and situational (website quality, perceived reputation, social presence) factors on online purchase intention: Moderating role of Cyber Security. https://cybercrimejournal.com/menuscript/index.php/cybercrimejournal/article/view/113/37

Cyberbullying within the workplace is a sad but common tendency that almost all employees face or will face when working. More specifically, females in the workplace. As time goes on, technology within the workplace evolves to the point in which physical communication is not needed as much. Since online communication is more common, this results in mediums such as phones, video calls, and the Internet overall being the key factor behind verbal and mental abuse in the workplace (Al Doghan 2023).

            The idea behind cyberbullying are associated with social sciences as it pertains to the study of human behavior towards others through means of technology in the workplace. Psychological stress also is associated with social sciences through the entire idea behind psychology. Through the many fields of psychology, such as industrial and organization psychology, lie the explanation and understanding of human behavior in the workplace. The research showed different reasoning as to how the cyberbullying and workplace stress affected each employee. This can be related back to the term’s victimization and victim precipitation, as there are usually ways of preventing are halting that type of behavior so that you are not affected by it. In contrast with Al Doghan’s research, technology is the main cause of the present-day workplace bullying, stating that “Hence, cyberbullying can be characterized as a form of bullying that occurs through digital platforms, mirroring the characteristics of traditional bullying.” (Al Doghan 2023).

            The methods that Al Doghan took to explain workplace bullying and stress were in the form of questionnaires. Essentially, Al Doghan used measurement tools in the form of questions or statements to determine how each employee within the company felt about their job. Most of the questions were based around the idea of cyberbullying, with statements such as “I have received messages that have a disrespectful tone” and “I had another organizational member copy people into messages that reflect negatively on me” (Al Doghan 2023). He also had statements that related to the commitment each employee had to the organization, psychological stress, and job satisfaction. A five-point scale for each statement was used to analyze each employee and their answers.

            Within this research, it was clear that workplace cyberbullying was at the top of the list when it came to this organization. However, factors such as job satisfaction and interactional justice played a huge role in how each employee was victimized at one point or the other. Employees, mainly women, were not given equal opportunities, the same resources for their job, and equal treatment in multiple areas. Bringing back the term victim precipitation, this did not exert this term much as it is really against their will if they stay at this organization. The equalization of employees combined with bullying and cyberbullying create an organization that employees to not wish to partake in. This, in turn, creates an environment of unwanted stress and attention. Furthermore, due to job satisfaction and job commitment, certain factors pertaining to leaving the organization are equaled out with bullying and interactional justice, resulting in the employee staying (Al Doghan 2023).

            Since there a very few studies in which females are studied when determining psychological stress within the workplace, this research contributes greatly to the job and female society. It also affects essentially anyone inside the workplace as it allows employees to understand why interaction justice goes hand and hand with workplace bullying. It highlights the struggles and the thought process of countless female employees within the workplace. The amount of psychological stress that pertains to women inside the workplace is something that needs to be changed and looked at. Job commitment and satisfaction should not be factors that completely undermine the unfair and injustice treatment that happens within the workplace.

References

Al Doghan, M. A. (2023). Cyberbullying and psychological stress among female employees. cybercrimejournal.com. https://cybercrimejournal.com/menuscript/index.php/cybercrimejournal/article/view/161/61