A honeypot is set up as a DMZ with no direct access to production networks. Why might pursuing legal action against the intruder be problematic?

A honeypot is set up as a DMZ with no direct access to production networks. Why might pursuing legal action against the intruder be problematic?

• A. Enticement
• B. Entrapment
• C. Intruding into a honeypot is not illegal
• D. Intruding into a DMZ is not illegal

Answer: (B)

Entrapment is the legal issue here. A honeypot placed in a DMZ acts as a lure to attract attackers. If the intruder can argue that the trap induced them to commit the intrusion—meaning they wouldn’t have tried to break in if not for the honeypot—the prosecution could be challenged on entrapment grounds. The setup could be seen as encouraging illegal activity, which in some jurisdictions can defeat or complicate criminal liability. Enticement alone isn’t a formal defense, and the statements that intruding into a honeypot or a DMZ isn’t illegal aren’t accurate in many jurisdictions, since unauthorized access itself is typically illegal.

Entrapment is the legal issue here. A honeypot placed in a DMZ acts as a lure to attract attackers. If the intruder can argue that the trap induced them to commit the intrusion—meaning they wouldn’t have tried to break in if not for the honeypot—the prosecution could be challenged on entrapment grounds. The setup could be seen as encouraging illegal activity, which in some jurisdictions can defeat or complicate criminal liability.

Enticement alone isn’t a formal defense, and the statements that intruding into a honeypot or a DMZ isn’t illegal aren’t accurate in many jurisdictions, since unauthorized access itself is typically illegal.