|Exam Name||:||Admin for Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0 for windows|
|Questions and Answers||:||218 Q & A|
|Updated On||:||December 15, 2017|
|PDF Download Mirror||:||250-311 Brain Dump|
|Get Full Version||:||Pass4sure 250-311 Full Version|
A newly created location applies lo which group(s)?
to the My Company group on the server where it was created
to the group it was created for and groups that inherit from it
to all groups that have location awareness enabled
to all groups inheriting policies
What must be done lo use Symantec Antivirus reporting server data in a Symantec Endpoint Protection environment?
upgrade the existing reporting server to Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager reporting server
install Symantec Endpoint Protection reporting connector on the existing reporting server
configure existing reporting servers to forward reports to Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager
configure existing reporting servers to forward reports to an external Syslog server
Which criteria is used to define a Tamper Protection exception?
process owner Answer: B QUESTION: 213
How does an administrator manage Client User Interface Control Settings?
on a per-user basis
on a per-computer basis
Which statement is true about the Database Backup and Restore utility?
It backs up and restores only an embedded database.
It allows an administrator to pause and resume backups.
It saves database backups to the local computer.
It backs up and restores the certificate keystore.
LiveUpdate Content policies provide control over which two types of settings? (Select two.)
how and where clients receive updates
the specific update revisions the clients can download
whether clients are able to download updates manually
how often clients are able to receive updates
which types of updates clients can download
What does the "Enable third party content management" setting configure?
a client's ability to use definitions from the Intelligent Updater
a client's inbox to receive content and policy updates
the ability to export content and policy updates from the Symantec Endpoint Protection Management console
the automatic export of policy and content updates for use with MS SMS
When a security-related condition is met, which notification action can be performed?
send an SNMP trap
alert with a GUI popup on the admin console
run a batch file or another executable file
send an alert to a client
What is one function of Tamper Protection?
It prevents a feature from being enabled or disabled.
It protects the system from shutting down.
It prevents a process from tampering with the kernel.
It protects the agent from shutting down.
Cyber Monday Sale! 40% Off
Get limitless access to all ExamCollection's top class info!
Enter Your email tackle to obtain Your 40% Off discount Code
Please enter a correct e-mail to Get your bargain Code
down load Free Demo of VCEExam Simulator
experience Avanset VCE exam Simulator for yourself.
with no trouble put up your electronic mail address below to get started with our interactive software demo of your free trial.
To evaluate SEP before deciding to buy
to permit one to study 250-311 for 250-311 on their own time (in place of at workplace), it will definitely help to have an ISO with SEP administration console and client for clients to get a visible knowing of the product.
within the case of gaining knowledge of for certification, having a visible together with descriptions reminiscent of
To view a consumer's residences
1In the console, click on valued clientele.
2In the View clients pane, choose the community with the customers whose houses you want to view.
3On the valued clientele tab, opt for the client. 4Under projects, click on Edit properties. 5In the client identify dialog container, you can view counsel in regards to the client. 6Click ok.
(Courtesy of Administration_Guide_SEP11.0.6)
would in reality re-implement one's figuring out of the product. there are lots of bells and whistles of this product that are not necessarily used right through one's company, hence having this visual would aid a person getting to know for this certification on their own time.
Rose DELLORUSSO v. Manuel P. MONTEIRO & one more.1No. 96-P-1160. decided: July 30, 1999 latest: KASS, GILLERMAN, & LAURENCE, JJ.Edward F. Lawson for the plaintiff. Haidie Morris, Somerville, for the defendants.
When Rose DelloRusso didn't reap a job as a clerk-typist with the Boston school branch (school branch), she demanded to know why and requested the State branch of Personnel Administration (DPA) to attain the answer to her question. The response to the DPA made on behalf of the school branch through the defendants Manuel P. Monteiro and Swee Lin Wong-Wagner become no longer flattering to DelloRusso. She filed a defamation action against Monteiro and Wong-Wagner. A decide of the sophisticated court docket allowed a protection action for abstract judgment on the floor that DelloRusso, by way of urgent the DPA to study 250-311 the faculty branch's explanations for no longer hiring her, had consented to publication of fabric that might possibly be defamatory and was foreclosed from preserving a libel action, as long as the defendants in first rate faith thought the statements about DelloRusso have been real. We verify.
These are the undisputed records, drawn from the abstract judgment materials, which blanketed pleadings, depositions, and files obtained as displays during the path of depositions. DelloRusso had worked for the school branch as an attendance monitor from 1983 to 1989. The most effective years through which her job performance had been formally evaluated with the aid of the faculty branch were 1988 and 1989, and people critiques had been adequate. In 1986, besides the fact that children, the faculty department had charged DelloRusso with an attendance problem of her personal-failure to demonstrate up for a meeting with a supervisor. DelloRusso filed a criticism as to that accusation. The be counted become settled, a term of the contract being that the disciplinary grievance would now not be protected in her personnel file or utilized in some other proceeding.2
In 1989, DelloRusso resigned her college branch position to take a job as a clerk-typist for the city of Boston. a few 12 months later, DelloRusso realized that the school branch become hiring 100 clerk-typists. (She had earlier passed a civil service examination for that job class.) She also took and passed a typing examine. next, DelloRusso mentioned to the faculty branch and signed an “Authorization of Employment” kind which had the effect of declaring herself as an eligible applicant for probably the most one hundred slots.
as a result of a finances freeze, the college department decided to fill best twenty-three clerk-typist positions. Monteiro and Wong-Wagner had been, respectively, senior supervisor of the workplace of personnel at the school department and professional, non-educational personnel. in the course of the administration of “white out” correction fluid, DelloRusso's identify was brought about to disappear from the Authorization of Employment form before the submission of that doc to the DPA. interestingly when DelloRusso had been asked to sign the Authorization of Employment form, she became notion by using the personnel office on the faculty branch to be a school department employee. The deletion of DelloRusso's identify from the eligible listing passed off when someone at the personnel workplace realized that DelloRusso became not a school department worker. That truth become of consequence because the college department had agreed with the personnel' union that provisional personnel-these working in the faculty branch with out appointment-would have first dibs on the permanent positions, and there were greater than twenty-three provisional personnel available.
When DelloRusso requested the college branch why she had now not been hired, Wong-Wagner told her that a hiring freeze was on and no new positions could be crammed. changing provisionals to everlasting reputation didn't violate the freeze because new hires had been now not coming on board; it was simply a status alternate. DelloRusso requested the DPA to seem into why she had now not been offered probably the most jobs. To the DPA's inquiry, Monteiro replied by using letter that individuals now not chosen “both failed the Civil service Typing verify or did not exhibit up for the examination.” That become no longer a ample answer as DelloRusso had in fact handed the typing look at various. The DPA requested for further rationalization. It got here within the form of a letter from Monteiro, dated April 2, 1991, pointing out that DelloRusso had not been employed on account of a “previous background of labor habits which might be inconsistent with college department necessities, together with failure to report to work and failure to record to scheduled conferences with faculty branch officers.” In April, 1991, the school department marketed further clerk-typist positions and the procedure with DelloRusso relatively much followed the identical course, culminating in a written response, this time from Wong-Wagner, that repeated the bad work habits complaint made via Monteiro. it is that can charge, made as soon as with the aid of each and every of the defendants, it really is the groundwork for the defamation criticism.
1. Is the observation defamatory? despite the fact the defendants debate the point, the faculty branch observation about “work habits that are inconsistent with college department specifications,” if false and not in any other case privileged, is defamatory because it holds DelloRusso as much as scorn and discredit in her community of executive organizations that employ clerk-typists. See Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 365 Mass. 246, 250, 311 N.E.second 52 (1974); Smith v. Suburban eating places, Inc., 374 Mass. 528, 529, 373 N.E.2d 215 (1978); Disend v. Meadowbrook Sch., 33 Mass.App.Ct. 674, 675, 604 N.E.2d fifty four (1992). Statements about an individual's vocational recognition, such because the one made about DelloRusso, are certainly prone to be defamatory. identity. at 676, 604 N.E.second fifty four. Cf. Sharratt v. Housing innovations, Inc., 365 Mass. 141, 143-145, 310 N.E.2nd 343 (1974).
2. Consent to e-book. As a frequent proposition, consent to book of fabric concerning her or him that a plaintiff regards as defamatory bars a libel or slander motion. Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 583 (1977). The concept is that if an individual elicits a statement, that grownup can't construct a criminal action on what she has caused to be said or written. Burns v. Barry, 353 Mass. a hundred and fifteen, 118, 228 N.E.2nd 728 (1967). if so the plaintiff was an engineer who had been denied registration via the Board of Registration of skilled Engineers and Land Surveyors. The plaintiff organized to have a chum, posing as a potential business enterprise, inquire of the board about why the plaintiff was not registered and the defendant, a member of the board, divulged tips unfavorable to the plaintiff. “If there become a wrong right here,” the courtroom wrote, “it was one invited and procured by the plaintiff himself and it might constitute incredible inequity to allow him to get better on the basis of it.” Ibid. See Joftes v. Kaufman, 324 F.Supp. 660, 662-663 (D.D.C.1971); Mandelblatt v. Perelman, 683 F.Supp. 379, 383 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Glaze v. Marcus, 151 Ariz. 538, 540, 729 P.2nd 342 (1986); Royer v. Steinberg, 90 Cal.App.3d 490, 498-499, 153 Cal.Rptr. 499 (1979); Costa v. Smith, forty three Colo.App. 251, 252, 601 P.second 661 (1979); McDermott v. Hughley, 317 Md. 12, 27, 561 A.2nd 1038 (1989); Lee v. Paulsen, 273 Or. 103, 105, 539 P.2nd 1079 (1975).
a typical characteristic of the situations above cited is a request through the plaintiff in each and every for the motives in the back of a failure to hire or behind a disciplinary motion. especially the Costa, Royer, and Lee circumstances reflect illustration 2 to remark d of Restatement (second) of Torts § 583: “A, a college trainer, is summarily discharged by way of the college board. He calls for that the reason for his dismissal be made public. B, president of the board, publishes the intent. A has consented to the booklet though it seems to be defamatory.” DelloRusso protests that it was not she however someone else, particularly the DPA, who asked why she changed into now not employed and that, for this reason, she may additionally surmount the barrier of the consent precept. That isn't persuasive. It became DelloRusso who started the chain of inquiry by soliciting for the DPA to discover why she had now not been hired.
lots of the situations deal with the privilege conferred through a consent to book of defamatory cloth as absolute. The enhanced view is that the limit of the privilege is a very good religion belief with the aid of the adult who posted the defamatory fabric that it became genuine. See Joftes v. Kaufman, 324 F.Supp. at 662-663. See Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 583 comment d (“one who consents to put up his habits to investigation realizing that its outcomes might be published, consents to the publication of the sincere findings of the investigators”); Harper, James & grey, Torts § 5.17, at 137-139 (second ed.1986) (there is a professional privilege to err truthfully). Cf. Remington v. Congdon, 19 Mass. 310, 2 decide upon. 310, 314-315 (1824); Mulgrew v. Taunton, 410 Mass. 631, 634-635, 574 N.E.2d 389 (1991) (“An absolute privilege gives a defendant with a complete defense to a defamation suit even if the defamatory statement is uttered maliciously or in dangerous faith. a professional or conditional privilege, nevertheless, immunizes a defendant from legal responsibility until he or she acted with precise malice” [citations omitted] ); Dexter's Hearthside Restaurant, Inc. v. Whitehall Co., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 217, 222-223, 508 N.E.2d 113 (1987).3
DelloRusso argues that the faculty branch abused the privilege conferred via the consent precept because the motives it gave for no longer hiring her have been a canopy for the precise motive, that it become giving the accessible jobs to provisional employees. youngsters that become the frontline purpose, the college branch was entitled to have a again-up intent, and so long as Monteiro and Wong-Wagner actually believed that purpose to be legitimate, the privilege become not abused. a decent perception presupposes a modicum of effort to determine the statistics, if “verification is purposeful and the rely is sufficiently weighty to call for safeguards in opposition t error.” Mendez v. M.S. Walker, Inc., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 431, 433-434, 528 N.E.second 891 (1988). We believe the advanced courtroom choose appropriately determined that, on the summary judgment substances, there turned into reason for Monteiro and Wong-Wagner to learn about a couple of disciplinary complaints in opposition t DelloRusso, including the 1986 complaint, and that that they had no motive to suppose the records underlying those complaints were false. That writing to the DPA about the 1986 disciplinary criticism violated the contract beneath which the school branch became no longer to carry that incident in other proceedings can also had been a source of criticism for DelloRusso earlier than any other discussion board, nonetheless it does not cause the defendants' statements to be defamatory.4
2. This guidance about the agreement agreement looks in a footnote to the action decide's memorandum of decision. The settlement doesn't seem in the checklist appendix. no question changed into put to either defendant no matter if she or he, respectively, knew of the availability of the contract contract that the particular disciplinary proceeding which become the subject of the contract settlement turned into not for use in every other proceeding. The deposition of Wong-Wagner refers to different disciplinary complaints in opposition t DelloRusso about disasters to file for work.
3. Examples of events of absolute privilege are: testimony of a witness in a judicial proceeding, Aborn v. Lipson, 357 Mass. 71, seventy three, 256 N.E.second 442 (1970); observation made in direction of crook investigation, Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 323-324, 572 N.E.second 7 (1991); statements of attorneys within the conduct of litigation, Doe v. Nutter, McClennen & Fish, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 137, 140-141, 668 N.E.2nd 1329 (1996).
four. Nor does that violation reveal any malice on the part of both Wong-Wagner or Monteiro, since the listing does not show both turned into privy to the restrictive provision in the contract settlement. See n. 2, supra.