Two trainees debate the difference between a SYN flood and an on-path attack. Which statement correctly identifies the primary goal that separates a SYN flood from an on-path attack?
- AA SYN flood decrypts TLS sessions in transit, while an on-path attack merely counts the open ports on the target host.
- BA SYN flood exhausts a server's half-open connection table to deny service, while an on-path attack intercepts a live conversation. Correct
- CA SYN flood forges email headers to fool users, while an on-path attack simply guesses passwords from a stored wordlist.
- DA SYN flood installs ransomware on the host, while an on-path attack disables the firewall's logging service entirely.
Why A is wrong: A SYN flood does not decrypt anything and on-path attacks do more than count ports, so this statement misattributes capabilities to both techniques.
Why B is correct: A SYN flood leaves many TCP handshakes half-open to exhaust connection resources and deny availability, whereas an on-path attack targets confidentiality and integrity by interposing on traffic, which is the correct goal-based distinction.
Why C is wrong: Forged email headers describe spoofing and wordlist guessing describes brute force, so neither half correctly labels a SYN flood or an on-path attack.
Why D is wrong: Neither ransomware installation nor disabling logging is the defining purpose of these attacks, so this pairing describes unrelated activities and misses the real distinction.