OpenCyber AcademyLesson map
Lesson 16. Map, example, EX062.
flowchart TD
T["Tuesday scope, unchanged"] --> W["Wednesday line added under it"]
W --> E["Email sign-in history only"]
E --> D{"Was the donations account checked?"}
D -->|No| K["Usual sign-ins, so the ask did not happen"]
P["Tomás's phone"] --> O["Still outside"]
A wider scope is a new line. It is not a rewritten first line.
Logical drawing
stays
laptop FB-LAP-02
Tuesday through Friday
the original purpose
added under it
email sign-in history
reason: saved food-bank email password
agreed by Ana
not added
the phone
a donations-account result
Learning outcomes
After this chapter, you should be able to:
- Keep the Tuesday scope line in place.
- Name what the Wednesday line adds.
- Refuse a donations-account result.
16.1 The addition names one account history. It does not swallow the next link.
The Tuesday scope covered the laptop, a purpose, and Tuesday through Friday. Wednesday's finding was a saved food-bank email password in the browser. Checking that account was outside the first line. Priya asked Ana. The new line authorises the email account's sign-in history, states the reason, and names Ana. It is written under the Tuesday line. The Tuesday line is not edited to pretend the email was in scope from the start.
The donations account is the next link, because that email can reset it. The sign-in history showed only Tomás's usual sign-ins, so Priya did not ask Ana to open the donations account. No donations result exists to quote. A note that says the donations password was or was not changed has filled a blank. Tomás's phone stays outside both lines. Another laptop with the same pop-ups would need its own ask before anyone examined it.
ISO/IEC 27037 is about identifying and preserving what you were allowed to take. Authority here is the signed page, including the added line. Looking one link further because it feels related is a new examination, and this case did not do it.
Lesson table; scroll horizontally to read all columns →
| Object | Authority in this case |
|---|---|
| FB-LAP-02 | Tuesday line |
| Email sign-in history | Wednesday line |
| Donations account | Not checked |
| Tomás's phone | Still outside |
16.2 Worked example
Lesson table; scroll horizontally to read all columns →
| Offered sentence | Effect on the page | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| "Tuesday line unchanged; Wednesday line underneath." | Addition | Keep |
| "Email history only, agreed by Ana." | The added authority | Keep |
| "Rewrite Tuesday so the email was always in scope." | Erases the boundary | Refuse |
| "Donations activity was normal." | No such check | Refuse |
Synthetic case. The scope page is the food bank's permission record.
Errors and limits
Do not let a nearby account borrow the line that was written for a different one.
Apply
- EX062 — Added, not replaced. What did Wednesday add, what stayed outside, and was the donations account checked?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = email sign-in history was added under the unchanged Tuesday line, with Ana's agreement; the phone stays outside; the donations account was not checked because sign-ins were usual;; 2 = the addition is the email history and donations was not checked;; 1 = one line;; 0 = none.