The scenario described is related to the concern about the security and resources of a hosting company. The term that fits this situation is: B. Third-party hosted.
The company's consideration of the security and resource capabilities of a smaller, newer hosting company compared to larger, more mature providers is reflective of a concern regarding third-party hosting. In the context of penetration testing, the company is assessing the potential vulnerabilities of the hosting service provided by a third-party.
The term "third-party hosted" encapsulates this situation, acknowledging the reliance on an external hosting company.
The decision to contract a penetration test stems from the need to ensure that, despite potential cost savings, the chosen hosting company maintains sufficient security measures and expertise to protect the company's digital assets effectively.
So option B is the answer.
The complete question is:
A company is contracting a penetration test because they want to save money by going with a smaller, newer hosting company. However, they are worried the company may have fewer resources and less security expertise and may be easier to attack than larger, more mature providers. What is this called?
A. First-party hosted
B. Third-party hosted
C. On-site
D. APis