The Basics of Hacking and Penetration Testing: Ethical Hacking and Penetration Testing Made Easy
Second Edition
Author: Patrick Engebretson
Published: August 15, 2013
Publisher: Syngress
ISBN: 9780124116443 
Format: Retail Epub
Readers: Adobe Digital Editions, Calibre, MoonReader for Android etc
Tested on laptop and Android tablet with no issues.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Basics of Hacking and Penetration Testing, 2nd Ed. serves as an introduction to the steps required to complete a penetration test or perform an ethical hack from beginning to end. No prior hacking experience is needed. You will learn how to properly utilize and interpret the results of modern day hacking tools, which are required to complete a penetration test. Tool coverage includes Backtrack and Kali Linux, Google reconnaissance, MetaGooFil, DNS interrogation, Nmap, Nessus, Metasploit, the Social Engineer Toolkit (SET) , w3af, Netcat, post exploitation tactics, the Hacker Defender rootkit, and more. The book provides a simple and clean explanation of how to effectively utilize the tools and introduces a four-step methodology for conducting a penetration test or hack. You will be provided with the know-how required to jump start your career or gain a better understanding of offensive security. The book walks through each of the steps and tools in a structured, orderly manner, allowing readers to understand how the output from each tool can be fully utilized in the subsequent phases of the penetration test. This process allows readers to clearly see how the tools and phases function and relate.

The second edition includes updated information covering Kali Linux as well as focusing on the seminal tools required to complete a penetration test 
New tools added including the Social Engineer Toolkit, Meterpreter, w3af and more!
Each chapter contains hands-on examples and exercises that are designed to teach you how to interpret the results and utilize those results in later phases
Written by an author who works in the field as a Penetration Tester and who teaches Offensive Security, Penetration Testing, and Ethical Hacking, and Exploitation classes at Dakota State

University.

Applicant’s marks	Opponent’s mark

The mark in use

A different kind of Vampire Vodka, this one seems to be available online

• The photograph and promotional text did not “substantiate the place, time or still less extent of the use”.
• Five of six of the invoices date from the period between the applications being filed and published, and in these circumstances although they can be taken into account “the duration and the frequency of the use adduced [by them] does not support the conclusion that the products bearing the name of the earlier mark were marketed continuously over the relevant period”.
• No information was provided about the identities of the companies in the invoices, nor the relationship between the company issuing it and the opponent.
• It had not been established that the company on the invoice had used the mark with the opponent’s consent.
• It had not been established that the mark had been used publicly and outwardly.

• The use on the invoices equating to 900 units a month was a “small” quantity in the relevant market (ie, alcoholic drinks). In fact, “the sales volume is marginal bearing in mind the average monthly consumption of vodka on the Romanian market” (How much, hic, vodka, is marginal, to, hic, consume, in an average, hic, month? Slurs Merpel).
• Accordingly, 2,592 bottles of vodka over three months was not enough to establish genuine use in the circumstances, notwithstanding the finding in VITAFRUIT that 3,516 bottles of concentrated fruit juice was enough over 11 months.
• The six invoices could not be considered as merely samples of a greater batch of sales and/or use.

The sharp-eyed (a sharp-toothed?) amongst you will note that the photograph of the use does not match the figurative trade mark relied upon by the opponent. That too was a live question in the case (whether the differences in the form in which the earlier mark was used and the form in which it was registered altered the distinctive character of that mark as it was registered), but the General Court declined to rule on the effect of the differences in light of its finding on the evidence of use.

This case is a useful illustration for those undertaking proof of use exercises (which is a common task for this Kat and his colleagues) of what to do and what not to do. Clear, precise, detailed information is your friend here – don’t just toss in a bit of paper. Tell the story of the use, fill in the gaps and convince the Office the mark has been put to use. There’s a good lesson here as to the unpredictability of the courts too. ED might be more than a little disappointed to see it failed to prove use when it sold 2,500 bottles over three months whereas 3,500 bottles over 11 months was enough in VITAFRUIT.

To all vodka lovers and all blood suckers, please remember to drink responsibly.

*Amusingly to this obviously not-very-well-read Kat, Wikipedia reveals that the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker is a tale that “begins with Jonathan Harker, a newly qualified English solicitor, visiting Count Dracula in the Carpathian Mountains on the border of Transylvania, Bukovina, and Moldavia, to provide legal support for a real estate transaction overseen by Harker's employer". That almost sounds as if a property lawyer has been fiddling with the Wikipedia entry…