Pass the ISC 2 Credentials SSCP Questions and answers with ValidTests

In order to offer more independence and get more attention from management, an IT security function should be independent from IT and report directly to the CEO. Having it report to a specialized business unit (e.g. legal) is not recommended as it promotes a low technology view of the function and leads people to believe that it is someone else's problem.

Source: HARE, Chris, Security management Practices CISSP Open Study Guide, version 1.0, april 1999.

If there is no support by management to implement, execute, and enforce security policies and procedure, then they won't work. Senior management must be involved in this because they have an obligation to the organization to protect the assests . The requirement here is for management to show “due diligence” in establishing an effective compliance, or security program.

The following answers are incorrect:

The tech support team. Is incorrect because the ultimate responsibility is with management for the security of computer-based information systems.

The Operation Team. Is incorrect because the ultimate responsibility is with management for the security of computer-based information systems.

The Training Team. Is incorrect because the ultimate responsibility is with management for the security of computer-based information systems.

Reference(s) used for this question:

OIG CBK Information Security Management and Risk Management (page 20 - 22)

Network availability can be defined as an area of the Telecommunications and Network Security domain that directly affects the Information Systems Security tenet of Availability.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 64.

First you have to realize that the question is specifically talking about a CDROM. The information stored on a CDROM is not in electro magnetic format, so a degausser woud be inneffective.

You cannot sanitize a CDROM but you might be able to sanitize a RW/CDROM. A CDROM is a write once device and cannot be overwritten like a hard disk or other magnetic device.

Physical Damage would not be enough as information could still be extracted in a lab from the undamaged portion of the media or even from the pieces after the physical damage has been done.

Physical Destruction using a shredder, your microwave oven, melting it, would be very effective and the best choice for a non magnetic media such as a CDROM.

Source: TIPTON, Hal, (ISC)2, Introduction to the CISSP Exam presentation.

A Sensitivity label must contain at least one classification and one category set.

Category set and Compartment set are synonyms, they mean the same thing. The sensitivity label must contain at least one Classification and at least one Category. It is common in some environments for a single item to belong to multiple categories. The list of all the categories to which an item belongs is called a compartment set or category set.

The following answers are incorrect:

the item's classification. Is incorrect because you need a category set as well.

the item's category. Is incorrect because category set and classification would be both be required.

The item's need to know. Is incorrect because there is no such thing. The need to know is indicated by the catergories the object belongs to. This is NOT the best answer.

Reference(s) used for this question:

OIG CBK, Access Control (pages 186 - 188)

AIO, 3rd Edition, Access Control (pages 162 - 163)

AIO, 4th Edittion, Access Control, pp 212-214.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Access_Control

The matrix lists the users, groups and roles down the left side and the resources and functions across the top. The cells of the matrix can either indicate that access is allowed or indicate the type of access. CBK pp 317 - 318.

AIO3, p. 169 describes it as a table if subjects and objects specifying the access rights a certain subject possesses pertaining to specific objects.

In either case, the matrix is a way of analyzing the access control needed by a population of subjects to a population of objects. This access control can be applied using rules, ACL's, capability tables, etc.

"A capacity table" is incorrect.

This answer is a trap for the unwary -- it sounds a little like "capability table" but is just there to distract you.

"An access control list" is incorrect.

"It [ACL] specifies a list of users [subjects] who are allowed access to each object" CBK, p. 188 Access control lists (ACL) could be used to implement the rules identified by an access control matrix but is different from the matrix itself.

"A capability table" is incorrect.

"Capability tables are used to track, manage and apply controls based on the object and rights, or capabilities of a subject. For example, a table identifies the object, specifies access rights allowed for a subject, and permits access based on the user's posession of a capability (or ticket) for the object." CBK, pp. 191-192. To put it another way, as noted in AIO3 on p. 169, "A capabiltiy table is different from an ACL because the subject is bound to the capability table, whereas the object is bound to the ACL."

Again, a capability table could be used to implement the rules identified by an access control matrix but is different from the matrix itself.

References:

CBK pp. 191-192, 317-318

AIO3, p. 169

C deals with discretionary protection. See matric below:

TCSEC Matric

The following are incorrect answers:

D is incorrect. D deals with minimal security.

B is incorrect. B deals with mandatory protection.

A is incorrect. A deals with verified protection.

Reference(s) used for this question:

CBK, p. 329 – 330

and

Shon Harris, CISSP All In One (AIO), 6th Edition , page 392-393

This is an example of Separation of Duties because operators are prevented from modifying the system time which could lead to fraud. Tasks of this nature should be performed by they system administrators.

AIO defines Separation of Duties as a security principle that splits up a critical task among two or more individuals to ensure that one person cannot complete a risky task by himself.

The following answers are incorrect:

Programmers are permitted to use the system console. Is incorrect because programmers should not be permitted to use the system console, this task should be performed by operators. Allowing programmers access to the system console could allow fraud to occur so this is not an example of Separation of Duties..

Console operators are permitted to mount tapes and disks. Is incorrect because operators should be able to mount tapes and disks so this is not an example of Separation of Duties.

Tape operators are permitted to use the system console. Is incorrect because operators should be able to use the system console so this is not an example of Separation of Duties.

References:

OIG CBK Access Control (page 98 - 101)

AIOv3 Access Control (page 182)

Conducting security awareness and technical training to ensure that end users and system users are aware of the rules of behaviour and their responsibilities in protecting the organization's mission is an example of a preventive management control, therefore not an operational control.

Source: STONEBURNER, Gary et al., NIST Special publication 800-30, Risk management Guide for Information Technology Systems, 2001 (page 37).

Some disadvantages of a statistical anomaly-based ID are that it will not detect an attack that does not significantly change the system operating characteristics, or it may falsely detect a non-attack event that had caused a momentary anomaly in the system.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 49.

Tripwire is an integrity checking product, triggering alarms when important files (e.g. system or configuration files) are modified.

This is a tool that is not likely to be used by hackers, other than for studying its workings in order to circumvent it.

Other programs are password-cracking programs and are likely to be used by security administrators as well as by hackers. More info regarding Tripwire available on the Tripwire, Inc. Web Site.

NOTE:

The biggest competitor to the commercial version of Tripwire is the freeware version of Tripwire. You can get the Open Source version of Tripwire at the following URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tripwire/

If any server in the cluster crashes, processing continues transparently, however, the cluster suffers some performance degradation. This implementation is sometimes called a "server farm."

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 67.

Although it may cause a denial of service to the victim's system, this type of attack is a Smurf attack. A SYN Flood attack uses up all of a system's resources by setting up a number of bogus communication sockets on the victim's system. A Ping of Death attack is done by sending IP packets that exceed the maximum legal length (65535 octets).

Source: HARRIS, Shon, All-In-One CISSP Certification Exam Guide, McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2002, chapter 11: Application and System Development (page 789).

The Data Link layer provides data transport across a physical link. It handles physical addressing, network topology, line discipline, error notification, orderly delivery of frames, and optional flow control.

Source: ROTHKE, Ben, CISSP CBK Review presentation on domain 2, August 1999.

Although TACACS+ provides better audit trails, event logging is a service that is provided with TACACS.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Chapter 3: Telecommunications and Network Security (page 121).

Source: HARRIS, Shon, All-In-One CISSP Certification Exam Guide, McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2001, Page 644.

The purpose of a message authentication code - MAC is to verify both the source and message integrity without the need for additional processes.

A MAC algorithm, sometimes called a keyed (cryptographic) hash function (however, cryptographic hash function is only one of the possible ways to generate MACs), accepts as input a secret key and an arbitrary-length message to be authenticated, and outputs a MAC (sometimes known as a tag). The MAC value protects both a message's data integrity as well as its authenticity, by allowing verifiers (who also possess the secret key) to detect any changes to the message content.

MACs differ from digital signatures as MAC values are both generated and verified using the same secret key. This implies that the sender and receiver of a message must agree on the same key before initiating communications, as is the case with symmetric encryption. For the same reason, MACs do not provide the property of non-repudiation offered by signatures specifically in the case of a network-wide shared secret key: any user who can verify a MAC is also capable of generating MACs for other messages.

In contrast, a digital signature is generated using the private key of a key pair, which is asymmetric encryption. Since this private key is only accessible to its holder, a digital signature proves that a document was signed by none other than that holder. Thus, digital signatures do offer non-repudiation.

The following answers are incorrect:

PAM - Pluggable Authentication Module: This isn't the right answer. There is no known message authentication function called a PAM. However, a pluggable authentication module (PAM) is a mechanism to integrate multiple low-level authentication schemes and commonly used within the Linux Operating System.

NAM - Negative Acknowledgement Message: This isn't the right answer. There is no known message authentication function called a NAM. The proper term for a negative acknowledgement is NAK, it is a signal used in digital communications to ensure that data is received with a minimum of errors.

Digital Signature Certificate: This isn't right. As it is explained and contrasted in the explanations provided above.

The following reference(s) was used to create this question:

The CCCure Computer Based Tutorial for Security+, you can subscribe at http://www.cccure.tv

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_authentication_code

The length of time between the Issuer’s receipt of a revocation request and the time the Issuer is required to revoke the certificate should bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of risk the participants are willing to assume that someone may rely on a certificate for which a proper evocation request has been given but has not yet been acted upon.

How quickly revocation requests need to be processed (and CRLs or certificate status databases need to be updated) depends upon the specific application for which the Policy Authority is rafting the Certificate Policy.

A Policy Authority should recognize that there may be risk and lost tradeoffs with respect to grace periods for revocation notices.

If the Policy Authority determines that its PKI participants are willing to accept a grace period of a few hours in exchange for a lower implementation cost, the Certificate Policy may reflect that decision.

RFC 2828 (Internet Security Glossary) defines IKE as an Internet, IPsec, key-establishment protocol (partly based on OAKLEY) that is intended for putting in place authenticated keying material for use with ISAKMP and for other security associations, such as in AH and ESP.

The following are incorrect answers:

SKIP is a key distribution protocol that uses hybrid encryption to convey session keys that are used to encrypt data in IP packets.

The Key Exchange Algorithm (KEA) is defined as a key agreement algorithm that is similar to the Diffie-Hellman algorithm, uses 1024-bit asymmetric keys, and was developed and formerly classified at the secret level by the NSA.

Security Association Authentication Protocol (SAAP) is a distracter.

Reference(s) used for this question:

SHIREY, Robert W., RFC2828: Internet Security Glossary, may 2000.

A hash algorithm (alternatively, hash "function") takes binary data, called the message, and produces a condensed representation, called the message digest. A cryptographic hash algorithm is a hash algorithm that is designed to achieve certain security properties. The Federal Information Processing Standard 180-3, Secure Hash Standard, specifies five cryptographic hash algorithms - SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 for federal use in the US; the standard was also widely adopted by the information technology industry and commercial companies.

The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm is a widely used cryptographic hash function that produces a 128-bit (16-byte) hash value. Specified in RFC 1321, MD5 has been employed in a wide variety of security applications, and is also commonly used to check data integrity. MD5 was designed by Ron Rivest in 1991 to replace an earlier hash function, MD4. An MD5 hash is typically expressed as a 32-digit hexadecimal number.

However, it has since been shown that MD5 is not collision resistant; as such, MD5 is not suitable for applications like SSL certificates or digital signatures that rely on this property. In 1996, a flaw was found with the design of MD5, and while it was not a clearly fatal weakness, cryptographers began recommending the use of other algorithms, such as SHA-1 - which has since been found also to be vulnerable. In 2004, more serious flaws were discovered in MD5, making further use of the algorithm for security purposes questionable - specifically, a group of researchers described how to create a pair of files that share the same MD5 checksum. Further advances were made in breaking MD5 in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In December 2008, a group of researchers used this technique to fake SSL certificate validity, and US-CERT now says that MD5 "should be considered cryptographically broken and unsuitable for further use." and most U.S. government applications now require the SHA-2 family of hash functions.

NIST CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH PROJECT

NIST announced a public competition in a Federal Register Notice on November 2, 2007 to develop a new cryptographic hash algorithm, called SHA-3, for standardization. The competition was NIST’s response to advances made in the cryptanalysis of hash algorithms.

NIST received sixty-four entries from cryptographers around the world by October 31, 2008, and selected fifty-one first-round candidates in December 2008, fourteen second-round candidates in July 2009, and five finalists – BLAKE, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein, in December 2010 to advance to the third and final round of the competition.

Throughout the competition, the cryptographic community has provided an enormous amount of feedback. Most of the comments were sent to NIST and a public hash forum; in addition, many of the cryptanalysis and performance studies were published as papers in major cryptographic conferences or leading cryptographic journals. NIST also hosted a SHA-3 candidate conference in each round to obtain public feedback. Based on the public comments and internal review of the candidates, NIST announced Keccak as the winner of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition on October 2, 2012, and ended the five-year competition.