Explanation/Reference:
The detective/technical control measures are intended to reveal the violations of security policy using technical means.
Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 35.

It is possible that an organization may not need a disaster recovery plan. An organization may not have any critical processing areas or system and they would be able to withstand lengthy interruptions.
Remember that DRP is related to systems needed to support your most critical business functions.
The DRP plan covers actions to be taken when a disaster occur but DRP PLANNING which is the keywork in the question would also include steps that happen before you use the plan such as development of the plan, training, drills, logistics, and a lot more.
To be effective, the plan would certainly cover before, during, and after the disaster actions.
It may take you a couple years to develop a plan for a medium size company, there is a lot that has to happen before the plan would be actually used in a real disaster scenario. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.
All other statements are true.
NOTE FROM CLEMENT: Below is a great article on who legally needs a plan which is very much in line with this question. Does EVERY company needs a plan? The legal answer is NO. Some companies, industries, will be required according to laws or regulations to have a plan. A blank statement saying: All companies MUST have a plan would not be accurate. The article below is specific to the USA but similar laws will exist in many other countries.
Some companies such as utilities, power, etc... might also need plan if they have been defined as Critical Infrastructure by the government. The legal side of IT is always very
complex and varies in different countries. Always talk to your lawyer to ensure you follow
the law of the land :-)
Read the details below:
So Who, Legally, MUST Plan?
With the caveats above, let's cover a few of the common laws where there is a duty to have
a disaster recovery plan. I will try to include the basis for that requirement, where there is
an implied mandate to do so, and what the difference is between the two
Banks and Financial Institutions MUST Have a Plan
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (Council) was established on March
10, 1979, pursuant to Title X of the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate
Control Act of 1978 (FIRA), Public Law 95-630. In 1989, Title XI of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) established the Examination
Council (the Council).
The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles,
standards, and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); and to
make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions. In
other words, every bank, savings and loan, credit union, and other financial institution is
governed by the principles adopted by the Council.
In March of 2003, the Council released its Business Continuity Planning handbook
designed to provide guidance and examination procedures for examiners in evaluating
financial institution and service provider risk-management processes.
Stockbrokers MUST Have a Plan
The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) has adopted rules that require all its
members to have business continuity plans. The NASD oversees the activities of more
than 5,100 brokerage firms, approximately 130,800 branch offices and more than 658,770
registered securities representatives.
As of June 14, 2004, the rules apply to all NASD member firms. The requirements, which
are specified in Rule 3510, begin with the following:
3510. Business Continuity Plans. (a) Each member must create and maintain a written
business continuity plan identifying procedures relating to an emergency or significant
business disruption. Such procedures must be reasonably designed to enable the member
to meet its existing obligations to customers. In addition, such procedures must address the
member's existing relationships with other broker-dealers and counter-parties. The
business continuity plan must be made available promptly upon request to NASD staff.
NOTE:
The rules apply to every company that deals in securities, such as brokers, dealers, and
their representatives, it does NOT apply to the listed companies themselves.
Electric Utilities WILL Need a Plan
The disaster recovery function relating to the electric utility grid is presently undergoing a
change. Prior to 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) could only
coordinate volunteer efforts between utilities. This has changed with the adoption of Title
XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (16 U.S.C. 824o). That new law authorizes the FERC
to create an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO).
The ERO will have the capability to adopt and enforce reliability standards for "all users,
owners, and operators of the bulk power system" in the United States. At this time, FERC
is in the process of finalizing the rules for the creation of the ERO. Once the ERO is
created, it will begin the process of establishing reliability standards.
It is very safe to assume that the ERO will adopt standards for service restoration and
disaster recovery, particularly after such widespread disasters as Hurricane Katrina.
Telecommunications Utilities SHOULD Have Plans, but MIGHT NOT
Telecommunications utilities are governed on the federal level by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) for interstate services and by state Public Utility
Commissions (PUCs) for services within the state.
The FCC has created the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC). The role
of the NRIC is to develop recommendations for the FCC and the telecommunications
industry to "insure [sic] optimal reliability, security, interoperability and interconnectivity of,
and accessibility to, public communications networks and the internet." The NRIC members
are senior representatives of providers and users of telecommunications services and
products, including telecommunications carriers, the satellite, cable television, wireless and
computer industries, trade associations, labor and consumer representatives,
manufacturers, research organizations, and government-related organizations.
There is no explicit provision that we could find that says telecommunications carriers must
have a Disaster Recovery Plan. As I have stated frequently in this series of articles on
disaster recovery, however, telecommunications facilities are tempting targets for terrorism. I have not changed my mind in that regard and urge caution.
You might also want to consider what the liability of a telephone company is if it does have a disaster that causes loss to your organization. In three words: It's not much. The following is the statement used in most telephone company tariffs with regard to its liability:
The Telephone Company's liability, if any, for its gross negligence or willful misconduct is not limited by this tariff. With respect to any other claim or suit, by a customer or any others, for damages arising out of mistakes, omissions, interruptions, delays or errors, or defects in transmission occurring in the course of furnishing services hereunder, the Telephone Company's liability, if any, shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the proportionate charge to the customer for the period of service during which such mistake, omission, interruption, delay, error or defect in transmission or service occurs and continues. (Source, General Exchange Tariff for major carrier)
All Health Care Providers WILL Need a Disaster Recovery Plan HIPAA is an acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191, which amended the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986. Also known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, the Act includes a section, Title II, entitled Administrative Simplification, requiring "Improved efficiency in healthcare delivery by standardizing electronic data interchange, and protection of confidentiality and security of health data through setting and enforcing standards."
The legislation called upon the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish new rules that will ensure security standards protecting the confidentiality and integrity of "individually identifiable health information," past, present, or future.
The final Security Rule was published by HHS on February 20, 2003 and provides for a uniform level of protection of all health information that is housed or transmitted electronically and that pertains to an individual.
The Security Rule requires covered entities to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all electronic protected health information (ePHI) that the covered entity creates, receives, maintains, or transmits. It also requires entities to protect against any reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of ePHI, protect against any reasonably anticipated uses or disclosures of such information that are not permitted or required by the Privacy Rule, and ensure compliance by their workforce.
Required safeguards include application of appropriate policies and procedures, safeguarding physical access to ePHI, and ensuring that technical security measures are in place to protect networks, computers and other electronic devices. Companies with More than 10 Employees
The United States Department of Labor has adopted numerous rules and regulations in regard to workplace safety as part of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. For example, 29 USC 654 specifically requires:
(a)
Each employer:
(1)
shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2)
shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
(b)
Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
Other Considerations or Expensive Research questions for Lawyers (Sorry, Eddie!)
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Law for Protecting Taxpayer Information Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Mandated Requirements Homeland Security and Terrorist Prevention Pandemic (Bird Flu) Prevention ISO 9000 Certification Requirements for Radio and TV Broadcasters Contract Obligations to Customers Document Protection and Retention Laws Personal Identity Theft...and MORE!
Suffice it to say you will need to check with your legal department for specific requirements in your business and industry!
I would like to thank my good friend, Eddie M. Pope, for his insightful contributions to this article, our upcoming book, and my ever-growing pool of lawyer jokes. If you want more information on the legal aspects of recovery planning, Eddie can be contacted at my company or via email at mailto:[email protected]. (Eddie cannot, of course, give you legal advice, but he can point you in the right direction.)
I hope this article helps you better understand the complex realities of the legal reasons why we plan and wish you the best of luck
See original article at: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=777896
See another interesting article on the subject at: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=677910&seqNum=1
References used for this question:
KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Chapter 8: Business Continuity Planning and Disaster Recovery Planning (page 281).

Section: Access Control
Explanation/Reference:
RBAC is sometimes also called non-discretionary access control (NDAC) (as Ferraiolo says "to distinguish it from the policy-based specifics of MAC"). Another model that fits within the NDAC category is Rule-Based Access Control (RuBAC or RBAC). Most of the CISSP books use the same acronym for both models but NIST tend to use a lowercase "u" in between R and B to differentiate the two models.
You can certainly mimic MAC using RBAC but true MAC makes use of Labels which contains the sensitivity of the objects and the categories they belong to. No labels means MAC is not being used.
One of the most fundamental data access control decisions an organization must make is the amount of control it will give system and data owners to specify the level of access users of that data will have. In every organization there is a balancing point between the access controls enforced by organization and system policy and the ability for information owners to determine who can have access based on specific business requirements. The process of translating that balance into a workable access control model can be defined by three general access frameworks:
Discretionary access control
Mandatory access control
Nondiscretionary access control
A role-based access control (RBAC) model bases the access control authorizations on the roles (or functions) that the user is assigned within an organization. The determination of what roles have access to a resource can be governed by the owner of the data, as with DACs, or applied based on policy, as with MACs.
Access control decisions are based on job function, previously defined and governed by policy, and each role (job function) will have its own access capabilities. Objects associated with a role will inherit privileges assigned to that role. This is also true for groups of users, allowing administrators to simplify access control strategies by assigning users to groups and groups to roles.
There are several approaches to RBAC. As with many system controls, there are variations on how they can be applied within a computer system.
There are four basic RBAC architectures:
1. Non-RBAC: Non-RBAC is simply a user-granted access to data or an application by traditional mapping, such as with ACLs. There are no formal "roles" associated with the mappings, other than any identified by the particular user.
2. Limited RBAC: Limited RBAC is achieved when users are mapped to roles within a single application rather than through an organization-wide role structure. Users in a limited RBAC system are also able to access non- RBAC-based applications or data. For example, a user may be assigned to multiple roles within several applications and, in addition, have direct access to another application or system independent of his or her assigned role. The key attribute of limited RBAC is that the role for that user is defined within an application and not necessarily based on the user's organizational job function.
3. Hybrid RBAC: Hybrid RBAC introduces the use of a role that is applied to multiple applications or systems based on a user's specific role within the organization. That role is then applied to applications or systems that subscribe to the organization's role-based model. However, as the term "hybrid" suggests, there are instances where the subject may also be assigned to roles defined solely within specific applications, complimenting (or, perhaps, contradicting) the larger, more encompassing organizational role used by other systems.
4. Full RBAC: Full RBAC systems are controlled by roles defined by the organization's policy and access control infrastructure and then applied to applications and systems across the enterprise. The applications, systems, and associated data apply permissions based on that enterprise definition, and not one defined by a specific application or system.
Be careful not to try to make MAC and DAC opposites of each other -- they are two different access control strategies with RBAC being a third strategy that was defined later to address some of the limitations of MAC and DAC.
The other answers are not correct because:
Mandatory access control is incorrect because though it is by definition not discretionary, it is not called "non- discretionary access control." MAC makes use of label to indicate the sensitivity of the object and it also makes use of categories to implement the need to know.
Label-based access control is incorrect because this is not a name for a type of access control but simply a bogus detractor.
Lattice based access control is not adequate either. A lattice is a series of levels and a subject will be granted an upper and lower bound within the series of levels. These levels could be sensitivity levels or they could be confidentiality levels or they could be integrity levels.
Reference(s) used for this question:
All in One, third edition, page 165.
Ferraiolo, D., Kuhn, D. & Chandramouli, R. (2003). Role-Based Access Control, p. 18.
Ferraiolo, D., Kuhn, D. (1992). Role-Based Access Controls. http://csrc.nist.gov/rbac/ Role_Based_Access_Control-1992.html Schneiter, Andrew (2013-04-15). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition : Access Control ((ISC)
2 Press) (Kindle Locations 1557-1584). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.
Schneiter, Andrew (2013-04-15). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition : Access Control ((ISC)
2 Press) (Kindle Locations 1474-1477). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Security testing and trusted distribution are required for Life-Cycle Assurance.
The following answers are incorrect:
System Architecture and Design specification. Is incorrect because System Architecture is not requried for Life-Cycle Assurance.
Security Testing and Covert Channel Analysis. Is incorrect because Covert Channel Analysis is not requried for Life-Cycle Assurance.
Configuration Management and Trusted Facility Management. Is incorrect because Trusted Facility Management. is not requried for Life-Cycle Assurance.