Explanation/Reference:
The difference between this and the full-interruption test is that the primary production processing of the business does not stop; the test processing runs in parallel to the real processing. This is the most common type of disaster recovery plan testing.
A checklist test is only considered a preliminary step to a real test.
In a structured walk-through test, business unit management representatives meet to walk through the plan, ensuring it accurately reflects the organization's ability to recover successfully, at least on paper.
A simulation test is aimed at testing the ability of the personnel to respond to a simulated disaster, but not recovery process is actually performed.
Source: 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 289).

CHAP is not used within IPSEC or IKE. CHAP is an authentication scheme
used by Point to Point Protocol (PPP) servers to validate the identity of remote clients.
CHAP periodically verifies the identity of the client by using a three-way handshake. This
happens at the time of establishing the initial link (LCP), and may happen again at any time
afterwards. The verification is based on a shared secret (such as the client user's
password).
After the completion of the link establishment phase, the authenticator sends a "challenge"
message to the peer.
The peer responds with a value calculated using a one-way hash function on the challenge
and the secret combined.
The authenticator checks the response against its own calculation of the expected hash
value. If the values match, the authenticator acknowledges the authentication; otherwise it
should terminate the connection.
At random intervals the authenticator sends a new challenge to the peer and repeats steps
1 through 3.
The following were incorrect answers:
Pre Shared Keys
In cryptography, a pre-shared key or PSK is a shared secret which was previously shared
between the two parties using some secure channel before it needs to be used. To build a
key from shared secret, the key derivation function should be used. Such systems almost
always use symmetric key cryptographic algorithms. The term PSK is used in WiFi
encryption such as WEP or WPA, where both the wireless access points (AP) and all
clients share the same key.
The characteristics of this secret or key are determined by the system which uses it; some
system designs require that such keys be in a particular format. It can be a password like
'bret13i', a passphrase like 'Idaho hung gear id gene', or a hexadecimal string like '65E4
E556 8622 EEE1'. The secret is used by all systems involved in the cryptographic
processes used to secure the traffic between the systems.
Certificat Based Authentication
The most common form of trusted authentication between parties in the wide world of Web
commerce is the exchange of certificates. A certificate is a digital document that at a
minimum includes a Distinguished Name (DN) and an associated public key.
The certificate is digitally signed by a trusted third party known as the Certificate Authority
(CA). The CA vouches for the authenticity of the certificate holder. Each principal in the
transaction presents certificate as its credentials. The recipient then validates the
certificate's signature against its cache of known and trusted CA certificates. A "personal
certificate" identifies an end user in a transaction; a "server certificate" identifies the service
provider.
Generally, certificate formats follow the X.509 Version 3 standard. X.509 is part of the
Open Systems Interconnect
(OSI) X.500 specification.
Public Key Authentication
Public key authentication is an alternative means of identifying yourself to a login server,
instead of typing a password. It is more secure and more flexible, but more difficult to set
up.
In conventional password authentication, you prove you are who you claim to be by proving
that you know the correct password. The only way to prove you know the password is to
tell the server what you think the password is. This means that if the server has been
hacked, or spoofed an attacker can learn your password.
Public key authentication solves this problem. You generate a key pair, consisting of a
public key (which everybody is allowed to know) and a private key (which you keep secret
and do not give to anybody). The private key is able to generate signatures. A signature
created using your private key cannot be forged by anybody who does not have a copy of
that private key; but anybody who has your public key can verify that a particular signature
is genuine.
So you generate a key pair on your own computer, and you copy the public key to the
server. Then, when the server asks you to prove who you are, you can generate a
signature using your private key. The server can verify that signature (since it has your
public key) and allow you to log in. Now if the server is hacked or spoofed, the attacker
does not gain your private key or password; they only gain one signature. And signatures
cannot be re-used, so they have gained nothing.
There is a problem with this: if your private key is stored unprotected on your own
computer, then anybody who gains access to your computer will be able to generate
signatures as if they were you. So they will be able to log in to your server under your
account. For this reason, your private key is usually encrypted when it is stored on your
local machine, using a passphrase of your choice. In order to generate a signature, you
must decrypt the key, so you have to type your passphrase.
References:
RFC 2409: The Internet Key Exchange (IKE); DORASWAMY, Naganand & HARKINS, Dan
Ipsec: The New Security Standard for the Internet, Intranets, and Virtual Private Networks,
1999, Prentice Hall PTR; SMITH, Richard E.
Internet Cryptography, 1997, Addison-Wesley Pub Co.; HARRIS, Shon, All-In-One CISSP
Certification Exam Guide, 2001, McGraw-Hill/Osborne, page 467.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-shared_key
http://www.home.umk.pl/~mgw/LDAP/RS.C4.JUN.97.pdf
http://the.earth.li/~sgtatham/putty/0.55/htmldoc/Chapter8.html#S8.1

Vibration sensors are similar and are also implemented to detect forced entry. Financial institutions may choose to implement these types of sensors on exterior walls, where bank robbers may attempt to drive a vehicle through. They are also commonly used around the ceiling and flooring of vaults to detect someone trying to make an unauthorized bank withdrawal.
Such sensors are proned to false positive. If there is a large truck with heavy equipment
driving by it may trigger the sensor. The same with a storm with thunder and lighting, it may
trigger the alarm even thou there are no adversarial threat or disturbance.
The following are incorrect answers:
All of the other choices are incorrect.
Reference used for this question:
Harris, Shon (2012-10-18). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 6th Edition (pp. 495-496).
McGraw-Hill . Kindle Edition.

Because computer-generated records normally fall under the category of hearsay evidence because they cannot be proven accurate and reliable this can be a problem.
Under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. This inadmissibility is known as the hearsay rule, although there are some exceptions for how, when, by whom and in what circumstances data was collected. Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Chapter 9: Law, Investigation, and Ethics (page 310).
IMPORTANT NOTE: For the purpose of the exam it is very important to remember the Business Record exemption to the Hearsay Rule. For example: if you create log files and review them on a regular basis as part of a business process, such files would be admissable in court and they would not be considered hearsay because they were made in the course of regular business and it is part of regular course of business to create such record.
Here is another quote from the HISM book:
Business Record Exemption to the Hearsay Rule Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) allow a court to admit a report or other business document made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the [report or document], all as shown by testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.
To meet Rule 803(6) the witness must:
Have custody of the records in question on a regular basis.
Rely on those records in the regular course of business.
Know that they were prepared in the regular course of business.
Audit trails meet the criteria if they are produced in the normal course of business. The process to produce the output will have to be proven to be reliable. If computer-generated evidence is used and admissible, the court may order disclosure of the details of the computer, logs, and maintenance records in respect to the system generating the printout, and then the defense may use that material to attack the reliability of the evidence. If the audit trails are not used or reviewed - at least the exceptions (e.g., failed log-on attempts)
- in the regular course of business, they do not meet the criteria for admissibility.
Federal Rules of Evidence 1001(3) provide another exception to the hearsay rule. This rule
allows a memory or disk dump to be admitted as evidence, even though it is not done in
the regular course of business. This dump merely acts as statement of fact. System dumps
(in binary or hexadecimal) are not hearsay because they are not being offered to prove the
truth of the contents, but only the state of the computer.
BUSINESS RECORDS LAW EXAMPLE:
The business records law was enacted in 1931 (PA No. 56). For a document to be
admissible under the statute, the proponent must show: (1) the document was made in the
regular course of business; (2) it was the regular course of business to make the record;
and (3) the record was made when the act, transaction, or event occurred, or shortly
thereafter (State v. Vennard, 159 Conn. 385, 397 (1970); Mucci v. LeMonte, 157 Conn.
566, 570 (1969). The failure to establish any one of these essential elements renders the
document inadmissible under the statute (McCahill v. Town and Country Associates, Ltd. ,
185 Conn. 37 (1981); State v. Peary, 176 Conn. 170 (1978); Welles v. Fish Transport Co. ,
, 123 Conn. 49 (1937).
The statute expressly provides that the person who made the business entry does not have
to be unavailable as a witness and the proponent does not have to call as a witness the
person who made the record or show the person to be unavailable (State v. Jeustiniano,
172 Conn. 275 (1977).
The person offering the business records as evidence does not have to independently
prove the trustworthiness of the record. But, there is no presumption that the record is
accurate; the record's accuracy and weight are issues for the trier of fact (State v. Waterman, 7 Conn. App. 326 (1986); Handbook of Connecticut Evidence, Second Edition, $ 11. 14. 3).
Reference: http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_lpa.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=16833&Index=I%3A%5 Czindex%5C1995&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=712

In multilevel mode, two or more classification levels of data exist, some people are not cleared for all the data on the system.
Risk is higher because sensitive data could be made available to someone not validated as being capable of maintaining secrecy of that data (i.e., not cleared for it).
In other security modes, all users have the necessary clearance for all data on the system. Source: LaROSA, Jeanette (domain leader), Application and System Development Security CISSP Open Study Guide, version 3.0, January 2002.