Hearsay evidence is not normally admissible in court unless it has firsthand evidence that can be used to prove the evidence’s accuracy, trustworthiness, and reliability like a business person who generated the computer logs and collected them.
It is important that this person generates and collects logs as a normal part of his business and not just this one time for court. It has to be a documented process that is carried out daily.
The value of evidence depends upon the genuineness and competence of the source; therefore, since record collection is not an activity likely to be performed by senior or executive management, records collected by senior or executive management are not likely to be admissible in court.
Hearsay evidence is usually not admissible in court unless it meets the Business Records Exemption rule to the Hearsay evidence.
• In certain instances computer records fall outside of the hearsay rule (e.g., business records exemption)
• Information relates to regular business activities
• Automatically computer generated data
• No human intervention
• Prove system was operating correctly
• Prove no one changed the data
If you have a documented business process and you make use of intrusion detection tools, log analysis tools, and you produce daily reports of activities, then the computer generated data might be admissible in court and would not be considered Hearsay Evidence.
Reference(s) used for this question: HARRIS, Shon, All-In-One CISSP Certification Exam Guide, McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2002, chapter 10: Law, Investigation, and Ethics (page 676).

Circumstantial evidence is defined as inference of information from other, intermediate, relevant facts. Secondary evidence is a copy of evidence or oral description of its contents. Conclusive evidence is incontrovertible and overrides all other evidence and hearsay evidence is evidence that is not based on personal, first-hand knowledge of the witness, but was obtained from another source. Computer-generated records normally fall under the category of hearsay evidence. 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).

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=168… 5C1995&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=712

Unless the evidence is illegal then it should be returned to owner, not destroyed.
The Evidence Life Cycle starts with the discovery and collection of the evidence. It progresses through the following series of states until it is finally returned to the victim or owner:
• Acquisition collection and identification
• Analysis
• Storage, preservation, and transportation
• Presented in court
• Returned to victim (owner)
The Second edition of the ISC2 book says on page 529-530:
Identifying evidence: Correctly identifying the crime scene, evidence, and potential containers of evidence.
Collecting or acquiring evidence: Adhering to the criminalistic principles and ensuring that the contamination and the destruction of the scene are kept to a minimum. Using sound, repeatable, collection techniques that allow for the demonstration of the accuracy and integrity of evidence, or copies of evidence.
Examining or analyzing the evidence: Using sound scientific methods to determine the characteristics of the evidence, conducting comparison for individuation of evidence, and conducting event reconstruction.
Presentation of findings: Interpreting the output from the examination and analysis based on findings of fact and articulating these in a format appropriate for the intended audience (e.g., court brief, executive memo, report).
Note on returning the evidence to the Owner/Victim
The final destination of most types of evidence is back with its original owner. Some types of evidence, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia (i.e., contraband), are destroyed after the trial.
Any evidence gathered during a search, although maintained by law enforcement, is legally under the control of the courts. And although a seized item may be yours and may even have your name on it, it might not be returned to you unless the suspect signs a release or after a hearing by the court. Unfortunately, many victims do not want to go to trial; they just want to get their property back.
Many investigations merely need the information on a disk to prove or disprove a fact in question; thus, there is no need to seize the entire system. Once a schematic of the system is drawn or photographed, the hard disk can be removed and then transported to a forensic lab for copying.
Mirror copies of the suspect disk are obtained using forensic software and then one of those copies can be returned to the victim so that business operations can resume.
Reference(s) 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 9: Law, Investigation, and Ethics (page 309). and The Official Study Book, Second Edition, Page 529-230

It’s interesting to note that the steps to resume normal processing operations will be different than the steps in the recovery plan; that is, the least critical work should be brought back first to the primary site.
My explanation: at the point where the primary site is ready to receive operations again, less critical systems should be brought back first because one has to make sure that everything will be running smoothly at the primary site before returning critical systems, which are already operating normally at the recovery site.
This will limit the possible interruption of processing to a minimum for most critical systems, thus making it the best option. 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 291).

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).

Electronic vaulting refers to the transfer of backup data to an off-site location. This is primarily a batch process of dumping backup data through communications lines to a server at an alternate location.
Electronic vaulting is accomplished by backing up system data over a network. The backup location is usually at a separate geographical location known as the vault site. Vaulting can be used as a mirror or a backup mechanism using the standard incremental or differential backup cycle. Changes to the host system are sent to the vault server in real-time when the backup method is implemented as a mirror. If vaulting updates are recorded in real-time, then it will be necessary to perform regular backups at the off-site location to provide recovery services due to inadvertent or malicious alterations to user or system data.
The following are incorrect answers: Remote journaling refers to the parallel processing of transactions to an alternate site (as opposed to a batch dump process). Journaling is a technique used by database management systems to provide redundancy for their transactions. When a transaction is completed, the database management system duplicates the journal entry at a remote location. The journal provides sufficient detail for the transaction to be replayed on the remote system. This provides for database recovery in the event that the database becomes corrupted or unavailable.
Database shadowing uses the live processing of remote journaling, but creates even more redundancy by duplicating the database sets to multiple servers. There are also additional redundancy options available within application and database software platforms. For example, database shadowing may be used where a database management system updates records in multiple locations. This technique updates an entire copy of the database at a remote location.
Data clustering refers to the classification of data into groups (clusters). Clustering may also be used, although it should not be confused with redundancy. In clustering, two or more “partners” are joined into the cluster and may all provide service at the same time. For example, in an active–active pair, both systems may provide services at any time. In the case of a failure, the remaining partners may continue to provide service but at a decreased capacity.
The following resource(s) were used for this question:
Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 20403-20407 and 20411-20414 and 20375-20377 and 20280-20283). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Remember this is a NOT question. Hot sites do not provide a false sense of security since they are the best disaster recovery alternate for backup site that you rent.
A Cold, Warm, and Hot site is always a rental place in the context of the CBK. This is definivily the best choices out of the rental options that exists. It is fully configured and can be activated in a very short period of time.
Cold and Warm sites, not hot sites, provide a false sense of security because you can never fully test your plan.
In reality, using a cold site will most likely make effective recovery impossible or could lead to business closure if it takes more than two weeks for recovery.
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 284).

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 Qs 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:mempope@tellawcomlabs.com. (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).

Many elements of a BCP will address senior management, such as the statement of importance and priorities, the statement of organizational responsibility, and the statement of urgency and timing. Executive management staff initiates the project, gives final approval and gives ongoing support. The BCP committee directs the planning, implementation, and tests processes whereas functional business units participate in implementation and testing. 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 275).