The CPU, storage devices and peripherals each have specialized roles in the security archecture. The CPU, or microprocessor, is the brains behind a computer system and performs calculations as it solves problemes and performs system tasks. Storage devices provide both long-and short-term stoarge of information that the CPU has either processed or may process. Peripherals (scanners, printers, modems, etc) are devices that either input datra or receive the data output by the CPU.
The motherboard is the main circuit board of a microcomputer and contains the connectors for attaching additional boards. Typically, the motherboard contains the CPU, BIOS, memory, mass storage interfaces, serial and parallel ports, expansion slots, and all the controllers required to control standard peripheral devices.
Reference(s) used for this question: TIPTON, Harold F., The Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK (2007), page 308.

Actually the term “remanence” comes from electromagnetism, the study of the electromagnetics. Originally referred to (and still does in that field of study) the magnetic flux that remains in a magnetic circuit after an applied magnetomotive force has been removed. Absolutely no way a candidate will see anywhere near that much detail on any similar CISSP question, but having read this, a candidate won’t be likely to forget it either.
It is becoming increasingly commonplace for people to buy used computer equipment, such as a hard drive, or router, and find information on the device left there by the previous owner; information they thought had been deleted. This is a classic example of data remanence: the remains of partial or even the entire data set of digital information. Normally, this refers to the data that remain on media after they are written over or degaussed. Data remanence is most common in storage systems but can also occur in memory.
Specialized hardware devices known as degaussers can be used to erase data saved to magnetic media. The measure of the amount of energy needed to reduce the magnetic field on the media to zero is known as coercivity.
It is important to make sure that the coercivity of the degausser is of sufficient strength to meet object reuse requirements when erasing data. If a degausser is used with insufficient coercivity, then a remanence of the data will exist. Remanence is the measure of the existing magnetic field on the media; it is the residue that remains after an object is degaussed or written over.
Data is still recoverable even when the remanence is small. While data remanence exists, there is no assurance of safe object reuse.
Reference(s) 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 4207-4210). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition. and Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 19694-19699). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Verification vs. Validation:
Verification determines if the product accurately represents and meets the specifications. A product can be developed that does not match the original specifications. This step ensures that the specifications are properly met.
Validation determines if the product provides the necessary solution intended real-world problem. In large projects, it is easy to lose sight of overall goal. This exercise ensures that the main goal of the project is met.
From DITSCAP:
6.3.2. Phase 2, Verification. The Verification phase shall include activities to verify compliance of the system with previously agreed security requirements. For each life-cycle development activity, DoD Directive 5000.1 (reference (i)), there is a corresponding set of security activities, enclosure 3, that shall verify compliance with the security requirements and evaluate vulnerabilities.
6.3.3. Phase 3, Validation. The Validation phase shall include activities to evaluate the fully integrated system to validate system operation in a specified computing environment with an acceptable level of residual risk. Validation shall culminate in an approval to operate.
You must also be familiar with Verification and Validation for the purpose of the exam. A simple definition for Verification would be whether or not the developers followed the design specifications along with the security requirements. A simple definition for Validation would be whether or not the final product meets the end user needs and can be use for a specific purpose.
Wikipedia has an informal description that is currently written as: Validation can be expressed by the query “Are you building the right thing?” and Verification by “Are you building it right?
NOTE: DITSCAP was replaced by DIACAP some time ago (2007). While DITSCAP had defined both a verification and a validation phase, the DIACAP only has a validation phase. It may not make a difference in the answer for the exam; however, DIACAP is the cornerstone policy of DOD C&A and IA efforts today. Be familiar with both terms just in case all of a sudden the exam becomes updated with the new term.
Reference(s) used for this question:
Harris, Shon (2012-10-18). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 6th Edition (p. 1106). McGraw-Hill. Kindle Edition.
http://iase.disa.mil/ditscap/DITSCAP.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_validation For the definition of “validation” in DIACAP, Click Here Further sources for the phases in DIACAP, Click Here

Software Development Verification vs. Validation:
Verification determines if the product accurately represents and meets the design specifications given to the developers. A product can be developed that does not match the original specifications. This step ensures that the specifications are properly met and closely followed by the development team.
Validation determines if the product provides the necessary solution intended real-world problem. It validates whether or not the final product is what the user expected in the first place and whether or not it solve the problem it intended to solve. In large projects, it is easy to lose sight of overall goal. This exercise ensures that the main goal of the project is met.
From DITSCAP:
6.3.2. Phase 2, Verification. The Verification phase shall include activities to verify compliance of the system with previously agreed security requirements. For each life-cycle development activity, DoD Directive 5000.1 (reference (i)), there is a corresponding set of security activities, enclosure 3, that shall verify compliance with the security requirements and evaluate vulnerabilities.
6.3.3. Phase 3, Validation. The Validation phase shall include activities to evaluate the fully integrated system to validate system operation in a specified computing environment with an acceptable level of residual risk. Validation shall culminate in an approval to operate.
NOTE: DIACAP has replace DITSCAP but the definition above are still valid and applicable for the purpose of the exam.
Reference(s) used for this question: Harris, Shon (2012-10-25). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 6th Edition (p. 1106). McGraw-Hill. Kindle Edition. and http://iase.disa.mil/ditscap/DITSCAP.html

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a service mark owned by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and refers to a development model elicited from actual data. The data was collected from organizations that contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense, who funded the research, and became the foundation from which CMU created the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Like any model, it is an abstraction of an existing system.
The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a methodology used to develop and refine an organization’s software development process. The model describes a five-level evolutionary path of increasingly organized and systematically more mature processes. CMM was developed and is promoted by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), a research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). SEI was founded in 1984 to address software engineering issues and, in a broad sense, to advance software engineering methodologies. More specifically, SEI was established to optimize the process of developing, acquiring, and maintaining heavily software-reliant systems for the DoD. Because the processes involved are equally applicable to the software industry as a whole, SEI advocates industry-wide adoption of the CMM.
The CMM is similar to ISO 9001, one of the ISO 9000 series of standards specified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO 9000 standards specify an effective quality system for manufacturing and service industries; ISO 9001 deals specifically with software development and maintenance. The main difference between the two systems lies in their respective purposes: ISO 9001 specifies a minimal acceptable quality level for software processes, while the CMM establishes a framework for continuous process improvement and is more explicit than the ISO standard in defining the means to be employed to that end. CMM’s Five Maturity Levels of Software Processes
At the initial level, processes are disorganized, even chaotic. Success is likely to depend on individual efforts, and is not considered to be repeatable, because processes would not be sufficiently defined and documented to allow them to be replicated.
At the repeatable level, basic project management techniques are established, and successes could be repeated, because the requisite processes would have been made established, defined, and documented.
At the defined level, an organization has developed its own standard software process through greater attention to documentation, standardization, and integration.
At the managed level, an organization monitors and controls its own processes through data collection and analysis.
At the optimizing level, processes are constantly being improved through monitoring feedback from current processes and introducing innovative processes to better serve the organization’s particular needs.
When it is applied to an existing organization’s software development processes, it allows an effective approach toward improving them. Eventually it became clear that the model could be applied to other processes. This gave rise to a more general concept that is applied to business processes and to developing people. CMM is superseded by CMMI
The CMM model proved useful to many organizations, but its application in software development has sometimes been problematic. Applying multiple models that are not integrated within and across an organization could be costly in terms of training, appraisals, and improvement activities. The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple CMMs.
For software development processes, the CMM has been superseded by Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), though the CMM continues to be a general theoretical process capability model used in the public domain. CMM is adapted to processes other than software development
The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. Though it comes from the area of software development, it can be, has been, and continues to be widely applied as a general model of the maturity of processes (e.g., IT Service Management processes) in IS/IT (and other) organizations.
Source:
http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid92_gc… and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model

The Answer: People. The other choices can be strengthened and counted on (For the most part) to remain consistent if properly protected. People are fallible and unpredictable. Most security intrusions are caused by employees. People get tired, careless, and greedy. They are not always reliable and may falter in following defined guidelines and best practices. Security professionals must install adequate prevention and detection controls and properly train all systems users Proper hiring and firing practices can eliminate certain risks. Security Awareness training is key to ensuring people are aware of risks and their responsibilities.
The following answers are incorrect:Software. Although software exploits are major threat and cause for concern, people are the weakest point in a security posture. Software can be removed, upgraded or patched to reduce risk.
Communications. Although many attacks from inside and outside an organization use communication methods such as the network infrastructure, this is not the weakest point in a security posture. Communications can be monitored, devices installed or upgraded to reduce risk and react to attack attempts.
Hardware. Hardware components can be a weakness in a security posture, but they are not the weakest link of the choices provided. Access to hardware can be minimized by such measures as installing locks and monitoring access in and out of certain areas.
The following reference(s) were/was used to create this question:
Shon Harris AIO v.3 P.19, 107-109 ISC2 OIG 2007, p.51-55

A Pseudo flaw is something that looks like it is vulnerable to attack, but really acts as an alarm or triggers automatic actions when an intruder attempts to exploit the flaw.
The following answers are incorrect:
An omission when generating Psuedo-code. Is incorrect because it is a distractor. Used for testing for bounds violations in application programming. Is incorrect, this is a testing methodology. A normally generated page fault causing the system to halt. This is incorrect because it is distractor.

It is critical that a determination be made of WHAT data is important and should be retained and protected. Without determining the data to be backed up, the potential for error increases. A record or file could be vital and yet not included in a backup routine. Alternatively, temporary or insignificant files could be included in a backup routine unnecessarily.
The following answers were incorrect:
When to make backups Although it is important to consider schedules for backups, this is done after the decisions are made of what should be included in the backup routine.
Where to keep backups The location of storing backup copies of data (Such as tapes, on-line backups, etc) should be made after determining what should be included in the backup routine and the method to store the backup.
How to store backups The backup methodology should be considered after determining what data should be included in the backup routine.

Reason: The security administrator, security analysis, and the system auditor need access to portions of the security systems to accomplish their jobs. The system programmer does not need access to the working (AKA: Production) security systems.
Programmers should not be allowed to have ongoing direct access to computers running production systems (systems used by the organization to operate its business). To maintain system integrity, any changes they make to production systems should be tracked by the organization’s change management control system.
Because the security administrator’s job is to perform security functions, the performance of non-security tasks must be strictly limited. This separation of duties reduces the likelihood of loss that results from users abusing their authority by taking actions outside of their assigned functional responsibilities.
References: OFFICIAL (ISC)2® GUIDE TO THE CISSP® EXAM (2003), Hansche, S., Berti, J., Hare, H., Auerbach Publication, FL, Chapter 5 -Operations Security, section 5.3,”Security Technology and Tools,” Personnel section (page 32).
KRUTZ, R. & VINES, R. The CISSP Prep Guide: Gold Edition (2003), Wiley Publishing Inc., Chapter 6: Operations Security, Separations of Duties (page 303).

Atoms and Data
Shon Harris says: “A device that performs degaussing generates a coercive magnetic force that reduces the magnetic flux density of the storage media to zero. This magnetic force is what properly erases data from media. Data are stored on magnetic media by the representation of the polarization of the atoms. Degaussing changes”
The latest ISC2 book says: “Degaussing can also be a form of media destruction. High-power degaussers are so strong in some cases that they can literally bend and warp the platters in a hard drive. Shredding and burning are effective destruction methods for non-rigid magnetic media. Indeed, some shredders are capable of shredding some rigid media such as an optical disk. This may be an effective alternative for any optical media containing nonsensitive information due to the residue size remaining after feeding the disk into the machine. However, the residue size might be too large for media containing sensitive information. Alternatively, grinding and pulverizing are acceptable choices for rigid and solid-state media. Specialized devices are available for grinding the face of optical media that either sufficiently scratches the surface to render the media unreadable or actually grinds off the data layer of the disk. Several services also exist which will collect drives, destroy them on site if requested and provide certification of completion. It will be the responsibility of the security professional to help, select, and maintain the most appropriate solutions for media cleansing and disposal.”
Degaussing is achieved by passing the magnetic media through a powerful magnet field to rearrange the metallic particles, completely removing any resemblance of the previously recorded signal (from the “all about degaussers link below). Therefore, degaussing will work on any electronic based media such as floppy disks, or hard disks -all of these are examples of electronic storage. However, “read-only media” includes items such as paper printouts and CD-ROM wich do not store data in an electronic form or is not magnetic storage. Passing them through a magnet field has no effect on them.
Not all clearing/ purging methods are applicable to all media— for example, optical media is not susceptible to degaussing, and overwriting may not be effective against Flash devices. The degree to which information may be recoverable by a sufficiently motivated and capable adversary must not be underestimated or guessed at in ignorance. For the highest-value commercial data, and for all data regulated by government or military classification rules, read and follow the rules and standards.
I will admit that this is a bit of a trick question. Determining the difference between “read-only media” and “read-only memory” is difficult for the question taker. However, I believe it is representative of the type of question you might one day see on an exam.
The other answers are incorrect because:
Floppy Disks, Magnetic Tapes, and Magnetic Hard Disks are all examples of magnetic storage, and therefore are erased by degaussing.
A videotape is a recording of images and sounds on to magnetic tape as opposed to film stock used in filmmaking or random access digital media. Videotapes are also used for storing scientific or medical data, such as the data produced by an electrocardiogram. In most cases, a helical scan video head rotates against the moving tape to record the data in two dimensions, because video signals have a very high bandwidth, and static heads would require extremely high tape speeds. Videotape is used in both video tape recorders (VTRs) or, more commonly and more recently, videocassette recorder (VCR) and camcorders. A Tape use a linear method of storing information and since nearly all video recordings made nowadays are digital direct to disk recording (DDR), videotape is expected to gradually lose importance as non-linear/random-access methods of storing digital video data become more common.
Reference(s) used for this question:
Harris, Shon (2012-10-25). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 6th Edition (Kindle Locations 25627-25630). McGraw-Hill. Kindle Edition. Schneiter, Andrew (2013-04-15). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition : Security Operations (Kindle Locations 580-588). . Kindle Edition.
All About Degaussers and Erasure of Magnetic Media: http://www.degausser.co.uk/degauss/degabout.htm http://www.degaussing.net/ http://www.cerberussystems.com/INFOSEC/stds/ncsctg25.htm