Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

GIAC GISP Exam - Topic 5 Question 55 Discussion

Actual exam question for GIAC's GISP exam
Question #: 55
Topic #: 5
[All GISP Questions]

Which of the following evidences are the collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about the malicious activity/person?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Andra at Aug 26, 2024, 01:09 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium GISP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Val
6 months ago
Interesting, I never thought about circumstantial evidence like that!
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryll
6 months ago
I always thought D was the answer, but now I’m not so sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marica
6 months ago
Wait, are we sure it’s not C? Direct evidence seems more reliable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
7 months ago
I disagree, I’d go with A, corroborating evidence is stronger.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desiree
7 months ago
Definitely think it's B, circumstantial evidence is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katie
7 months ago
Incontrovertible sounds strong, but I don't think it fits the definition of what we're looking for here. I lean towards Circumstantial too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jospeh
7 months ago
I feel like I've seen a question like this before, and I think it was about how Circumstantial evidence can build a case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Benton
8 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about Direct evidence being more straightforward. Maybe that's the answer?
upvoted 0 times
...
Royal
8 months ago
I think the answer might be B, Circumstantial, because those are the facts that can lead to conclusions about someone's actions, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
8 months ago
I'm a little confused by the wording of the question. Are they asking about the specific type of evidence that can be used to infer a conclusion about malicious activity? I'll need to re-read this a few times to make sure I understand.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlette
8 months ago
Okay, let me break this down. Corroborating evidence supports or confirms other evidence, circumstantial evidence implies a conclusion, direct evidence directly proves something, and incontrovertible evidence is undisputable. I think I've got this!
upvoted 0 times
...
Noemi
8 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the types of evidence used in investigations. I'm pretty confident I can identify the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kina
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the differences between the answer choices here. I'll need to think through the definitions of each type of evidence carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherrie
8 months ago
I'm not totally confident, but I think option B, order processing, is the correct answer here. That seems to be the activity that matches the description in the question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chi
8 months ago
Two-factor authentication is a good security measure, but I don't think it's the best methodology for managing access rights on its own. I'll need to consider that in the broader context.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonard
2 years ago
I'm going with B) Circumstantial. It's like a game of Connect the Dots, but with shady people instead of pictures.
upvoted 0 times
Sunshine
2 years ago
C) Direct evidence is hard to argue against, though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryll
2 years ago
I think A) Corroborating evidence can also help strengthen the case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blythe
2 years ago
I agree, B) Circumstantial evidence can be very telling.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sophia
2 years ago
I agree with Casandra, circumstantial evidence can be very convincing in some cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Casandra
2 years ago
But direct evidence is not always available, circumstantial evidence can still be strong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erasmo
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe it is C) Direct.
upvoted 0 times
...
Caprice
2 years ago
Definitely B) Circumstantial. It's like solving a mystery, you know? Put all the clues together and figure out what really happened.
upvoted 0 times
Werner
2 years ago
Yeah, it's all about piecing together the puzzle to see the bigger picture.
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
2 years ago
I agree, B) Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful in connecting the dots.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Casandra
2 years ago
I think the answer is B) Circumstantial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jeff
2 years ago
I think the answer is B) Circumstantial. That's the type of evidence that can be used to draw conclusions about malicious activity.
upvoted 0 times
Gladys
2 years ago
Corroborating evidence can also strengthen a case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
2 years ago
I think direct evidence would be more convincing though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eladia
2 years ago
I agree, circumstantial evidence can be very telling.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel