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

- Free Preparation Discussions

IISFA II0-001 Exam - Topic 10 Question 81 Discussion

Actual exam question for IISFA's II0-001 exam

Question #: 81
Topic #: 10

[All II0-001 Questions]

You can show that the evidence was not tampered with by

ALooking at it

BCyclical Check

CMD5 hash of the original and copy

DDocumenting it

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Keneth at Feb 11, 2024, 02:27 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium II0-001 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Hildred

8 months ago

Cyclical checks sound interesting, but how do they work?

upvoted 0 times

...

Galen

8 months ago

Documenting is key, but it’s not foolproof.

upvoted 0 times

...

Belen

9 months ago

Really? Can’t someone just change the hash too?

upvoted 0 times

...

Marshall

9 months ago

I agree, hashing is crucial for data integrity!

upvoted 0 times

...

Tandra

9 months ago

MD5 hash is a solid way to check for tampering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lottie

9 months ago

I practiced a question similar to this, and I think the MD5 hash is a strong way to show evidence integrity, so I would lean towards C.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kayleigh

9 months ago

Cyclical checks sound familiar, but I can't recall the specifics. Is B really a common method for proving evidence wasn't tampered with?

upvoted 0 times

...

Diane

10 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like documenting evidence is important too. Could D be a valid option?

upvoted 0 times

...

Leanna

10 months ago

I think I remember something about using a hash function to verify data integrity, so maybe C is the right choice?

upvoted 0 times

...

Venita

10 months ago

Documenting the evidence is important, but I don't think that's the best way to show it wasn't tampered with. I'll have to consider the other options.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tran

10 months ago

Okay, I think I know the answer here. I'll go with C - using an MD5 hash to verify the original and copy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bonita

10 months ago

Hmm, this seems like it could be tricky. I'll have to review my notes on evidence handling.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maybelle

10 months ago

I'm not sure about this one. I'll need to think it through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leota

10 months ago

Looking at the evidence is a start, but I don't think that's enough on its own. I'll need to think about more technical ways to verify its integrity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chaya

10 months ago

This looks like a tricky OSPF routing question. I'll need to carefully analyze the configuration options to determine which one resolves the issue with the ASBR route propagation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Annamae

10 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The blockchain is supposed to be immutable, so I'm not sure if there are really any circumstances where the principles should be violated. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lelia

10 months ago

Ah, I remember learning about this in class. The key is that 802.1ag uses a different mechanism than the spanning-tree protocol in 802.1D. The CFM frames are used to detect loops, not the spanning-tree BPDUs. I'm confident B is the correct answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Claribel

10 months ago

The issue seems like it relates to early offer SDP, which we discussed in class. I keep mixing up which options support which codecs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nan

10 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking about poor segregation of duties, but there are a few options to consider. I'll need to carefully analyze each one to determine the best answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elmira

2 years ago

I'm not sure, but I think D) Documenting it can also help in showing evidence was not tampered with

upvoted 0 times

...

Tish

2 years ago

I agree with Maddie, using MD5 hash can verify integrity

upvoted 0 times

...

Maddie

2 years ago

I think the answer is C) MD5 hash of the original and copy

upvoted 0 times

...