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

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

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Hildred
4 months ago
Cyclical checks sound interesting, but how do they work?
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
4 months ago
Documenting is key, but it’s not foolproof.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
4 months ago
Really? Can’t someone just change the hash too?
upvoted 0 times
...
Marshall
4 months ago
I agree, hashing is crucial for data integrity!
upvoted 0 times
...
Tandra
5 months ago
MD5 hash is a solid way to check for tampering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lottie
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 months ago
Hmm, this seems like it could be tricky. I'll have to review my notes on evidence handling.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maybelle
5 months ago
I'm not sure about this one. I'll need to think it through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
...

Save Cancel