The observation that should be of most concern to the auditor when reviewing security controls related to collaboration tools for a business unit responsible for intellectual property and patents is that employees can share files with users outside the company through collaboration tools. Collaboration tools are software or hardware devices that enable users to communicate, cooperate, and coordinate with each other on a common task or project. Collaboration tools can facilitate information sharing and knowledge exchange among users, but they can also pose security risks if not properly controlled or managed. Employees can share files with users outside the company through collaboration tools, as this can compromise the security and confidentiality of intellectual property and patents, which are valuable and sensitive assets of the organization. Employees may share files with unauthorized or untrusted users who may misuse or disclose the intellectual property and patents, either intentionally or unintentionally. This can cause harm or damage to the organization, such as loss of competitive advantage, reputation, revenue, or legal rights. Training was not provided to the department that handles intellectual property and patents is a possible observation that could indicate a security issue related to collaboration tools for a business unit responsible for intellectual property and patents, but it is not the most concerning one. Training is an activity that educates and instructs users on how to use collaboration tools effectively and securely, such as how to access, share, store, and protect information using collaboration tools.
Training was not provided to the department that handles intellectual property and patents, as this can affect the awareness and competence of users on collaboration tools, and increase the likelihood of errors or mistakes that may compromise the security or quality of information. However, this observation may not be directly related to collaboration tools, as it may apply to any information system or resource used by the department.
Logging and monitoring for content filtering is not enabled is a possible observation that could indicate a security issue related to collaboration tools for a business unit responsible for intellectual property and patents, but it is not the most concerning one. Logging and monitoring are processes that record and analyze the events or activities that occur on an information system or network, such as user actions, system operations, data changes, errors, alerts, etc. Content filtering is a technique that blocks or allows access to certain types of information based on predefined criteria or rules, such as keywords, categories, sources, etc. Logging and monitoring for content filtering is not enabled, as this can affect the auditability, accountability, and visibility of collaboration tools, and prevent detection or investigation of security incidents or violations related to information sharing using collaboration tools. However, this observation may not be specific to collaboration tools, as it may affect any information system or network that uses content filtering. The collaboration tool is hosted and can only be accessed via an Internet browser is a possible observation that could indicate a security issue related to collaboration tools for a business unit responsible for intellectual property and patents, but it is not the most concerning one. A hosted collaboration tool is a type of cloud-based service that provides collaboration functionality over the Internet without requiring installation or maintenance on local devices. An Internet browser is a software application that enables users to access and interact with web-based content or services. The collaboration tool is hosted and can only be accessed via an Internet browser, as this can affect the availability and reliability of collaboration tools, and introduce security or privacy risks for information sharing using collaboration tools. However, this observation may not be unique to collaboration tools, as it may apply to any cloud-based service that uses an Internet browser.

Explanation/Reference:
Explanation:
The calculation of a hash, or digest, of the data that are transmitted and its encryption require the public key of the client (receiver) and is called a signature of the message, or digital signature. The receiver performs the same process and then compares the received hash, once it has been decrypted with their private key, to the hash that is calculated with the received data. If they are the same, the conclusion would be that there is integrity in the data that have arrived and the origin is authenticated. The concept of encrypting the hash with the private key of the originator provides non repudiation, as it can only be decrypted with their public key and, as the CD suggests, the private key would not be known to the recipient. Simply put, in a key-pair situation, anything that can be decrypted by a sender's public key must have been encrypted with their private key, so they must have been the sender, i.e., non repudiation.
Choice C is incorrect because, if this were the case, the hash could not be decrypted by the recipient, so the benefit of non repudiation would be lost and there could be no verification that the message had not been intercepted and amended. A digital signature is created by encrypting with a private key. A person creating the signature uses their own private key, otherwise everyone would be able to create a signature with any public key. Therefore, the signature of the client is created with the client's private key, and this can be verified-by

"An intrusion detection system should to able to run continually without human supervision. The
system must be reliable enough to allow it to run in the background of the system being observed.
However, it should not be a ""black
box"", coz you want to ensure its internal workings are examinable from outside."