Explanation/Reference:
Explanation:
Mandatory access control (MAC) is an access policy that restricts access to objects based on the security clearance of a subject and the classification of an object.
Incorrect Answers:
A: Identity-based access control is a type of DAC system that allows or prevents access based on the identity of the subject.
B: Role-based access control (RBAC) provides access to resources according to the role the user holds within the company or the tasks that the user has been assigned.
C: Access in a DAC model is restricted based on the authorization granted to the users.
References:
Harris, Shon, All In One CISSP Exam Guide, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2013, pp. 220-228

The software plans and requirements phase addresses threats, vulnerabilities, security requirements, reasonable care, due diligence, legal liabilities, cost/benefit analysis, level of protection desired, test plans.
Implementation is incorrect because it deals with Installing security software, running the system, acceptance testing, security software testing, and complete documentation certification and accreditation (where necessary).
System Feasibility is incorrect because it deals with information security policy, standards, legal issues, and the early validation of concepts.
Product design is incorrect because it deals with incorporating security specifications, adjusting test plans and data, determining access controls, design documentation, evaluating encryption options, and verification.
Sources:
KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten
Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Chapter 7: Applications and
Systems Development (page 252).
KRUTZ, Ronald & VINES, Russel, The CISSP Prep Guide: Gold Edition, Wiley Publishing
Inc., 2003, Chapter 7: Security Life Cycle Components, Figure 7.5 (page 346).

Active Response Active responses can modify the environment using several different methods.
Typical responses include modifying firewall ACLs to block traffic based on ports, protocols, and source addresses, and even disabling all communications over specific cable segments. For example, if an IDS detects a SYN flood attack from a single IP address, the IDS can change the ACL to block all traffic from this IP address. Similarly, if the IDS detects a ping flood attack from multiple IP addresses, it can change the ACL to block all ICMP traffic.

Because computer-generated records normally fall under the category of hearsay evidence because they cannot be proven accurate and reliable this can be a problem.
Under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. This inadmissibility is known as the hearsay rule, although there are some exceptions for how, when, by whom and in what circumstances data was collected.
Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Chapter 9: Law, Investigation, and Ethics (page 310).
IMPORTANT NOTE: For the purpose of the exam it is very important to remember the Business Record exemption to the Hearsay Rule. For example: if you create log files and review them on a regular basis as part of a business process, such files would be admissable in court and they would not be considered hearsay because they were made in the course of regular business and it is part of regular course of business to create such record.
Here is another quote from the HISM book: Business Record Exemption to the Hearsay Rule
Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) allow a court to admit a report or other business document made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the [report or document], all as shown by testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.
To meet Rule 803(6) the witness must:
Have custody of the records in question on a regular basis.
Rely on those records in the regular course of business.
Know that they were prepared in the regular course of business.
Audit trails meet the criteria if they are produced in the normal course of business. The process to produce the output will have to be proven to be reliable. If computer-generated evidence is used and admissible, the court may order disclosure of the details of the computer, logs, and maintenance records in respect to the system generating the printout, and then the defense may use that material to attack the reliability of the evidence. If the audit trails are not used or reviewed
- at least the exceptions (e.g., failed log-on attempts) - in the regular course of business, they do not meet the criteria for admissibility.
Federal Rules of Evidence 1001(3) provide another exception to the hearsay rule. This rule allows a memory or disk dump to be admitted as evidence, even though it is not done in the regular course of business. This dump merely acts as statement of fact. System dumps (in binary or hexadecimal) are not hearsay because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the contents, but only the state of the computer.
BUSINESS RECORDS LAW EXAMPLE: The business records law was enacted in 1931 (PA No. 56). For a document to be admissible under the statute, the proponent must show: (1) the document was made in the regular course of business; (2) it was the regular course of business to make the record; and (3) the record was made when the act, transaction, or event occurred, or shortly thereafter (State v. Vennard, 159 Conn. 385, 397 (1970); Mucci v. LeMonte, 157 Conn. 566, 570 (1969). The failure to establish any one of these essential elements renders the document inadmissible under the statute (McCahill v. Town and Country Associates, Ltd. , 185 Conn. 37 (1981); State v. Peary, 176 Conn. 170 (1978); Welles v. Fish Transport Co. , , 123 Conn. 49 (1937).
The statute expressly provides that the person who made the business entry does not have to be unavailable as a witness and the proponent does not have to call as a witness the person who made the record or show the person to be unavailable (State v. Jeustiniano, 172 Conn. 275 (1977).
The person offering the business records as evidence does not have to independently prove the trustworthiness of the record. But, there is no presumption that the record is accurate; the record's accuracy and weight are issues for the trier of fact (State v. Waterman, 7 Conn. App. 326 (1986); Handbook of Connecticut Evidence, Second Edition, $ 11. 14. 3).
Reference: http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_lpa.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=16833&Index=I%3A%5Czinde x%5C1995&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=712

Normal outbound traffic has an internal source IP address and an external destination IP address. Traffic with an internal source IP address should only come from an internal interface. Such packets coming from an external interface should be dropped.
Packets with the source-routing option enabled usually indicates a network intrusion attempt.
Router information exchange protocols like RIP and OSPF should be dropped to avoid having
internal routing equipment being reconfigured by external agents.
Source: STREBE, Matthew and PERKINS, Charles, Firewalls 24seven, Sybex 2000, Chapter 10:
The Perfect Firewall.