Explanation/Reference:
Unless the evidence is illegal then it should be returned to owner, not destroyed.
The Evidence Life Cycle starts with the discovery and collection of the evidence. It progresses through the following series of states until it is finally returned to the victim or owner:
* Acquisition collection and identification
* Analysis
* Storage, preservation, and transportation
* Presented in court
* Returned to victim (owner)
The Second edition of the ISC2 book says on page 529-530:
Identifying evidence: Correctly identifying the crime scene, evidence, and potential containers of evidence.
Collecting or acquiring evidence: Adhering to the criminalistic principles and ensuring that the contamination and the destruction of the scene are kept to a minimum. Using sound, repeatable, collection techniques that allow for the demonstration of the accuracy and integrity of evidence, or copies of evidence.
Examining or analyzing the evidence: Using sound scientific methods to determine the characteristics of the evidence, conducting comparison for individuation of evidence, and conducting event reconstruction.
Presentation of findings: Interpreting the output from the examination and analysis based on findings of fact and articulating these in a format appropriate for the intended audience (e.g., court brief, executive memo, report).
Note on returning the evidence to the Owner/Victim
The final destination of most types of evidence is back with its original owner. Some types of evidence, such as
drugs or drug paraphernalia (i.e., contraband), are destroyed after the trial.
Any evidence gathered during a search, although maintained by law enforcement, is legally under the control of the courts. And although a seized item may be yours and may even have your name on it, it might not be returned to you unless the suspect signs a release or after a hearing by the court.
Unfortunately, many victims do not want to go to trial; they just want to get their property back.
Many investigations merely need the information on a disk to prove or disprove a fact in question; thus, there is no need to seize the entire system. Once a schematic of the system is drawn or photographed, the hard disk can be removed and then transported to a forensic lab for copying.
Mirror copies of the suspect disk are obtained using forensic software and then one of those copies can be returned to the victim so that business operations can resume.
Reference(s) used for this question:
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 309).
and
The Official Study Book, Second Edition, Page 529-230

The Diffie-Hellman algorithm is used for Key agreement (key distribution)
and cannot be used to encrypt and decrypt messages.
Source: WALLHOFF, John, CBK#5 Cryptography (CISSP Study Guide), April 2002 (page
4).
Note: key agreement, is different from key exchange, the functionality used by the other
asymmetric algorithms.
References:
AIO, third edition Cryptography (Page 632)
AIO, fourth edition Cryptography (Page 709)

Explanation/Reference:
This is one of the tricky negative question. You have to pay close attention to the word EXCEPT within the question.
The SSH transport layer is a secure, low level transport protocol. It provides strong encryption, cryptographic host authentication, and integrity protection.
Authentication in this protocol level is host-based; this protocol does not perform user authentication. A higher level protocol for user authentication can be designed on top of this protocol.
The protocol has been designed to be simple and flexible to allow parameter negotiation, and to minimize the number of round-trips. The key exchange method, public key algorithm, symmetric encryption algorithm, message authentication algorithm, and hash algorithm are all negotiated. It is expected that in most environments, only 2 round-trips will be needed for full key exchange, server authentication, service request, and acceptance notification of service request. The worst case is 3 round- trips.
The following are incorrect answers:
"Remote log-on" is incorrect. SSH does provide remote log-on.
"Command execution" is incorrect. SSH does provide command execution.
"Port forwarding" is incorrect. SSH does provide port forwarding. SSH also has a wonderful feature called SSH Port Forwarding, sometimes called SSH Tunneling, which allows you to establish a secure SSH session and then tunnel arbitrary TCP connections through it. Tunnels can be created at any time, with almost no effort and no programming, which makes them very appealing. See the article below in the reference to take a look at SSH Port Forwarding in detail, as it is a very useful but often misunderstood technology. SSH Port Forwarding can be used for secure communications in a myriad of different ways.
You can see a nice tutorial on the PUTTY web site on how to use PUTTY to do port forwarding at:
http://www.cs.uu.nl/technical/services/ssh/putty/puttyfw.html
Reference(s) used for this question:
RFC 4253 at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4253.txt
and
SSH Port Forwarding by Symantec

Section: Risk, Response and Recovery
Explanation/Reference:
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%5Czindex
%5C1995&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=712

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Pages 16, 32.