Pass ISC CISSP Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

Incorrect — it fails the original constraint. Missing custody history cannot be cured by silently resetting records.

Incorrect — the measure Designate a business information owner with documented classification, purpose and lifecycle authority. addresses a different case: A cloud analytics warehouse has three teams editing access policy, but nobody approves dataset retention or permitted secondary use.

Incorrect — this evidence applies to another case: A cloud analytics warehouse has three teams editing access policy, but nobody approves dataset retention or permitted secondary use. The specified requirement here is After a datacenter inventory transfer, several encrypted disks have missing custodian signatures and unclear asset assignment.

This other observation is relevant to: A manufacturer decommissions a storage array after moving confidential designs, but snapshots and spare disks remain attached.

An approved change without an executed test cannot prove operating effectiveness. The needed evidence is A signed reconciliation confirms device IDs, prior and new custodians, and exception investigations.

This demonstrates controls in another circumstance: A cloud analytics warehouse has three teams editing access policy, but nobody approves dataset retention or permitted secondary use.

This remains inappropriate: Missing custody history cannot be cured by silently resetting records.

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: A signed reconciliation confirms device IDs, prior and new custodians, and exception investigations.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: Assets must have traceable handling authority and inventory lifecycle records. It does not directly meet the new condition.

Formatting may leave recoverable information and is not a reliable sanitization method. The rejected action is: Apply a quick file-system format and resell the tapes as clean.

This is useful evidence after implementation, rather than the FIRST recommended decision for this objective. A destruction certificate reconciles each tape's inventory ID, approved method and chain of custody.

This addresses a distinct subsequent requirement: Legal counsel then issues a litigation hold over a subset of tapes that would otherwise be destroyed. Legal preservation duties override the normal disposal schedule for data covered by the hold.

Approval alone cannot fix the specific weakness: Formatting may leave recoverable information and is not a reliable sanitization method.

The subsequent circumstance is separate and does not explain why this proposed action fails the initial case. Legal preservation duties override the normal disposal schedule for data covered by the hold.

Destroying records would weaken oversight and cannot remedy the immediate technical or governance flaw: Formatting may leave recoverable information and is not a reliable sanitization method.

An unexecuted future plan does not prove current effectiveness for the stated 2.4 objective. The evidence should include: A destruction certificate reconciles each tape's inventory ID, approved method and chain of custody.

Absence of reported incidents is not a controlled validation of the requirement. A stronger proof is: A destruction certificate reconciles each tape's inventory ID, approved method and chain of custody.

Discussion of a different design does not demonstrate the deployed control. Legal preservation duties override the normal disposal schedule for data covered by the hold.

This addresses the original situation: Data remanence makes deletion or formatting inadequate for some media; final handling needs verifiable destruction. It does not directly meet the changed requirement: Legal counsel then issues a litigation hold over a subset of tapes that would otherwise be destroyed.

The earlier rejected approach remains inappropriate. Formatting may leave recoverable information and is not a reliable sanitization method.

The new requirement needs an accountable response, not automatic deferral. Legal preservation duties override the normal disposal schedule for data covered by the hold.

This response addresses a different condition: A research organization wants secure erasure of solid-state drives before disposal, but overwriting reports may not cover spare blocks. The present case requires the measure described by Enforce purpose-bound retention and automated deletion or aggregation at the approved endpoint.

Speculative use does not justify indefinite personal data retention. The proposal would not be defensible for this case.

This is appropriate for a later condition (The fraud team later shows a documented lawful need for a limited longer retention subset.), but it does not directly resolve the initial need. An evidence-based exception can preserve necessary data without indefinite general retention.

This is an advantage of another design (Map all primary and replica data locations and ensure approved residency and contractual rules.), not the particular flaw of Retain raw identifiable histories forever to preserve hypothetical future use.

This is a limitation elsewhere: A public-sector agency stores backup copies in a region with a different legal jurisdiction than its production database. It does not explain the deficiency of the specified proposed approach.

This explains a later shift in requirements (The fraud team later shows a documented lawful need for a limited longer retention subset.), not the failure of the current proposal.

An approved change without an executed test cannot prove operating effectiveness. The needed evidence is Scheduled deletion logs and independent samples confirm ninety-day cutoff and approved exceptions.

This demonstrates controls in another circumstance: A manufacturer decommissions a storage array after moving confidential designs, but snapshots and spare disks remain attached.

This other observation is relevant to: A public-sector agency stores backup copies in a region with a different legal jurisdiction than its production database. In the current case, the assessed requirement is: A retail analytics team retains raw customer browsing events indefinitely despite a documented ninety-day operational need. The organization has now implemented this response: Enforce purpose-bound retention and automated deletion or aggregation at the approved endpoint. Which observation would MOST directly demonstrate that the security objective was met.

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: Scheduled deletion logs and independent samples confirm ninety-day cutoff and approved exceptions.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: Longer-than-needed storage enlarges privacy, breach and discovery exposure. It does not directly meet the new condition.

This remains inappropriate: Speculative use does not justify indefinite personal data retention.