Joe needs to track employees who log into a confidential database and edit files. In the past,
critical files have been edited, and no one admits to making the edits. Which of the following does
Joe need to implement in order to enforce accountability?
A.
Non-repudiation
B.
Fault tolerance
C.
Hashing
D.
Redundancy
A
0
0
A
As far as I know , anything that has to do with accountability goes in line with non-repudiation
0
0
Agreed, Non-Repudiation
0
0
Yup it’s A. Are all of these answers coming from pass4sure? A friend gave me his app so I can study and I find that about 5% of the answers are wrong.
0
0
The reason A is correct answer because Hashing Ccn confirm changes to file still but cannot prove who change it
0
0
ullo2000 is right. The answer is non-repudiation. Hashing proves integrity, but it does not prove who change it.
0
0
It is an interesting question. We know that B.Fault tolerance and D.Redundancy are out from the onset.
This leaves a tossup between: A and C
Nonrepudiation is the assurance that someone cannot deny something. Typically, nonrepudiation refers to the ability to ensure that a party to a contract or a COMMUNICATION cannot deny the authenticity of their signature on a document or the sending of a message that they originated.
So as far as I know “Non repudiation” can be only used with DATA IN TRANSIT.
In this question, we are talking about DATA AT REST.
Also , we are talking about the INTEGRITY of the files. This is not achieved by A, B or D
So C- Hashing is the only answer which has to do with file integrity. We will know that the file was altered, yet it does not explain by whom.
The best answer would have been to enable auditing in the object. This way we would know exactly who did it and when, with a proven historical track record
0
0