Explanation/Reference:
The Bell-LaPadula model, mostly concerned with confidentiality, was proposed for enforcing access control in government and military applications. It supports mandatory access control by determining the access rights from the security levels associated with subjects and objects. It also supports discretionary access control by checking access rights from an access matrix. The Biba model, introduced in 1977, the Sutherland model, published in 1986, and the Brewer-Nash model, published in 1989, are concerned with integrity.
Source: ANDRESS, Mandy, Exam Cram CISSP, Coriolis, 2001, Chapter 2: Access Control Systems and Methodology (page 11).

Explanation/Reference:
The Rijndael algorithm, chosen as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) to replace DES, can be categorized as an iterated block cipher with a variable block length and key length that can be independently chosen as 128, 192 or 256 bits.
Below you have a summary of the differences between AES and Rijndael.
AES is the advanced encryption standard defined by FIPS 197. It is implemented differently than Rijndael:
FIPS-197 specifies that the block size must always be 128 bits in AES, and that the key size may be either
128, 192, or 256 bits. Therefore AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256 are actually:
Key Size (bits) Number of rounds
Block Size (bits)
AES-128
128 10 Rounds
128
AES-192
192 12 Rounds
128
AES-256
256 14 Rounds
128
Some book will say "up to 9 rounds will be done with a 128 bits keys". Really it is 10 rounds because you must include round zero which is the first round.
By contrast, the Rijndael specification per se is specified with block and key sizes that may be any multiple of 32 bits, both with a minimum of 128 and a maximum of 256 bits.
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 4: Cryptography (page 153).
and
FIPS 197
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Section: Network and Telecommunications
Explanation/Reference:
Categories 1 through 6 are based on the EIA/TIA-568-B standards.
On the newer wiring for LANs is CAT5e, an improved version of CAT5 which used to be outside of the standard, for more information on twisted pair, please see: twisted pair.
Category Cable Type Mhz Usage Speed
CAT1 UTP Analog voice, Plain Old Telephone System (POTS)
CAT2 UTP 4 Mbps on Token Ring, also used on Arcnet networks
CAT3 UTP, ScTP, STP 16 MHz 10 Mbps
CAT4 UTP, ScTP, STP 20 MHz 16 Mbps on Token Ring Networks
CAT5 UTP, ScTP, STP 100 MHz 100 Mbps on ethernet, 155 Mbps on ATM
CAT5e UTP, ScTP, STP 100 MHz 1 Gbps (out of standard version, improved version of CAT5) CAT6 UTP, ScTP, STP 250 MHz 10 Gbps CAT7 ScTP, STP 600 M 100 Gbps Category 6 has a minumum of 250 MHz of bandwidth. Allowing 10/100/1000 use with up to 100 meter cable length, along with 10GbE over shorter distances.
Category 6a or Augmented Category 6 has a minimum of 500 MHz of bandwidth. It is the newest standard and allows up to 10GbE with a length up to 100m.
Category 7 is a future cabling standard that should allow for up to 100GbE over 100 meters of cable. Expected availability is in 2013. It has not been approved as a cable standard, and anyone now selling you Cat. 7 cable is fooling you.
REFERENCES:
http://donutey.com/ethernet.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568-B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_1_cable

Section: Network and Telecommunications
Explanation/Reference:
Terminology can be confusing between the different souces as both CBK and AIO3 call an application layer firewall a proxy and proxy servers are generally classified as either circuit-level proxies or application level proxies.
The distinction is that a circuit level proxy creates a conduit through which a trusted host can communicate with an untrusted one and doesn't really look at the application contents of the packet (as an application level proxy does). SOCKS is one of the better known circuit-level proxies.
Firewalls
Packet Filtering Firewall - First Generation
n Screening Router
n Operates at Network and Transport level
n Examines Source and Destination IP Address
n Can deny based on ACLs
n Can specify Port
Application Level Firewall - Second Generation
n Proxy Server
n Copies each packet from one network to the other
n Masks the origin of the data
n Operates at layer 7 (Application Layer)
n Reduces Network performance since it has do analyze each packet and decide what to do with it.
n Also Called Application Layer Gateway
Stateful Inspection Firewalls - Third Generation
n Packets Analyzed at all OSI layers
n Queued at the network level
n Faster than Application level Gateway
Dynamic Packet Filtering Firewalls - Fourth Generation
n Allows modification of security rules
n Mostly used for UDP
n Remembers all of the UDP packets that have crossed the network's perimeter, and it decides whether to enable packets to pass through the firewall.
Kernel Proxy - Fifth Generation
n Runs in NT Kernel
n Uses dynamic and custom TCP/IP-based stacks to inspect the network packets and to enforce security policies.
"Current level firewall" is incorrect. This is an amost-right-sounding distractor to confuse the unwary.
"Cache level firewall" is incorrect. This too is a distractor.
"Session level firewall" is incorrect. This too is a distractor.
References
CBK, p. 466 - 467
AIO3, pp. 486 - 490
CISSP Study Notes from Exam Prep Guide

Section: Risk, Response and Recovery
Explanation/Reference:
The main advantage of the qualitative impact analysis is that it prioritizes the risks and identifies areas for immediate improvement in addressing the vulnerabilities. It does not provide specific quantifiable measurements of the magnitude of the impacts, therefore making a cost-analysis of any recommended controls difficult. Since it involves a consensus of export and some guesswork based on the experience of Subject Matter Experts (SME's), it can not be easily automated.
Reference used for this question:
STONEBURNER, Gary et al., NIST Special publication 800-30, Risk management Guide for Information Technology Systems, 2001 (page 23).