Section: Analysis and Monitoring
Explanation/Reference:
It is the systems auditor that should lead the effort to ensure that the security controls are in place and effective. The audit would verify that the controls comply with polices, procedures, laws, and regulations where applicable. The findings would provide these to senior management.
The following answers are incorrect:
the local security specialist. Is incorrect because an independent review should take place by a third party. The security specialist might offer mitigation strategies but it is the auditor that would ensure the effectiveness of the controls the business manager. Is incorrect because the business manager would be responsible that the controls are in place, but it is the auditor that would ensure the effectiveness of the controls.
the central security manager. Is incorrect because the central security manager would be responsible for implementing the controls, but it is the auditor that is responsibe for ensuring their effectiveness.

Section: Security Operation Adimnistration
Explanation/Reference:
Accreditation: is an administrative declaration by a designated authority that an information system is approved to operate in a particular security configuration with a prescribed set of safeguards. It is usually based on a technical certification of the system's security mechanisms.
Certification: Technical evaluation (usually made in support of an accreditation action) of an information system
\'s security features and other safeguards to establish the extent to which the system\'s design and implementation meet specified security requirements.
Source: SHIREY, Robert W., RFC2828: Internet Security Glossary, may 2000.

Section: Analysis and Monitoring
Explanation/Reference:
Unfortunately, anomaly detectors and the Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) based on them often produce a large number of false alarms, as normal patterns of user and system behavior can vary wildly. Being only able to identify correctly attacks they already know about is a characteristic of misuse detection (signature-based) IDSs. Application-based IDSs are a special subset of host-based IDSs that analyze the events transpiring within a software application. They are more vulnerable to attacks than host-based IDSs. Not being able to identify abnormal behavior would not cause false positives, since they are not identified.
Source: DUPUIS, Cl?ment, Access Control Systems and Methodology CISSP Open Study Guide, version 1.0, march 2002 (page 92).

The four modes of operation include: dedicated mode, system-high mode, compartmented mode, and multilevel mode.

Explanation/Reference:
The goal to this type of attack is to find the cryptographic key that was used to encrypt the message. Once the key has been found, the attacker would then be able to decrypt all messages that had been encrypted using that key.
The known-plaintext attack (KPA) or crib is an attack model for cryptanalysis where the attacker has samples of both the plaintext and its encrypted version (ciphertext), and is at liberty to make use of them to reveal further secret information such as secret keys and code books. The term "crib" originated at Bletchley Park, the British World War II decryption operation
In cryptography, a brute force attack or exhaustive key search is a strategy that can in theory be used against any encrypted data by an attacker who is unable to take advantage of any weakness in an encryption system that would otherwise make his task easier. It involves systematically checking all possible keys until the correct key is found. In the worst case, this would involve traversing the entire key space, also called search space.
In cryptography, a ciphertext-only attack (COA) or known ciphertext attack is an attack model for cryptanalysis where the attacker is assumed to have access only to a set of ciphertexts.
The attack is completely successful if the corresponding plaintexts can be deduced, or even better, the key. The ability to obtain any information at all about the underlying plaintext is still considered a success.
For example, if an adversary is sending ciphertext continuously to maintain traffic-flow security, it would be very useful to be able to distinguish real messages from nulls. Even making an informed guess of the existence of real messages would facilitate traffic analysis.
In the history of cryptography, early ciphers, implemented using pen-and-paper, were routinely broken using ciphertexts alone. Cryptographers developed statistical techniques for attacking ciphertext, such as frequency analysis. Mechanical encryption devices such as Enigma made these attacks much more difficult (although, historically, Polish cryptographers were able to mount a successful ciphertext-only cryptanalysis of the Enigma by exploiting an insecure protocol for indicating the message settings).
Every modern cipher attempts to provide protection against ciphertext-only attacks. The vetting process for a new cipher design standard usually takes many years and includes exhaustive testing of large quantities of ciphertext for any statistical departure from random noise. See: Advanced Encryption Standard process.
Also, the field of steganography evolved, in part, to develop methods like mimic functions that allow one piece of data to adopt the statistical profile of another. Nonetheless poor cipher usage or reliance on home-grown proprietary algorithms that have not been subject to thorough scrutiny has resulted in many computer-age encryption systems that are still subject to ciphertext-only attack. Examples include:
Early versions of Microsoft's PPTP virtual private network software used the same RC4 key for the sender and the receiver (later versions had other problems). In any case where a stream cipher like RC4 is used twice with the same key it is open to ciphertext-only attack. See: stream cipher attack Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), the first security protocol for Wi-Fi, proved vulnerable to several attacks, most of them ciphertext-only.
A chosen-plaintext attack (CPA) is an attack model for cryptanalysis which presumes that the attacker has the capability to choose arbitrary plaintexts to be encrypted and obtain the corresponding ciphertexts. The goal of the attack is to gain some further information which reduces the security of the encryption scheme.
In the worst case, a chosen-plaintext attack could reveal the scheme's secret key.
This appears, at first glance, to be an unrealistic model; it would certainly be unlikely that an attacker could persuade a human cryptographer to encrypt large amounts of plaintexts of the attacker's choosing. Modern cryptography, on the other hand, is implemented in software or hardware and is used for a diverse range of applications; for many cases, a chosen-plaintext attack is often very feasible. Chosen-plaintext attacks become extremely important in the context of public key cryptography, where the encryption key is public and attackers can encrypt any plaintext they choose.
Any cipher that can prevent chosen-plaintext attacks is then also guaranteed to be secure against known- plaintext and ciphertext-only attacks; this is a conservative approach to security.
Two forms of chosen-plaintext attack can be distinguished:
Batch chosen-plaintext attack, where the cryptanalyst chooses all plaintexts before any of them are encrypted. This is often the meaning of an unqualified use of "chosen-plaintext attack".
Adaptive chosen-plaintext attack, where the cryptanalyst makes a series of interactive queries, choosing subsequent plaintexts based on the information from the previous encryptions.
References:
Source: TIPTON, Harold, Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK (2007), page 271.
and
Wikipedia at the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen-plaintext_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known-plaintext_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciphertext-only_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_force_attack