Explanation/Reference:
A "Degausser (Otherwise known as a Bulk Eraser) has the main function of reducing to near zero the magnetic flux stored in the magnetized medium. Flux density is measured in Gauss or Tesla. The operation is speedier than overwriting and done in one short operation. This is achieved by subjecting the subject in bulk to a series of fields of alternating polarity and gradually decreasing strength.
The following answers are incorrect:Parity Bit Manipulation. Parity has to do with disk lerror detection, not data removal. A bit or series of bits appended to a character or block of characters to ensure that the information received is the same as the infromation that was sent.
Zeroization. Zeroization involves overwrting data to sanitize it. It is time-consuming and not foolproof.
The potential of restoration of data does exist with this method.
Buffer overflow. This is a detractor. Although many Operating Systems use a disk buffer to temporarily hold data read from disk, its primary purpose has no connection to data removal. An overflow goes outside the constraints defined for the buffer and is a method used by an attacker to attempt access to a system.
The following reference(s) were/was used to create this question:
Shon Harris AIO v3. pg 908
Reference: What is degaussing.

Accreditation is the authorization by management to implement software or systems in a production environment. This authorization may be either provisional or full.
The following are incorrect answers:
Certification is incorrect. Certification is the process of evaluating the security stance of the
software or system against a selected set of standards or policies. Certification is the
technical evaluation of a product. This may precede accreditation but is not a required
precursor.
Acceptance is incorrect. This term is sometimes used as the recognition that a piece of
software or system has met a set of functional or service level criteria (the new payroll
system has passed its acceptance test). Certification is the better tem in this context.
Evaluation is incorrect. Evaluation is certainly a part of the certification process but it is not
the best answer to the question.
Reference(s) used for this question:
The Official Study Guide to the CBK from ISC2, pages 559-560
AIO3, pp. 314 - 317
AIOv4 Security Architecture and Design (pages 369 - 372)
AIOv5 Security Architecture and Design (pages 370 - 372)

Section: Access Control
Explanation/Reference:
A central authority determines what subjects can have access to certain objects based on the organizational security policy.
The key focal point of this question is the 'central authority' that determines access rights.
Cecilia one of the quiz user has sent me feedback informing me that NIST defines MAC as: "MAC Policy means that Access Control Policy Decisions are made by a CENTRAL AUTHORITY. Which seems to indicate there could be two good answers to this question.
However if you read the NISTR document mentioned in the references below, it is also mentioned that: MAC is the most mentioned NDAC policy. So MAC is a form of NDAC policy.
Within the same document it is also mentioned: "In general, all access control policies other than DAC are grouped in the category of non- discretionary access control (NDAC). As the name implies, policies in this category have rules that are not established at the discretion of the user. Non-discretionary policies establish controls that cannot be changed by users, but only through administrative action." Under NDAC you have two choices:
Rule Based Access control and Role Base Access Control
MAC is implemented using RULES which makes it fall under RBAC which is a form of NDAC. It is a subset of NDAC.
This question is representative of what you can expect on the real exam where you have more than once choice that seems to be right. However, you have to look closely if one of the choices would be higher level or if one of the choice falls under one of the other choice. In this case NDAC is a better choice because MAC is falling under NDAC through the use of Rule Based Access Control.
The following are incorrect answers:
MANDATORY ACCESS CONTROL
In Mandatory Access Control the labels of the object and the clearance of the subject determines access rights, not a central authority. Although a central authority (Better known as the Data Owner) assigns the label to the object, the system does the determination of access rights automatically by comparing the Object label with the Subject clearance. The subject clearance MUST dominate (be equal or higher) than the object being accessed.
The need for a MAC mechanism arises when the security policy of a system dictates that:
1. Protection decisions must not be decided by the object owner.
2. The system must enforce the protection decisions (i.e., the system enforces the security policy over the wishes or intentions of the object owner).
Usually a labeling mechanism and a set of interfaces are used to determine access based on the MAC policy; for example, a user who is running a process at the Secret classification should not be allowed to read a file with a label of Top Secret. This is known as the "simple security rule," or "no read up." Conversely, a user who is running a process with a label of Secret should not be allowed to write to a file with a label of Confidential. This rule is called the "*-property" (pronounced "star property") or "no write down." The *- property is required to maintain system security in an automated environment.
DISCRETIONARY ACCESS CONTROL
In Discretionary Access Control the rights are determined by many different entities, each of the persons who have created files and they are the owner of that file, not one central authority.
DAC leaves a certain amount of access control to the discretion of the object's owner or anyone else who is authorized to control the object's access. For example, it is generally used to limit a user's access to a file; it is the owner of the file who controls other users' accesses to the file. Only those users specified by the owner may have some combination of read, write, execute, and other permissions to the file.
DAC policy tends to be very flexible and is widely used in the commercial and government sectors. However, DAC is known to be inherently weak for two reasons:
First, granting read access is transitive; for example, when Ann grants Bob read access to a file, nothing stops Bob from copying the contents of Ann's file to an object that Bob controls. Bob may now grant any other user access to the copy of Ann's file without Ann's knowledge.
Second, DAC policy is vulnerable to Trojan horse attacks. Because programs inherit the identity of the invoking user, Bob may, for example, write a program for Ann that, on the surface, performs some useful function, while at the same time destroys the contents of Ann's files. When investigating the problem, the audit files would indicate that Ann destroyed her own files. Thus, formally, the drawbacks of DAC are as follows:
Discretionary Access Control (DAC) Information can be copied from one object to another; therefore, there is no real assurance on the flow of information in a system.
No restrictions apply to the usage of information when the user has received it.
The privileges for accessing objects are decided by the owner of the object, rather than through a system-wide policy that reflects the organization's security requirements.
ACLs and owner/group/other access control mechanisms are by far the most common mechanism for implementing DAC policies. Other mechanisms, even though not designed with DAC in mind, may have the capabilities to implement a DAC policy.
RULE BASED ACCESS CONTROL
In Rule-based Access Control a central authority could in fact determine what subjects can have access when assigning the rules for access. However, the rules actually determine the access and so this is not the most correct answer.
RuBAC (as opposed to RBAC, role-based access control) allow users to access systems and information based on pre determined and configured rules. It is important to note that there is no commonly understood definition or formally defined standard for rule-based access control as there is for DAC, MAC, and RBAC.
"Rule-based access" is a generic term applied to systems that allow some form of organization-defined rules, and therefore rule-based access control encompasses a broad range of systems. RuBAC may in fact be combined with other models, particularly RBAC or DAC. A RuBAC system intercepts every access request and compares the rules with the rights of the user to make an access decision. Most of the rule-based access control relies on a security label system, which dynamically composes a set of rules defined by a security policy. Security labels are attached to all objects, including files, directories, and devices. Sometime roles to subjects (based on their attributes) are assigned as well. RuBAC meets the business needs as well as the technical needs of controlling service access. It allows business rules to be applied to access control-for example, customers who have overdue balances may be denied service access. As a mechanism for MAC, rules of RuBAC cannot be changed by users. The rules can be established by any attributes of a system related to the users such as domain, host, protocol, network, or IP addresses. For example, suppose that a user wants to access an object in another network on the other side of a router. The router employs RuBAC with the rule composed by the network addresses, domain, and protocol to decide whether or not the user can be granted access. If employees change their roles within the organization, their existing authentication credentials remain in effect and do not need to be re configured. Using rules in conjunction with roles adds greater flexibility because rules can be applied to people as well as to devices. Rule-based access control can be combined with role-based access control, such that the role of a user is one of the attributes in rule setting.
Some provisions of access control systems have rule- based policy engines in addition to a role-based policy engine and certain implemented dynamic policies [Des03]. For example, suppose that two of the primary types of software users are product engineers and quality engineers. Both groups usually have access to the same data, but they have different roles to perform in relation to the data and the application's function. In addition, individuals within each group have different job responsibilities that may be identified using several types of attributes such as developing programs and testing areas. Thus, the access decisions can be made in real time by a scripted policy that regulates the access between the groups of product engineers and quality engineers, and each individual within these groups. Rules can either replace or complement role-based access control. However, the creation of rules and security policies is also a complex process, so each organization will need to strike the appropriate balance.
References used for this question:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/7316/NISTIR-7316.pdf
and
AIO v3 p162-167 and OIG (2007) p.186-191
also
KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 33.

Section: Security Operation Adimnistration
Explanation/Reference:
System Integrity means that all components of the system cannot be tampered with by unauthorized personnel and can be verified that they work properly.
The following answers are incorrect:
The software of the system has been implemented as designed. Is incorrect because this would fall under Trusted system distribution.
Users can't tamper with processes they do not own. Is incorrect because this would fall under Configuration Management.
Design specifications have been verified against the formal top-level specification. Is incorrect because this would fall under Specification and verification.
References:
AIOv3 Security Models and Architecture (pages 302 - 306)
DOD TCSEC - http://www.cerberussystems.com/INFOSEC/stds/d520028.htm

Explanation/Reference:
RFC 2828 (Internet Security Glossary) defines the Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) as an Internet IPsec protocol to negotiate, establish, modify, and delete security associations, and to exchange key generation and authentication data, independent of the details of any specific key generation technique, key establishment protocol, encryption algorithm, or authentication mechanism.
Let's clear up some confusion here first. Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a hybrid protocol, it consists of 3
"protocols"
ISAKMP: It's not a key exchange protocol per se, it's a framework on which key exchange protocols operate. ISAKMP is part of IKE. IKE establishs the shared security policy and authenticated keys. ISAKMP is the protocol that specifies the mechanics of the key exchange.
Oakley: Describes the "modes" of key exchange (e.g. perfect forward secrecy for keys, identity protection, and authentication). Oakley describes a series of key exchanges and services.
SKEME: Provides support for public-key-based key exchange, key distribution centres, and manual installation, it also outlines methods of secure and fast key refreshment.
So yes, IPSec does use IKE, but ISAKMP is part of IKE.
The questions did not ask for the actual key negotiation being done but only for the "exchange of key generation and authentication data" being done. Under Oakly it would be Diffie Hellman (DH) that would be used for the actual key nogotiation.
The following are incorrect answers:
Simple Key-management for Internet Protocols (SKIP) is a key distribution protocol that uses hybrid encryption to convey session keys that are used to encrypt data in IP packets.
OAKLEY is a key establishment protocol (proposed for IPsec but superseded by IKE) based on the Diffie- Hellman algorithm and designed to be a compatible component of ISAKMP.
IPsec Key Exchange (IKE) is an Internet, IPsec, key-establishment protocol [R2409] (partly based on OAKLEY) that is intended for putting in place authenticated keying material for use with ISAKMP and for other security associations, such as in AH and ESP.
Reference used for this question:
SHIREY, Robert W., RFC2828: Internet Security Glossary, may 2000.