ISC CISSP - Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP)

The configuration management and control task of the certification and accreditation process is incorporated in the system acquisition and development phase of the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). The SDLC is a process that involves planning, designing, developing, testing, deploying, operating, and maintaining a system, using various models and methodologies, such as waterfall, spiral, agile, or DevSecOps. The SDLC can be divided into several phases, each with its own objectives and activities, such as:

System initiation: This phase involves defining the scope, purpose, and objectives of the system, identifying the stakeholders and their needs and expectations, and establishing the project plan and budget.

System acquisition and development: This phase involves designing the architecture and components of the system, selecting and procuring the hardware and software resources, developing and coding the system functionality and features, and integrating and testing the system modules and interfaces.

System implementation: This phase involves deploying and installing the system to the production environment, migrating and converting the data and applications from the legacy system, training and educating the users and staff on the system operation and maintenance, and evaluating and validating the system performance and effectiveness.

System operations and maintenance: This phase involves operating and monitoring the system functionality and availability, maintaining and updating the system hardware and software, resolving and troubleshooting any issues or problems, and enhancing and optimizing the system features and capabilities.

The certification and accreditation process is a process that involves assessing and verifying the security and compliance of a system, and authorizing and approving the system operation and maintenance, using various standards and frameworks, such as NIST SP 800-37 or ISO/IEC 27001. The certification and accreditation process can be divided into several tasks, each with its own objectives and activities, such as:

Security categorization: This task involves determining the security level and impact of the system and its data, based on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability criteria, and applying the appropriate security controls and measures.

Security planning: This task involves defining the security objectives and requirements of the system, identifying the roles and responsibilities of the security stakeholders, and developing and documenting the security plan and policy.

Security implementation: This task involves implementing and enforcing the security controls and measures for the system, according to the security plan and policy, and ensuring the security functionality and compatibility of the system.

Security assessment: This task involves evaluating and testing the security effectiveness and compliance of the system, using various techniques and tools, such as audits, reviews, scans, or penetration tests, and identifying and reporting any security weaknesses or gaps.

Security authorization: This task involves reviewing and approving the security assessment results and recommendations, and granting or denying the authorization for the system operation and maintenance, based on the risk and impact analysis and the security objectives and requirements.

Security monitoring: This task involves monitoring and updating the security status and activities of the system, using various methods and tools, such as logs, alerts, or reports, and addressing and resolving any security issues or changes.

The configuration management and control task of the certification and accreditation process is incorporated in the system acquisition and development phase of the SDLC, because it can ensure that the system design and development are consistent and compliant with the security objectives and requirements, and that the system changes are controlled and documented. Configuration management and control is a process that involves establishing and maintaining the baseline and the inventory of the system components and resources, such as hardware, software, data, or documentation, and tracking and recording any modifications or updates to the system components and resources, using various techniques and tools, such as version control, change control, or configuration audits. Configuration management and control can provide several benefits, such as:

Improving the quality and security of the system design and development by identifying and addressing any errors or inconsistencies

Enhancing the performance and efficiency of the system design and development by optimizing the use and allocation of the system components and resources

Increasing the compliance and alignment of the system design and development with the security objectives and requirements by applying and enforcing the security controls and measures

Facilitating the monitoring and improvement of the system design and development by providing the evidence and information for the security assessment and authorization

The other options are not the phases of the SDLC that incorporate the configuration management and control task of the certification and accreditation process, but rather phases that involve other tasks of the certification and accreditation process. System operations and maintenance is a phase of the SDLC that incorporates the security monitoring task of the certification and accreditation process, because it can ensure that the system operation and maintenance are consistent and compliant with the security objectives and requirements, and that the system security is updated and improved. System initiation is a phase of the SDLC that incorporates the security categorization and security planning tasks of the certification and accreditation process, because it can ensure that the system scope and objectives are defined and aligned with the security objectives and requirements, and that the security plan and policy are developed and documented. System implementation is a phase of the SDLC that incorporates the security assessment and security authorization tasks of the certification and accreditation process, because it can ensure that the system deployment and installation are evaluated and verified for the security effectiveness and compliance, and that the system operation and maintenance are authorized and approved based on the risk and impact analysis and the security objectives and requirements.

 Testing all new software in a segregated environment is the best method to prevent malware from being introduced into a production environment. Malware is any malicious software that can harm or compromise the security, availability, integrity, or confidentiality of a system or data. Malware can be introduced into a production environment through various sources, such as software downloads, updates, patches, or installations. Testing all new software in a segregated environment involves verifying and validating the functionality and security of the software before deploying it to the production environment, using a separate system or network that is isolated and protected from the production environment. Testing all new software in a segregated environment can provide several benefits, such as:

Preventing the infection or propagation of malware to the production environment

Detecting and resolving any issues or risks caused by the software

Ensuring the compatibility and interoperability of the software with the production environment

Supporting and enabling the quality assurance and improvement of the software

The other options are not the best methods to prevent malware from being introduced into a production environment, but rather methods that can reduce or mitigate the risk of malware, but not eliminate it. Purchasing software from a limited list of retailers is a method that can reduce the risk of malware from being introduced into a production environment, but not prevent it. This method involves obtaining software only from trusted and reputable sources, such as official vendors or distributors, that can provide some assurance of the quality and security of the software. However, this method does not guarantee that the software is free of malware, as it may still contain hidden or embedded malware, or it may be tampered with or compromised during the delivery or installation process. Verifying the hash key or certificate key of all updates is a method that can reduce the risk of malware from being introduced into a production environment, but not prevent it. This method involves checking the authenticity and integrity of the software updates, patches, or installations, by comparing the hash key or certificate key of the software with the expected or published value, using cryptographic techniques and tools. However, this method does not guarantee that the software is free of malware, as it may still contain malware that is not detected or altered by the hash key or certificate key, or it may be subject to a man-in-the-middle attack or a replay attack that can intercept or modify the software or the key. Not permitting programs, patches, or updates from the Internet is a method that can reduce the risk of malware from being introduced into a production environment, but not prevent it. This method involves restricting or blocking the access or download of software from the Internet, which is a common and convenient source of malware, by applying and enforcing the appropriate security policies and controls, such as firewall rules, antivirus software, or web filters. However, this method does not guarantee that the software is free of malware, as it may still be obtained or infected from other sources, such as removable media, email attachments, or network shares.

The primary risk with using open source software in a commercial software construction is license agreements requiring release of modified code. Open source software is software that uses publicly available source code, which can be seen, modified, and distributed by anyone. Open source software has some advantages, such as being affordable and flexible, but it also has some disadvantages, such as being potentially insecure or unsupported.

One of the main disadvantages of using open source software in a commercial software construction is the license agreements that govern the use and distribution of the open source software. License agreements are legal contracts that specify the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the software, such as the original authors, the developers, and the users. License agreements can vary in terms of their terms and conditions, such as the scope, the duration, or the fees of the software.

Some of the common types of license agreements for open source software are:

Permissive licenses: license agreements that allow the developers and users to freely use, modify, and distribute the open source software, with minimal or no restrictions. Examples of permissive licenses are the MIT License, the Apache License, or the BSD License.

Copyleft licenses: license agreements that require the developers and users to share and distribute the open source software and any modifications or derivatives of it, under the same or compatible license terms and conditions. Examples of copyleft licenses are the GNU General Public License (GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or the Mozilla Public License (MPL).

Mixed licenses: license agreements that combine the elements of permissive and copyleft licenses, and may apply different license terms and conditions to different parts or components of the open source software. Examples of mixed licenses are the Eclipse Public License (EPL), the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), or the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL).

The primary risk with using open source software in a commercial software construction is license agreements requiring release of modified code, which are usually associated with copyleft licenses. This means that if a commercial software construction uses or incorporates open source software that is licensed under a copyleft license, then it must also release its own source code and any modifications or derivatives of it, under the same or compatible copyleft license. This can pose a significant risk for the commercial software construction, as it may lose its competitive advantage, intellectual property, or revenue, by disclosing its source code and allowing others to use, modify, or distribute it.

The other options are not the primary risks with using open source software in a commercial software construction, but rather secondary or minor risks that may or may not apply to the open source software. Lack of software documentation is a secondary risk with using open source software in a commercial software construction, as it may affect the quality, usability, or maintainability of the open source software, but it does not necessarily affect the rights or obligations of the commercial software construction. Expiration of the license agreement is a minor risk with using open source software in a commercial software construction, as it may affect the availability or continuity of the open source software, but it is unlikely to happen, as most open source software licenses are perpetual or indefinite. Costs associated with support of the software is a secondary risk with using open source software in a commercial software construction, as it may affect the reliability, security, or performance of the open source software, but it can be mitigated or avoided by choosing the open source software that has adequate or alternative support options.

Testing for the security patch level of the environment is the web application control that should be put into place to prevent exploitation of Operating System (OS) bugs. OS bugs are errors or defects in the code or logic of the OS that can cause the OS to malfunction or behave unexpectedly. OS bugs can be exploited by attackers to gain unauthorized access, disrupt business operations, or steal or leak sensitive data. Testing for the security patch level of the environment is the web application control that should be put into place to prevent exploitation of OS bugs, because it can provide several benefits, such as:

Detecting and resolving any vulnerabilities or issues caused by the OS bugs by applying the latest security patches or updates from the OS developers or vendors

Enhancing the security and performance of the web applications by using the most secure and efficient version of the OS that supports the web applications

Increasing the compliance and alignment of the web applications with the security policies and regulations that are applicable to the web applications

Improving the compatibility and interoperability of the web applications with the other systems or platforms that interact with the web applications

The other options are not the web application controls that should be put into place to prevent exploitation of OS bugs, but rather web application controls that can prevent or mitigate other types of web application attacks or issues. Checking arguments in function calls is a web application control that can prevent or mitigate buffer overflow attacks, which are attacks that exploit the vulnerability of the web application code that does not properly check the size or length of the input data that is passed to a function or a variable, and overwrite the adjacent memory locations with malicious code or data. Including logging functions is a web application control that can prevent or mitigate unauthorized access or modification attacks, which are attacks that exploit the lack of or weak authentication or authorization mechanisms of the web applications, and access or modify the web application data or functionality without proper permission or verification. Digitally signing each application module is a web application control that can prevent or mitigate code injection or tampering attacks, which are attacks that exploit the vulnerability of the web application code that does not properly validate or sanitize the input data that is executed or interpreted by the web application, and inject or modify the web application code with malicious code or data.

The most probable security feature of Java preventing the program from operating as intended is least privilege. Least privilege is a principle that states that a subject (such as a user, a process, or a program) should only have the minimum amount of access or permissions that are necessary to perform its function or task. Least privilege can help to reduce the attack surface and the potential damage of a system or network, by limiting the exposure and impact of a subject in case of a compromise or misuse.

Java implements the principle of least privilege through its security model, which consists of several components, such as:

The Java Virtual Machine (JVM): a software layer that executes the Java bytecode and provides an abstraction from the underlying hardware and operating system. The JVM enforces the security rules and restrictions on the Java programs, such as the memory protection, the bytecode verification, and the exception handling.

The Java Security Manager: a class that defines and controls the security policy and permissions for the Java programs. The Java Security Manager can be configured and customized by the system administrator or the user, and can grant or deny the access or actions of the Java programs, such as the file I/O, the network communication, or the system properties.

The Java Security Policy: a file that specifies the security permissions for the Java programs, based on the code source and the code signer. The Java Security Policy can be defined and modified by the system administrator or the user, and can assign different levels of permissions to different Java programs, such as the trusted or the untrusted ones.

The Java Security Sandbox: a mechanism that isolates and restricts the Java programs that are downloaded or executed from untrusted sources, such as the web or the network. The Java Security Sandbox applies the default or the minimal security permissions to the untrusted Java programs, and prevents them from accessing or modifying the local resources or data, such as the files, the databases, or the registry.

In this question, the Java program is being developed to read a file from computer A and write it to computer B, using a third computer C. This means that the Java program needs to have the permissions to perform the file I/O and the network communication operations, which are considered as sensitive or risky actions by the Java security model. However, if the Java program is running on computer C with the default or the minimal security permissions, such as in the Java Security Sandbox, then it will not be able to perform these operations, and the program will not work as expected. Therefore, the most probable security feature of Java preventing the program from operating as intended is least privilege, which limits the access or permissions of the Java program based on its source, signer, or policy.

The other options are not the security features of Java preventing the program from operating as intended, but rather concepts or techniques that are related to security in general or in other contexts. Privilege escalation is a technique that allows a subject to gain higher or unauthorized access or permissions than what it is supposed to have, by exploiting a vulnerability or a flaw in a system or network. Privilege escalation can help an attacker to perform malicious actions or to access sensitive resources or data, by bypassing the security controls or restrictions. Defense in depth is a concept that states that a system or network should have multiple layers or levels of security, to provide redundancy and resilience in case of a breach or an attack. Defense in depth can help to protect a system or network from various threats and risks, by using different types of security measures and controls, such as the physical, the technical, or the administrative ones. Privilege bracketing is a technique that allows a subject to temporarily elevate or lower its access or permissions, to perform a specific function or task, and then return to its original or normal level. Privilege bracketing can help to reduce the exposure and impact of a subject, by minimizing the time and scope of its higher or lower access or permissions.

Migrating to newer, supported applications where possible is the best approach to addressing security issues in legacy web applications. Legacy web applications are web applications that are outdated, unsupported, or incompatible with the current technologies and standards. Legacy web applications may have various security issues, such as:

Vulnerabilities and bugs that are not fixed or patched by the developers or vendors

Weak or obsolete encryption and authentication mechanisms that are easily broken or bypassed by attackers

Lack of compliance with the security policies and regulations that are applicable to the web applications

Incompatibility or interoperability issues with the newer web browsers, operating systems, or platforms that are used by the users or clients

Migrating to newer, supported applications where possible is the best approach to addressing security issues in legacy web applications, because it can provide several benefits, such as:

Enhancing the security and performance of the web applications by using the latest technologies and standards that are more secure and efficient

Reducing the risk and impact of the web application attacks by eliminating or minimizing the vulnerabilities and bugs that are present in the legacy web applications

Increasing the compliance and alignment of the web applications with the security policies and regulations that are applicable to the web applications

Improving the compatibility and interoperability of the web applications with the newer web browsers, operating systems, or platforms that are used by the users or clients

The other options are not the best approaches to addressing security issues in legacy web applications, but rather approaches that can mitigate or remediate the security issues, but not eliminate or prevent them. Debugging the security issues is an approach that can mitigate the security issues in legacy web applications, but not the best approach, because it involves identifying and fixing the errors or defects in the code or logic of the web applications, which may be difficult or impossible to do for the legacy web applications that are outdated or unsupported. Conducting a security assessment is an approach that can remediate the security issues in legacy web applications, but not the best approach, because it involves evaluating and testing the security effectiveness and compliance of the web applications, using various techniques and tools, such as audits, reviews, scans, or penetration tests, and identifying and reporting any security weaknesses or gaps, which may not be sufficient or feasible to do for the legacy web applications that are incompatible or obsolete. Protecting the legacy application with a web application firewall is an approach that can mitigate the security issues in legacy web applications, but not the best approach, because it involves deploying and configuring a web application firewall, which is a security device or software that monitors and filters the web traffic between the web applications and the users or clients, and blocks or allows the web requests or responses based on the predefined rules or policies, which may not be effective or efficient to do for the legacy web applications that have weak or outdated encryption or authentication mechanisms.

Anonymizing the test subject’s data means removing or masking any personally identifiable information (PII) that could be used to identify or trace the individual. This can help to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the test subjects, as well as comply with the data protection laws and regulations of both countries. Processing the anonymized data in the US can also help to reduce the costs and risks of transferring the data across borders. Aggregating the data into one database in the US, processing it in the US but storing it in France, or sharing it with a third party could all pose potential privacy and security risks, as well as legal and ethical issues, for the organization and the test subjects. References: CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, Eighth Edition, Chapter 1: Security and Risk Management, page 67; Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1: Security and Risk Management, page 62.

A benefit in implementing an enterprise Identity and Access Management (IAM) solution is that the risk associated with orphan accounts is reduced. An orphan account is an account that belongs to a user who has left the organization or changed roles, but the account has not been deactivated or deleted. An orphan account poses a security risk, as it can be exploited by unauthorized users or attackers to gain access to the system or data. An enterprise IAM solution is a system that manages the identification, authentication, authorization, and provisioning of users and devices across the organization. An enterprise IAM solution can help to reduce the risk associated with orphan accounts by automating the account lifecycle management, such as creating, updating, suspending, or deleting accounts based on the user status, role, or policy. An enterprise IAM solution can also help to monitor and audit the account activity, and to detect and remediate any orphan accounts. Password requirements are simplified, segregation of duties is automatically enforced, and data confidentiality is increased are all possible benefits or features of an enterprise IAM solution, but they are not the best answer to the question. Password requirements are simplified by an enterprise IAM solution that supports single sign-on (SSO) or federated identity management (FIM), which allow the user to access multiple systems or applications with one set of credentials. Segregation of duties is automatically enforced by an enterprise IAM solution that implements role-based access control (RBAC) or attribute-based access control (ABAC), which grant or deny access to resources based on the user role or attributes. Data confidentiality is increased by an enterprise IAM solution that encrypts or masks the sensitive data, or applies data loss prevention (DLP) or digital rights management (DRM) policies to the data. 

 One of the responsibilities of the information owner is to define proper access to the Information System (IS), including privileges or access rights. This involves determining who can access the data, what they can do with the data, and under what conditions they can access the data. The information owner must also approve or deny the access requests and periodically review the access rights. Ensuring that users and personnel complete the required security training, managing the common security controls, and ensuring the IS is operated according to the security requirements are not the responsibilities of the information owner, but they may involve the information owner’s collaboration or consultation. References: CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, Eighth Edition, Chapter 1: Security and Risk Management, page 48; Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1: Security and Risk Management, page 40.

The Identity and Access Management (IAM) process that can be used to maintain the principle of least privilege is user access review. User access review is the process of periodically reviewing and verifying the user accounts and access rights on a system or a network, and ensuring that they are appropriate, necessary, and compliant with the policies and standards. User access review can help to maintain the principle of least privilege by identifying and removing any excessive, obsolete, or unauthorized access rights that may pose a security risk or violate the regulations. User access review can also help to support the audit and compliance activities, as well as the identity lifecycle management activities. Identity provisioning, access recovery, and multi-factor authentication (MFA) are not the IAM processes that can be used to maintain the principle of least privilege, although they may be related or useful processes. Identity provisioning is the process of creating, modifying, or deleting the user accounts and access rights on a system or a network. Identity provisioning can help to establish the principle of least privilege by granting the user accounts and access rights that are aligned with the user roles or functions within the organization. However, identity provisioning is not sufficient to maintain the principle of least privilege, as the user accounts and access rights may change or become outdated over time, due to various factors, such as role changes, transfers, promotions, or terminations. Access recovery is the process of restoring the user accounts and access rights on a system or a network, after they have been lost, corrupted, or compromised. Access recovery can help to ensure the availability and integrity of the user accounts and access rights, as well as to mitigate the impact of a security incident or a disaster. However, access recovery is not a process that can be used to maintain the principle of least privilege, as it does not involve reviewing or verifying the appropriateness or necessity of the user accounts and access rights. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is a technique that uses two or more factors of authentication to verify the identity of the user who accesses a system or a network. MFA can help to enhance the security and reliability of the authentication process, by requiring the user to provide something they know (e.g., password), something they have (e.g., token), or something they are (e.g., biometric). However, MFA is not a process that can be used to maintain the principle of least privilege, as it does not affect the user accounts and access rights, but only the user access credentials. 

The Content-Security-Policy (CSP) HTTP response header allows web server administrators to control the sources and types of content that can be loaded and executed by web browsers. By specifying a CSP policy, the web server can prevent the execution of inline JavaScript and the execution of eval()-type functions, which are often used by attackers to inject malicious code into web pages. This can help mitigate cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, which are a common web application security threat. The other options are not relevant to this question. Strict-Transport-Security is a header that enforces the use of HTTPS connections. X-XSS-Protection is a header that enables the browser’s built-in XSS filter. X-Frame-Options is a header that prevents the web page from being loaded in a frame or iframe, which can help prevent clickjacking attacks. References: CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, Eighth Edition, Chapter 8: Security Operations, page 1019. Official (ISC)2 CISSP CBK Reference, Fifth Edition, Chapter 4: Security Architecture and Engineering, page 1020.

The product lifecycle consists of four phases: development, implementation, operations and maintenance, and disposal. The security architect has been mandated to assess the security of various brands of mobile devices, which are products that have already been developed and are ready to be deployed. Therefore, the most likely phase of the product lifecycle for this task is the implementation phase, where the products are installed, configured, tested, and integrated into the existing environment. The security architect should evaluate the security features, controls, and risks of each brand of mobile device and compare them with the security requirements and standards of the organization. The security architect should also consider the usability, performance, and compatibility of the mobile devices with the existing infrastructure and applications. References: CISSP CBK Reference, 5th Edition, Chapter 3, page 139; CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 8th Edition, Chapter 3, page 107

The concept that software developers should consider when using open-source software libraries is that open source libraries contain known vulnerabilities, and adversaries regularly exploit those vulnerabilities in the wild. Open source software libraries are collections of reusable code or functions that are publicly available and free to use or modify by anyone. Open source software libraries can reduce the development time of a software product, as they provide ready-made solutions or features that the software developers can integrate into their own code. However, open source software libraries also pose security risks, as they may contain known vulnerabilities that are publicly disclosed and documented, and that adversaries can easily exploit to compromise the software product or the system. Software developers should consider this concept when using open source software libraries, and they should perform due diligence, such as checking the reputation, quality, and security of the open source software libraries, updating them regularly, and testing them for vulnerabilities or compatibility issues. Open source software libraries cannot be used by everyone, and there is no common understanding that the vulnerabilities in these libraries will not be exploited, as this is a false and naive assumption that ignores the reality and the nature of the cyberthreat landscape. Open source software libraries are not constantly updated, making it unlikely that a vulnerability exists for an adversary to exploit, as this is also a false and optimistic assumption that overlooks the fact that some open source software libraries may be outdated, abandoned, or poorly maintained by their developers or communities. Open source software libraries do not contain unknown vulnerabilities, so they should not be used, as this is a false and pessimistic assumption that disregards the benefits and the potential of the open source software libraries, and that implies that proprietary or closed source software libraries are free of vulnerabilities, which is not true. References: Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Fifth Edition, Chapter 21: Software Development Security, page 2016.

Black-box testing is a security testing strategy that simulates an external attack on a system or application, without any prior knowledge of its internal structure, design, or implementation. Black-box testing is best suited for companies with low to moderate security maturity, as it can reveal the most obvious and common vulnerabilities, such as misconfigurations, default credentials, or unpatched software. Black-box testing can also provide a realistic assessment of the system’s security posture from an attacker’s perspective. References: CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, Eighth Edition, Chapter 6: Security Assessment and Testing, page 287; [Official (ISC)2 CISSP CBK Reference, Fifth Edition, Chapter 6: Security Assessment and Testing, page 413]

The scenario in which locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys is preferable to locking the server room to prevent unauthorized access is when server cabinets share workspace with multiple projects. Server cabinets are enclosures that house servers and other network equipment, and that provide physical security, cooling, power, and cable management. Server cabinets can be located in different types of workspaces, such as dedicated server rooms, data centers, or office spaces. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys is a security measure that restricts or controls the access to the server cabinets, and that prevents unauthorized or malicious access, modification, or damage to the servers and the network equipment. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys is preferable to locking the server room when server cabinets share workspace with multiple projects, as this scenario involves a higher risk of unauthorized or malicious access, modification, or damage to the servers and the network equipment, due to the presence or the involvement of multiple users, teams, or stakeholders, who may have different or conflicting interests, objectives, or responsibilities. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys can provide a finer-grained or a more granular level of security, as it can allow or deny access to specific server cabinets, based on the need, the role, or the authorization of the users, teams, or stakeholders. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys can also provide a better or a more convenient level of security, as it can enable or facilitate the access to specific server cabinets, without affecting or disrupting the access to other server cabinets, or the operation or the functionality of the servers and the network equipment. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys is not preferable to locking the server room when server cabinets are located in an unshared workspace, an isolated server farm, or a remote area, as these scenarios involve a lower risk of unauthorized or malicious access, modification, or damage to the servers and the network equipment, due to the absence or the isolation of other users, teams, or stakeholders, who may have different or conflicting interests, objectives, or responsibilities. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys may not provide a sufficient or a necessary level of security, as it may not prevent or deter the access to the server cabinets, or the operation or the functionality of the servers and the network equipment, by external or internal threats or attacks, such as intruders, hackers, or insiders. Locking server cabinets and limiting access to keys may also provide a redundant or a cumbersome level of security, as it may add or create additional or unnecessary layers of security, or steps or procedures for accessing the server cabinets, or the operation or the functionality of the servers and the network equipment. References: Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Fifth Edition, Chapter 19: Security Operations, page 1896.