Centralized Binary Logging is a feature specific to Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0, designed for web farm environments. It enables multiple websites to write their log data to a single, central file in a binary, unformatted manner. This process is more efficient than writing individual text-based logs. The default file extension for these centralized binary log files is .ibl, which stands for Internet Binary Log. To analyze these logs, an investigator must use a specialized tool, such as Microsoft's Log Parser, to convert the binary data into a human-readable format.

A. .cbl: This is not the standard extension used by Microsoft IIS for its Centralized Binary Logging feature, despite the acronym's apparent relevance.

B. .log: This is a generic extension for log files, which are typically text-based. It does not specifically denote the binary format used by IIS Centralized Logging.

D. .txt: This extension is for plain text files. The question explicitly states the log data is "binary and unformatted," which is incompatible with the .txt format.

1. Microsoft Corporation. (2003). Centralized Binary Logging. Microsoft TechNet. In the documentation for IIS 6.0, it is stated: "Centralized binary logging allows multiple Web sites to write unformatted, binary log data to a single log file, which is named Iislog.ibl by default." (This content is widely archived from the original Microsoft TechNet library for IIS 6.0).

2. Stanek, W. R. (2006). Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Administrator's Pocket Consultant (2nd ed.). Microsoft Press. In Chapter 16, "Managing Web and FTP Sites," the section on logging configurations details the Centralized Binary Logging option and its use of .ibl files for high-performance logging in server farms.

3. Shinder, D. L., & Cross, M. (2008). Scene of the Cybercrime (2nd ed.). Syngress Publishing. In Chapter 11, "Investigating Network Traffic," the book discusses various web server log formats, identifying IIS 6.0's centralized binary logging feature and its use of the .ibl file extension (p. 368).

A write-blocker is a specialized forensic device, either hardware or software-based, that prevents any write operations from reaching a storage device connected for analysis. It allows an examiner to access and copy data from an evidence disk in a read-only mode. This is a critical step in digital forensics to ensure that the original evidence is not altered in any way, thereby preserving its integrity and admissibility in legal proceedings. The write-blocker sits between the evidence disk and the forensic workstation, intercepting and blocking all write commands sent by the operating system or other software.

B. a protocol analyzer: This tool is used to capture and analyze network traffic, not to manage disk I/O operations or prevent data writes.

C. a firewall: A firewall is a network security device that monitors and controls network traffic based on security rules; it does not interact with disk write permissions.

D. a disk editor: This tool is used to view and manually modify the raw data on a disk, which is the opposite of preventing data from being recorded.

1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2004). Hardware Write Blocker (HWB) Device Test Specification, Version 1.1. Computer Forensics Tool Testing Program (CFTT). Section 2, "Introduction," defines a hardware write blocker as a device that "shall not transmit any command to the protected storage device that would modify the data on the storage device."

2. Carrier, B. (2005). File System Forensic Analysis. Addison-Wesley Professional. Chapter 3, "Data Acquisition," discusses the necessity of write-blockers, stating, "To prevent data from being modified, a write-blocker is used. A write-blocker is a device or software that allows read requests to be sent to a storage device but prevents write requests."

3. George Mason University. (n.d.). CFRS 660: Computer Forensics I, Lecture 3: Acquiring Digital Evidence. Courseware. The lecture notes specify that write-blockers are essential tools that "prevent any writes to a drive" during the evidence acquisition phase to maintain forensic soundness.

Microsoft browsers, including Internet Explorer 10+ and the legacy version of Microsoft Edge (EdgeHTML), store a significant portion of their browsing records in an Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) database. This database file, typically named WebCacheV01.dat, acts as a centralized container for web cache, cookies, and browsing history. Forensic investigators target this file to reconstruct a user's web activity. While the newer Chromium-based Edge uses SQLite for some artifacts (like Chrome), the ESE database is a foundational and well-documented location for Microsoft browser forensic analysis.

B. Virtual Memory: This contains transient data swapped from RAM. While it might hold fragments of browsing data, it is not the primary, persistent storage location for these records.

C. Sparse files: This is a file-system attribute that allows for efficient storage of files with empty sections; it is not a database format or a specific location for browser artifacts.

D. Slack Space: This is the unused space within a disk cluster. It may contain remnants of deleted data but is not the structured location where the browser actively stores its records.

1. Jang, Y., Lee, S., & Lee, S. (2016). Forensic analysis of the Microsoft Edge browser. Digital Investigation, 17, 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2016.04.004. (In the abstract and Section 3, the paper explicitly states, "The web cache and cookies of the Edge browser are stored in the ESE database file, WebCacheV01.dat.")

2. Nordbø, O. J. (2019). Forensic Analysis of Microsoft Windows 10 Web Browsers [Master's thesis, University of Oslo]. DUO Research Archive. (Page 29, Section 4.2.2 details that legacy Microsoft Edge stores cache, cookies, and downloaded files history within the WebCacheV01.dat ESE database.)

3. Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press. (Chapter 14, "Network Forensics," discusses browser forensics, noting that Internet Explorer and related Microsoft technologies utilize database structures like ESE for storing user activity artifacts.)

Windows Vista allocates a fixed percentage of every local volume for the Recycle Bin.

Microsoft documentation states that, by default, the Recycle Bin “reserves up to 10 percent of the volume for deleted files” (any remaining space is untouched). Thus its capacity is not a fixed-size value or unlimited, but a proportion—10 %—of each partition’s space. Users can later alter this value through Recycle Bin properties, but the system default remains 10 % of the partition.

A. 2.99 GB – Vista does not impose a static 2.99 GB ceiling; size scales with partition.

B. 3.99 GB – Same as A; no fixed 3.99 GB limit exists.

C. Unlimited – Vista enforces a quota (10 %); space consumption stops when quota met.

1. Microsoft Windows Vista Resource Kit, MS Press, 2007, Chapter 14 “File Systems”, p. 642–643: “Vista sets the maximum size of the Recycle Bin to 10 percent of the disk’s capacity by default.”

2. Microsoft TechNet Library, “Managing the Recycle Bin in Windows Vista” (File Services, 2007), Section “Default size limits”: “On Windows Vista the Recycle Bin is limited to approximately ten percent of the volume.”

3. University of Washington IT Services Course Notes, “Windows Vista File Management” (2008), p. 12: “The Recycle Bin quota is 10 % of each partition unless the user specifies otherwise.”

The provided image is a hex dump of a MySQL binary log file. The right-hand pane shows the ASCII representation of the logged data. This data clearly contains an SQL statement: INSERT INTO \wpusers\ (\userlogin\, \userpass\, \usernicename\, ...) VALUES ('badguy', ...) . The INSERT INTO command is used to add new records to a database table. In this case, a new row is being added to the wpusers table, which is the standard table for storing user information in a WordPress installation. The value for the userlogin column is explicitly 'badguy', confirming the creation of a new user with that username.

A. The log shows an INSERT statement, which is a data creation event, not a user login, which would be a data retrieval (SELECT) or update (UPDATE) operation.

B. The username specified in the INSERT statement's values is clearly badguy, not anonymoushacker.

C. The SQL command is INSERT INTO, which adds a new user. It is not an UPDATE or REPLACE command, which would be used to modify an existing user.

1. MySQL 8.0 Reference Manual, Section 5.4.4, "The Binary Log": The official MySQL documentation states, "The binary log contains 'events' that describe database changes, such as table creation operations or changes to table data. It also contains events for statements that could have made changes." The INSERT statement shown is a direct change to table data and is therefore recorded in the binary log.

2. WordPress Developer Resources, "Database Description": The official WordPress documentation outlines the database schema. It specifies that the wpusers table stores the core user data, including columns such as ID, userlogin, userpass, and useremail, which directly match the columns seen in the INSERT statement in the log file.

3. Me, G. R. L. R. L., & Salles, R. M. (2011). Forensic analysis of a MySQL database server. In International Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime (pp. 46-58). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. This academic paper discusses MySQL forensics and notes (Section 3.2, "Binary Logs") that "The binary log contains all the commands that change the database data, such as INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE." This supports the inference that the INSERT statement found in the log corresponds to a data creation event. (DOI not readily available for this specific older conference proceeding, but the publication is verifiable).

Dependency Walker (depends.exe) is a static analysis tool specifically designed to scan Windows portable executables (PE), such as .EXE or .DLL files, and build a hierarchical tree of all their dependent modules. It recursively scans for all dynamically linked libraries required by the application and lists the specific functions imported from each library. This directly addresses the task of finding the "dynamically linked lists" (i.e., the list of required DLLs and their functions) for an application or malware sample.

A. SysAnalyzer: This is a dynamic analysis tool for sandboxing. It monitors an application's behavior during execution (e.g., file system/registry changes), not for statically listing its dependencies.

B. ResourcesExtract: This tool is used to extract embedded resources (e.g., icons, strings, images) from executable files, not to analyze its code or library dependencies.

C. PEiD: This tool's primary function is to identify the compiler, protector, or packer used to create an executable by analyzing its PE header signatures, not to list its DLL dependencies.

1. Sikorski, M., & Honig, A. (2012). Practical Malware Analysis: The Hands-On Guide to Dissecting Malicious Software. No Starch Press. In Chapter 5, "Static Analysis," Dependency Walker is described as a tool to "list a program’s dynamic dependencies" (p. 98). The chapter also differentiates the functions of PEiD (p. 96) and resource extraction tools (p. 101).

2. University of Virginia, School of Engineering and Applied Science. (2015). CS 6501: Malware Analysis, Lecture 3: Static Analysis. In these course materials, Dependency Walker is explicitly listed and described as a tool for viewing the "DLLs and functions used by a PE file" (Slide 20). The same lecture describes PEiD for packer identification (Slide 19).

3. Microsoft. (2021, September 15). Dependency Walker. Microsoft Docs. "Dependency Walker (depends.exe) is a free utility that scans any 32-bit or 64-bit Windows module... and builds a hierarchical tree diagram of all dependent modules." This official description confirms its purpose for identifying dependencies.

The Post Office Protocol version 3 (POP3) is a standard application-layer protocol used by email clients to retrieve email from a mail server. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has officially assigned TCP port 110 as the well-known port for the POP3 service. An investigator using a network protocol analyzer like Ethereal (now Wireshark) would apply a display filter for tcp.port == 110 to isolate and analyze unencrypted POP3 traffic, which includes commands, responses, and email content.

A. 143 is the standard port for the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), another email retrieval protocol, not POP3.

B. 25 is the standard port for the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), which is used for sending (submitting) email, not retrieving it.

D. 125 is not the standard port for POP3. It is unassigned by IANA for any common email protocol and is sometimes used for other services.

1. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). (2024). Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry. IANA. Retrieved from https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml. The registry explicitly lists "pop3" assigned to TCP port 110.

2. Myers, J., & Rose, M. (1996). RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). In Section 3, "Basic Operation," it states, "The POP3 server listens on TCP port 110." DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC1939.

3. Kurose, J. F., & Ross, K. W. (2017). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1, "SMTP," and Section 2.4.2, "Mail Access Protocols," detail the port numbers for email protocols, specifying port 25 for SMTP, 110 for POP3, and 143 for IMAP. This is a standard textbook used in many university computer science programs.

A cross-cut shredder, also known as a confetti-cut shredder, offers a higher level of security compared to a strip-cut shredder. It cuts documents both vertically and horizontally, creating small, diamond-shaped or rectangular pieces that are significantly more difficult to reassemble. For a corporate policy concerned with the secure destruction of documents, which may contain sensitive or confidential information, the cross-cut method provides a necessary level of protection against data reconstruction. This aligns with the principle of rendering information unrecoverable, a key goal in media sanitization.

A. Strip-cut shredder: This method cuts documents into long, parallel strips. These strips are relatively easy to reconstruct, either manually or with software, making it unsuitable for sensitive corporate documents.

C. Cross-hatch shredder: This is not a standard industry term for a type of paper shredder. It is likely a distractor option intended to sound similar to the correct term.

D. Cris-cross shredder: This is not a standard industry term for a type of paper shredder. It is a distractor option meant to confuse the test-taker with the correct "cross-cut" terminology.

1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2014). Special Publication 800-88 Revision 1: Guidelines for Media Sanitization.

Section 2.5, "Destruction," states that physical destruction techniques should be used to "render Target Data recovery infeasible using state of the art laboratory techniques." Cross-cut shredding more effectively meets this requirement for paper media than strip-cut shredding by creating smaller, harder-to-reassemble particles. The international standard DIN 66399, often referenced in security contexts, classifies shredders by security levels (P-1 to P-7), where cross-cut shredders achieve higher security levels (typically P-3/P-4) appropriate for confidential data.

2. University of California, Berkeley, Information Security Office. (n.d.). Securely Deleting Data.

In its guidance on physical media destruction, the office recommends, "For paper, use a cross-cut shredder which is more secure than a strip-cut shredder." This reflects the accepted best practice in academic and enterprise environments for protecting sensitive information on physical documents.

3. Syracuse University. (n.d.). IT Policy: Secure Data and Device Disposals.

The policy specifies requirements for destroying physical media containing confidential data. It states, "Paper documents containing confidential data must be destroyed by... cross-cut shredding." This illustrates a direct application of the principle in a formal institutional policy, establishing cross-cut shredding as the standard for secure document disposal.

The statement is correct. Corporate, or private-sector, investigations are conducted under the authority of the business to enforce company policy and protect assets. However, when an investigator discovers evidence of a criminal act, the legal authority to investigate and prosecute that crime rests with public-sector law enforcement agencies. The corporate investigator's role shifts from leading the investigation to preserving the evidence and supporting the official law enforcement investigation. Continuing a private investigation into a criminal matter without notifying law enforcement can lead to serious legal consequences, including the contamination of evidence, making it inadmissible in court, and potential charges of obstruction of justice.

This is a "True or False" question; therefore, there is only one incorrect option. Stating the answer is "False" would be incorrect because it implies that a private corporation has the legal standing and authority to conduct a criminal investigation. This is fundamentally wrong; the power to investigate and prosecute violations of criminal statutes is vested in the government (i.e., the public sector). A private entity that attempts to do so usurps the role of law enforcement and risks invalidating the entire case.

1. NIST Special Publication 800-61 Rev. 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide.

Section 3.3.3, Reporting to External Organizations: This guide explicitly states, "If an incident involves criminal activity, such as a threat from an attacker, the organization should report the incident to law enforcement. The organization should also consult its legal department regarding the incident." This directly supports the requirement to refer criminal acts to law enforcement.

2. Nelson, B., Phillips, A., & Steuart, C. (2019). Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations (6th ed.). Cengage Learning. (A standard textbook in university computer forensics courses).

Chapter 1, Understanding the Digital Forensics Profession and Investigations, Section: "Private-Sector Investigations" (pp. 11-12): The text distinguishes between the two types of investigations, stating, "In private-sector investigations, you must follow company policy and guidelines... However, if your investigation uncovers evidence that a crime was committed, you must stop your investigation to make sure you don’t violate the rights of the suspect... At this point, your employer’s legal department and management should decide whether to involve law enforcement." This confirms the transition and referral process.

3. NIST Special Publication 800-86, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response.

Section 2.3, Interaction with Other Teams: This document discusses the necessary coordination between an incident response team and other entities, including law enforcement. It notes, "If it is possible that a crime has been committed, the organization should contact law enforcement... Law enforcement may then take over the investigation or provide guidance to the organization’s investigators." This reinforces that the discovery of a crime necessitates involving and often deferring to law enforcement, effectively making it a public-sector concern.

Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) is titled "Requirement of the Original" and is commonly known as the Best Evidence Rule. This rule mandates that to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original item itself must be produced in court. This is a foundational principle in legal proceedings, including those involving digital evidence, to ensure that the evidence presented is the most reliable and authentic version available. The rule establishes a preference for the original over secondary evidence, unless specific exceptions outlined in other rules or statutes apply.

A. The admissibility of an original is implied, but Rule 1002's specific legal function is to establish the requirement for it, not just its admissibility.

B. The admissibility of duplicates is explicitly covered under a different rule, FRE Rule 1003, which allows duplicates unless authenticity is questioned.

D. The admissibility of other evidence of contents (e.g., testimony) is addressed in FRE Rule 1004, which lists exceptions to the requirement of the original.

1. United States Courts. (2023, December 1). Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 1002. Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence. The official text states, "Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original. An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise."

2. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. "Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original." This resource provides the full text and title of the rule, confirming its subject matter. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule1002.

3. Brenner, S. W., & Schwerha IV, J. J. (2002). Digital Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence. University of Richmond Law Review, 36(4), 1221-1265. In Section II.A, the article discusses the "Best Evidence Rule," identifying it as FRE 1002 and explaining its mandate for producing the original to prove content.