Q: 3
John works as a security manager for SoftTech Inc. He is working with his team on the disaster
recovery management plan. One of his team members has a doubt related to the most cost effective
DRP testing plan. According to you, which of the following disaster recovery testing plans is the most
cost-effective and efficient way to identify areas of overlap in the plan before conducting more
demanding training exercises?
Options
Discussion
Option B here. Walk-through drill feels the least resource intensive and more efficient than doing a full-scale exercise. Maybe it's a trap but I'm pretty sure this is what most would pick before anything big.
Probably C
Isn't B a bit of a trap here? Structured walk-through test (C) is the official term CISSP likes for this kind of cheap overlap-checking session, at least in exam scenarios.
Pretty sure C. Structured walk-through test is the tabletop style session where everyone talks through the plan, which is much cheaper and quicker than anything hands-on. B sounds easy but isn't as thorough, it’s usually a distractor in CISSP questions like this. Fairly sure C fits what the exam looks for, but if they redefine "drill" it could trip you up. Anyone see ISC2 asking for B instead?
Had something like this in a mock and picked C, structured walk-through test. It’s basically a tabletop review where the team discusses the plan without actually enacting it, so way less cost and disruption. B is tempting but I think C matches what ISC2 wants for overlap detection before hands-on stuff. Anyone disagree?
So tired of seeing the same trick on CISSP practice-C is always the structured walk-through and that's what they want.
B
C tbh. B is commonly picked by mistake but the structured walk-through (C) is the standard CISSP answer for a cost-effective first step before big drills. Full-scale (D) eats up way more resources. Check most exam reports if in doubt.
I'm a bit confused but I'd pick B. Walk-through drill. Sounds less expensive than the others to me, but not totally sure.
Be respectful. No spam.