200-201 Security Policies and Procedures Practice Question
An organization's incident response team has identified a malware infection on a critical server. They need to collect evidence for potential legal action. Which of the following is the most important step to ensure the admissibility of the evidence?
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Documenting the chain of custody for all evidence
Maintaining a proper chain of custody documents who handled the evidence and ensures it has not been tampered with, which is critical for legal admissibility.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Contacting legal counsel before proceeding
Why it's wrong here
Legal counsel advises on preservation and chain-of-custody obligations, but admissibility hinges on demonstrable integrity of the collected data itself. Contacting lawyers is prudent for privilege and disclosure strategy, yet it neither captures nor authenticates the malware artefacts, so evidence could still be challenged as unverified.
- ✓
Documenting the chain of custody for all evidence
Why this is correct
Chain-of-custody documentation records every transfer, handler and storage condition of the seized media, proving the evidence was not altered or tampered with. Without this unbroken audit trail, courts may rule the malware artefacts inadmissible, regardless of how technically sound the forensic acquisition itself was.
- ✗
Creating a forensic image of the affected hard drive
Why it's wrong here
A forensic image preserves the disk bit-for-bit, but admissibility also requires documented chain of custody and hashing to prove the copy is unaltered. Imaging is the right step once the server is contained and write blockers are used; here it omits the containment and documentation that authenticate the evidence.
- ✗
Isolating the server from the network
Why it's wrong here
Isolation preserves the system but does not establish evidence integrity; without a documented chain of custody, collected artefacts remain inadmissible. It is tempting because containment is a standard incident-response step, yet admissibility hinges on chain-of-custody documentation and forensic imaging, not network isolation.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This 200-201 question is part of Courseiva's 968-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 200-201 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-201 exam.