In comparison to other types of alternative processing sites that may be invoked as a part of disaster recovery, cold sites are different because they:
In comparison to other types of alternative processing sites that may be invoked as a part of disaster recovery, cold sites are different because they:
Cold sites are the least costly to sustain compared to other types of alternative processing sites. Unlike hot or warm sites, cold sites do not have pre-established information systems or IT infrastructure. They are essentially empty facilities that have basic utilities like electricity but lack the necessary equipment to quickly restore operations. This minimal setup and lack of ongoing maintenance make cold sites the most economical option for disaster recovery, albeit with longer activation times.
FROM THE CASP STUDENT BOOK 2. Which type of DR site has lowest operating expense and complexity? Cold Site Cold Site A cold site is one that requires the least amount of maintenance. In the most general sense, a cold site is simply a facility that is under the organization’s control but does not have any pre-established information system capability. It is literally a site that has electricity but no computer equipment, perhaps not even any furniture, but it is open and available for use. A cold site has the lowest operating expense and complexity at the cost of activation time—a cold site will take weeks to activate as all the equipment must be acquired and provisioned before it can be used. SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WATER.
agreed C is the answer.
Cold Sites have electricity, but no mention of water. going with C
I believe the answer that we're going for here is C. For example, how would a hot site or a warm site operate without power service? The main thing that is drilled into your head when learning this is: Cold sites are where you just have a site picked out and paid for, and it's the cheapest. Warm sites are in between a hot and cold site. Hot sites are almost exact replicas of your prod, where you can "flip a switch" and move. Mobile sites are basically a camper.
The question is pretty much asking what distinguishes a cold site from the other ones. simple: it's generally the least expensive to sustain Can't be A because basic utility coverage also exist within warm and hot sites
Cold sites are different because they: have basic utility coverage, including power and water. <-That doesn't make them different, all sites has these.
E. It is common to choose a cold site with different exposure to hazards than the primary.
Cold Sites: Characteristics: Cold sites are facilities that are not pre-equipped with the necessary IT infrastructure, servers, or systems needed for day-to-day operations. They do not have live data or up-to-date configurations. Cold sites may only have basic facilities, such as power and space, without the actual IT equipment. Activation Time: Cold sites have the longest activation time among the three types. It may take days or even weeks to set up the necessary hardware, install software, and restore data. Cost: Cold sites are relatively cost-effective compared to warm and hot sites. The organization pays for the facility and basic infrastructure but saves on maintaining a fully operational IT environment. Use Case: Cold sites are suitable for organizations with less critical applications or those that can afford longer downtimes. They are often chosen by organizations with a lower tolerance for recovery time objectives (RTOs).
I would go with A. In the question "cold sites are different because", I would relate different in terms of setup.
Cold site is bare min. (Utility) power and water.