Only the second one is true.
Let's go through each one to see why it's true or false.
OFB doesn't provide any stronger tamper protection than CFB does,
and both of them don't provide very much tamper protection at all.
To see this, it's quite easy for an attacker
to mess with a byte of C1, and that will directly effect
bytes in the message.
This is similar to a way an attacker could tamper with a message in a one-time pad.
With output feedback mode, it is possible to recover most of an encrypted file
if one cipher block is lost.
We can see this because in the decrypt process,
we need to calculate this input into the XOR,
and that can be calculated without knowledge of C1, C2, C3,
or any of the other cipher messages.
Even if we're missing a cipher text block,
the rest of the MIs can be XORed with the remaining cipher text blocks.
Ends are calculated inputs to find our message block.
Likewise, this shows that output feedback mode
won't make a good cryptographic hash function.
A cryptographic hash function must have the property
that the final output depends on all the blocks in the message.
In output feedback mode, the cipher block text does not
depend on previous parts of the message.
For example, C2 does not depend on message 1.
And this shows that we can easily change a block
and calculate to the same final output.
For the 4th option, no, it is not safe to use 0 vector as the initialization vector.
As with cipher feedback mode and cipher block chaining,
the initialization vector is important to prevent an attacker
from deriving repetition in the messages.
Always using the 0 initialization vector leaves output feedback mode vulnerable to this attack.
