CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam Questions and Answers

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) is the best method for identifying all components, dependencies, and open-source libraries used inan application. It ensures that organizations track and manage vulnerabilities in third-party code before deployment.

SCA tools generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM), which provides a full representation of the code and modules used in the application.

Other options:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (C) checks for vulnerabilities but does not map dependencies.

Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) (D) works at runtime, not before deployment.

Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) (B) works while the application is running.

To mitigate the issue of excessive permissions and privilege creep, the best solutions are:

Implementing a Role-Based Access Policy:

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): This policy ensures that access permissions are granted based on the user's role within the organization, aligning with the principle of least privilege. Users are only granted access necessary for their role, reducing the risk of excessive permissions.

To improve the quality of code scanning results and reduce false positives, the best solution is to limit the tool to a specific coding language and fine-tune the rule set. By configuring the code scanning tool to focus on the specific language used in the application, the tool can more accurately identify relevant issues and reduce the number of false positives. Additionally, tuning the rule set ensures that the tool's checks are appropriate for the application's context, further improving the accuracy ofthe scan results.

When users disconnect from Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) sessions without properly logging off, their sessions remain active on the server. If their passwords are changed due to the 90-day rotation policy, these lingering sessions may attempt to reauthenticate using outdated credentials, leading to multiple failed login attempts and potential account lockouts.

Automating the logout of inactive sessions ensures that disconnected or idle sessions are terminated after a specified period, preventing stale sessions from causing authentication issues. This approach aligns with best practices for session management and helps maintain security compliance.

Incident response follows a standard process (e.g., NIST 800-61): Preparation, Identification, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, Lessons Learned. After identifying the attack (file and origin), the next step isContainment—limiting the spread or impact (e.g., isolating systems) before remediation or recovery.

Option A:Remediation (fixing the root cause) follows containment.

Option B:Correct—containment prevents further damage post-identification.

Option C:“Response” is too vague; it encompasses all steps.

Option D:Recovery (restoring systems) comes after containment and eradication.

The best location to test a newly released feature for an internal application, without affecting the production environment, is the staging environment. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Staging Environment: This environment closely mirrors the production environment in terms of hardware, software, configurations, and settings. It serves as a final testing ground before deploying changes to production. Testing in the staging environment ensures that the new feature will behave as expected in the actual production setup.

Isolation fromProduction: The staging environment is isolated from production, which means any issues arising from the new feature will not impact the live users or the integrity of the production data. This aligns with best practices in change management and risk mitigation.

Realistic Testing: Since the staging environment replicates the production environment, it provides realistic testing conditions. This helps in identifying potential issues that might not be apparent in a development or testing environment, which often have different configurations and workloads.

The error message reveals sensitive details (hostnames, database names, table names), constitutinginformation disclosure. This aids attackers in reconnaissance. Mitigation involves modifying the application to display generic error messages (e.g., “An error occurred”) instead of specifics.

Option A:Unsecure references suggest coding flaws, but this is a configuration/output issue, not input sanitization.

Option B:Unsecure protocols and HttpOnly cookies relate to session security, not error handling.

Option C:Correct—information disclosure is the issue; generic errors mitigate it.

Option D:No evidence of SQL injection (e.g., manipulated input); upgrading the database doesn’t address disclosure.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The question describes a proactive security measure where an organization maintains a registry of software dependencies and their corresponding hashes. This registry is used to verify the integrity of software packages.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. Supply chain attack: This type of attack involves compromising the software supply chain by injecting malicious code into legitimate software packages.

The best way to prevent application-focused attacks for a platform-as-a-service solution with a web-based front end is to create Web Application Firewall (WAF) policies for relevant programming languages. Here's why:

Application-Focused Attack Prevention: WAFs are designed to protect web applications by filtering and monitoring HTTP traffic between a web application and the Internet. They help prevent attacks such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and other application-layer attacks.

Customizable Rules: WAF policies can be tailored to the specific programming languages and frameworks used by the web application, providing targeted protection based on known vulnerabilities and attack patterns.

Real-Time Protection: WAFs provide real-time protection, blocking malicious requests before they reach the application, thereby enhancing the security posture of the platform.

A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) is a security policy enforcement point placed between cloud service consumers and cloud service providers to combine and interject enterprise security policies as cloud-based resources are accessed. Implementing a CASB provides several benefits:

A. Improve firewall rules to avoid access to those platforms: This can help but is not as effective or comprehensive as a CASB.

B. Implement a cloud-access security broker: A CASB can provide visibility into cloud application usage, enforce data security policies, and protect against data leaks by monitoring and controlling access to cloud services. It also provides advanced features like data encryption, data loss prevention (DLP), and compliance monitoring.

C. Create SIEM rules to raise alerts for access to those platforms: This helps in monitoring but does not prevent data leaks.

D. Deploy an internet proxy that filters certain domains: This can block access to specific sites but lacks the granular control and visibility provided by a CASB.

Implementing a CASB is the most comprehensive solution to decrease the risk of data leaks by providing visibility, control, and enforcement of security policies for cloud services.

The presence of an unauthorized server (29mail.mycrosoft.info) sending emails on behalf of the company indicates a potential spoofing or phishing attempt. To mitigate this:

Remove the unnecessary servers from the SPF record (Option C): The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifies which mail servers are authorized to send emails on behalf of a domain. Removing unauthorized or unnecessary servers from the SPF record helps prevent spoofed emails from passing SPF checks.

Change the SPF record to enforce the hard fail parameter (Option D): Setting the SPF policy to a hard fail (-all) ensures that emails from unauthorized servers are rejected, enhancing email security.

Implementing these changes strengthens the domain's email authentication mechanisms, reducing the risk of successful phishing or spoofing attacks.

Matching Relevant Findings to the Affected Hosts:

Finding 1:

Affected Host: DNS

Reason: Users are unable to log into the domain from their workstations after relocating to Site B, which implies a failure in domain name services that are critical for user authentication and domain login.

Finding 2:

Affected Host: Pumps

Reason: Thepump room at Site B becoming inoperable directly points to the critical infrastructure components associated with pumping operations.

Finding 3:

Affected Host: VPN Concentrator

Reason: Unreliable internet connectivity at Site B due to route flapping indicates issues with network routing, which is often managed by VPN concentrators that handle site-to-site connectivity.

Corrective Actions for Finding 3:

Finding 3 Corrective Action:

Action: Modify the BGP configuration

Reason: Route flapping is often related to issues with Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) configurations. Adjusting BGP settings can stabilize routes and improve internet connectivity reliability.

Replication to Site B for Finding 1:

Affected Host: DNS

Domain Name System (DNS) services are essential for translating domain names into IP addresses, allowing users to log into the network. Replicating DNS services ensures that even if Site A is disrupted, users at Site B can still authenticate and access necessary resources.

Replication to Site B for Finding 2:

Affected Host: Pumps

The operation of the pump room is crucial for maintaining various functions within the infrastructure. Replicating the control systems and configurations for the pumps at Site B ensures that operations can continue smoothly even if Site A is affected.

Configuration Changes for Finding 3:

Affected Host: VPN Concentrator

Route flapping is a situation where routes become unstable, causing frequent changes in the best path for data to travel. This instability can be mitigated by modifying BGP configurations to ensure more stable routing. VPN concentrators, which manage connections between sites, are typically configured with BGP for optimal routing.

To meet the requirements of only allowing internally signed applications, preventing unauthorized software installations, and logging attempts to run unauthorized software, configuring application control with blocked hashes and enterprise-trusted root certificates is the best solution. This approach ensures that only applications signed by trusted certificates are allowed to execute, while all other attempts are blocked and logged. It effectively prevents unauthorized software installations by restrictingexecution to pre-approved applications.

To minimize downtime, testing should occur in a virtual lab, not production. The best approach is to test solutions methodically: implement one solution at a time, run an attack simulation, collect metrics, roll back, and repeat. This isolates each solution’s effectiveness, ensuring accurate metrics for decision-making without production impact.

Option A:Testing all solutions simultaneously muddies the results—metrics won’t show which solution worked.

Option B:Collecting metrics before the simulation misses the point of testing against the attack.

Option C:Correct—tests each solution independently with simulation and metrics, minimizing downtime via virtual lab use.

Option D:Like A, combining solutions obscures individual effectiveness.

When differentiating between valid and invalid findings from vulnerability scans, the systemsadministrator should verify that the scanning credentials are properly configured. Valid credentials ensure that the scanner can authenticate and access the systems being evaluated, providing accurate and comprehensive results. Without proper credentials, scans may miss vulnerabilities or generate false positives, making it difficult to prioritize and address the findings effectively.

Creating a separate network for users who need access tothe application is the best action to secure an internal application that is critical to the production area and cannot be updated.

Why Separate Network?

Network Segmentation: Isolates the critical application from the rest of the network, reducing the risk of compromise and limiting the potential impact of any security incidents.

Controlled Access: Ensures that only authorized users have access to the application, enhancing security and reducing the attack surface.

Minimized Risk: Segmentation helps in protecting the application from vulnerabilities that could be exploited from other parts of the network.

Other options, while beneficial, do not provide the same level of security for a critical application:

A. Disallow wireless access: Useful but does not provide comprehensive protection.

B. Deploy intrusion detection capabilities using a network tap: Enhances monitoring but does not provide the same level of isolation and control.

C. Create an acceptable use policy: Important for governance but does not provide technical security controls.

To prevent unauthorized applications from running, the company needs a mechanism to explicitly define and enforce which applications are allowed to execute. "Permit listing" (often referred to as "whitelisting" in security contexts) is the most effective solution here. It involves creating a list of approved applications, and only those on the list are permitted to run, blocking all others by default. This directly addresses the root cause—users installing unapproved software—by restricting execution to only authorized programs.

Option A (Signing):Code signing ensures the authenticity and integrity of software by verifying it comes from a trusted source and hasn’t been tampered with. While useful, it doesn’t inherently prevent unauthorized applications from running unless combined with a policy like whitelisting.

Option B (Access control):Access control governs who can access systems or resources but doesn’t specifically restrict which applications can execute. It’s too broad for this scenario.

Option C (HIPS):A Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) can detect and block malicious behavior, but it’s reactive and relies on signatures or heuristics, not a proactive allow-only approach.

Option D (Permit listing):This is the best fit, as it proactively enforces a policy where only explicitly authorized applications can run, preventing malware introduced by unauthorized software.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Best practice in CAS-005 network security design is to deploy:

NIDS passively via a port mirror (SPAN port) to avoid introducing latency or failure points.

NIPS inline in a strategic point, such as integrated with the main firewall, to actively block threats.This combination provides both visibility and active protection without overloading network paths.

Automating compliance in cloudenvironments requires a tool that can enforce configurations, manage infrastructure as code, and align with industry standards (e.g., NIST, ISO). Let’s evaluate:

A. Jenkins:A CI/CD tool for automating software builds and deployments. It’s not designed for compliance enforcement or infrastructure management.

B. Python:A programming language that can be scripted for automation but lacks built-in compliance-focused features without significant custom development.

C. Ansible:An automation tool for configuration management, application deployment, and compliance enforcement. It uses playbooks to define desired states, making it ideal for automating compliance checks and remediation in cloud environments (e.g., AWS, Azure). CAS-005 emphasizes automation tools for security and compliance, and Ansible fits perfectly.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A Content Delivery Network (CDN) caches and distributes static and dynamic web content across multiple geographically distributed edge servers, reducing latency for global users. This directly addresses page-loading delays caused by distance from the primary data centers.

RASP is for runtime application security, not latency.

Remote journaling is for data replication, not performance optimization.

SASE can improve security and WAN routing, but a CDN is purpose-built for content delivery performance.

The most appropriate technique to improve the cryptographic strength of a password-storage component in a web application without completely replacing the crypto-module is key stretching. Here's why:

Enhanced Security: Key stretching algorithms, such as PBKDF2, bcrypt, and scrypt, increase the computational effort required to derive the encryption key from the password, making brute-force attacks more difficult and time-consuming.

Compatibility: Key stretching can be implemented alongside existing cryptographic modules, enhancing their security without the need for a complete overhaul.

Industry Best Practices: Key stretching is a widely recommended practice for securely storing passwords, as it significantly improves resistance to password-cracking attacks.

VPN Concentrator:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

AAA Server:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

The most likely cause of the anti-malware alerts on customer workstations is unsecure bundled libraries. When developing and deploying new applications, it is common for developers to use third-party libraries. If these libraries are not properly vetted for security, they can introduce vulnerabilities or malicious code.

Why Unsecure Bundled Libraries?

Third-Party Risks: Using libraries that are not secure can lead to malware infections if the libraries contain malicious code or vulnerabilities.

Code Dependencies: Libraries may have dependencies that are not secure, leading to potential security risks.

Common Issue: This is a frequent issue in software development where libraries are used for convenience but not properly vetted for security.

Other options, while relevant, are less likely to cause widespread anti-malware alerts:

A. Misconfigured code commit: Could lead to issues but less likely to trigger anti-malware alerts.

C. Invalid code signing certificate: Would lead to trust issues but not typically anti-malware alerts.

D. Data leakage: Relevant for privacy concerns but not directly related to anti-malware alerts.

Theregulated lab environment (Yes)shares the same VLAN (10.2.0.0/22) withusers, creatingzone traversalrisk from unregulated zones to sensitive datanetworks.

This allows pivoting and lateral movement from non-regulated user devices into regulated lab environments — a classiczone boundary violation.

Zone traversal should be mitigated with segmentation and firewall enforcement.

FromCAS-005, Domain 2: Risk Management and Mitigation Strategies:

“Zone traversal occurs when segmentation boundaries are misconfigured or merged, leading to regulatory and risk compliance failures.”

To mitigate the identified vulnerabilities, the followingsolutions are most appropriate:

A. Implementing data loss prevention (DLP): DLP solutions help prevent the unauthorized transfer of data outside the organization. This directly addresses the exfiltration of intellectual property by monitoring, detecting, and blocking sensitive data transfers.

E. Enabling modern authentication that supports Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): This significantly enhances security by requiring additional verification methods beyond just passwords. It addresses the issue of weak user passwords by making it much harder for unauthorized users to gain access, even if they obtain the password.

Other options, while useful in specific contexts, do not address all the vulnerabilities mentioned:

B. Deploying file integrity monitoring helps detect changes to files but does not prevent data exfiltration or address weak passwords.

C. Restricting access to critical file services improves security but is not comprehensive enough to mitigate all identified vulnerabilities.

D. Deploying directory-based group policies can enforce security policies but might not directly prevent data exfiltration or ensure strong authentication.

F. Implementing a version control system helps manage changes to files but is not a security measure for preventing the identified vulnerabilities.

G. Implementing a CMDB platform (Configuration Management Database) helps manage IT assets but does not address the specific security issues mentioned.

Disabling unneeded servicesreduces the attack surface by closing open ports.Patchingensures that endpoint protection software and operating systems are up-to-date, reducing vulnerability exposure.Removing unused accountseliminates access paths for malicious users exploiting dormant accounts. Secure boot, BIOS passwords, and drive encryption are important, but they address different layers of security than the vulnerabilities listed.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

SecurityX CAS-005 exam content emphasizes integrating security into the SDLC and using automated tools to identify vulnerabilities early.

Software dependency management solutions track and analyze libraries and components for known vulnerabilities before deployment, using vulnerability databases such as NVD or OSS Index.

IAST scanning still requires the application to be running and may detect issues later.

WAF policies help block attacks in production but do not prevent vulnerable code from being deployed.

SIEM monitoring is reactive and identifies issues after they occur.By detecting vulnerable dependencies early, software dependency management solutions prevent late-stage deployment delays and reduce security risk.

SecurityX CAS-005 network architecture objectives emphasize limiting exposure of vulnerable systems by using application-aware firewalls with strict rule sets.

This approach directly reduces the attack surface by allowing only approved application traffic to and from the vulnerable systems, mitigating risk until systems are patched or replaced.

EDR (A) enhances detection but doesn’t inherently reduce the exposed services.

Network segmentation in monitor mode (B) doesn’t block threats.

IDS (C) detects activity but does not block it.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In a Discretionary Access Control (DAC) model, the data owner or an assigned stakeholder has the authority to determine who can access resources. SecurityX CAS-005 IAM objectives describe DAC as user- or owner-controlled, where permissions can be granted or revoked at the owner’s discretion.

In this scenario, because permissions from the legacy system could not be migrated, multiple stakeholders were made responsible for assigning and managing access—matching the DAC model’s characteristics.

Option A relates to outsourcing, which does not define an access control model.

Option C is about authentication limitations, unrelated to the choice of DAC.

Option D describes backup responsibilities, which are operational tasks, not access control.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Code signing uses cryptographic digital signatures to prove that software or updates come from a trusted source and have not been altered. In the SecurityX CAS-005 objectives, this is covered under security engineering and cryptographic assurance mechanisms.

Envelope encryption protects confidentiality but does not authenticate the source.

File integrity monitoring detects file changes but does not confirm the origin of the update.

Application control manages which software can run but does not ensure authenticity of distributed files.Only code signing meets all three objectives: verifying the source, ensuring authorization, and proving integrity.

To prevent sensitive corporate information from being exposed if a laptop is stolen, the solution must ensure that data is not stored locally and access is tightly controlled. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 4: Governance, Risk, and Compliance, 4.3), Desktop as a Service (DaaS) hosts data and applications in the cloud, reducing the risk of data exposure on physical devices. Combining DaaS with multifactor authentication (MFA) ensures that even if a laptop is stolen, unauthorized access to the cloud environment is prevented.

Option B:IP allow lists and SSO do not address data stored locally on the laptop, which could be accessed offline.

Option C:MDM and stronger passwords help but do not prevent data exposure if the device is compromised (e.g., via offline attacks).

Option D:Updating policies and monitoring breaches are reactive measures that do not directly protect data on a stolen laptop.

Option A:DaaS ensures no sensitive data resides on the device, and MFA secures access, making it the best solution.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The code snippet exposes a hardcoded access token in a public repository. According to SecurityX CAS-005 secure coding best practices, the immediate action must be to revoke the exposed secret to prevent unauthorized access.

Removing the code from public view without revoking the token leaves the secret still usable by any attacker who has already seen or copied it.

SAST scanning would detect the issue but not mitigate it immediately.

Security awareness training is a long-term prevention measure but does not fix the immediate exposure.Revoking the secret first stops ongoing exploitation, after which the code can be removed, and preventative measures can be implemented.

The best solution to harden a three-tier environment (web, database, and application servers) is to implement microsegmentation on the server VLANs. Here’s why:

Enhanced Security: Microsegmentation creates granular security zones within the data center, allowing for more precise control over east-west traffic between servers. This helps prevent lateral movement by attackers who may gain access to one part of the network.

Isolation of Tiers: By segmenting the web, database, and application servers, the organization can apply specific security policies and controls to each segment, reducing the risk of cross-tier attacks.

Compliance and Best Practices: Microsegmentation aligns with best practices for network security and helps meet compliance requirements by ensuring that sensitive data and systems are properly isolated and protected.

In a federated environment divided by region, if user identities are not synchronized across regions, authentication may be slow or fail when employees travel. CAS-005 IAM guidance states that identity synchronization ensures user attributes and credentials are consistently available in all regions, reducing latency and login issues.

Option A creates separate identities, which breaks single identity management.

Option C is unrelated to the login performance issue.

Option D may resolve SSO appliance sync but not cross-region identity data availability.

The key requirement is toinstantly eliminate data losson a lost device.

Cryptographic erasureworks by deleting encryption keys used for FDE (full disk encryption), rendering all data unrecoverable within seconds — satisfying the "mitigate within seconds" requirement.

Revoking certificates won’t wipe the data from a lost tablet.

Changing MFA credentials won’t help unless the device is secured, and app allow lists don’t apply post-loss.

FromCAS-005, Domain 3: Secure Systems Design and Deployment:

“Cryptographic erase (CE) renders data irrecoverable by deleting encryption keys used to protect data on the device.”

A risk register is atool commonly used in risk management to document all identified risks, their assessment in terms of likelihood and impact, and the actions steps to manage them. By adding the newly identified risks to the risk register and assigning an owner and severity, the organization ensures that each risk is visible to stakeholders and has a designated individual responsible for its management. This aligns with the company's requirements for transparency and accountability in risk management.​

Anacceptable use policy (AUP)defines what is considered appropriate use of corporate email and prevents unnecessary emails to personal accounts. This helps in reducing false DLP alerts while maintaining compliance.

Quarantining emails (A)is unnecessary since the content was not flagged as sensitive.

Encryption (C)secures emails but does not address overuse.

Phishing awareness training (D)is unrelated to policy enforcement for outgoing emails.

Unauthorized code changesand lack ofindependent verificationare directly mitigated bycode signing, which ensures that code is from a trusted source and has not been altered.

While digital signatures are part of code signing, the broader practice of code signing encompasses signature management, version integrity, and trusted sources.

Lightweight cryptography is irrelevant in this context; it's more about efficiency in constrained devices.

Non-repudiation is a benefit of digital signatures but doesn't directly solve the verification/integrity concerns alone.

FromCAS-005 Guide, Domain 4: Security Architecture, Tools, and Technologies:

“Code signing ensures that the code has not been tampered with and originates from a trusted developer.”

The reported issues suggest problems related to network connectivity, remote access, and certificate management:

A. Review VPN throughput: Connectivity issues and the inability to download applications while working remotely may be due to VPN bandwidth or performance issues. Reviewing and optimizing VPN throughput can help resolve these problems by ensuring that remote users have adequate bandwidth for accessing corporate resources.

F. Validate MDM asset compliance: Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems ensure that mobile endpoints comply with corporate security policies. Validating MDM compliance can help address issues related to the inability to download applications and certificate errors, as non-compliant devices might be blocked from accessing certain resources.

B. Check IPS rules: While important for security, IPS rules are less likely to directly address the connectivity and certificate issues described.

C. Restore static content on the CDN: This action is related to content delivery but does not address VPN or certificate-related issues.

D. Enable secure authentication using NAC: Network Access Control (NAC) enhances security but does not directly address the specific issues described.

E. Implement advanced WAF rules: Web Application Firewalls protect web applications but do not address VPN throughput or mobile device compliance.

Managing telemetry and differentiating it by office requires a way to categorize data. Let’s evaluate:

A. Sensor placement:Useful for data collection but doesn’t inherently differentiate by office.

B. Data labeling:Assigns metadata (e.g., office location) to telemetry, enabling differentiation. This aligns with CAS-005’s focus on data management for security operations.

C. Continuous monitoring:Ensures ongoing data collection but doesn’t address differentiation.

Tokenizationreplaces sensitive data (e.g., PII) with non-sensitive placeholders while maintaining format consistency, ensuring compliancewithout disrupting testing. This method is commonly used forPCI-DSS and GDPR compliancewhile preserving data structure for functional tests.

Encryption (A)secures data but does not remove sensitivity or solve testing concerns.

Truncation (B)removes portions of data but may impact testing if format requirements are strict.

Synthetic data (C)can be useful but may not always match real-world scenarios perfectly for testing purposes.

In the context of establishing a Security Operations Center (SOC) with a threat-modeling function, it's crucial to understand how data flows within the organization's systems. Network and data flow diagrams provide a visual representation of the system's architecture, illustrating how data moves between components, which is essential for identifying potential security weaknesses and antipatterns. Antipatterns are common responses to recurring problems that are ineffective and risk-inducing. By analyzing these diagrams, the consultant can pinpoint areas where security controls may be lacking or misconfigured, thereby facilitating the development of effective threat models.​

While other options like unpatchable IoT devices (Option B) and inventories of cloud resources (Option E) are important for comprehensive security assessments, they are more pertinent during later stages, such as vulnerability management and asset inventory. The initial phase of threat modeling focuses on understanding the system's structure and data flows to identify potential threats, making network and data flow diagrams the most critical information at this stage.​

The scenario describes a sophisticated attack where the threat actor used steganography within LDAP to exfiltrate data. Given that thehardware and OS firmware were validated and found uncompromised, the attack vector likely exploited a network communication channel. To mitigate such risks, enforcing allow lists for authorized network ports and protocols is the most effective strategy.

Here’s why this option is optimal:

Port and Protocol Restrictions: By creating an allow list, the organization can restrict communications to only those ports and protocols that are necessary for legitimate business operations. This reduces the attack surface by preventing unauthorized or unusual traffic.

Network Segmentation: Enforcing such rules helps in segmenting the network and ensuring that only approved communications occur, which is critical in preventing data exfiltration methods like steganography.

Preventing Unauthorized Access: Allow lists ensure that only predefined, trusted connections are allowed, blocking potential paths that attackers could use to infiltrate or exfiltrate data.

Other options, while beneficial in different contexts, are not directly addressing the network communication threat:

B. Measuring and attesting to the entire boot chain: While this improves system integrity, it doesn’t directly mitigate the risk of data exfiltration through network channels.

C. Rolling thecryptographic keys used for hardware security modules: This is useful for securing data and communications but doesn’t directly address the specific method of exfiltration described.

D. Using code signing to verify the source of OS updates: Ensures updates are from legitimate sources, but it doesn’t mitigate the risk of network-based data exfiltration.

10.1.45.65 SFTP ServerDisable 8080

10.1.45.66 Email Server Disable 415 and 443

10.1.45.67 Web Server Disable 21, 80

10.1.45.68 UTM Appliance Disable 21

The provided code snippet shows a script that captures the user's cookies and sends them to a remote server. This type of attack is characteristic of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), specifically stored XSS, where the malicious script is stored on the target server (e.g., in a database) and executed in the context of users who visit the infected web page.

A. XSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) attack: This involves tricking the user into performing actions on a different site without their knowledge but does not involve stealing cookies via script injection.

B. Command injection: This involves executing arbitrary commands on the host operating system, which is not relevant to the given JavaScript code.

C. Stored XSS: The provided code snippet matches the pattern of a stored XSS attack, where the script is injected into a web page, and when users visit the page, the script executes and sends theuser's cookies to the attacker's server.

D. SQL injection: This involves injecting malicious SQL queries into the database and is unrelated to the given JavaScript code.

Authenticated scans allow the scanner to verify installed patches and configurations, reducing false positives.

Other options:

A (CMDB updates) improve asset tracking but do not validate patch installations.

C (Advanced fingerprinting) improves accuracy but does not replace authentication.

D (Coordination with teams) is good practice but does not prevent false positives.

A centralized Software Bill of Materials (SBoM) is the best solution for identifying vulnerabilities in container images in aprivate repository. An SBoM provides a comprehensive inventory of all components, dependencies, and their versions within a container image, facilitating quick evaluation and response to vulnerabilities.

Why Centralized SBoM?

Comprehensive Inventory: An SBoM lists all software components, including their versions and dependencies, allowing for thorough vulnerability assessments.

Quick Identification: Centralizing SBoM data enables rapid identification of affected containers when a vulnerability is disclosed.

Automation: SBoMs can be integrated into automated tools for continuous monitoring and alerting of vulnerabilities.

Regulatory Compliance: Helps in meeting compliance requirements by providing a clear and auditable record of all software components used.

Other options, while useful, do not provide the same level of comprehensive and efficient vulnerability management:

A. SAST scan reports: Focuses on static analysis of code but may not cover all components in container images.

C. CIS benchmark compliance reports: Ensures compliance with security benchmarks but does not provide detailed component inventory.

D. Credentialed vulnerability scan: Useful for in-depth scans but may not be as efficient for quick vulnerability evaluation.

Based on the security policy that any publicly available server must be patched within 12 hours after a patch is released, the securityanalyst should patch Host 1 first. Here’s why:

Public Availability: Host 1 is externally available, making it accessible from the internet. Publicly available servers are at higher risk of being targeted by attackers, especially when a zero-day vulnerability is known.

Exposure to Threats: Host 1 has IIS installed and is publicly accessible, increasing its exposure to potential exploitation. Patching this host first reduces the risk of a successful attack.

Prioritization of Critical Assets: According to best practices, assets that are exposed to higher risks should be prioritized for patching to mitigate potential threats promptly.

The malware uses TCP 4444 to move laterally between systems. A host-based firewall can block unauthorized communication ports (like TCP 4444) on each workstation, preventing malware from establishing connections and spreading. Configuring the CPU's NX bit and enabling ASLR primarily help in mitigating memory-based exploits, not in stopping lateral movement. Enabling UEFI ensures boot integrity but does not mitigate active lateral communication. An edge firewall would protect the network perimeter, not internal workstation-to-workstation communication.

Understanding the Security Event:

Unauthorized usersgained access from non-production to production.

IAM policies were weak, allowingbulk user creation.

Vulnerability assessments were disabled, andpatching was delayed.

Logs were unavailable, making incident response difficult.

Why Options A, D, and E areCorrect:

A (Disable bulk user creation by IAM team)→ Prevents unauthorized mass user account creation, which could beexploited by attackers.

D (Routine updates for endpoints & network devices)→ Patch management ensuresvulnerabilities are not left open for attackers.

E (Ensure all security/network devices send logs to SIEM)→ Helps withreal-time monitoring and detection of unauthorized activities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B (180-day log retention)→ While log retention is good,real-time monitoring is the priority.

C (Review application allow list daily)→ Reviewing itdaily is impractical. Regular audits are better.

F (Restrict production-to-non-production traffic)→ The issue isunauthorized access, not traffic routing.

CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures)provides unique identifiers for publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities and exposures. Each CVE entry includes a description and, often, remediation information. CVSS refers to scoring severity, CCE focuses on configuration issues, and CPE deals with naming standardized platforms and systems.

The question focuses oninternet-facing hosts, implying external exposure. CVSS scores, remote executability, and exploitavailability guide prioritization. Server2 (205.1.3.5, CVSS 6.5, Bind Server) has a public IP, suggesting it’s internet-facing, unlike Server1 and Server4 (192.168.x.x, private IPs). Server3 (207.1.5.7, CVSS 5.5) is also public but has a lower score and risk compared to Server2’s proof-of-concept (POC) exploit. Server2’s Bind Server (DNS) role is critical and commonly targeted, making it the priority.

Option A:Server1 (CVSS 7.5) is private, not internet-facing.

Option B:Server2 (CVSS 6.5) is internet-facing with an exploit POC, warranting immediate patching.

Option C:Server3 (CVSS 5.5) is internet-facing but less severe.

Option D:Server4 (CVSS 9.8) is critical but private, not internet-facing.

The data provided shows that all companies have SIEM systems, but they differ in their implementation of UEBA, DLP, ISAC membership, and TIP integration. The key metric to evaluate is the effectiveness in detecting and responding to attacks, as shown by the "Time to Detect" and "Time to Respond" columns. Company 1, which is an ISAC member, has the fastest detection (10 minutes) and response (20 minutes) times. Company 3, which is not an ISAC member, has slower detection (12 minutes) and response (24 minutes) times, despite having UEBA and TIP integration. Company 2, which lacks TIP integration but is an ISAC member, has the slowest times (20 minutes to detect, 40 minutes to respond). This suggests that ISAC membership correlates with faster detection and response, likely due to access to shared threat intelligence.

According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 objectives (Domain 2: Security Operations, 2.2), Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) are critical for enabling organizations to share real-timethreat intelligence within their industry. ISACs provide access to actionable intelligence, best practices, and coordinated response strategies, which are essential for defending against sophisticated attacks targeting critical infrastructure like the energy sector. The lack of ISAC membership (Company 3) limits access to this intelligence, hindering proactive defense and response capabilities. While UEBA, DLP, and TIP integration are valuable, they are more focused on internal monitoring, data protection,and individual threat intelligence feeds, respectively, and do not provide the same industry-wide collaboration as an ISAC.

A.Creating a secondary, immutable storage array and updating it with live data on a continuous basis: An immutable storage array ensures that data, once written, cannot be altered or deleted. This greatly reduces the risk of backup compromise and provides resilience against ransomware attacks, as the ransomware cannot modify or delete the backup data. Maintaining multiple copies of production data with an immutable storage solution ensures data integrity and compliance with the requirement for multiple copies.

Other options:

B. Utilizing two connected storage arrays and ensuring the arrays constantly sync: While this ensures data redundancy, it does not provide protection against ransomware attacks, as both arrays could be compromised simultaneously.

C. Enabling remote journaling on the databases: This ensures real-time transaction mirroring but does not address the requirement for reducing the risk of backup compromise or resilience to ransomware.

D. Setting up anti-tampering on the databases: While this helps ensure data integrity, it does not provide a comprehensive backup solution that meets all the specified requirements.

The table indicates varying load times for users accessing the website from different geographic locations. Customers from Australia and India are experiencingsignificantly higher load times compared to those from the United States. This suggests that latency and geographical distance are affecting the website's performance.

A. IDS (Intrusion Detection System): While an IDS is useful for detecting malicious activities, it does not address performance issues related to latency and geographical distribution of content.

B. CDN (Content Delivery Network): A CDN stores copies of the website's content in multiple geographic locations. By serving content from the nearest server to the user, a CDN can significantly reduce load times and improve user experience globally.

C. WAF (Web Application Firewall): A WAF protects web applications by filtering and monitoring HTTP traffic but does not improve performance related to geographical latency.

D. NAC (Network Access Control): NAC solutions control access to network resources but are not designed to address web performance issues.

Implementing a CDN is the best solution to resolve the performance issues observed in the log output.

To design resilience in an enterprise system that can survive environmental catastrophes, recover within 24 hours, and be resilient to active exploitation, the best strategy is to allocate fully redundant and geographically distributed standby sites. Here’s why:

Geographical Redundancy: Having geographically distributed standby sites ensures that if one site is affected by an environmental catastrophe, the other sites can take over, providing continuity of operations.

Full Redundancy: Fully redundant sites mean that all critical systems and data are replicated, enabling quick recovery in the event of a critical loss of availability.

Resilience to Exploitation: Distributing resources across multiple sites reduces the risk of a single point of failure and increases resilience against targeted attacks.

Analysis and Remediation Options for Each IoC:

IoC 1:

Evidence:

Source: Apache_httpd

Type: DNSQ

Dest: @10.1.1.1:53,@10.1.2.5

Data: update.s.domain, CNAME 3a129sk219r9slmfkzzz000.s.domain, 108.158.253.253

Analysis:

Analysis: The service is attempting to resolve a malicious domain.

Reason: The DNS queries and the nature of the CNAME resolution indicate that the service is trying to resolve potentially harmful domains, which is a common tactic used by malware to connect to command-and-control servers.

Remediation:

Remediation: Implement a blocklist for known malicious ports.

Reason: Blocking known malicious domains at the DNS level prevents the resolution of harmful domains, thereby protecting the network from potential connections to malicious servers.

IoC 2:

Evidence:

Src: 10.0.5.5

Dst: 10.1.2.1, 10.1.2.2, 10.1.2.3, 10.1.2.4, 10.1.2.5

Proto: IP_ICMP

Data: ECHO

Action: Drop

Analysis:

Analysis: Someone is footprinting a network subnet.

Reason: The repeated ICMP ECHO requests to different addresses within a subnet indicate that someone is scanning the network to discover active hosts, a common reconnaissance technique used by attackers.

Remediation:

Remediation: Block ping requests across the WAN interface.

Reason: Blocking ICMP ECHO requests on the WAN interface can prevent attackers from using ping sweeps to gather information about the network topology and active devices.

IoC 3:

Evidence:

Proxylog:

GET /announce?info_hash=%01dff%27f%21%10%c5%wp%4e%1d%6f%63%3c%49%6d&peer_id%3dxJFS

Uploaded=0&downloaded=0&left=3767869&compact=1&ip=10.5.1.26&event=started

User-Agent: RAZA 2.1.0.0

Host: localhost

Connection: Keep-Alive

HTTP200 OK

Analysis:

Analysis: An employee is using P2P services to download files.

Reason: The HTTP GET request with parameters related to a BitTorrent client indicates that the employee is using peer-to-peer (P2P) services, which can lead to unauthorized data transfer and potential security risks.

Remediation:

Remediation: Enforce endpoint controls on third-party software installations.

Reason: By enforcing strict endpoint controls, you can prevent the installation and use of unauthorized software, such as P2P clients, thereby mitigating the risk of data leaks and other security threats associated with such applications.

The user-agent string can providevaluable information to distinguish between legitimate and bot-related traffic. It contains details about the browser, device, and sometimes the operating system of the client making the request.

Why Use User-Agent String?

Identify Patterns: User-agent strings can help identify patterns that are typical of bots or legitimate users.

Block Malicious Bots: Many bots use known user-agent strings, and identifying these can help block malicious requests.

Anomalies Detection: Anomalous user-agent strings can indicate spoofing attempts or malicious activity.

Other options provide useful information but may not be as effective for initial determination of the nature of the request:

B. Byte length of the request: This can indicate anomalies but does not provide detailed information about the client.

C. Web application headers: While useful, they may not provide enough distinction between legitimate and bot traffic.

D. HTML encoding field: This is not typically used for identifying the nature of the request.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: Theorganization is using customer-managed encryption keys in the cloud, which is more expensive than using the cloud provider's free managed keys. The CISO needs to find a way to reduce costs without significantly weakening the security posture.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. Utilize an on-premises HSM to locally manage keys: While on-premises HSMs offer strong security, they introduce additional costs and complexity (procurement, maintenance, etc.). This option is unlikely to reduce costs compared to cloud-based key management.

B. Adjust the configuration for cloud provider keys on data that is classified as public: This is the most practical and cost-effective approach. Data classified as public doesn't require the same level of protection as sensitive data. Using the cloud provider's free managed keys for public data can significantly reduce costs without compromising security, as the data is intended to be publicly accessible anyway.

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) supports change management by securing messages (e.g., approvals, updates).Non-repudiation, provided via digital signatures, ensures a sender cannot deny sending a message, critical for auditability in change processes.

Option A:Correct—PKI’s digital signatures ensure non-repudiation.

Option B:Confidentiality (via encryption) is a PKI feature but less tied to change management’s focus on accountability.

Option C:Delivery receipts are not aPKI function; they’re protocol-specific (e.g., SMTP).

Option D:Attestation relates to verifying attributes, not a direct PKI message capability.

Based on the provided logs, the user has accessed various applications from different geographic locations within a very short timeframe. This pattern is indicative of the "impossible travel" security rule, a common feature in Single Sign-On (SSO) systems designed to detect and prevent fraudulent access attempts.

Analysis of Logs:

At 8:47 p.m., the user accessed a VPN from Toronto.

At 8:48 p.m., the user accessed email from Los Angeles.

At 8:48 p.m., the user accessed the human resources system from Los Angeles.

At 8:49 p.m., the user accessed email again from Los Angeles.

At 8:52 p.m., the user attempted to access the human resources system from Toronto, which was denied.

These rapid changes in location are physically impossible and typically trigger security measures to prevent unauthorized access. The SSO system detected these inconsistencies and likely flagged the activity as suspicious, resulting in access denial.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

According to SecurityX CAS-005 threat intelligence and testing objectives, a honeypot is a decoy system designed to lure attackers, allowing security teams to observe new tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) in a controlled environment.

An IPS is designed to block known attacks but not discover new ones.

Sandboxing is useful for analyzing suspicious files or malware samples but not for attracting live, unknown attack attempts.

Scanning for IoCs detects known compromise indicators, not new, emerging attacks.A honeypot directly supports proactive attack discovery and analysis.

The strings utility extracts human-readable text from binary files. Security analysts use it to identify Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) such as URLs, IP addresses, filenames, and commands embedded in the malware.

Option A (reconstructing timeline) would require event logs or forensic timeline tools.

Option C (replicating the attack) involves execution in a sandbox, not static string extraction.

The SIEM already contains multiple events that, if correlated, would have indicated an active attack sequence on VM001—such as denied connections, IPS alerts, malware detection, and then an allowed connection. CAS-005 Security Operations objectives emphasize log correlation as a way to enhance detection by linking related events across different time stamps and data sources into a single, higher-confidence alert.

Option A (adding EDR logs) could add visibility but does not address the need to connect existing events for earlier detection.

Option C (improving parsing) ensures readability but does not create actionable alerts.

Option D (creating a new malware detection rule) is redundant since malware detection already appeared in logs; the issue was the lack of correlation to act on it in time.

By correlating IDS, IPS, firewall, and malware detection logs, the SIEM can raise a higher-priority alert before the attack is completed.

On-path decryption attacks, such as BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS) and other related vulnerabilities, often exploit weaknesses in the implementation of CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) mode. To mitigate these attacks, the following actions are recommended:

B. Removing support for CBC-based key exchange and signing algorithms: CBC mode is vulnerable to certain attacks like BEAST. By removing support for CBC-based ciphers, you can eliminate one of the primary vectors for these attacks. Instead, use modern cipher modes like GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) which offer better security properties.

C. Adding TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA256: This cipher suite uses Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE) for key exchange, which provides perfect forward secrecy. It also uses AES in GCM mode, which is not susceptible to the same attacks as CBC. SHA-256 is a strong hash function that ensures data integrity.

The application allows users to input URLs, which the application then fetches using requests.get(url). This functionality can be exploited if not properly validated, leading to potential security vulnerabilities such as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Implementing a code scanner as part of the development pipeline can help identify insecure coding practices, such as unsanitized user inputs and improper handling of external requests. Code scanners analyze the source code for known vulnerabilities and coding errors, enabling developers to remediate issues before deployment.

B. Pre-commit code linting: Linting tools analyze code for syntax errors andadherence to coding standards before the code is committed to the repository. This helps catch minor code issues early in the development process, reducing the likelihood of deployment failures.

D. Automated regression testing: Automated regression tests ensure that new code changes do not introduce bugs or regressions into the existing codebase. By running these tests automatically during the deployment process, developers can catch issues early and ensure the stability of the development environment.

Other options:

A. Software composition analysis: This helps identify vulnerabilities in third-party components but does not directly address code quality or deployment failures.

C. Repository branch protection: While this can help manage the code submission process, it does not directly prevent deployment failures caused by code issues or security check failures.

E. Code submit authorization workflow: This manages who can submit code but does not address the quality of the code being submitted.

F. Pipeline compliance scanning: This checks for compliance with security policies but does not address syntax or regression issues.

D. STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression): STIX is a standardized language for representing threat information in a structured and machine-readable format. It facilitates the sharing ofthreat intelligence by ensuring that data is consistent and can be easily understood by all parties involved.

E. TAXII (Trusted Automated eXchange of Indicator Information): TAXII is a transport mechanism that enables the sharing of cyber threat information over a secure and trusted network. It works in conjunction with STIX to automate the exchange of threat intelligence among organizations.

Other options:

A. CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platform): This focuses on securing cloud workloads and is not directly related to threat intelligence sharing.

B. YARA: YARA is used for malware research and identifying patterns in files, but it is not a platform for sharing threat intelligence.

C. ATT&CK: This is a knowledge base of adversary tactics andtechniques but does not facilitate the sharing of threat intelligence data.

F. JTAG: JTAG is a standard for testing and debugging integrated circuits, not related to threat intelligence.

To secure the Operational Technology (OT) environment based on the given requirements, the best approach is to implement a bastion host inthe OT network. The bastion host serves as a secure entry point for remote access, allowing third-party vendors to connect while being monitored by security tools. Using a dedicated update server for workstations ensures that security updates are applied in a controlled manner without direct internet access.

Understanding the Ransomware Issue:

The key issue here is thatbackups were not recoverable within the required RPO timeframe.

This means the organizationdid not properly testitsbackup and disaster recovery (DR) processes.

To prevent this from happening again, regular disaster recovery testing is essential.

Why Option C is Correct:

Disaster recovery testing ensures that backups are functionaland can meetbusiness continuity needs.

Frequent DR testingallows organizations to identify and fixgaps in recovery strategies.

Regular testing ensuresthat recoverymeets the RPO & RTO (Recovery Time Objective) requirements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Encrypt & label backup tapes):While encryption is important, it does not address thefailure to meet RPO requirements.

B (Reverting to manual business processes):While amanual continuity planis good for resilience, it doesnot resolve the backup and recovery failure.

D (Tabletop exercise & RACI matrix):Atabletop exerciseis a planning activity, butit does not involve actual recovery testing.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Privacy regulations (C), such as GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), require companies to provide data subject access request (DSAR) handling processes. A DSAR allows individuals to request details about their personal data stored by a company and request modifications or deletions.

Information security standards (A) focus on overall security controls, while e-discovery requirements (B) relate to legal investigations rather than ongoing compliance.