CompTIA CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam Exam Practice Test

To support email authenticity and enable analysis by a third-party platform, the protocols must verify the sender’s identity and provide metadata for inspection. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, 3.2):

DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance):DMARC builds on SPF and DKIM to enforce policies for email authenticity and provides reporting mechanisms to share authentication results with third parties for analysis.

DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail):DKIM adds a cryptographic signature to emails, allowing recipients to verify the sender’s domain and ensure the email’s integrity.

These two protocols are essential for authenticity and reporting.

Option C (TLS):TLS ensures encryption during transmission but does not address authenticity or reporting.

Option D (SPF):SPF verifies sender IP addresses but lacks reporting capabilities without DMARC.

Option E (DNSSEC):DNSSEC secures DNS queries but is not specific to email authenticity.

Option F (MX):MX records define mail servers, not authenticity or reporting.

The most critical considerations are trust boundaries (C) and supply chain access (E). Trust boundaries define where sensitive data crosses between systems or organizations, requiring strict cryptographic protections—especially important in government and commercial environments subject to crypto-export controls.

Supply chain access is also critical because hardware and software are sourced from external vendors. If suppliers are compromised, attackers could introduce malicious code, backdoors, or tampered firmware, endangering customers worldwide.

Option A (contractual obligations) and B (legal hold) are compliance-related but not direct security threats. Option D (cloud services enumeration) is irrelevant unless the storage is cloud-based. Option F (homomorphic encryption) is an advanced technology but not required for base threat modeling.

CAS-005 highlights modeling adversary capabilities at trust boundaries and accounting for supply chain risks, making C and E the most important.

The best solution is to provide a hash of all data made available (D). Hashing ensures the integrity of the threat intelligence data provided to customers. Clients can verify that the data received via API matches the published hash, ensuring no tampering occurred in transit or at rest. This supports customer trust and aligns with the objective of protecting data integrity while maintaining availability.

Option A (API secret keys) improves authentication and reduces attack surface but does not address integrity or compute efficiency. Option B (publishing IoCs publicly) increases attack surface and reduces control over distribution, which conflicts with security objectives. Option C (rate limiting) helps availability and cost control but does not guarantee data integrity.

By providing hashes, the company ensures customers can validate authenticity regardless of delivery method, reducing the risk of manipulated IoCs. This approach also minimizes compute spend since hashing is lightweight compared to continuous verification processes.

Therefore, the strongest alignment with all stated objectives—availability, reduced spend, reduced attack surface, and integrity—is achieved by providing hashes of all threat intelligence data.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The question focuses on the historical design assumptions behind older operational technology (OT)systems, particularly in the context of command, control, and telemetry.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. operating in an isolated/disconnected system: This is the most accurate assumption for many legacy OT systems. Historically, these systems weredesigned to operate in air-gapped environments, completely isolated from external networks (including the internet).

Encrypting patient data at rest is a critical requirement for healthcare providers to ensure compliance with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The primary business requirement fulfilled by this practice is the protection of patient privacy while supporting the portability of medical information. By encrypting data at rest, healthcare providers safeguard sensitive patient information from unauthorized access, ensuring that privacy is maintained even if the storage media are compromised. Additionally, encryption supports the portability of patient records, allowing for secure transfer and access across different systems and locations while ensuring that privacy controls are in place.

Investing in a threat intelligence platform is the best option for a company looking to operationalize research output. A threat intelligence platform helps in collecting, processing, and analyzing threat data to provide actionable insights. These platforms integrate data from various sources, including dark web monitoring, honeypots, and other security tools, to offer a comprehensive view of the threat landscape.

Why a Threat Intelligence Platform?

Data Integration: It consolidates data from multiple sources, including dark web monitoring and honeypots, making it easier to analyze and derive actionableinsights.

Actionable Insights: Provides real-time alerts and reports on potential threats, helping the organization take proactive measures.

Operational Efficiency: Streamlines the process of threat detection and response, allowing the security team to focus on critical issues.

Research and Development: Facilitates the operationalization of research output by providing a platform for continuous monitoring and analysis of emerging threats.

Other options, while valuable, do not offer the same level of integration and operationalization capabilities:

A. Dark web monitoring: Useful for specific threat intelligence but lacks comprehensive operationalization.

C. Honeypots: Effective for detecting and analyzing specific attack vectors but not for broader threat intelligence.

D. Continuous adversary emulation: Important for testing defenses but not for integrating and operationalizing threat intelligence.

Enriching data to compare domains requires actionable visibility. Let’s analyze:

A. Cron job:Automates updates but doesn’t analyze in the SIEM.

B. Parser:Processes logs but doesn’t provide comparison insights.

C. Filter query:Excludes matches, opposite of enrichment.

The sshd_config file is the main configuration file for the OpenSSH server. To disable weak CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) ciphers for SSH connections, the security engineer should modify the sshd_config file to update the list of allowed ciphers. This file typically contains settings for the SSH daemon, including which encryption algorithms are allowed.

By editing the /etc/ssh/sshd_config file and updating the Ciphers directive, weak ciphers can be removed, and only strong ciphers can be allowed. This change ensures that the SSH server does not use insecure encryption methods.

Attack surface reductionfocuses on minimizingunnecessary services, open ports, and vulnerabilities, reducing the exposure to potential adversaries. This aligns withzero trust and least privilege principles.

Secure Boot (A)helps ensure system integrity but does not minimize exposed services.

Disabling third-party integrations (C)may help, but broader attack surface reduction is the best first step.

Limiting access (D)is important but does not directly reduce exposed services.

Creatingsecure baseline imagesensuresconsistent, repeatabledeployment aligned with hardening standards. These images can be used acrosson-premises and cloud environments, ensuring compliance and reducing misconfigurations.

Vulnerability alerts (A)are reactive, not preventive.

Building images from scratch (C)is time-consuming and unnecessary if baselines exist.

Scripts for cleanup (D)are useful but do not prevent initial insecure configurations.

The vulnerability lies in line [10], where the function strcpy(transmit, input) is used. The strcpy function does not perform boundary checking when copying strings. Since input is defined with a size of 256 characters and transmit only has 20 characters allocated, the strcpy operation will cause a buffer overflow when the contents of input exceed the allocated size of transmit. This creates a significant security vulnerability, as attackers can overwrite adjacent memory, potentially injecting malicious code or altering program execution.

Lines [02], [04], [07], and [08] are not inherently vulnerable by themselves. Line [04] defines the oversized input, but the vulnerability only materializes when combined with the unsafe copy in line [10]. Secure coding practices recommend using safer alternatives like strncpy, which includes a length parameter, or implementing runtime checks to ensure the destination buffer size is not exceeded.

Thus, the vulnerable line that must be changed is line [10], where strcpy is used.

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.

Context-based authentication enhances traditional security methods by incorporating additional layers of information about the user's current environment and behavior. This can include factors such as the user's location, the time of access, the device used, and the behavior patterns. It is particularly useful in preventing unauthorized access even if an attacker has obtained a valid password.

Rule-based (A) focuses on predefined rules and is less flexible in adapting to dynamic threats.

Time-based (B) authentication considers the time factor but doesn't provide comprehensive protection against stolen credentials.

Role-based (C) is more about access control based on the user's role within the organization rather than authenticating the user based on current context.

By implementing context-based authentication, the company can ensure that even if a password is compromised, the additional contextual factors required for access (which an attacker is unlikely to possess) provide a robust defense mechanism.

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.

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.

Model poisoning occurs when an attacker manipulates the training data or the training process of an AI model so that its predictions are deliberately inaccurate or biased. In the SecurityX CAS-005 objectives, this is part of understanding emerging technology threats, specifically AI/ML vulnerabilities. This differs from:

Social engineering, which manipulates humans rather than AI models.

Output handling, which deals with how outputs are processed but doesn’t cause inaccuracy at the model level.

Prompt injections, which manipulate the model at query time, not during training.Because model poisoning directly corrupts the AI model itself, it is the clearest reason AI outputs could be inaccurate.

The security diagram proposed by the security architect depicts a Zero Trust security model. Zero Trust is asecurity framework that assumes all entities, both inside and outside the network, cannot be trusted and must be verified before gaining access to resources.

Key Characteristics of Zero Trust in the Diagram:

Role-based Access Control: Ensures that users have access only to the resources necessary for their role.

Mandatory Access Control: Additional layer of security requiring authentication for access to sensitive areas.

Network Access Control: Ensures that devices meet security standards before accessing the network.

Multi-factor Authentication (MFA): Enhances security by requiring multiple forms of verification.

This model aligns with the Zero Trust principles of never trusting and always verifying access requests, regardless of their origin.

The best approach is to use Terraform scripts while creating golden images (A). Terraform is an Infrastructure as Code (IaC) tool that allows organizations to automate infrastructure deployment consistently across environments. A golden image is a pre-configured, patched, and hardened system image used as a standard baseline. By creating golden images via Terraform scripts, the company ensures that every microservice instance is deployed on an already-updated and secure OS. This eliminates the need for repeatedly patching the base OS before code deployment.

Option B (cron job with apt-update) applies patches but introduces delays (every 30 days) and lacks consistency across new deployments. Option C (snapshots) saves deployment states but risks replicating outdated or unpatched images. Option D (centralized update server) is useful but still requires updates post-deployment, which slows the rollout of microservices.

By automating golden image creation through Terraform, the company gains efficiency, repeatability, and security assurance, aligning with DevSecOps principles and CAS-005 cloud-native best practices.

Based on the provided authentication logs, we observe that User1's accountexperienced multiple failed login attempts within a very short time span (at 8:01:23 AM on 12/15). This pattern indicates a potential brute-force attack or an attempt to gain unauthorized access. Here’s a breakdown of why disabling User1's account is the appropriate first step:

Failed Login Attempts: The logs show that User1 had four consecutive failed login attempts:

VM01 at 8:01:23 AM

VM08 at 8:01:23 AM

VM01 at 8:01:23 AM

VM08 at 8:01:23 AM

Security Protocols and Best Practices: According to CompTIA Security+ guidelines, multiple failed login attempts within a short timeframe should trigger an immediate response to prevent further potential unauthorized access attempts. This typically involves temporarily disabling the account to stop ongoing brute-force attacks.

Account Lockout Policy: Implementing an account lockout policy is a standard practice to thwart brute-force attacks. Disabling User1's account will align with these best practices and prevent further failed attempts, which might lead to successful unauthorized access if not addressed.

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.

Homomorphic encryption allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it, providing strong privacy guarantees. However, the adoption of homomorphic encryption is challenging due to several factors:

A. Incomplete mathematical primitives: This is not the primary barrier as the theoretical foundations of homomorphic encryption are well-developed.

B. No use cases to drive adoption: There are several compelling use cases for homomorphic encryption, especially in privacy-sensitive fields like healthcare and finance.

C. Quantum computers not yet capable: Quantum computing is not directly related to the challenges of adopting homomorphic encryption.

D. Insufficient coprocessor support: The computational overhead of homomorphic encryption is significant, requiring substantial processing power. Current general-purpose processors are not optimized for the intensive computations required by homomorphic encryption, limiting its practical deployment. Specialized hardware or coprocessors designed to handle these computations more efficiently are not yet widely available.

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.

User behavior analytics (UBA)detectsanomalousactivityby analyzing historical patterns and comparing them to recent behavior. The time shift in account activity suggestspotential compromise or misuse.

TTP-based inquiries (A)focus on known attack tactics, techniques, and procedures but do not involve behavior tracking.

Adversary emulation (C)simulates attacks but does not analyze real data trends.

OSINT analysis (D)gathers intelligence from public sources, which is unrelated to internal account behavior analysis.

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.

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.”

To enable code signing with an existing PKI, the first step is to configure the Certificate Authority (CA) to issue code signing certificates. Adding a new template with attributes specific to code signing (e.g., key usage for signing) allows the CA to support this requirement without disrupting existing operations.

Option A:Correct—templates define certificate types; this isthe foundational step.

Option B:Wildcard certificates are for domains, not code signing.

Option C:Recalculating root CA keys is unnecessary and risky unless compromised.

Option D:SAN (Subject Alternative Name) is for multi-domain certificates, irrelevant here.

The table highlights that tampering threats (IDs 02 and 03) are rated Critical, making them the most significant risks. These threats involve malicious insiders inserting backdoors or attackers injecting malicious code into third-party libraries. To mitigate such risks, organizations must implement a secure software development lifecycle (SDLC) with formalized code scanning, gate checks, and supply chain validation.

Option C directly addresses these issues. Secure development practices include static/dynamic code analysis, dependency checks, peer reviews, and mandatory approvals before code promotion. This approach detects backdoors, prevents unauthorized modifications, and reduces the likelihood of compromised libraries being integrated.

Option A (PAM with conditional access) mitigates privilege escalation but does not address software tampering. Option B (rate limiting and federation) reduces brute-force authentication risks (ID 05) but not critical tampering. Option D (Zero Trust with microsegmentation) strengthens network defense but does not secure the integrity of source code or libraries.

Therefore, a secure SDLC with gate checks and code scanning is the best mitigation for the most critical threats identified.

The actions described fall under Operational Security (OPSEC), which is the practice of identifying critical information, analyzing potential adversary intelligence collection, and implementing measures to protect sensitive details from disclosure. In this case, the ISAC report highlights how adversaries may use photos shared on social media as reconnaissance, revealing details about technology or configurations inside secure facilities.

By disabling cameras and location services on corporate devices and blocking access to social media from corporate and guest networks, the CISO is reducing the chance of inadvertent information disclosure. This prevents employees from unintentionally leaking images or metadata that adversaries could exploit.

Adversary emulation (A) involves simulating threat actors’ tactics in controlled exercises, which is not what is occurring here. Open-source intelligence (C) is the method adversaries use to gather data, not the defensive practice the CISO is implementing. Social engineering (D) describes manipulative attacks against humans, but this control is preventive, not reactive.

Thus, these measures are clear examples of Operational Security to limit information exposure.

When the cost to mitigate certain risks is higher than the asset values, the best approach is to purchase insurance. Thismethod allows the company to transfer the risk to an insurance provider, ensuring that financial losses are covered in the event of an incident. This approach is cost-effective and ensures that risks are prioritized appropriately without overspending on mitigation efforts.

In serverless computing, organizations rely heavily on CSPs to manage the infrastructure, runtime, and scaling. A key risk is thelevel of control and influence governments have over CSPs, potentially affecting availability, access, or confidentiality of hosted services due to legal orders or government actions. Concerns about virtualization technologies, scalability, or third-party monitoring are valid but less critical compared to the overarching legal and control risks tied to CSP reliance.

For operational technology (OT) and non-traditional devices, downtime must be avoided. CAS-005 recommends passive monitoring and proactive response for environments where active scanning or changes could disrupt operations. Observing the environment continuously and acting on malicious indicators allows security without interrupting critical manufacturing processes.

Honeypots (A) are good for research but don’t provide full facility monitoring.

Behavioral analysis (B) is reactive without proactive measures.

Patching (C) is important but could cause downtime and may be limited in OT environments.

Animmutable databasepreventsmodifications or deletions, ensuring resilience against ransomware while maintaining multiple copies of data.

The best solution to reduce the likelihood of firmware-level attacks and rootkits is to implement measured boot. Measured boot is a hardware-assisted security mechanism that leverages Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and Secure Boot processes. It records cryptographic measurements of each stage of the boot process—from firmware to operating system loaders—and stores them in the TPM. Security software, such as attestation services, can then verify that the system booted into a known, trusted state. If firmware or boot-level code has been tampered with, the measurements will not match expected values, alerting administrators to compromise.

Option A (software integrity checks) validates application-level integrity but does not address firmware rootkits that load before the operating system. Option B (self-encrypting drives) protects data at rest but does not prevent rootkits. Option D (host-based encryption) ensures confidentiality but does not detect or mitigate firmware-level persistence.

Measured boot specifically targets low-level tampering, making it the most relevant control to defend against rootkits and firmware exploits.

Risk mitigation involves taking actions to reduce either the likelihood or impact of a threat. By implementing a firewall between the two environments, Company A is minimizing the risk of threats from Company B impacting its own systems. Accepting the risk would involve taking no action, avoiding it would mean terminating activities with Company B, and transferring would involve outsourcing the risk, none of which occurred here.

The security engineer should modify the following to fix the email migration issues:

Email CNAME Record: The email CNAME record must be changed to a type A record pointing to 192.168.1.10. This is because CNAME records should not be used where an IP address (A record) is required. Changing it to an A record ensures direct pointing to the correct IP.

TXT Record for DMARC: The TXT record must be changed to "v=dmarc ip4:192.168.1.10 include

com -all". This ensures proper configuration of DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) to include the correct IP address and the email service provider domain.

DMARC: Ensuring the DMARC record is correctly set up helps in preventing email spoofing and phishing, aligning with email security best practices.

Qualitative risk assessment is used when quantitative data (monetary loss, exact downtime cost, RTO) is unavailable or unreliable. The SecurityX CAS-005 GRC objectives note that qualitative methods rely on expert judgment, likelihood scales, and impact ratings rather than financial calculations. In this case, insufficient metrics rule out quantitative analysis.

Option A (work experience) is irrelevant to the choice of assessment type.

Option C (risk register) supports tracking, not selecting the assessment method.

Option D describes a quantitative goal, which is not possible with the given lack of metrics.

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.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The question is about ensuring that an organization retains control over its encryption keys. It focuses on different key storage and management methods.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. Encrypting using a key stored in an on-premises hardware security module (HSM): This is thebest option for maintaining complete control over encryption keys. An HSM is a dedicated, tamper-resistant hardware device specifically designed for secure key storage and cryptographic operations. Storing keys on-premises within an HSM ensures the organization has exclusive access.

Implementing a Single Sign-On (SSO) solution and integrating it with applications is the best way to manage the situation and decrease risks. Here’s why:

Reduced Password Fatigue: SSO allows users tolog in once and gain access to multiple applications and systems without needing to remember and manage multiple passwords. This reduces the likelihood of users writing down passwords.

Improved Security: By reducing the number of passwords users need to manage, SSO decreases the attack surface and potential for password-related security breaches. It also allows for the implementation of stronger authentication methods.

User Convenience: SSO improves the user experience by simplifying the login process, which can lead to higher productivity and satisfaction.

The issue is tracing the original source of requests in a tiered architecture with a load balancer. The web server logs show internal IPs (192.168.1.10), not the external client IPs, because the load balancer forwards requests without preserving the source. Enabling theX-Forwarded-Forheader on the load balancer adds the client’s original IP to the HTTP request headers, allowing downstream servers to log it. This ensures traceability without altering the architecture significantly.

Option A:Correct—X-Forwarded-For is the standard solution for preserving client IPs through load balancers.

Option B:A Host-based Intrusion Detection System (HIDS) detects anomalies but doesn’t address IP traceability.

Option C:A trusted CA certificate fixes the self-signed warning but is unrelated to source tracking.

Option D:Stored procedures improve database security but don’t help with IP logging.

Option E:Storing $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] captures the loadbalancer’s IP, not the client’s, unless X-Forwarded-For is enabled.

The best approach for managing and monitoring IoT devices, such as thermostats, is to operate them on a separate network with no access to other internal devices. This segmentation ensures that the IoT devices are isolated from the main network, reducing the risk of potential security breaches affecting other critical systems. Additionally, this setup allows for secure vendor updates without exposing the broader network to potential vulnerabilities inherent in IoT devices.

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.

The immediate action after discovering ransomware is toisolate the affected serversto prevent further spread of the malware to other systems in the network. Paying the ransom is not recommended as it does not guarantee data recovery and encourages criminal behavior. Notifying law enforcement is necessary, but containment must happen first to limit damage. Requesting server restoration should only occur after containment and a thorough investigation to ensure no remnants of ransomware remain.

Understanding the Security Event:

Administrator accounts are highly privilegedand require strict monitoring.

Server 4 shows failed login attempts for the administrator account.This could indicate abrute-force attack or unauthorized access attempt.

The fact thatnone of the admin login attempts were successfulsuggestssomeone was trying to guess the credentials.

Why Option D isCorrect:

Failed logins for administrator accounts are a critical security concern.

If an attacker gains access, they couldescalate privileges and compromise the network.

Investigatingunauthorized admin login attemptsshould be thetop priorityin a log audit.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Endpoint not submitting logs):While this is concerning, it does not indicate anactive attack.

B (Lateral movement):There's no evidence of a compromised account moving between servers yet.

C (Misconfigured syslog server):False negatives are a possibility, but thefailed admin loginsare real.

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.

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 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.

For bulk PKI enrollment:

MDM integration with directory services streamlines certificate request and deployment per device, leveraging existing authentication methods.

Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP) with one-time passwords allows automated, secure, large-scale certificate issuance without manual CSR handling.

clientAuth templates are used for device authentication, but selecting it alone is insufficient without automated enrollment mechanisms.

A single certificate for all devices violates PKI security principles and compromises individual device accountability.

The logs show the device checking in from two distant locations (USA and Qatar) at nearly the same time, which indicatesimpossible travel— a strong indicator that either the device has been cloned, compromised, or credentials stolen. The best immediate action is todisable the device's account and accessto prevent potential misuse while an investigation is conducted. Malicious application installation or resource issues are possible but secondary concerns here compared to account compromise.

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.

Tokenization replaces sensitive data elements with non-sensitive equivalents, called tokens, that can be used within the internal tests. The original data is stored securely and can be retrieved if necessary. This approach allows the software development team to work with data that appears realistic and valid without exposing the actual sensitive information.

Configuring data hashing (Option A) is not suitable for test data as ittransforms the data into a fixed-length value that is not usable in the same way as the original data. Replacing data with null records (Option C) is not useful as it does not provide valid data for testing. Data obfuscation (Option D) could be an alternative but might not meet the regulatory requirements as effectively as tokenization.

Remote journaling continuously sends log updates to a remote system, ensuring near-real-time backup and an RPO (Recovery Point Objective) under one hour.

Key concepts:

RPO under one hour means minimal data loss.

Remote journaling provides rapid recovery by keeping near-live backups.

Other options:

A(Full disk encryption) protects against unauthorized access but does not aid recovery.

C (Immutable storage) prevents modification but does not ensure real-time backups.

D (RAID 10) improves redundancy but does not help against ransomware.

Homomorphic encryptionallows computations to be performed directly on encrypted data without decrypting it first. This technology is particularly useful for securely transmitting confidential data to a cloud service provider (CSP) and allowing the CSP to process the data without having any visibility into its content. This maintains data confidentiality even during processing. It is not about securing data at rest and in transit or simply storing data across nodes.

The CIO needs to clarify the organization’s risk appetite, which defines the level of residual risk the business is willing to accept after all mitigation measures are applied. Risk appetite reflects the balance between operational requirements, security controls, and cost constraints. In business continuity planning, risk appetite helps decision-makers determine which risks must be reduced through additional investments (e.g., redundant systems, faster recovery strategies) and which risks are tolerable based on business priorities.

Mitigation (A) refers to the strategies used to reduce risk but not the threshold of acceptable residual risk. Impact (B) and Likelihood (C) are components of risk assessment—measuring severity and probability—but they do not define acceptance criteria. Risk appetite is the guiding principle that aligns technical controls with executive tolerance for disruption or loss.

By clarifying appetite, the CIO provides the compliance team and IT leadership with a framework for designing remediation activities that ensure continuity of critical internal processes while aligning with the organization’s strategic objectives and regulatory requirements.

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.

The logs indicate multiple failed login attempts for user10, who may have been part of the staff reduction 60 days prior. If user10's account was removed, and their home directory deleted, any applications or services relying on files or configurations within that directory would fail. This scenario is common when service accounts are not properly identified and preserved during staff reductions.

Ensuring that service accounts are documented and maintained separately from user accounts is essential to prevent unintended disruptions to applications and services.

Forward secrecy (FS) ensures that past encrypted data remains secure even if encryption keys are compromised in the future. Itgenerates ephemeral session keys that are not reused.

Other options:

A (Tokenization) replaces sensitive data with tokens but does not prevent key compromise.

B (Key stretching) makes brute-force attacks harder but does not ensure secrecy after compromise.

D (Simultaneous Authentication of Equals – SAE) is used in WPA3 but is not related to past communication security.

When a security analyst receives a notification about an attack that appears to originate from an internal vulnerability scanner, it suggests that the scanner itself might have been compromised. This situation is critical because a compromised scanner can potentially conduct unauthorized scans, leak sensitive information, or execute malicious actions within the network. The appropriate first action involves containing the threat to prevent further damage and allow for a thorough investigation.

Here’s why quarantining the scanner sensor is the best immediate action:

Containment and Isolation: Quarantining the scanner will immediately prevent it from continuing any malicious activity or scans. This containment is crucial to protect the rest of the network from potential harm.

Forensic Analysis: By isolating the scanner, a forensic analysis can be performed to understand how it was compromised, what actions it took, and what data or systems might have been affected. This analysis will provide valuable insights into the nature of the attack and help in taking appropriate remedial actions.

Preventing Further Attacks: If the scanner is allowed to continue operating, it might execute more unauthorized actions, leading to greater damage. Quarantine ensures that the threat is neutralized promptly.

Root Cause Identification: A forensic analysis can help identify vulnerabilities in the scanner’s configuration, software, or underlying system that allowed the compromise. This information is essential for preventing future incidents.

Other options, while potentially useful in the long term, are not appropriate as immediate actions in this scenario:

A. Create an allow list for the vulnerability scanner IPs to avoid false positives: This action addresses false positives but does not mitigate the immediate threat posed by the compromised scanner.

B. Configure the scan policy to avoid targeting an out-of-scope host: This step is preventive for future scans but does not deal with the current incident where the scanner is already compromised.

C. Set network behavior analysis rules: While useful for ongoing monitoring and detection, this does not address the immediate need to stop the compromised scanner’s activities.

In conclusion, the first and most crucial action is to quarantine the scanner sensor to halt any malicious activity and perform a forensic analysis to understand the scope and nature of the compromise. This step ensures that the threat is contained and provides a basis for further remediation efforts.

The goal is to optimize bandwidth, increase speed, and maintain threat visibility in a low-bandwidth satellite office.Local cachingstores frequently accessed data locally, reducing bandwidth usage by minimizing repeated requests to external or internal resources. It speeds up access and doesn’t inherently reduce security visibility if paired with monitoring tools.

Option A:Distributed connection allocation might balance traffic but doesn’t directly reduce bandwidth usage or speed up access.

Option B:Local caching is ideal—reduces bandwidth, improves performance, and maintains visibility with proper security controls.

Option C:A CDN is great for external content delivery but less relevant for internal resources and doesn’t inherently address threat visibility.

Option D:SD-WAN improves WAN performance, but "vertical heterogeneity" is vague and not a standard term; it’s less tailored to this scenario than caching.

The best option is Mandatory Access Control (MAC). In MAC, access decisions are centrally controlled by the system or administrators, not by individual users. This ensures that healthcare staff who enter patient information cannot grant access to others, thereby preventing accidental or malicious disclosure. MAC enforces strict policies based on data sensitivity and user clearance, which aligns with compliance requirements like HIPAA.

Option A (rule-based) defines access through specific rules but is not as rigidly enforced as MAC. Option B (attribute-based) is flexible but could still allow dynamic grants of access. Option D (discretionary) explicitly allows users to assign access rights, which is exactly what must be avoided in this scenario.

CAS-005 stresses using centralized, non-discretionary controls when protecting sensitive medical data, making MAC the correct choice for hospitals.

To determine how the acquisition of Company B will impact the attack surface, the following steps are crucial:

A. Documenting third-party connections used by Company B: Understanding all external connections is essential for assessing potential entry points for attackers and ensuring that these connections are secure.

E. Performing an architectural review of Company B's network: This review will identify vulnerabilities and assess the security posture of the acquired company's network, providing a comprehensive understanding of the new attack surface.

These actions will provide a clear picture of the security implications of the acquisition and help in developing a plan to mitigate any identified risks.

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.

Reviewing the asset inventory allows the security team to identify all instances of the affected application versions within the organization. By knowing which systems are running the vulnerable versions, the team can assess the full scope of the impact, determine which systems might be compromised, and prioritize them for further investigation and remediation.

Performing a port scan (Option A) might help identify open ports but does not provide specific information about theapplication versions. Inspecting egress network traffic (Option B) and analyzing user behavior (Option D) are important steps in the incident response process but do not directly identify which versions of the application are affected.

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.

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.

The table shows detailed information about products, includinglocation, chassis manufacturer, OS, application developer, and vendor. This type of information is typically assessed in a supply chain assessment to evaluate the security and reliability of components and services from different suppliers.

Why Supply Chain Assessment?

Component Evaluation: Assessing the origin and security of each component used in the products, including hardware, software, and third-party services.

Vendor Reliability: Evaluating the security practices and reliability of vendors involved in providing components or services.

Risk Management: Identifying potential risks associated with the supply chain, such as vulnerabilities in third-party components or insecure development practices.

Other types of assessments do not align with the detailed supplier and component information provided:

A. System: Focuses on individual system security, not the broader supply chain.

C. Quantitative: Focuses on numerical risk assessments, not supplier information.

D. Organizational: Focuses on internal organizational practices, not external suppliers.

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.

The most likely driver for approving additional network security budget is that the audit revealed that the existing architecture contained security controls that could be easily bypassed. This indicates fundamental weaknesses in defense-in-depth and suggests that attackers could gain access to sensitive systems or data despite the presence of controls.

Option A (unused budgets) is not a strategic reason for approving security investment. Option B (compliance reports requested by customers) may influence investment in compliance initiatives, but it does not explain the need for an in-depth defense architecture. Option D (PCI DSS low score) is a compliance-specific issue but would not, on its own, drive a broad architectural budget approval unless PCI was the only focus.

Security audits often uncover systemic flaws—such as flat networks, insufficient segmentation, or single points of failure—that create the conditions for bypassing controls. Addressing these issues requires rearchitecting the environment, introducing layered defenses, and strengthening monitoring capabilities, all of which demand significant budget. Thus, option C aligns with the decision to invest in robust defense-in-depth strategies.

To prevent emails from being marked as spam, several DNS records related to email authentication need to be properly configured and updated when there are changes to the email server'scertificates:

A. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance): DMARC records help email servers determine how to handle messages that fail SPF or DKIM checks, improving email deliverability and reducing the likelihood of emails being marked as spam.

B. SPF (Sender Policy Framework): SPF records specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of your domain. Updating the SPF record ensures that the new email server is recognized as an authorized sender.

C. DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail): DKIM adds a digital signature to email headers, allowing the receiving server to verify that the email has not been tampered with and is from an authorized sender. Updating DKIM records ensures that emails are properly signed and authenticated.

D. DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions): DNSSEC adds security to DNS by enabling DNS responses to be verified. While important for DNS security, it does not directly address the issue of emails being marked as spam.

E. SASC: This is not a relevant standard for this scenario.

F. SAN (Subject Alternative Name): SAN is used in SSL/TLS certificates for securing multiple domain names, not for email delivery issues.

G. SOA (Start of Authority): SOA records are used for DNS zone administration and do not directly impact email deliverability.

H. MX (Mail Exchange): MX records specify the mail servers responsible for receiving email on behalf of a domain. While important, the primary issue here is the authentication of outgoing emails, which is handled by SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

Geofencingallows the device to be restricted based on its physical location — disabling or locking devices when they move outside of trusted zones.Full disk encryptionensures that if a device is lost, the data remains inaccessible to unauthorized users. Containerization protects specific apps or data, but does not disable the entire device. Patch management, allow/blocklists, and geotagging serve other important functions but are not directly linked to the requirements in this scenario.

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) preparation is critical to protect data against future quantum computing attacks that could break current cryptographic algorithms (e.g., RSA, ECC). According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, 3.3), quantum computers with sufficient computational power could perform calculations (e.g., Shor’s algorithm) to decrypt data protected by traditional algorithms. PQC focuses on developing algorithms resistant to such increases in computational resources, ensuring long-term data security.

Option B:Key stretching is a technique to strengthen passwords, not related to PQC.

Option C:PQC algorithms often have higher computational costs, not improved performance.

Option D:Asymmetric encryption is not ideal for large data sets, and PQC is not specifically about this use case.

Option A:This accurately describes PQC’s purpose to safeguard data against quantum-driven decryption.

Implementing digital signatures ensures the integrity and authenticity of software binaries. When a binary is digitally signed, any tampering with the file (e.g., replacing it with amalicious version) would invalidate the signature. This allows systems to verify the origin and integrity of binaries before execution, preventing the execution of unauthorized or compromised binaries.

A. Improving patching processes: While important, this does not directly address the issue of verifying the integrity of binaries.

B. Implementing digital signatures: This ensures that only valid, untampered binaries are executed, preventing attackers from substituting legitimate binaries with malicious ones.

C. Performing manual updates via USB ports: This is not practical and does not scale well, especially in large environments.

D. Allowing only files from internal sources: This reduces the risk but does not provide a mechanism to verify the integrity of binaries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The best solution is to use Self-Encrypting Drives (SEDs). SEDs automatically encrypt all data stored on the disk and can be rapidly sanitized or obfuscated by deleting or altering the encryption keys. This provides immediate and secure protection if customs agents demand device access, as the sensitive data inside containers becomes unreadable without the decryption key.

Option B (eFuse) and C (UEFI) are hardware mechanisms unrelated to dynamic data protection. Option D (vTPM) provides virtualized key storage but does not obfuscate data quickly under inspection conditions. Option E (MicroSD HSM) is useful for key storage but does not protect all data at scale.

CAS-005 highlights hardware-based encryption solutions like SEDs for protecting sensitive data during travel, ensuring both regulatory compliance and rapid response capabilities under hostile conditions.

Removing unnecessary services from existing endpoints reduces the attack surface by minimizing the number of potential vulnerabilities attackers could exploit. This is a cost-effective method to harden devices without requiring new purchases, aligning perfectly with a purchasing freeze. Deploying new EDR solutions or disposing of devices would likely conflict with the resource freeze, and reimaging systems does not address minimizing services proactively.

Using X.509 certificates for authentication with HTTPS encrypts credentials in transit and provides server identity verification. In SecurityX CAS-005 objectives, securing internal web services with TLS and mutual authentication is a primary method to reduce credential interception or reuse.

802.1X EAP-TTLS is for network access control, not web authentication.

DNS security (DNSSEC) ensures DNS integrity, not web session encryption.

IDS rules help detect, but not prevent, credential exposure.

Preparing communication templates that have been vetted by both internal and external counsel ensures that the organization can respond quickly and effectively to internal and external inquiries, comply with regulatory requirements, and provide transparency in the event of a breach.

Why Communication Templates?

Timely Response: Pre-prepared templates ensure that responses are ready to be deployed quickly, reducing response time.

Regulatory Compliance: Templates vetted by counsel ensure that all communications meet legal and regulatory requirements.

Consistent Messaging: Ensures that all responses are consistent, clear, and accurate, maintaining the organization’s credibility.

Crisis Management: Pre-prepared templates are a critical component of a broader crisis management plan, ensuring that all stakeholders are informed appropriately.

Other options, while useful, do not provide the same level of preparedness and compliance:

A. Outsourcing to an external consultant: This may delay response times and lose internal control over the communication.

B. Integrating automated response mechanisms: Useful for efficiency but not for ensuring compliant and vetted responses.

D. Conducting lessons-learned activities: Important for improving processes but does not provide immediate preparedness for communication.

OWIN23 is running Windows 7, which is a legacy operating system. Many EDR solutions no longer provide full support for outdated operating systems like Windows 7, which has reached its end of life and is no longer receiving security updates from Microsoft. This makes such systems more vulnerable to infections and attacks, including remote access Trojans (RATs).

A. OWIN23 uses a legacy version of Windows that is not supported by the EDR: This is the most probable cause because the lack of support means that the EDR solution may not fully protect or monitor this system, making it an easy target for infections.

B. LN002 was not supported by the EDR solution and propagates the RAT: While LN002 is unmanaged, it is less likely to propagate the RAT to OWIN23 directly without an established vector.

C. The EDR has an unknown vulnerability that was exploited by the attacker: This is possible but less likely than the lack of support for an outdated OS.

D. OWIN29 spreads the malware through other hosts in the network: While this could happen, the status indicates OWIN29 is in a bypass mode, which might limit its interactions but does not directly explain the infection on OWIN23.

Code-signing within theCI/CD pipelineensures that only verified and signed code is deployed, mitigating the risk of supply chain attacks. Updating Python withaptitudeand updating modules withpipensures vulnerabilities are patched. Deploying the solution to production after testing maintains application availability while securing the development lifecycle.

Branch protection (B)applies only to version-controlled environments, which is not the case here.

NFS network share (C)does not address the deprecated Python vulnerability.

Version designation (D)does not eliminate security risks from outdated dependencies.

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.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The organization wants a strict application control policy: deny all software execution by default and only allow specifically authorized applications. This must be enforced across all operating systems. It is implied that they mean an Allow list, but Block List is the only reasonable answer.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux): SELinux is a security module for the Linux kernel that provides Mandatory Access Control (MAC). While it can enforce application control, it's specific to Linux and doesn't meet the "regardless of OS" requirement.

The output shows that multiple systems have outdated or vulnerable software versions (OpenSSL 1.01 and Java 11 runtime). This suggests that the systems are not being patched regularly or effectively.

A. Automating the patching system to update base images: Automating the patching process ensures that the latest security updates and patches are applied to all systems, including newly deployed ones. This addresses the root cause by ensuring that base images used for deployment are always up-to-date with the latest security patches.

B. Recompiling the affected programs with the most current patches: While this can fix the immediate vulnerabilities, it does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of regular updates.

C. Disabling unused/unneeded ports on all servers: This improves security but does not address the specific issue of outdated software.

D. Deploying a WAF with virtual patching upstream of the affected systems: This can provide a temporary shield but does not resolve the underlying issue of outdated software.

Automating the patching system to update base images ensures that all deployed systems are using the latest, most secure versions of software, addressing the root cause of the vulnerability trend.

Implementing security and quality checks in a CI/CD pipeline ensures that:

Container images are scanned for vulnerabilities beforedeployment.

Version control is enforced, preventing unauthorized changes.

Hashes validate image integrity.

Other options:

A (Configuring ACLs on mesh networks) improves access control but does not ensure scanning.

C (Audits on container images) detect changes but do not enforce best practices.

D (Pulling from a vendor repository) does not ensure vulnerability scanning.