Free and Premium CompTIA CAS-005 Dumps Questions Answers

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.

SecurityX CAS-005 secure DevOps guidance recommends integrating security controls into the CI/CD pipeline. By validating container security baselines at security gates before deployment, noncompliant builds are stopped early, ensuring consistency across environments.

Option B is useful but does not ensure compliance if changes are made after image creation.

Option A detects drift but only after deployment.

Option D is reactive and does not prevent insecure deployments.

The organization is most concerned about Generative AI improving phishing and social engineering attacks. Tools like ChatGPT can generate highly convincing phishing emails, fake websites, and human-like interactions that bypass traditional detection methods. Employees who were trained to spot poor grammar or obvious scams may now struggle to detect AI-crafted exploits.

Option A relates to compliance but not AI-driven threats. Option B (overreliance on AI bots) is operational risk, not phishing. Option D (differential analysis) applies to AI privacy issues, not phishing.

CAS-005 emphasizes adapting training to emerging threats, including AI-enabled social engineering. This ensures users remain resilient against modern attacks, making C the correct answer.

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 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.

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.

A Configuration Management Database (CMDB) provides the best foundation for identifying which specific assets are affected by a given vulnerability. A CMDB maintains detailed information about the IT environment, including hardware, software, configurations, and relationships between assets. This comprehensive view allows organizations to quickly identify and address vulnerabilities affecting specific assets.

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.

A computer screen shot of a diagram Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a computer error Description automatically generated

The ATT&CK (Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge) framework is the best tool for a security analyst to use for threat modeling when looking for gaps in detection capabilities based on Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) that may target the industry. Here’s why:

Comprehensive Framework: ATT&CK provides a detailed and structured repository of known adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. It helps organizations understand how attackers operate and what techniques they might use.

Gap Analysis: By mapping existing security controls against the ATT&CK matrix, analysts can identify which tactics and techniques are not adequately covered by current detection and mitigation measures.

Industry Relevance: The ATT&CK framework is continuously updated with the latest threat intelligence, making it highly relevant for industries facing APT threats. It provides insights into specific APT groups and their preferred methods of attack.

The most effective solution is Terraform (C), an Infrastructure as Code (IaC) tool that allows organizations to define and provision infrastructure resources across multiple cloud providers using a consistent configuration language. For a multicloud strategy, Terraform provides cloud-agnostic templates, ensuring that server creation, networking, and storage provisioning are automated and standardized across AWS, Azure, GCP, or other providers. This aligns with CAS-005 best practices for cloud automation and consistency.

PowerShell (A) and Bash (B) are scripting tools that can automate tasks but are typically tied to specific operating systems and lack multicloud orchestration capabilities. Ansible (D) is a strong automation tool for configuration management and application deployment, but Terraform is specifically designed to provision and manage infrastructure at scale across multicloud environments.

By using Terraform, the company can enforce consistent images, reduce human error, ensure compliance through reusable templates, and improve operational efficiency while maintaining flexibility across multiple providers.

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.

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.

To reduce the number of failed patch deployments, the systems administrator should implement a robust change management process. Change management ensures that all modifications to systems or applications are planned, tested, and approved before deployment. This systematic approach reduces the risk of unplanned changes that can cause patch failures and ensures that patches are deployed in a controlled and predictable manner.

SecurityX CAS-005 endpoint security and network control objectives emphasize least privilege network access.

Creating a firewall rule to allow outbound traffic only via a proxy (A) ensures centralized inspection and control.

Configuring the proxy to allow only the required FQDNs for EDR management communication (C) limits exposure to necessary destinations.Options D and E allow broader access than necessary, and B would block required communications entirely. F relies on blocklists instead of allowlists, which is less secure for high-assurance environments.

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.

The best description of the cyber threat to a central bank implementing strict risk mitigations for the hardware supply chain, including an allow list for specific countries of origin, is the risk of physical implants and tampering. Here’s why:

Supply Chain Security: The supply chain is a critical vector for hardware tampering and physical implants, which can compromise the integrity and security of hardware components before they reach the organization.

Targeted Attacks: Banks and financial institutions are high-value targets, making them susceptible to sophisticated attacks, including those involving physical implants that can be introduced during manufacturing or shipping processes.

Strict Mitigations: Implementing an allow list for specific countries aims to mitigate the risk of supply chain attacks by limiting the sources of hardware. However, the primary concern remains the introduction of malicious components through tampering.

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.

Select the Action Items for the Appropriate Locations:

Authorization Server:

Action Item: Grant access

The authorization server's role is to authenticate the user and then issue an authorization code or token that the client application can use to access resources. Granting access involves the server authenticating the resource owner and providing the necessary tokens for the client application.

Resource Server:

Action Item: Access issued tokens

The resource server is responsible for serving the resources requested by the client application. It must verify the issued tokens from the authorization server to ensure the client has the right permissions to access the requested data.

B2B Client Application:

Action Item: Authorize access to other applications

The B2B client application must handle the OAuth flow to authorize access on behalf of the user without requiring direct knowledge of the user's credentials. This includes obtaining authorization tokens from the authorization server and using them to request access to the resource server.

Detailed Explanation:

OAuth 2.0 is designed to provide specific authorization flows for web applications, desktopapplications, mobile phones, and living room devices. The integration involves multiple steps and components, including:

Resource Owner (User):

The user owns the data and resources that are being accessed.

Client Application (B2B Client Application):

Requests access to the resources controlled by the resource owner but does not directly handle the user's credentials. Instead, it uses tokens obtained through the OAuth flow.

Authorization Server:

Handles the authentication of the resource owner and issues the access tokens to the client application upon successful authentication.

Resource Server:

Hosts the resources that the client application wants to access. It verifies the access tokens issued by the authorization server before granting access to the resources.

OAuth Workflow:

The resource owner accesses the client application.

The client application redirects the resource owner to the authorization server for authentication.

The authorization server authenticates the resource owner and asks for consent to grant access to the client application.

Upon consent, the authorization server issues an authorization code or token to the client application.

The client application uses the authorization code or token to request access to the resources from the resource server.

The resource server verifies the token with the authorization server and, if valid, grants access to the requested resources.

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.

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.

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.

Phishing simulations are a proven method for reinforcing security awareness, meeting compliance training requirements, and improving user incident reporting. In CAS-005, social engineering testing is a recommended component of organizational security culture programs.

DoS attacks (A) and penetration tests (B) assess technical security, not user awareness.

Fake ransomware (D) can cause unnecessary alarm and operational disruption.

To ensure that logs from a legacy platform are properly retained beyond the default retention period, configuring the SIEM to aggregate the logs is the best approach. SIEM solutions are designed to collect, aggregate, and store logs from various sources, providing centralized log management and retention. This setup ensures that logs are retained according to policy and can be easily accessed for analysis and compliance purposes.

The “cipher unavailable” message indicates that the client and server could not agree on a common cipher suite. After the OpenSSL update, the server likely dropped support for older, insecure ciphers (such as RC4 or 3DES) that legacy clients still use. The safest remediation is to update or configure the client applications to support modern, secure ciphers such as AES in Galois/Counter Mode (AES-GCM) or an equivalent strong cipher suite that is supported by the updated OpenSSL server.

Option A (SSL 3.0) is unsafe because SSL 3.0 is deprecated and vulnerable to multiple attacks (e.g., POODLE).

Option C (ECB mode) is insecure due to pattern leakage and should never be enforced.

Option D (ECC signatures) relates to key exchange and signatures, not to the “cipher unavailable” issue directly.

This approach aligns with SecurityX CAS-005 cryptographic interoperability guidance—modernize clients rather than reintroduce insecure protocols.

The most likely explanation for the issues encountered with the captive portal is that the TLS ciphers supported by the captive portal are deprecated. Here’s why:

TLS Cipher Suites: Modern browsers are continuously updated to support the latest security standards and often drop support for deprecated and insecure cipher suites. If the captive portal uses outdated TLS ciphers, newer browsers may refuse to connect, causing security errors.

HSTS and Browser Security: Browsers with HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) enabled will not allow connections to sites with weak security configurations. Deprecated TLS ciphers would cause these browsers to block the connection.

In the given scenario, the security engineer is likely examining login activities and their associated geolocations. This type of analysis is aimed at identifying unusual login patterns that might indicate an impossible travel scenario. An impossible travel scenario is when a single user account logs in from geographically distant locations in a short time, which is physically impossible. By assessing login activities using geolocation, the engineer can tune alerts to identify and respond to potential security breaches more effectively.

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 situation where several employees were contacted by the same individual impersonating a recruiter best describes aspear-phishing campaign. Here’s why:

Targeted Approach: Spear-phishing involves targeting specific individuals within an organization with personalized and convincing messages to trick them into divulging sensitive information or performing actions that compromise security.

Impersonation: The use of impersonation, in this case, a recruiter, is a common tactic in spear-phishing to gain the trust of the targeted individuals and increase the likelihood of a successful attack.

Correlated Contacts: The fact that several employees were contacted by the same individual suggests a coordinated effort to breach the organization’s security by targeting multiple points of entry through social engineering.

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.

Based on the log provided, the most concerning event that should be investigated further is the presence of a text file containing passwords that were leaked. Here's why:

Sensitive Information Exposure: A text file containing passwords represents a significant security risk, as it indicates that sensitive credentials have been exposed in plain text, potentially leading to unauthorized access.

Immediate Threat: Password leaks can lead to immediate exploitation by attackers, compromising user accounts and sensitive data. This requires urgent investi

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.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Option A: Deny list

Deny lists block specific applications or processes identified as malicious.

This approach is reactive and mayinadvertently block the non-standard applications that are currently in use without proper ownership.

Option B: Allow list

Allow lists permit only pre-approved applications to run.

While secure, this approach requires defining all non-standard applications, which may disrupt operations in an environment where ownership is unclear.

Option C: Audit mode

Correct Answer.

Audit mode allows monitoring and logging of applications without enforcing restrictions.

This is ideal in environments with non-standard applications and undefined ownership because it enables the engineer to observe the environment and gradually implement control without interruption.

Audit mode provides critical visibility into the software landscape, ensuring that necessary applications remain functional.

Option D: MAC list

Mandatory Access Control (MAC) lists restrict access based on classification and clearance levels.

This does not align with application control objectives in this context.

CompTIA CASP+ Study Guide - Chapters on Endpoint Security and Application Control.

CASP+ Objective 2.4: Implement appropriate security controls for enterprise endpoints.

The most appropriate solution for the systems engineer to deploy is SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux). Here's why:

Mandatory Access Control (MAC): SELinux enforces MAC policies, ensuring that only authorized users and processes can access specific resources. This helps in preventing unauthorized reading and modification of data and programs.

Access Vector Cache: SELinux utilizes an access vector cache (AVC) to improve performance. The AVC caches access decisions, reducing the need for repetitive policy lookups and thus improving system efficiency.

Security Mechanisms: SELinux provides a robust framework to enforce security policies and prevent bypassing of application security mechanisms. It controls access based on defined policies, ensuring that security measures are consistently applied.

Privilege Escalation and Process Interference: SELinux limits the ability of processes to escalate privileges and interfere with each other by enforcing strict access controls. This containment helps in isolating processes and minimizing the risk of privilege escalation attacks.

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.

The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) v3.1 uses three metric groups to calculate overall scores:Base,Temporal, andEnvironmental.

Base (E):Mandatory metrics assessing exploitability (e.g., attack vector) and impact (confidentiality, integrity, availability).

Temporal (A):Optional metrics reflecting the current state of the vulnerability (e.g., exploit availability, remediation level).

Environmental (F):Optional metrics tailoring the score to the organization’s context (e.g., security requirements).

B, C, D (Availability, Integrity, Confidentiality):These are subcomponents of the Base Impact metrics, not standalone groups.

G (Impact):A categorywithin Base, not a group.

H (Attack vector):A single Base metric, not a group.

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.

Vendor lock-in occurs when a client is overly dependent on a vendor, limiting flexibility. Risks include:

Option B:Vendors changing offerings (e.g., features, pricing) can disrupt the client, a key lock-in risk.

Option D:Decreased quality of service may result from reliance on a single vendor without alternatives.

Option A:Seamless data movement is a benefit, not a risk.

Option C:Sufficient service is neutral or positive, not a risk.

Option E:Multicloud is hindered by lock-in, not a risk of it.

Option F:Increased interoperability contradicts lock-in’s limitations.

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.

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.

VPN Concentrator:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

AAA Server:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

To provide secure access tointernal and external cloud resources, eliminate split-tunnel traffic flows, and enable identity and access management capabilities, the most appropriate solutions are CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker) and SASE (Secure Access Service Edge).

Why CASB and SASE?

CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker):

Secure Access: CASB solutions provide secure access to cloud resources by enforcing security policies and monitoring user activities.

Identity and Access Management: CASBs integrate with identity and access management (IAM) systems to ensure that only authorized users can access cloud resources.

Visibility and Control: They offer visibility into cloud application usage and control over data sharing and access.

SASE (Secure Access Service Edge):

Eliminate Split-Tunnel Traffic: SASE integrates network security functions with WAN capabilities to ensure secure access without the need for split-tunnel configurations.

Comprehensive Security: SASE provides a holistic security approach, including secure web gateways, firewalls, and zero trust network access (ZTNA).

Identity-Based Access: SASE leverages IAM to enforce access controls based on user identity and context.

Other options, while useful, do not comprehensively address all the requirements:

A. Federation: Useful for identity management but does not eliminate split-tunnel traffic or provide comprehensive security.

B. Microsegmentation: Enhances security within the network but does not directly address secure access to cloud resources or split-tunnel traffic.

D. PAM (Privileged Access Management): Focuses on managing privileged accounts and does not provide comprehensive access control for internal and external resources.

E. SD-WAN: Enhances WAN performance but does not inherently provide the identity and access management capabilities or eliminate split-tunnel traffic.

Configuring a span port on the perimeter firewall to ingest logs is the best architectural change to ensure that all client proxy traffic is captured for analysis. Here’s why:

Comprehensive Traffic Capture: A span port (or mirror port) on the perimeter firewall can capture all inbound and outbound traffic, including traffic that might bypass the proxy. This ensures that all network traffic is available for analysis.

Centralized Logging: By capturing logs at the perimeter firewall, the organization can centralize logging and analysis, making it easier to detect and investigate anomalies.

Minimal Disruption: Implementing a span port is a non-intrusive method that does not require significant changes to the network architecture, thus minimizing disruption to existing services.

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.

Excessive MFA push notifications can be a sign of an attempted push notification attack, where attackers repeatedly send MFA prompts hoping the user will eventually approve one by mistake. To mitigate this:

A. Provisioning FIDO2 devices: While FIDO2 devices offer strong authentication, they may not be practical for all users and do not directly address the issue of excessive push notifications.

B. Deploying a text message-based MFA: SMS-based MFA can still be vulnerable to similar spamming attacks and phishing.

C. Enabling OTP via email: Email-based OTPs add another layer of security but do not directly solve the issue of excessive notifications.

D. Configuring prompt-driven MFA: This option allows users to respond to prompts in a secure manner, often including features like time-limited approval windows, additional verification steps, or requiring specificactions to approve. This can help prevent users from accidentally approving malicious attempts.

Configuring prompt-driven MFA is the best solution to restrict unnecessary MFA notifications and improve security.

When dealing with false positives and false negatives reported by a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system, the goal is to enhance the accuracy of the alerts and ensure that actual threats are identified correctly. The following sources of information best support the analysis process:

A. Third-party reports and logs: Utilizing external sources of information such as threat intelligence reports, vendor logs, and other third-party data can provide a broader perspective on potential threats. These sources often contain valuable insights and context that can help correlate events more accurately, reducing the likelihood of false positives and false negatives.

B. Trends: Analyzing trends over time can help inunderstanding patterns and anomalies in the data. By observing trends, the security team can distinguish between normal and abnormal behavior, which aids in fine-tuning the SIEM configurations to better detect true positives and reduce false alerts.

Other options such as dashboards, alert failures, network traffic summaries, and manual review processes are also useful but are more operational rather than foundational for understanding the root causes of reporting errors in SIEM configurations.

The best way to automate reporting from disparate security appliances that do not currently communicate is to configure an API Integration to aggregate the different data sets. Here's why:

Interoperability: APIs allow different systems to communicate and share data, even if they were not originally designed to work together. This enables the integration of various security appliances into a unified reporting system.

Automation: API integrations can automate the process of data collection, aggregation, and reporting, reducing manual effort and increasing efficiency.

Scalability: APIs provide a scalable solution that can easily be extended to include additional security appliances or data sources as needed.

Integrating IDS, firewall, and DLP to reduce response time requires orchestration and automation. Let’s evaluate:

A. SOAR(Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response):SOAR integrates security tools, automates workflows, and speeds up incident response. It’s the best fit for this scenario, as CAS-005 highlights SOAR for operational efficiency.

B. CWPP (CloudWorkload Protection Platform):Focused on securing cloud workloads, not integrating on-premises tools.

C. XCCDF (Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format):A standard for compliance checklists, not a tool for integration or response.

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.

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.

The scenario describes a prolonged, stealthy operation where files were exfiltrated over three months via secure channels (TLS-protected HTTP) from unexpected systems, then ceased. This aligns with anAdvanced Persistent Threat (APT), characterized by long-term, targeted attacks aimed at data theft or surveillance, often using sophisticated methods to remain undetected.

Option A:Decrypting RSA with weak encryption implies a cryptographic attack, but TLS suggests modern encryption was used, and there’s no evidence of decryption here.

Option B:A zero-day attack exploits unknown vulnerabilities, but the duration and cessation suggest a planned operation, not a single exploit.

Option C:APT fits perfectly—slow, persistent exfiltration fromunusual systems indicates a coordinated, stealthy threat actor.

Option D:An on-path (man-in-the-middle) attack intercepts traffic, but there’s no indication of interception; the focus is on unauthorized transfers.

To ensure the most secure way of keeping a legacy system (COL) operating until a new solution is available, isolating the system and enforcing strict firewall rules is the best approach. This method minimizes the attack surface by restricting access to only the necessary endpoints, thereby reducing the risk of unauthorized access and potential security breaches. Isolating the system ensures that it is not exposed to the broader network, while firewall rules control the traffic that can reach the system, providing a secure environment until a replacement is implemented.

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.

To ensure always-on VPN access is enabled and restricted to company assets, the network engineer needs to generate device certificates using the specific template settings required for the company's VPN solution. These certificates ensure that only authorized devices can establish a VPN connection.

Why Device Certificates are Necessary:

Authentication: Device certificates authenticate company assets, ensuring that only authorized devices can access the VPN.

Security: Certificates provide a higher level of security compared to username and password combinations, reducing the risk of unauthorized access.

Compliance: Certificates help in meeting security policies and compliance requirements by ensuring that only managed devices can connect to the corporate network.

Other options do not provide the same level of control and security for always-on VPN access:

B. Modify signing certificates for IKE version 2: While important for VPN protocols, it does not address device-specific authentication.

C. Create a wildcard certificate: This is not suitable for device-specific authentication and could introduce security risks.

D. Add the VPN hostname as a SAN entry: This is more related to certificate management and does not ensure device-specific authentication.

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.

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.

For SSDs,incinerationis considered the most secure method of physical destruction, ensuring no data remanence. SSDs store data differently compared to traditional spinning disks, making degaussing ineffective. Overwriting and formatting may not reliably erase all storage cells due to wear-leveling technologies. Shredding may work if the granularity is extremely fine, but incineration guarantees complete destruction beyond recovery.

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.

For a distributed workforce needing access to compliance-bound on-premises systems, VPN access ensures encrypted, authenticated connectivity while limiting exposure. SecurityX CAS-005 emphasizes using VPNs for secure remote access when direct migration to cloud is not possible.

Moving legacy systems to cloud (B) violates the compliance constraints.

SDN security controls (C) are beneficial but do not inherently provide secure remote connectivity.

Microsegmentation (D) is useful for internal lateral movement control but does not solve remote access needs.

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 best option is to provide sanitized devices with remote connections to a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI). This ensures that no sensitive intellectual property is stored locally on the laptops carried across borders. Even if the devices are inspected, seized, or tampered with, attackers cannot access corporate data since all sensitive files remain within secure, centralized infrastructure.

Option A (Measured Boot) reports firmware tampering but does not prevent data theft if the device is compromised. Option C (self-encrypting drives) protect data at rest but can be bypassed if customs agents demand login credentials. Option D (tamper-evident stickers) provide only physical inspection indicators and are ineffective against sophisticated data theft attempts.

CAS-005 emphasizes secure remote access strategies and temporary “clean laptops” for high-risk travel scenarios. Sanitized laptops with VDI access minimize exposure while maintaining productivity, making this the strongest mitigation.

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.

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.

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.

Privileged Access Management (PAM)restricts elevated permissions, reducing the risk of widespread ransomware attacks.Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)protects against credential theft and ensures that even if passwords are compromised, accounts are not easily accessible.Network segmentationbreaks the flat network into secure zones, limiting lateral movement by attackers. SD-WAN and BGP relate to network routing and efficiency, not security architecture specifically. Remote access VPN secures external access but does not solve internal flat network issues. Network Access Control (NAC) is helpful but secondary compared to PAM, MFA, and segmentation in this context.

For a disaster recovery (DR) plan requiring immediate data availability, the first step is understanding what needs to be protected and recovered. Identifying critical business processes and their associated software and hardware requirements establishes the foundation for the DR plan. This ensures that backups and recovery mechanisms align with business priorities, meeting the "moment's notice" requirement.

Option A:A change management plan is important for system consistency but doesn’t directly address immediate data availability in a DR context.

Option B:Hiring staff supports execution but doesn’t define what needs to be recovered or how. It’s a later step.

Option C:A warm site (a partially operational backup site) is a good DR solution, but designing it comes after identifying critical processes and resources.

Option D:This is the first step in any DR planning process—knowing what’s critical ensures the plan meets availability goals efficiently.

A central logging server ensures logs are collected in a tamper-proof manner and only ingested (not modified). This prevents attackers from altering logs locally.

Key concepts:

Logs should be centrally stored to prevent tampering.

Enabling log forwarding to a secure SIEM improves integrity.

Other options:

A (File monitoring tool) helps detect file changes but doesn’t prevent log tampering.

B (Changing log solutions) does not inherently improve security.

D (Log rotation and encryption) is best practice but does not prevent modification before transmission.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) is crucial for identifying and addressing security vulnerabilities during the software development life cycle (SDLC). Ensuring that DAST scans are routinely scheduled helps in maintaining a secure development process.

Why Routine DAST Scans?

Continuous Security Assessment: Regular DAST scans help in identifying vulnerabilities in real-time, ensuring they are addressed promptly.

Compliance: Routine scans ensure that the development process complies with security standards and regulations.

Proactive Threat Mitigation: Regular scans help in early detection and mitigation of potential security threats, reducing the risk of breaches.

Integration into SDLC: Ensures security is embedded within the development process, promoting a security-first approach.

Other options, while relevant, do not directly address the continuous assessment and proactive identification of threats:

A. If developers are unable to promote to production: This is more of an operational issue than a security assessment.

B. If DAST code is being stored to a single code repository: This concerns code management rather than security testing frequency.

D. If role-based training is deployed: While important, training alone does not ensure continuous security assessment.

The event timeline indicates a sequence where a file (hr-reporting.docx) was saved, scanned, executed, and eventually found to contain malware. The critical issue here is that the malware scan completed after the file was already executed. This suggests a Time-Of-Check to Time-Of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability, where the state of the file changed between the time it was checked and the time it was used.

Reviewing data sovereignty laws in countries where the organization has no presence is likely due to concerns about regulatory enforcement. Data sovereignty laws dictate how data can be stored, processed, and transferred across borders. Understanding these laws is crucial for compliance, especially if the organization handles data that may be subject to foreign regulations.

A. The organization is performing due diligence of potential tax issues: This is less likely as tax issues are generally not directly related to data sovereignty laws.

B. The organization has been subject to legal proceedings in countries where it has a presence: While possible, this does not explain the focus on countries where the organization has no presence.

C. The organization is concerned with new regulatory enforcement in other countries: This is the most likely reason. New regulations could impact the organization’s operations, especially if they involve data transfers or processing data from these countries.

D. The organization has suffered brand reputation damage from incorrect media coverage: This is less relevant to the need for reviewing data sovereignty laws.

The technique that best addresses the issue of insider threats from employees who have individual access to encrypted material is key splitting. Here’s why:

Key Splitting: Key splitting involves dividing a cryptographic key into multiple parts anddistributing these parts among different individuals or systems. This ensures that no single individual has complete access to the key, thereby mitigating the risk of insider threats.

Increased Security: By requiring multiple parties to combine their key parts to access encrypted material, key splitting provides an additional layer of security. This approach is particularly useful in environments where sensitive data needs to be protected from unauthorized access by insiders.

Compliance and Best Practices: Key splitting aligns with best practices and regulatory requirements for handling sensitive information, ensuring that access is tightly controlled and monitored.

The best way for a SOC to rapidly identify whether deployed applications contain specific libraries is through the use of a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of all components, including third-party and open-source libraries, used in a software product. When a new vulnerability is disclosed (such as Log4Shell in Log4j), organizations with a comprehensive SBOM can immediately search across their application landscape to determine which systems are impacted.

Other options are less effective. Maintaining SAST/DAST reports (A) only provides snapshots of vulnerabilities at the time of scanning, but does not dynamically track components across all software in production. Vendor attestations (B) improve supply chain governance but do not provide immediate visibility into internal or custom software. A GRC tool (D) helps track vendors and policies but does not show technical dependencies inside applications.

Requiring suppliers and internal developers to provide and maintain SBOMs ensures continuous visibility into dependencies. This allows the SOC to quickly query and respond to emerging vulnerabilities, reducing risk exposure and accelerating remediation timelines.

The question states that security scanning and quality assurance (QA) in the CI/CD pipeline have been completed with no issues, indicating that the code in the test branch is ready for production. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 2: Security Operations, 2.3), in a secure CI/CD pipeline, once code passes automated security scans, QA, and other checks (e.g., unit testing, peer reviews), the next step is to merge the tested branch into the main branch for deployment to production.

Option B:Threat modeling is typically performed earlier, during design or development, not after passing CI/CD checks.

Option C:Unit testing is part of the CI/CD pipeline and should already be completed.

Option D:Peer reviews are conducted before or during the test phase, not after QAand security scans are clear.

Option A:Merging the test branch to the main branch is the logical next step to prepare for production deployment.

To address the specific OS benchmark configurations, the following solutions are most appropriate:

C. SCAP (Security Content Automation Protocol): SCAP helps in automating vulnerability management and policy compliance, including configurations like full disk encryption, host-based firewalls, and password policies.

D. SASE (Secure Access Service Edge): SASE provides a framework for Zero Trust network access and application allow listing, ensuring secure and compliant access to applications and data.

These solutions together cover the comprehensive security requirements specified in the OS benchmark, ensuring a robust security posture for endpoints.

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.

ChaCha20-Poly1305is a cipher suite specifically designed for efficiency on systems with limited hardware resources. It offers high security with lower memory and CPU consumption compared to AES on certain platforms, especially mobile devices. TLS 1.3 supports ChaCha20-Poly1305 natively. CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) modes like IDEA-CBC and Camellia-CBC are less efficient and not recommended under TLS 1.3, and AES-GCM, while secure, can be less efficient than ChaCha20 on devices without AES hardware acceleration.

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.

Sinkholing, or DNS sinkholing, is a method used to redirect malicious traffic to a safe destination. This technique is often employed by security teams to prevent access to malicious domains by substituting a benign destination IP address.

In the given logs, users from the finance department are accessing and receiving HTTP status code 495. This status code is typically indicative of a client certificate error, which can occur if the DNS traffic is being manipulated or redirected incorrectly. The consistency in receiving the same HTTP status code across different users suggests a systematic issue rather than an isolated incident.

Recursive DNS resolution failure (A) would generally lead to inability to resolve DNS at all, not to a specific HTTP error.

DNS poisoning (B) could result in usersbeing directed to malicious sites, but again, would likely result in a different set of errors or unusual activity.

Incorrect DNS setup (D) would likely cause broader resolution issues rather than targeted errors like the one seen here.

By reviewing the provided data, it is evident that the DNS traffic for is being rerouted improperly, resulting in consistent HTTP 495 errors for the finance department users. Hence, the most likely cause is that the DNS traffic is being sinkholed.

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.

Understanding Business Impact Analysis (BIA):

ABIA assesses the effects of disruptionsto an organization's operations.

It helpsprioritize resourcesbased on the potential impact ofdowntime, compliance issues, and critical processes.

Why Options B, C, and F are Correct:

B (Applicable contract obligations)→ Many companies havelegal and compliance obligationsregarding downtime, availability, and SLAs. This information helps determine whatrisk levelsare acceptable.

C (Costs associated with downtime)→ BIA quantifies the financial impact of system failures. Knowinglost revenue, regulatory fines, and recovery costshelps in planning.

F (Critical processes)→ Identifyingcore business processesallows an organization toprioritize recoveryeffortsandmaintain operational continuity.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Inventory details)→ While useful for asset management, it doesnot directly impact business continuity planning.

D (Network diagrams)→ These help in security architecture but arenot directly related to the financial/business impact analysis.

E (Contingency plans)→ BIA isperformed before contingency planningto identifywhat needs protection.

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 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the regulation most likely being addressed by the news organization. GDPR includes provisions for the "right to be forgotten," which allows individuals to request the deletion of personal data that is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. This regulation aims to protect the privacy and personal data of individuals within the European Union.

When using AI to fully automate the process of deciding client loan rates, the primary concern from a privacy perspective is model explainability.

Why Model Explainability is Critical:

Transparency: It ensures that the decision-making process of the AI model can be understood and explained to stakeholders, including clients.

Accountability: Helps in identifying biases and errors in the model, ensuring that the AI is making fair and unbiased decisions.

Regulatory Compliance: Various regulations require that decisions, especially those affecting individuals' financial status, can be explained and justified.

Trust: Builds trust among users and stakeholders by demonstrating that the AI decisions are transparent and justifiable.

Other options, such ascredential theft, prompt injections, and social engineering, are significant concerns but do not directly address the privacy and fairness implications of automated decision-making.

In the context of improving incident response and reducing dwell time, the security analyst needs to focus on proactive measures that can quickly detect and alert on potential security breaches. Here’s a detailed analysis of the options provided:

A. Adjusting the SIEM to alert on attempts to visit phishing sites: While this is a useful measure to prevent phishing attacks, it primarily addresses external threats and doesn’t directly impact dwell time reduction, which focuses on the time a threat remains undetected within a network.

B. Allowing TRACE method traffic to enable better log correlation: The TRACE method in HTTP is used for debugging purposes, but enabling it can introduce security vulnerabilities. It’s not typically recommended for enhancing security monitoring or incident response.

C. Enabling alerting on all suspicious administrator behavior: This option directly targets the potential misuse of administrator accounts, which are often high-value targets for attackers. By monitoring and alerting on suspicious activities from admin accounts, the organization can quickly identify and respond to potential breaches, thereby reducing dwell time significantly. Suspicious behavior could include unusual login times, access to sensitive data not usually accessed by the admin, or any deviation from normal behavior patterns. This proactive monitoring is crucial for quick detection and response, aligning well with best practices in incident response.

D. Utilizing allow lists on the WAF for all users using GET methods: This measure is aimed at restricting access based on allowed lists, which can be effective in preventing unauthorized access but doesn’t specifically address the need for quick detection and response to internal threats.

A. Implementing allow lists: Allow lists (whitelisting) restrict network communication to only authorized devices and applications, significantly reducing the attack surface by ensuring that only pre-approved traffic is permitted.

F. Implementing a site-to-site IPSec VPN: A site-to-site VPN provides a secure, encrypted tunnel for data transmission between the OT systems and the vendor, protecting the data from interception and tampering during transit.

Other options:

B. Monitoring network behavior: While useful for detecting anomalies, it does not proactively reduce the risk of compromise or sabotage.

C. Encrypting data at rest: Important for protecting data stored on devices, but does not address network communication risks.

D. Performing boot integrity checks: Ensures the integrity of the system at startup but does not protect ongoing network communications.

E. Executing daily health checks: Useful for maintaining system health but does not directly reduce the risk of network-based compromise or sabotage.

Multicloud provider solutionsinvolve using services from more than one cloud provider to ensure resiliency and redundancy. In the event of a failure or SLA breach by one CSP, another provider can maintain service continuity. An on-premises backup could help, but does not address CSP-specific SLA concerns directly. Round-robin load balancing and active-active within the same tenant still depend on a single provider, thus posing risks if the CSP fails.