Visit here for our full CompTIA 220-1202 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 211: 

A user reports that their computer freezes when opening large files. The computer has adequate hard drive space. What is the MOST likely cause?

A) Corrupted file system 

B) Insufficient RAM 

C) Outdated graphics drivers 

D) CPU overheating

Answer: B) Insufficient RAM

Explanation:

Insufficient RAM is the most likely cause when computers freeze when opening large files because memory capacity directly limits how much data applications can load simultaneously. Large files such as high-resolution images, complex documents, large spreadsheets, or video files require substantial amounts of random access memory to open and manipulate. When available RAM is insufficient to hold the entire file plus the application and operating system requirements, the computer must use virtual memory on the hard drive which operates dramatically slower than physical RAM. This massive performance difference causes the system to appear frozen as it struggles to manage memory through constant disk swapping.

Modern applications and file formats create increasingly large files that demand more memory for proper handling. A single high-resolution photograph from modern cameras can consume hundreds of megabytes of memory when opened in image editing software. Spreadsheets with thousands of rows and complex formulas require substantial RAM for calculations. Video files need memory buffers for smooth playback. When computers have only minimal RAM such as 4GB or less, opening these large files exhausts available memory forcing extensive use of virtual memory that cannot provide adequate performance.

Resolving insufficient RAM requires adding more physical memory modules to the computer. Desktop computers typically have multiple RAM slots allowing straightforward capacity increases by installing additional modules. Laptops have more limited upgrade options but often support RAM upgrades through accessible memory slots. Determining maximum supported RAM capacity requires checking motherboard specifications or system documentation to ensure compatibility. Modern applications and operating systems benefit significantly from 8GB minimum RAM, with 16GB or more recommended for power users working with large files.

Alternative mitigations when RAM upgrades are not immediately possible include closing unnecessary applications before opening large files to maximize available memory for critical tasks, reducing file sizes when possible through compression or lower resolution options, processing files in smaller sections rather than loading entire files simultaneously, or upgrading to SSDs which improve virtual memory performance even though they do not match physical RAM speed. These workarounds provide temporary relief while planning permanent RAM upgrades.

Corrupted file systems cause different problems including file access errors and corruption messages rather than performance-based freezing. Graphics drivers affect display output and 3D rendering but do not typically cause freezing when opening document or image files. CPU overheating causes system-wide stability problems and automatic shutdowns rather than freezing specifically when opening large files.

Question 212: 

A technician needs to diagnose a computer that fails to power on. What should be tested FIRST?

A) Motherboard 

B) Power supply 

C) RAM modules 

D) Hard drive

Answer: B) Power supply

Explanation:

The power supply should be tested first when computers fail to power on because the PSU provides electrical power to all computer components and its failure prevents any operation. Without proper power delivery, even perfectly functional motherboards, processors, and other components cannot operate. Power supply failures are relatively common due to the electrical stress these components endure and represent the most fundamental requirement for computer operation. Testing the power supply first follows logical troubleshooting methodology of verifying basic prerequisites before investigating more complex components.

Complete power failure where computers show no signs of life when the power button is pressed strongly suggests power supply problems. No LED lights, no fan movement, no beeps, and no visible activity all indicate that components are not receiving electricity. Power supplies can fail completely, fail intermittently, or fail to provide adequate power under load. Complete failure is most easily diagnosed through basic power testing before component-level diagnostics become necessary.

Testing power supplies involves several approaches depending on available tools and technical expertise. The most basic test involves verifying that the power supply receives AC power by confirming the power cable is securely connected to both the wall outlet and the power supply, testing the outlet with other devices to ensure it provides power, and checking that the power supply’s on/off switch if present is in the on position. These simple checks eliminate external power delivery problems before assuming the power supply itself has failed.

Professional power supply testing uses specialized PSU testers or multimeters to measure voltage outputs on different rails. Power supplies provide multiple voltage levels including 12V, 5V, and 3.3V rails that power different computer components. Testing each voltage rail ensures all outputs provide power within acceptable tolerances typically within five percent of nominal values. Multimeter testing requires careful probe placement on power connectors while the PSU is powered on, observing proper safety precautions to avoid electrical shock.

Substitution testing with a known-good power supply provides definitive diagnosis. Connecting a working PSU temporarily to test whether the computer powers on eliminates or confirms power supply failure. If the computer operates with a different power supply, the original unit has failed and requires replacement. If problems persist with a known-good PSU, other components including the motherboard or power button have problems requiring further investigation.

Replacing failed power supplies requires selecting appropriate wattage and connection types for the specific computer. Calculating total system power requirements ensures the replacement PSU provides adequate capacity with reasonable headroom for stable operation. Higher quality power supplies from reputable manufacturers provide more reliable power delivery and longer lifespan than budget alternatives. Modular power supplies offering detachable cables simplify installation and cable management in modern systems.

Question 213: 

A user cannot access a shared network drive. Other users can access the drive successfully. What should be verified FIRST?

A) Network cable 

B) Drive permissions 

C) Network adapter settings 

D) Router configuration

Answer: B) Drive permissions

Explanation:

Drive permissions should be verified first when a single user cannot access a shared network drive while other users access it successfully because permission configurations control which users can access specific network resources. Network file shares use access control lists that explicitly define which users or security groups have permissions to read, write, modify, or access shared folders and files. If the affected user is not included in permitted users or groups, the server denies access attempts with permissions errors even though the share is available and other authorized users can access it normally.

Windows network shares implement security through two permission layers including share permissions that control network access to the shared folder and NTFS permissions that control file system access to the actual files and folders. Both permission sets must grant adequate access for users to work with shared resources successfully. The most restrictive permissions between share and NTFS determine the effective permissions users receive. Administrators must verify that users have appropriate permissions at both levels to ensure complete access.

Checking share permissions requires accessing the shared folder properties on the server hosting the share. Right-clicking the shared folder, selecting Properties, and navigating to the Sharing tab displays current share permissions. The share permissions list shows users and groups with their assigned access levels including Read which allows viewing and opening files, Change which permits modifying files, or Full Control which provides complete access including permission modification. Comparing the affected user’s account against permitted users and groups identifies whether they have adequate share-level permissions.

NTFS permissions provide more granular security control than share permissions and must also be verified. The Security tab in folder properties displays NTFS permissions with detailed access rights including Read, Write, Modify, Read & Execute, and Full Control. These permissions apply whether accessing files through network shares or locally on the server. Users must appear in the NTFS permissions list with appropriate rights for the files they need to access. Complex permission inheritance from parent folders can affect access, requiring examination of effective permissions to understand actual user rights.

Group membership significantly affects network drive access because users inherit permissions from all security groups they belong to. A user might not appear directly in permission lists but could have access through group membership. Checking the user’s group memberships in Active Directory or local security groups reveals which groups they belong to. If required groups are missing from the user’s membership, adding them to appropriate groups grants access through inherited permissions. Many organizations structure permissions around groups rather than individual user assignments, simplifying permission management across large user populations.

Common permission problems include users removed from groups accidentally during security updates, new users not yet added to appropriate security groups after account creation, permission changes that unintentionally excluded specific users during security audits, explicit deny permissions overriding allow permissions from group memberships, or inheritance breaking that prevents permission propagation from parent folders.

Question 214: 

Which of the following BEST describes a security control that provides an interim solution until a permanent fix can be developed?

A) Detective

B) Compensating

C) Corrective

D) Preventive

Answer: B

Explanation:

Compensating security controls are specifically designed to provide interim protection or satisfy security requirements when primary controls cannot be implemented or are not yet available. These controls offer alternative means of achieving security objectives when the ideal control is impractical, too expensive, or technically infeasible in the current environment. Compensating controls are particularly valuable during transition periods when organizations are working toward implementing permanent solutions but need protection in the meantime. They serve as temporary measures that reduce risk to acceptable levels until proper fixes can be deployed.

The concept of compensating controls is particularly important in scenarios where vulnerabilities have been identified but patches or permanent fixes are not immediately available. For example, when a critical vulnerability is discovered in a production system that cannot be immediately patched due to compatibility concerns or required testing periods, a compensating control might involve implementing additional network segmentation to restrict access to the vulnerable system, deploying intrusion detection signatures to monitor for exploitation attempts, or implementing application-level filtering to block attack traffic. These measures do not fix the underlying vulnerability but reduce the risk of exploitation until the permanent patch can be safely applied.

Option A is incorrect because detective controls are designed to identify and record security events after they have occurred, not to provide interim solutions. Detective controls include systems like intrusion detection systems, log monitoring, security information and event management platforms, and audit mechanisms that detect security incidents or policy violations. While detective controls are valuable components of defense-in-depth strategies, they do not prevent incidents or compensate for missing preventive controls. Detective controls alert security teams to problems but do not provide the interim protection described in the question.

Option C is incorrect because corrective controls are actions taken to repair damage or restore systems after a security incident has occurred. Examples include restoring from backups, applying patches after exploitation, implementing lessons learned from incidents, and executing disaster recovery procedures. Corrective controls respond to incidents that have already happened rather than providing interim protection while waiting for permanent fixes. While corrective actions might be part of incident response, they do not serve as temporary alternatives to primary security controls that cannot yet be implemented.

Option D is incorrect because preventive controls are designed to stop security incidents from occurring in the first place. Examples include firewalls, access controls, encryption, authentication mechanisms, and security awareness training. While preventive controls are often the ideal permanent solution, the question specifically asks about interim controls used until permanent fixes are available. A compensating control might itself be preventive in nature, but the distinguishing characteristic is that it serves as a temporary alternative to the ideal preventive control rather than being the permanent primary prevention mechanism. Preventive describes the function of a control, while compensating describes its purpose as an interim measure.

Question 215: 

A security analyst is reviewing authentication logs and notices multiple failed login attempts followed by a successful login from the same account. Which of the following attacks is MOST likely occurring?

A) Password spraying

B) Credential stuffing

C) Brute force

D) Rainbow table

Answer: C

Explanation:

A brute force attack involves systematically attempting many different password combinations against a single user account until the correct password is discovered. The pattern described in the question, where multiple failed login attempts from the same account are followed by a successful login, is the classic signature of a brute force attack. The attacker focuses on a specific target account and tries numerous password guesses in sequence, and the eventual successful login indicates they eventually guessed the correct password. This attack methodology relies on the assumption that the target account uses a weak or common password that can be discovered through systematic enumeration.

The effectiveness of brute force attacks depends on several factors including password complexity, account lockout policies, and the speed at which attempts can be made. Simple passwords using common words, predictable patterns, or short lengths are vulnerable to brute force attacks because the number of possible combinations is relatively small. Passwords like “password123,” “welcome1,” or simple dictionary words can often be cracked within minutes or hours using automated tools. More complex passwords using combinations of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters require exponentially more attempts, making brute force attacks less practical. However, if no account lockout policy exists, attackers can continue attempting passwords indefinitely until they succeed.

Option A is incorrect because password spraying attacks use the opposite approach from brute force. Instead of trying many passwords against one account, password spraying tries one or a few common passwords against many different accounts. The attacker might try “Password123” against thousands of user accounts, then move to “Welcome1” against all accounts again. This approach avoids triggering account lockout policies that detect multiple failed attempts on a single account. The pattern described in the question, where multiple failed attempts occur on the same account before success, is inconsistent with password spraying methodology. Password spraying would show one or two failed attempts across many different accounts rather than many attempts on one account.

Option B is incorrect because credential stuffing attacks use username and password combinations that were stolen from other breaches, attempting to log in to different services with these known credentials. Credential stuffing exploits the reality that many users reuse the same passwords across multiple sites. When a website is breached and credentials are leaked, attackers try those exact combinations on other services hoping users reused credentials. Credential stuffing typically shows fewer failed attempts per account because the attacker is trying known valid credentials rather than guessing. The pattern of many failed attempts followed by success suggests systematic guessing, not trying previously leaked credentials.

Option D is incorrect because rainbow table attacks are an offline password cracking technique used against captured password hashes, not a type of login attempt pattern. Rainbow tables are precomputed tables of password hashes that allow attackers to quickly reverse hash values to discover the original passwords. This attack occurs offline against stolen hash databases and would not generate authentication logs showing failed login attempts followed by successful logins. Rainbow table attacks happen before any login attempt occurs, during the phase where attackers are trying to crack hashed passwords they obtained through other means. The pattern described in the question reflects an online attack against a login interface, not offline hash cracking.

Question 216: 

A company is implementing a new wireless network and wants to ensure that only authorized devices can connect. Which of the following would BEST accomplish this goal?

A) WPA3

B) MAC filtering

C) 802.1X

D) SSID hiding

Answer: C

Explanation:

The 802.1X protocol provides port-based network access control that authenticates devices before granting network access, making it the most robust solution for ensuring only authorized devices can connect to wireless networks. The 802.1X framework creates an authentication layer between devices and network access, requiring successful authentication before allowing any network traffic. This standard supports multiple authentication methods including certificate-based authentication, username and password credentials, and token-based authentication, providing flexibility for different organizational requirements and security postures. The comprehensive authentication and authorization capabilities of 802.1X make it the enterprise standard for controlling wireless network access.

Option A is incorrect because while WPA3 is the latest and most secure WiFi encryption standard, it primarily focuses on protecting the confidentiality and integrity of wireless traffic rather than specifically authorizing which devices can connect. WPA3 provides stronger encryption, protection against offline dictionary attacks, and forward secrecy, all of which are important security features. However, in WPA3-Personal mode, any device with the pre-shared key can connect, which does not provide per-device authorization. WPA3-Enterprise does incorporate 802.1X for authentication, but 802.1X is the underlying access control mechanism, not WPA3 itself. The question asks specifically about ensuring only authorized devices can connect, which requires strong authentication, not just encryption.

Option B is incorrect because MAC filtering provides only superficial access control that can be easily bypassed by attackers. MAC filtering maintains a list of authorized device MAC addresses on the wireless access point, allowing only devices with listed MAC addresses to connect. However, MAC addresses are transmitted in clear text in wireless frames and can be easily observed using wireless packet capture tools. Attackers can simply observe allowed MAC addresses and then spoof their device’s MAC address to match an authorized device, completely bypassing the control. MAC filtering creates a false sense of security while providing minimal actual protection. It also creates administrative overhead as MAC addresses must be manually added for each authorized device.

Option D is incorrect because hiding the SSID provides no meaningful security and is easily bypassed by anyone with basic wireless networking knowledge. When SSID broadcasting is disabled, the network name is not advertised in beacon frames, making the network invisible to casual users browsing for available networks. However, the SSID is still transmitted in probe requests and probe responses when devices connect, and these frames can be captured using wireless packet sniffers. Freely available tools can reveal hidden SSIDs within seconds. SSID hiding creates usability problems for legitimate users while providing zero security benefit against anyone with intent to gain unauthorized access. It represents security through obscurity rather than actual access control.

Question 217: 

Which of the following cryptographic attacks attempts to find two different inputs that produce the same hash output?

A) Birthday attack

B) Rainbow table attack

C) Brute force attack

D) Dictionary attack

Answer: A

Explanation:

A birthday attack exploits the mathematical properties of hash functions to find collisions, which occur when two different inputs produce the same hash output. This attack is based on the birthday paradox from probability theory, which shows that finding a collision requires significantly fewer attempts than might be intuitively expected. The birthday attack is particularly relevant to hash functions used for digital signatures, integrity verification, and other security applications where the uniqueness of hash values is critical for security. Understanding birthday attacks is essential for security professionals involved in selecting appropriate hash algorithms and key lengths for cryptographic applications.

The mathematical foundation of the birthday attack comes from the birthday paradox, which asks how many people must be in a room before there is a better than 50 percent chance that two share the same birthday. The answer is surprisingly low at just 23 people, far less than the 365 days in a year. This same mathematical principle applies to hash functions. For a hash function producing n-bit output, there are 2^n possible hash values. Intuition might suggest that finding a collision requires trying approximately 2^n inputs, but the birthday paradox shows that collisions can be found with only approximately 2^(n/2) attempts. For a 128-bit hash, instead of requiring 2^128 attempts, collisions can be found with around 2^64 attempts, a significant reduction that makes collision attacks feasible with sufficient computational resources.

Option B is incorrect because rainbow table attacks target the reversal of hash values to recover original inputs, not finding collisions between different inputs. Rainbow tables are precomputed tables containing hash values and their corresponding plaintext inputs, optimized using reduction functions to save storage space while maintaining lookup capabilities. These tables enable attackers to quickly reverse hash values back to the original passwords or data without performing extensive computation at attack time. Rainbow tables are used against stolen password databases where attackers have hash values and want to recover the original passwords. This is fundamentally different from birthday attacks, which seek to find two different inputs producing the same output rather than reversing a hash to find its original input.

Option C is incorrect because brute force attacks involve systematically trying all possible inputs until finding the one that produces a specific target hash value. Brute force approaches might be used to crack a specific password hash by trying every possible password combination until finding one that matches the target hash. However, brute force attacks aim to find a specific preimage (an input that produces a known output) rather than finding any two inputs that collide with each other. The computational requirements for brute force attacks scale with the full output size of the hash function (2^n operations for n-bit hashes), whereas birthday attacks take advantage of collision probability to reduce the work to approximately 2^(n/2) operations. The goals and methodologies of these attacks are fundamentally different.

Option D is incorrect because dictionary attacks use lists of likely inputs (such as common passwords or words) to try to match a specific target hash value. Dictionary attacks are optimized brute force attacks that focus on probable inputs rather than exhaustively trying all possibilities. Like brute force attacks, dictionary attacks aim to find a preimage that produces a specific known hash value, typically to recover a password from its hash. Dictionary attacks do not attempt to find collisions between different inputs; they attempt to match one specific hash. The relationship between dictionary attacks and birthday attacks is similar to that between brute force and birthday attacks – they have different objectives and methodologies, with dictionary attacks seeking specific preimages and birthday attacks seeking any collision.

Question 218: 

A security administrator needs to ensure that a specific application can only communicate with a particular database server. Which of the following security controls would BEST accomplish this requirement?

A) Application whitelist

B) Host-based firewall rules

C) Network segmentation

D) Access control lists

Answer: B

Explanation:

Host-based firewall rules provide the most precise and effective control for restricting specific application communications to designated servers. Host-based firewalls operate at the individual system level and can create rules that specify not only source and destination IP addresses and ports but also which specific applications are allowed to use those network connections. Modern host-based firewalls on both Windows and Linux systems support application-aware filtering that identifies programs by their executable path, allowing administrators to create rules like “only allow application.exe to communicate with database_server:1433.” This granular control ensures the specified application can reach its required database while preventing other applications or processes on the same host from accessing that database server.

Option A is incorrect because application whitelisting controls which applications can execute on a system, not which network connections those applications can make. Application whitelisting prevents unauthorized or malicious software from running by maintaining a list of approved applications and blocking everything else. While this security control is valuable for preventing malware execution, it does not restrict network communications once an application is running. An application that passes whitelist validation can typically make any network connections unless additional controls like firewalls restrict them. Application whitelisting and network access control serve complementary but different security purposes, and whitelisting alone does not limit where approved applications can communicate.

Option C is incorrect because network segmentation divides the network into separate zones with controlled traffic flow between them, but it cannot restrict specific applications the way host-based firewalls can. Network segmentation might place application servers in one VLAN or subnet and database servers in another, with firewall rules at the network boundary controlling which IP addresses can communicate. However, network-level controls only see source and destination IP addresses and ports; they cannot distinguish between different applications running on the same server. If both the legitimate application and other processes on the same server try to reach the database, network segmentation cannot differentiate between them. Network segmentation is valuable for defense-in-depth but lacks the application-level granularity needed for this specific requirement.

Option D is incorrect because access control lists (ACLs) typically refer to either network ACLs on routers and firewalls or file system permissions, neither of which provides application-specific network access control. Network ACLs filter traffic based on IP addresses, ports, and protocols but cannot identify which application is generating the traffic. An ACL might allow traffic from the application server’s IP address to the database server’s IP address on the database port, but this would allow any application or process on that server to access the database, not just the specific authorized application. File system ACLs control who can read, write, or execute files but do not control network communications. While ACLs are important security controls, they lack the application awareness required for this scenario.

Question 219: 

An organization wants to prevent employees from installing unauthorized software on their workstations. Which of the following would be the MOST effective solution?

A) Acceptable use policy

B) Standard user accounts

C) Application control

D) Security awareness training

Answer: C

Explanation:

Application control, also known as application whitelisting, provides the most effective technical enforcement mechanism for preventing unauthorized software installation by explicitly defining which applications are permitted to execute on systems and blocking everything else. Application control solutions maintain inventories of approved applications identified by attributes like file paths, digital signatures, cryptographic hashes, or publisher certificates. When users attempt to launch or install applications, the control software checks whether the application matches approval criteria and only allows execution if approved. This default-deny approach ensures that only explicitly authorized software can run, making it extremely difficult for users to install or execute unauthorized applications even if they have obtained the installation files.

The technical implementation of application control systems operates at multiple levels to provide comprehensive protection. Modern solutions intercept execution attempts at the operating system level before applications can launch, checking execution requests against policy rules in real-time. Digital signature verification ensures that applications come from trusted publishers and have not been tampered with since publication. Hash-based rules identify specific known-good application versions, preventing execution of modified or infected versions even if they have the same filename. Path-based rules can approve entire directories, useful for enterprise applications installed in standard locations. The layered approach combining multiple identification methods provides robust protection while maintaining manageability for large application portfolios.

is incorrect because an acceptable use policy is an administrative control that documents rules and expectations but does not technically enforce them. While policies are important for establishing organizational standards and providing basis for disciplinary action when violated, users can easily ignore policy restrictions if no technical controls prevent prohibited actions. A user who wants to install unauthorized software simply needs to disregard the policy and proceed with installation. Without technical enforcement, policy compliance depends entirely on user awareness and willingness to follow rules. Policies should be part of a comprehensive security program but cannot be the primary defense against unauthorized software installation because they lack enforcement capability.

Option D is incorrect because security awareness training educates users about security risks and proper behaviors but does not technically prevent unauthorized actions. Training is valuable for helping users understand why unauthorized software poses risks and why they should follow organizational policies, potentially reducing intentional policy violations. However, training has no enforcement capability; users who understand the risks might still install unauthorized software if they believe it will help them accomplish their work or for personal convenience. Training effectiveness also degrades over time, requires regular reinforcement, and is subject to human error and judgment. While security awareness is an essential component of comprehensive security programs, it cannot be the primary control for preventing unauthorized software installation because it relies on user compliance rather than technical enforcement.

Question 220: 

Which of the following is the PRIMARY purpose of implementing data loss prevention (DLP) solutions?

A) To encrypt data at rest

B) To prevent unauthorized data exfiltration

C) To backup critical data

D) To sanitize data before disposal

Answer: B

Explanation:

The primary purpose of data loss prevention (DLP) solutions is to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration by monitoring, detecting, and blocking sensitive data from leaving the organization’s control through various channels. DLP systems identify sensitive information based on content inspection, contextual analysis, and classification rules, then enforce policies that prevent that data from being transmitted through unauthorized channels or to unauthorized recipients. This protection applies across multiple vectors including email, web uploads, cloud applications, removable media, printing, and network file transfers. By focusing on the data itself rather than just perimeter defenses, DLP provides essential protection for organizations’ most valuable and sensitive information assets.

DLP technology operates through content inspection capabilities that identify sensitive information within data streams, files, and storage locations. Pattern matching detects structured data like credit card numbers, social security numbers, or account numbers based on format patterns and validation algorithms like the Luhn algorithm for credit cards. Dictionary and keyword matching identifies documents containing sensitive terms or phrases. Document fingerprinting creates signatures of sensitive documents so any copies or portions can be recognized even if slightly modified. Machine learning and natural language processing enable identification of sensitive content based on context and semantics rather than just keywords. These diverse detection techniques enable DLP to recognize sensitive data regardless of format or context, providing comprehensive protection.

Option A is incorrect because encrypting data at rest is a data protection control that renders information unreadable without proper decryption keys, not a function of DLP. Encryption at rest protects stored data on disk drives, databases, and backup media from unauthorized access if physical media is stolen or improperly disposed of. While encryption is valuable for protecting confidential data and meeting compliance requirements, it operates independently from DLP and serves a different purpose. DLP focuses on preventing unauthorized transmission of data, while encryption focuses on protecting stored data. Organizations typically implement both controls as complementary components of defense-in-depth strategies, but they address different aspects of data protection.

Option C is incorrect because backing up critical data creates copies for recovery purposes after data loss events like hardware failures, natural disasters, or ransomware attacks, not a function of DLP. Backup solutions copy data to secondary storage locations on regular schedules, maintain multiple versions for point-in-time recovery, and enable restoration when original data is lost or corrupted. While backups are essential for business continuity and disaster recovery, they do not prevent unauthorized data exfiltration. In fact, backup data itself requires protection from unauthorized access and exfiltration. DLP and backup serve complementary but distinct purposes in data protection strategies, with DLP preventing unauthorized data leaving the organization and backup enabling recovery of lost data.

Question 221: 

A company is implementing a new application that will handle sensitive customer data. Which of the following should be performed FIRST?

A) Penetration testing

B) User acceptance testing

C) Security requirements analysis

D) Vulnerability assessment

Answer: C

Explanation:

Security requirements analysis should be performed first in the application development lifecycle because it establishes the security foundation upon which all other security activities build. This analysis identifies what security controls, capabilities, and characteristics the application must possess based on the sensitivity of data it will handle, regulatory compliance requirements, threat landscape, and business risk tolerance. Security requirements analysis conducted early in the development process ensures that security is designed into the application from the beginning rather than being retrofitted after development, which is far more expensive and less effective. For an application handling sensitive customer data, this initial analysis is crucial for identifying requirements like encryption, access controls, audit logging, and data protection mechanisms that must be architecturally integrated.

The security requirements analysis process involves multiple complementary activities that collectively define security needs. Data classification determines the sensitivity level of information the application will process, directly informing the rigor of required security controls. Threat modeling identifies potential attackers, their capabilities and motivations, likely attack vectors, and system components most at risk, enabling focused security control selection. Compliance analysis identifies applicable regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, or industry standards that impose specific security requirements. Risk assessment evaluates likelihood and impact of potential security failures, helping prioritize security investments. User security requirements capture needs like authentication methods, role-based access control, and privacy preferences. These inputs combine to produce comprehensive security requirements that guide subsequent development and testing activities.

The integration of security requirements into the overall application design process ensures that security considerations influence architectural decisions from the beginning. Security requirements might dictate architectural patterns like defense-in-depth, least privilege, separation of duties, or zero trust principles. They inform technology selection decisions, perhaps requiring specific cryptographic libraries, authentication frameworks, or secure coding languages. Security requirements drive the design of security features like authentication mechanisms, authorization models, audit logging, data encryption, and secure session management. Early integration enables efficient implementation because security is part of the design rather than an afterthought requiring costly rework. Applications designed with security requirements from the start are inherently more secure and maintainable than those where security is added later.

Question 222: 

Which of the following BEST describes the concept of least privilege?

A) Users should have access to all resources they might eventually need

B) Users should only have the minimum access rights needed to perform their job functions

C) All users should have the same level of access for consistency

D) Users should be granted administrator rights to improve productivity

Answer: B

Explanation:

The principle of least privilege dictates that users, processes, and systems should be granted only the minimum access rights and permissions necessary to perform their legitimate job functions and nothing more. This fundamental security principle limits the potential damage from accidents, errors, or malicious actions by restricting what any single user or process can do. By minimizing permissions, organizations reduce their attack surface, limit the blast radius of security incidents, and make it more difficult for attackers who compromise one account to pivot and access additional resources. Least privilege represents one of the most important and widely applicable security principles across all aspects of information security.

Implementation of least privilege requires careful analysis of actual job requirements to determine what access is truly necessary versus what might be convenient but not essential. This analysis involves examining job descriptions, interviewing employees about their work processes, monitoring actual resource usage patterns, and documenting legitimate business needs for access. The goal is to identify the minimum permissions needed for productivity without granting excessive access. For example, a customer service representative needs to view customer records but probably does not need to delete them or modify financial information. An application developer needs access to development environments but not production systems. A human resources employee needs access to personnel files but not engineering documentation. These distinctions enable precise permission assignments that support legitimate work while minimizing risk.

Technical implementation of least privilege spans multiple technologies and controls. Operating system permissions restrict what files and resources users can access on individual systems. Database permissions control which tables users can query, insert, update, or delete. Application-level permissions determine what features and functions users can utilize. Network access controls limit which systems users can connect to. Cloud environment permissions define what services and data users can access. Each layer of technology provides opportunities to enforce least privilege, and defense-in-depth approaches apply the principle at multiple layers. Modern identity and access management platforms help organizations implement and maintain least privilege by providing centralized control over permissions, automated access reviews, and just-in-time privilege elevation for situations requiring temporary elevated access.

incorrect because granting users access to all resources they might eventually need violates the least privilege principle and creates unnecessary security risk. Providing access based on potential future needs rather than current requirements means users have permissions they are not currently using and may never use. These excessive permissions increase attack surface and provide opportunities for accidental or intentional misuse. Access should be granted just-in-time when legitimate business needs arise, not preemptively based on speculation about future requirements. If users later require additional access for new responsibilities, permission requests should be submitted and approved at that time rather than granting broad access upfront.

Question 223: 

An attacker has gained access to a user’s session token. Which of the following attacks is the attacker MOST likely to perform?

A) Session hijacking

B) SQL injection

C) Cross-site scripting

D) Man-in-the-middle

Answer: A

Explanation:

Session hijacking, also known as cookie hijacking or session token theft, occurs when an attacker obtains a valid session token and uses it to impersonate the legitimate user without needing to know their credentials. Session tokens are issued by web applications after successful authentication to maintain state and avoid requiring users to authenticate with every request. These tokens typically exist as cookies in browsers or as parameters in URLs, and they authenticate subsequent requests as coming from the verified user. When an attacker obtains a valid session token through various means like network sniffing, cross-site scripting, malware, or physical access to an unlocked device, they can include that token in their own requests to the application, and the application treats those requests as coming from the legitimate user.

Option B is incorrect because SQL injection attacks involve inserting malicious SQL commands into application input fields to manipulate database queries, not using stolen session tokens. SQL injection exploits vulnerabilities in how applications construct SQL queries, allowing attackers to bypass authentication, extract data, modify databases, or execute administrative commands. While an attacker who has hijacked a session might subsequently attempt SQL injection through the compromised session, the act of using a stolen session token itself is session hijacking, not SQL injection. These are distinct attack types with different mechanisms and objectives, though they might be combined in multi-stage attacks.

Option C is incorrect because cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks involve injecting malicious scripts into web pages viewed by other users, not directly using stolen session tokens. XSS might be used as a method to obtain session tokens in the first place by including malicious JavaScript that steals cookies and sends them to attacker servers. However, once the attacker has obtained the token and is using it to impersonate the user, they are performing session hijacking rather than cross-site scripting. XSS is an attack vector that can enable session token theft, but using stolen tokens is session hijacking. The question describes an attacker who has already obtained a session token, so the attack they would perform with it is session hijacking.

Option D is incorrect because man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks involve intercepting and potentially modifying communications between two parties, requiring the attacker to position themselves in the communication path. MitM attacks might be used to capture session tokens as they are transmitted between client and server, but once the attacker has obtained the token, using it to impersonate the user is session hijacking, not man-in-the-middle. MitM requires the attacker to actively intercept ongoing communications in real-time, whereas session hijacking with a stolen token can occur long after the token was captured and does not require the attacker to be positioned in the network path. The question states the attacker has already gained access to the session token, indicating the acquisition phase is complete and the attacker would now perform session hijacking to use that token.

Question 224: 

Which of the following is the BEST method to protect against rainbow table attacks?

A) Password complexity requirements

B) Account lockout policies

C) Salting passwords

D) Multi-factor authentication

Answer: C

Explanation:

Salting passwords is the most effective defense specifically against rainbow table attacks because it fundamentally breaks the precomputation advantage that rainbow tables provide. A salt is a random value that is generated uniquely for each password and combined with the password before hashing. Even if two users have identical passwords, their salted hashes will be completely different because each password is combined with a different random salt value before hashing. This means that attackers cannot use precomputed rainbow tables because those tables would need to be regenerated for every possible salt value, which is computationally infeasible when salts are sufficiently long and random. Salting transforms password hashing from a scenario where precomputation provides massive advantages into one where attackers must perform computationally expensive brute force attacks against each password individually.

The technical implementation of password salting involves generating a cryptographically random salt value when a user creates or changes their password, concatenating the salt with the password, hashing the combined value, and storing both the salt and the resulting hash in the database. The salt does not need to be kept secret; it is typically stored in plaintext alongside the password hash. When the user later attempts to authenticate, the system retrieves the stored salt, combines it with the entered password, hashes the combination, and compares the result to the stored hash. If they match, the password is correct. The salt’s purpose is not confidentiality but rather ensuring that identical passwords produce different hashes, defeating rainbow table attacks that rely on precomputed hash values.

Rainbow tables are precomputed lookup tables that map hash values back to their original passwords, enabling extremely fast password cracking once the tables are built. Building rainbow tables requires substantial computational effort upfront, but once created, they enable nearly instantaneous password recovery by looking up hash values in the table. Rainbow tables use space-time tradeoff techniques that balance storage requirements against lookup time, making them practical for cracking large numbers of passwords. However, rainbow tables only work for unsalted hashes where the same password always produces the same hash. With salted passwords, attackers would need different rainbow tables for every possible salt value. With 128-bit salts, there are 2^128 possible salt values, making it completely impractical to generate the necessary rainbow tables.

The effectiveness of salting depends on proper implementation with sufficiently long, random, and unique salt values. Salts should be at least 128 bits (16 bytes) of cryptographically random data to ensure sufficient entropy. Each password must receive a unique salt; reusing salts across multiple passwords reintroduces vulnerability to precomputation attacks against that specific salt. Salts should be generated using cryptographically secure random number generators, not predictable values like timestamps or user IDs. The salt should be stored securely alongside the password hash in the database, typically in a separate column. Modern password hashing functions like bcrypt, scrypt, and Argon2 incorporate salting automatically, along with other protections like key stretching that increases the computational cost of password cracking attempts.

Best practices for password storage go beyond just salting to include using purpose-built password hashing algorithms rather than general cryptographic hash functions. Algorithms like bcrypt, scrypt, and Argon2 are specifically designed for password hashing and include features like configurable work factors that increase computational cost, memory-hardness that resists GPU-based cracking, and automatic salting. These algorithms make password cracking computationally expensive even with the correct hash and salt, providing defense-in-depth beyond what salting alone provides. The combination of proper salting, appropriate hashing algorithms, and sufficient work factors creates robust password storage that resists both rainbow table attacks and brute force attacks, protecting user credentials even if password databases are compromised.

Question 225: 

A security administrator is implementing a solution to ensure that all mobile devices accessing the corporate network comply with security policies. Which of the following would BEST accomplish this?

A) Mobile application management

B) Mobile device management

C) Network access control

D) Virtual private network

Answer: C

Explanation:

Network access control (NAC) solutions provide the most comprehensive approach for ensuring mobile devices comply with security policies before granting network access because they verify device compliance at the point of network connection regardless of device type or ownership model. NAC systems perform automated compliance checks when devices attempt to connect to the network, examining factors like operating system patch levels, antivirus status, firewall configuration, encryption status, presence of required security software, and device configuration settings. Only devices that meet all specified compliance requirements are granted network access, while non-compliant devices are quarantined, given limited access to remediation resources, or completely blocked depending on policy. This enforcement at the network layer ensures comprehensive protection regardless of whether devices are corporate-owned or employee-owned BYOD devices.

The technical architecture of NAC solutions involves multiple components working together to enforce compliance-based access control. NAC agents installed on devices perform local compliance assessments, checking device configurations against policy requirements and reporting results to the NAC system. For agentless operation, NAC can perform network-based scanning and profiling to identify device types and assess compliance without requiring installed software. The NAC policy server maintains compliance policies defining required security configurations and evaluates device assessment results against these policies. Network infrastructure including switches, wireless access points, and VPN concentrators integrate with the NAC system to enforce access decisions by controlling which VLANs devices are placed on, what network resources they can access, and what bandwidth they receive based on their compliance status.

NAC provides dynamic policy enforcement that adapts to changing device compliance status in real-time. When a device first connects to the network, NAC performs an initial compliance assessment before granting access. Periodic reassessments ensure devices maintain compliance over time; if a device falls out of compliance because antivirus definitions become outdated or security patches are needed, NAC can automatically quarantine the device until remediation occurs. This continuous monitoring and dynamic enforcement ensures that device security posture is maintained throughout the connection, not just verified at initial connection. For mobile devices that frequently move between different networks and may become infected or misconfigured while outside the corporate network, this continuous validation provides essential protection.