Visit here for our full CompTIA CAS-005 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 61:
What security mechanism prevents users from accessing resources they are not authorized to use?
A) Authorization controls
B) Encryption only
C) Physical locks
D) Audit logging
Answer: A
Explanation:
Authorization controls prevent users from accessing resources they are not authorized to use by enforcing policies defining what authenticated users can do after their identities are verified. While authentication establishes who users are, authorization determines what resources and operations those authenticated users may access. This separation is critical because authentication alone provides no protection against authorized users accessing resources beyond their legitimate needs or permissions.
Authorization models include discretionary access control where resource owners grant permissions at their discretion, mandatory access control using classification labels and clearances for government and highly regulated environments, role-based access control assigning permissions based on job functions rather than individual users, and attribute-based access control evaluating multiple attributes about users, resources, and environmental context to make dynamic access decisions.
Effective authorization implementation requires accurate identity information from authentication systems, comprehensive resource inventories identifying what needs protection, clearly defined policies specifying who should access what resources, and enforcement mechanisms that reliably implement policies preventing unauthorized access attempts. Authorization decisions typically occur at every resource access rather than only at initial authentication, enabling continuous verification that access remains appropriate throughout sessions.
The principle of least privilege guides authorization by granting only minimum necessary permissions for users to perform legitimate job functions, avoiding excessive permissions that create security risks. Regular access reviews verify that granted permissions remain appropriate as user roles change, ensuring accumulated permissions don’t exceed current requirements. Separation of duties enforces authorization policies requiring multiple people to complete sensitive operations, preventing single individuals from performing critical actions alone.
Authorization granularity varies from coarse-grained controls applying broad permissions to entire systems or large data sets, to fine-grained controls providing detailed permissions for specific resources, operations, or data elements. Appropriate granularity depends on security requirements, administrative overhead considerations, and system capabilities. More granular authorization provides better security through precise permission control but increases complexity and management burden.
Context-aware authorization enhances security by considering factors beyond user identity including device security posture, network location, time of day, and behavioral patterns. Anomalous access attempts from unusual locations or times might require additional verification even for authorized users, detecting potential account compromise. Risk-based authentication adjusts authorization requirements based on assessed risk levels, requiring stronger verification for high-risk scenarios.
Organizations must centralize authorization policy definition and enforcement to ensure consistency, using directory services, identity management systems, and policy engines that provide authoritative authorization decisions. Distributed authorization implementations risk inconsistencies where different systems apply different policies. Audit logging records all authorization decisions enabling investigation of inappropriate access and demonstrating access control effectiveness to auditors.
Option B is incorrect because encryption protects data confidentiality rather than controlling what authenticated users can access.
Option C is wrong because physical locks control facility entry rather than authorizing system resource access.
Option D is incorrect because audit logging records activities rather than preventing unauthorized access before it occurs.
Question 62:
Which attack technique exploits vulnerabilities in SQL databases through malicious input?
A) Cross-site scripting
B) SQL injection
C) Physical intrusion
D) Social engineering
Answer: B
Explanation:
SQL injection attacks exploit vulnerabilities in applications that construct database queries using untrusted user input without proper validation or parameterization. When applications concatenate user-supplied data directly into SQL statements, attackers inject malicious SQL code that executes with application database privileges, potentially enabling complete database compromise including unauthorized data access, modification, or deletion.
The fundamental vulnerability occurs when developers construct SQL queries by combining static SQL with user input through string concatenation or interpolation rather than using parameterized queries or prepared statements that separate SQL structure from data. Attackers craft special input containing SQL syntax that alters intended query logic, adding malicious clauses, terminating existing statements early to execute attacker-controlled commands, or leveraging SQL features like batch execution and stored procedures to perform unauthorized operations.
Successful SQL injection enables numerous malicious activities including extracting sensitive data from databases by modifying queries to return information attackers shouldn’t access, bypassing authentication by manipulating login queries to always return successful authentication, modifying or deleting data to compromise integrity, executing administrative operations if database accounts have elevated privileges, and potentially executing operating system commands through database features linking to underlying systems.
SQL injection consistently ranks among the most critical web application vulnerabilities due to its prevalence, ease of exploitation, and potentially catastrophic impact on data confidentiality and integrity. Automated scanning tools readily identify many SQL injection vulnerabilities, while more sophisticated manual testing discovers complex variants that automated tools miss. Attack difficulty ranges from trivial exploitation requiring minimal skill to complex scenarios needing detailed database knowledge and creative techniques.
Prevention requires treating all user input as potentially malicious and never incorporating it directly into SQL statements without proper handling. Parameterized queries or prepared statements represent the primary defense by separating SQL structure from data, sending them to databases separately so user input never influences query logic regardless of content. Input validation provides secondary defense by verifying data matches expected formats, though it cannot substitute for parameterized queries since determining all possible malicious inputs is impossible.
Additional defensive layers include principle of least privilege for database accounts limiting damage from successful injection, web application firewalls detecting and blocking injection attempts at network boundaries, stored procedure usage reducing direct SQL construction in application code, output encoding preventing injected SQL from executing even if other defenses fail, and regular security testing throughout development lifecycle.
Organizations should implement security development training ensuring developers understand SQL injection risks and prevention techniques, conduct regular vulnerability assessments identifying injection vulnerabilities before attackers discover them, and monitor database activity detecting unusual patterns indicating potential exploitation attempts. Defense requires combination of secure coding practices, security architecture, and operational monitoring.
Option A is incorrect because cross-site scripting injects malicious scripts into web pages rather than exploiting database vulnerabilities.
Option C is wrong because physical intrusion involves unauthorized facility access rather than database exploitation through input.
Option D is incorrect because social engineering manipulates people rather than exploiting database vulnerabilities through malicious queries.
Question 63:
What backup strategy maintains copies of data at remote locations for disaster recovery?
A) Local backup only
B) Offsite backup
C) No backup strategy
D) Manual copying only
Answer: B
Explanation:
Offsite backup maintains copies of organizational data at remote locations physically separated from primary systems, providing essential protection against disasters affecting primary sites including fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, building failures, and other catastrophic events that could destroy both primary systems and locally stored backups simultaneously. This geographic separation ensures that no single incident can eliminate both production data and all backup copies, maintaining data availability for recovery when primary sites become unavailable.
The importance of offsite backup has been repeatedly demonstrated through disasters destroying entire data centers and all locally stored backups, leaving organizations without ability to recover unless offsite copies exist. Ransomware attacks increasingly target backup systems attempting to encrypt both production and backup data, making isolated offsite backups critical for recovery without paying ransoms. Offsite locations might include secondary organizational facilities in different geographic regions, commercial backup storage facilities providing secure vault services, or cloud storage services offering geographically dispersed object storage with high durability guarantees.
Backup strategies implement the 3-2-1 rule suggesting maintaining at least three copies of data on two different media types with one copy stored offsite, providing multiple recovery options if any copy becomes unavailable or corrupted. Organizations typically maintain local backups for fast recovery of minor incidents where primary site remains operational but individual files or systems need restoration, plus offsite backups for disaster scenarios requiring complete site recovery or protection against local disaster impacts.
Offsite backup implementations must address several considerations including transport security ensuring backup data remains protected during transfer to offsite locations through encryption and secure transport procedures, storage security at offsite facilities through physical security, access controls, and environmental protections, retrieval procedures enabling timely backup recovery when needed, and regular testing verifying offsite backups remain usable and recovery procedures work correctly.
Cloud backup services have transformed offsite backup by eliminating physical media management overhead, providing automated transfer to geographically distributed storage infrastructure, offering versioning capabilities retaining multiple backup generations, and enabling relatively rapid recovery through high-bandwidth internet connections. Organizations must evaluate cloud provider security, reliability, cost structures, and data sovereignty considerations when selecting services.
Recovery time objectives and recovery point objectives drive backup frequency and retention decisions. More frequent backups reduce potential data loss but increase bandwidth consumption and storage costs. Longer retention periods enable recovery from incidents discovered long after occurrence but multiply storage requirements. Organizations balance these factors against budget constraints and business requirements.
Backup security requires encryption protecting confidentiality both during transit and while stored at offsite locations. Encryption key management becomes critical since encrypted backups cannot be recovered without proper keys, requiring secure key storage separate from encrypted data and documented recovery procedures. Organizations should regularly test complete disaster recovery including retrieval and restoration from offsite backups, verifying that procedures work and staff understand processes before actual disasters occur requiring urgent execution.
Option A is incorrect because local backup only leaves data vulnerable to site-wide disasters destroying both primary and backup data.
Option C is wrong because having no backup strategy leaves organizations unable to recover from any data loss incidents.
Option D is incorrect because manual copying alone cannot provide reliable, consistent, or timely offsite backup capabilities.
Question 64:
Which security assessment technique involves attempting to exploit discovered vulnerabilities?
A) Documentation review
B) Penetration testing
C) Visual inspection
D) Policy analysis
Answer: B
Explanation:
Penetration testing involves attempting to actively exploit discovered vulnerabilities using the same techniques and tools actual attackers would employ, providing realistic assessment of security control effectiveness and organizational security posture. Unlike vulnerability scanning that merely identifies potential weaknesses without verification, penetration testing validates exploitability by attempting actual attacks against identified vulnerabilities, demonstrating whether they can be successfully leveraged to compromise systems, access sensitive data, or achieve other malicious objectives.
Penetration testing provides several critical values beyond automated vulnerability assessment. Testing identifies chained vulnerabilities where multiple minor weaknesses combine enabling significant compromise that individual vulnerability analysis might miss. Tests validate that implemented security controls actually function as intended rather than merely existing in configuration. Testing reveals detection and response capability gaps by observing whether security teams identify and respond to testing activities appropriately. Comprehensive testing includes technical exploitation plus social engineering, physical security assessment, and wireless security evaluation addressing full organizational attack surface.
Testing methodologies include black box approaches where testers receive no internal knowledge simulating external attacker perspectives and discovering what publicly available information reveals about targets, white box testing providing complete system knowledge including source code, credentials, and architecture documentation enabling thorough examination of security implementations, and gray box approaches combining elements of both by providing partial information simulating scenarios like insider threats or compromised accounts.
Penetration testing scope requires careful definition specifying which systems, networks, applications, and attack vectors are in scope versus out of scope, preventing unintended damage to production systems or violation of legal boundaries. Rules of engagement define testing constraints including prohibited activities like social engineering of executives, timing restrictions avoiding business-critical periods, and escalation procedures when significant vulnerabilities are discovered requiring immediate attention.
Testing timeline follows phases including planning and reconnaissance where testers gather intelligence about targets, scanning and enumeration identifying potential entry points and vulnerabilities, exploitation attempting to leverage discovered weaknesses, maintaining access establishing persistent footholds, and covering tracks demonstrating how attackers might hide activities. Comprehensive documentation captures all activities, discovered vulnerabilities, exploitation details, and remediation recommendations prioritized by risk.
Organizations should conduct penetration testing regularly on defined schedules, after significant infrastructure changes that might introduce vulnerabilities, before deploying major new applications or systems, and when compliance requirements mandate periodic assessment. Results inform security investment priorities and validate remediation effectiveness when retesting confirms vulnerabilities are properly addressed. Testing must be performed by qualified professionals with appropriate skills and ethics, whether internal security teams or external consultants with demonstrated expertise.
Option A is incorrect because documentation review examines written materials rather than attempting active exploitation of vulnerabilities.
Option C is wrong because visual inspection observes physical conditions rather than attempting to exploit technical vulnerabilities.
Option D is incorrect because policy analysis reviews written procedures rather than testing security through active exploitation attempts.
Question 65:
What security principle requires separation between development, testing, and production environments?
A) Environment consolidation
B) Environment segregation
C) Single environment use
D) Unlimited access policy
Answer: B
Explanation:
Environment segregation requires separation between development, testing, and production environments, ensuring that software development and testing activities cannot directly impact production systems serving customers and supporting critical business operations. This fundamental security and operational principle prevents development mistakes, experimental changes, and testing activities from causing production outages, data corruption, or security compromises affecting actual business operations.
Production environments run live systems supporting business operations with real data serving actual customers and users. These environments require maximum stability, availability, and security since problems directly impact business continuity and customer experience. Testing environments enable quality assurance activities including functional testing, performance testing, security testing, and user acceptance testing using data that approximates production without the criticality of actual business operations. Development environments support software creation activities including coding, debugging, and initial testing where frequent changes, experimental features, and inherent instability are expected and acceptable.
Segregation prevents numerous problems that arise when environments mix inappropriately. Developers cannot accidentally deploy untested code to production when environments are properly separated. Testing activities using realistic data volumes, load testing, and fault injection scenarios cannot affect production performance or availability. Security vulnerabilities in development tools and test accounts cannot expose production data or provide production access to development personnel who shouldn’t have it. Experimental configuration changes and debugging activities cannot destabilize production systems.
Implementation requires technical controls including separate physical or virtual infrastructure for each environment, network segmentation preventing direct connectivity between environments except through controlled deployment pipelines, separate credentials and access controls ensuring production access is restricted to operations personnel while development access remains separate, and distinct data sets with production data sanitized or synthetic substitutes used in non-production environments protecting sensitive information.
Deployment processes move code through environments sequentially with testing and approval at each stage before promotion to the next environment. Continuous integration and continuous deployment pipelines automate progression through environments with gates requiring successful testing before advancement. This systematic progression ensures adequate validation before production deployment, reducing defect rates and security vulnerabilities reaching customers.
Data management in segregated environments poses challenges since testing requires realistic data for meaningful validation, but production data often contains sensitive information requiring protection. Organizations address this through data masking and anonymization creating safe test data from production sources, synthetic data generation producing artificial but realistic test data, or carefully controlled production data subsets with appropriate security controls and limited retention periods.
Change management procedures recognize environment differences, requiring formal processes for production changes with impact assessment, approval workflows, rollback planning, and scheduled maintenance windows. Non-production environments typically allow informal changes supporting development agility, though testing environments might enforce more control than development to maintain stability for quality assurance activities.
Option A is incorrect because environment consolidation combines rather than separates environments, creating the problems segregation prevents.
Option C is wrong because single environment use eliminates separation between development and production activities.
Option D is incorrect because unlimited access policy removes controls rather than implementing environment segregation.
Question 66:
Which protocol provides secure shell access to remote systems?
A) Telnet
B) SSH
C) HTTP
D) FTP
Answer: B
Explanation:
Secure Shell protocol provides encrypted remote access to systems, enabling administrators and users to securely execute commands, transfer files, and manage systems across networks without exposing credentials or sensitive data to potential interception. SSH replaced insecure Telnet protocol that transmitted all communications including passwords in plaintext visible to anyone monitoring network traffic, making credential theft trivial for network eavesdroppers.
SSH provides three primary services essential for secure remote access. Remote shell access enables users to obtain command-line interfaces on remote systems, executing commands as if physically present at the terminal. Secure file transfer through SFTP and SCP protocols enables encrypted file operations replacing insecure FTP that transmitted files and credentials without protection. Port forwarding or tunneling functionality enables SSH to encrypt arbitrary TCP connections through secure channels, protecting other protocols from network monitoring even when those protocols lack native encryption capabilities.
The protocol employs strong cryptography providing confidentiality through encryption of all communications, integrity through message authentication preventing undetected modification, and authentication verifying both server and client identities. Initial connections validate server identity through host keys presented to clients and verified against known hosts databases, preventing man-in-the-middle attacks where adversaries intercept connections. Client authentication supports multiple methods including password-based authentication with encrypted transmission protecting passwords, public key authentication providing stronger security without password exposure, and multi-factor authentication integrating additional verification factors.
Public key authentication represents recommended practice over passwords because keys cannot be guessed through brute force attacks, do not require transmission across networks making interception meaningless, and enable centralized key management supporting automated processes. Private keys should be protected with passphrases adding encryption layer preventing key use if files are stolen, and stored with restrictive permissions preventing unauthorized access on systems where they reside.
SSH configuration security requires several considerations including disabling protocol version one that contains known vulnerabilities, restricting root login preventing direct administrative access, limiting authentication methods to strong options, configuring idle timeouts preventing abandoned sessions from remaining authenticated indefinitely, and restricting allowed source addresses when applicable limiting who can connect. Server hardening reduces attack surface through unnecessary service disabling, security updates applying vulnerability patches promptly, and monitoring login attempts detecting brute force attacks or suspicious access patterns.
Organizations should manage SSH keys as sensitive credentials requiring generation using strong algorithms and key lengths, secure distribution without exposure during transfer, inventory tracking all generated keys and their purposes, regular rotation replacing keys periodically, and revocation procedures removing access when keys are compromised or users leave. Unmanaged SSH keys represent significant risk since forgotten keys might provide persistent access to former employees or compromised keys might enable adversary access.
Monitoring SSH access provides security visibility through logging successful authentications, failed authentication attempts indicating password guessing or key compromise attempts, unusual access patterns suggesting compromised credentials, and command auditing recording what authenticated users actually do during sessions.
Option A is incorrect because Telnet transmits everything in plaintext without encryption, exposing credentials and all data.
Option C is wrong because HTTP provides web communication rather than secure shell access for remote command execution.
Option D is incorrect because FTP transfers files without encryption rather than providing secure shell access.
Question 67:
What type of malware holds data hostage by encrypting files and demanding payment?
A) Adware
B) Ransomware
C) Spyware
D) Legitimate software
Answer: B
Explanation:
Ransomware represents a particularly devastating form of malware that encrypts victim data rendering files, databases, and sometimes entire systems completely inaccessible until ransom payment is made to attackers who hold the decryption keys. Unlike other malware types that steal data silently or cause subtle system changes, ransomware makes its presence immediately obvious through ransom notes displayed prominently demanding payment, typically in cryptocurrency to hinder tracing, in exchange for decryption keys needed to restore access to encrypted data.
Modern ransomware has evolved into sophisticated attack operations often conducted by organized cybercrime groups treating ransomware as a business model with professional infrastructure, customer service for victims paying ransoms, and affiliate programs enabling multiple attackers to deploy the same ransomware variants while sharing profits. Double extortion techniques combine encryption with data theft, threatening to publish stolen sensitive information if ransoms are not paid, creating additional pressure on victims beyond simple data unavailability.
Ransomware attacks cause severe business impact including operational disruption when critical systems become unavailable, financial losses from ransom payments that may reach millions of dollars, recovery costs for incident response and system restoration, regulatory penalties for data breaches when stolen data includes protected information, reputational damage affecting customer trust and business relationships, and potential legal liability from compromised customer or partner data.
Initial infection vectors vary but commonly include phishing emails containing malicious attachments or links that download ransomware when opened, exploitation of unpatched vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems enabling direct remote compromise, compromised remote access services like RDP with weak or stolen credentials, malicious websites hosting exploit kits that automatically attack visiting browsers, and supply chain compromises where legitimate software updates are hijacked to distribute ransomware.
Once executed, ransomware typically operates through several phases including initial reconnaissance discovering network structure and valuable targets, credential theft obtaining administrative access enabling broader impact, lateral movement spreading throughout networks to maximize encryption scope, data exfiltration stealing information for extortion leverage, and finally mass encryption rendering systems and data inaccessible followed by ransom demand presentation.
Defense against ransomware requires comprehensive strategies implemented across multiple layers. Robust backup systems maintained offline or in immutable cloud storage enable recovery without paying ransoms, representing the single most effective control against ransomware impact. Email security filtering blocks malicious messages before reaching users. Endpoint protection detects and prevents ransomware execution through behavioral analysis recognizing encryption patterns. Network segmentation limits ransomware spread by containing compromises within isolated segments. Vulnerability management eliminates exploitation vectors through prompt patching. Access controls implementing least privilege reduce impact by limiting what ransomware can encrypt with compromised credentials.
User security awareness training helps prevent initial infections by teaching recognition of phishing emails, suspicious attachments, and social engineering techniques ransomware operators use. Incident response planning specifically for ransomware scenarios enables rapid response including network isolation preventing spread, forensic investigation understanding attack scope, and recovery execution restoring operations from backups.
Organizations should maintain offline backups that ransomware cannot reach through network connections, test recovery procedures regularly ensuring backups actually work when needed, and document decision frameworks for ransom payment consideration. Security experts and law enforcement generally recommend against paying ransoms because payment funds criminal enterprises, provides no guarantee of data recovery, and may mark organizations as willing payers attracting future attacks.
Option A is incorrect because adware displays unwanted advertisements rather than encrypting data for ransom.
Option C is wrong because spyware covertly monitors activities rather than encrypting files and demanding payment.
Option D is incorrect because legitimate software serves intended purposes rather than holding data hostage for ransom.
Question 68:
Which security control limits network traffic between different network segments?
A) Network hub
B) Network segmentation
C) Open network
D) Universal connectivity
Answer: B
Explanation:
Network segmentation divides larger networks into smaller isolated segments or zones with controlled traffic flow between them, creating security boundaries that limit lateral movement by attackers who successfully compromise initial systems. Instead of flat networks where compromising any system provides potential access to all others, segmentation forces attackers to breach multiple defensive layers when attempting to reach critical assets from initial compromise points.
Segmentation provides multiple security benefits beyond limiting lateral movement. Containment strategies restrict malware spread by preventing compromised systems from easily reaching others for propagation. Reduced attack surface occurs because systems in restricted segments have limited exposure to threats from other zones. Improved monitoring becomes possible by focusing security analytics on traffic crossing segment boundaries where anomalies are easier to detect. Compliance requirements are easier to meet by isolating regulated data in dedicated segments with enhanced controls rather than protecting entire networks to highest sensitivity level.
Implementation approaches include physical segmentation using separate network infrastructure with distinct cabling and network devices providing maximum isolation but highest cost and complexity. Virtual LANs provide logical segmentation through switch configuration creating separate broadcast domains and enabling traffic filtering without separate physical infrastructure. Access control lists on routers and switches filter traffic between segments based on addresses, ports, and protocols. Firewalls deployed between zones provide stateful inspection and application-layer filtering of inter-segment traffic. Software-defined networking enables dynamic segmentation through centralized policy enforcement across virtualized network infrastructure.
Effective segmentation design requires careful planning identifying assets requiring protection, determining appropriate zones grouping similar assets and functions, defining security policies specifying allowed communications between zones, and implementing enforcement mechanisms preventing policy violations. Common segmentation schemes include separating user workstations from servers preventing direct connections that enable lateral movement, isolating critical assets like payment systems or sensitive databases in restricted zones with minimal access paths, placing internet-facing systems in DMZs separated from internal networks, and segmenting operational technology networks from enterprise IT networks protecting industrial control systems.
Micro-segmentation extends traditional approaches to much finer granularity, potentially isolating individual workloads or applications rather than large groups of systems. This approach particularly suits cloud and virtualized environments where software-based controls enable dynamic segmentation without physical network changes. Zero trust architectures rely heavily on micro-segmentation ensuring verification occurs for every access request regardless of network position.
Monitoring traffic crossing segment boundaries provides valuable security visibility since authorized inter-segment communications follow predictable patterns making anomalies easier to detect. Security information and event management systems can alert on unexpected cross-segment traffic indicating potential compromise or policy violations. Organizations should log and analyze inter-segment communications regularly, investigating unusual patterns promptly.
Segmentation maintenance requires ongoing effort ensuring policies remain appropriate as business requirements evolve, monitoring effectiveness through regular assessment, and adjusting boundaries when needed. Over time, segmentation can degrade as exceptions accumulate opening more paths between zones. Regular architecture reviews identify degradation requiring remediation to maintain security posture.
Option A is incorrect because network hubs provide basic connectivity without any segmentation or traffic control capabilities.
Option C is wrong because open networks eliminate boundaries rather than creating segments limiting traffic flow.
Option D is incorrect because universal connectivity provides unrestricted communication rather than limiting traffic between segments.
Question 69:
What security mechanism validates that software has not been modified since it was signed?
A) Code signing verification
B) Color scheme validation
C) Font checking
D) Layout inspection
Answer: A
Explanation:
Code signing verification validates software integrity and authenticity by checking digital signatures that developers apply to executables, scripts, drivers, and other code before distribution. These cryptographic signatures prove that code has not been modified since signing and confirm publisher identity, enabling users and systems to trust that software originates from legitimate sources and remains unaltered since the publisher released it.
The code signing process begins with developers generating or obtaining cryptographic key pairs from certificate authorities after identity verification. Publishers sign code by creating hash values of executable content, then encrypting those hashes with private keys producing digital signatures embedded in or accompanying software. During installation or execution, operating systems and security tools extract signatures, decrypt them using corresponding public keys from certificates, recompute hashes of current code content, and compare results. Matching values confirm code remains unchanged since signing, while mismatches indicate modification and trigger warnings or blocking depending on configured security policies.
Code signing provides essential protection against several threats including malware distribution where attackers disguise malicious software as legitimate applications, supply chain attacks where adversaries compromise software development or distribution infrastructure injecting malware into otherwise trusted software, tampering with downloaded software during transmission where network attackers modify legitimate downloads to include malicious code, and Trojan horses where malicious code masquerades as useful applications tricking users into installation.
Certificate authorities validate publisher identities before issuing signing certificates through verification processes confirming organizational identity and legal status for organization-validated certificates, or more rigorous verification including business registration, physical address, and telephone confirmation for extended validation certificates providing highest assurance levels. This identity verification creates chains of trust enabling users to verify not just that signatures are valid, but also who created them.
Operating systems increasingly require signed code for sensitive operations. Windows requires kernel drivers to be signed preventing unsigned or invalidly signed code from running at privileged levels. Mobile platforms like iOS and Android enforce code signing for all applications preventing installation of unsigned software. Application whitelisting solutions use code signing to identify approved software allowing execution only of properly signed applications from trusted publishers.
Security considerations for code signing include private key protection since compromised signing keys enable attackers to create malware appearing legitimate with valid signatures. Hardware security modules and dedicated signing infrastructure provide enhanced key protection compared to storing keys in software. Key compromise requires immediate certificate revocation informing users that signatures should no longer be trusted, plus investigation of any software signed with compromised keys. Timestamp services provide independent verification of signing times enabling signatures to remain valid even after certificate expiration if code was signed while certificates were valid.
Organizations deploying code signing should establish secure signing procedures limiting who can sign code, audit signing activities tracking what gets signed and by whom, manage certificates ensuring renewal before expiration, and plan incident response for key compromise scenarios. Developers must understand signing importance and implement it consistently throughout software release processes rather than treating it as optional step.
Option B is incorrect because color scheme validation addresses visual appearance rather than software integrity verification.
Option C is wrong because font checking examines typography rather than validating code has not been modified.
Option D is incorrect because layout inspection addresses visual design rather than cryptographic verification of software integrity.
Question 70:
Which access control mechanism uses biometric characteristics for authentication?
A) Something you know
B) Something you are
C) Something you have
D) Somewhere you are
Answer: B
Explanation:
Something you are represents the authentication factor category encompassing biometric characteristics that are inherent to individuals including fingerprints, facial features, iris patterns, retinal blood vessel patterns, voice characteristics, hand geometry, and behavioral patterns like typing rhythms or gait analysis. Biometric authentication verifies identity by measuring these unique physical or behavioral characteristics that distinguish individuals from others and remain relatively stable over time.
Biometric authentication provides several advantages over other factor types. Users cannot forget biometric characteristics the way they forget passwords, eliminating common authentication failures from forgotten credentials. Biometrics cannot be easily shared with others the way passwords are often shared, improving accountability since authentication more reliably indicates the actual person rather than someone who obtained their credentials. Stealing biometrics requires significantly more effort than capturing passwords or tokens, providing inherent resistance to certain attack types.
However, biometric authentication also presents unique challenges and considerations. Privacy concerns arise because biometric data represents sensitive personal information about individuals’ physical characteristics, requiring careful protection and often specific consent for collection. Revocation impossibility means compromised biometric templates cannot be changed like passwords or replaced like tokens, since individuals cannot alter their fingerprints or iris patterns. Cultural and religious sensitivities around certain biometric types require consideration, as some individuals may object to specific biometric collection based on beliefs or preferences.
Biometric system accuracy requires balancing false acceptance rates measuring how often imposters are incorrectly authenticated against false rejection rates measuring how often legitimate users are incorrectly rejected. Adjusting acceptance thresholds affects both rates inversely where stricter thresholds reduce false acceptances but increase false rejections frustrating legitimate users, while looser thresholds improve user experience but weaken security. Different biometric types exhibit different accuracy characteristics with some like iris recognition providing very high accuracy while others like voice recognition show more variability.
Environmental factors can affect biometric performance including lighting conditions affecting facial recognition, background noise impacting voice authentication, dirty or injured fingers reducing fingerprint match quality, and temporary conditions like illness changing voice characteristics. Systems must account for these variations through appropriate threshold settings and fallback authentication methods when biometric authentication fails.
Liveness detection represents critical security control preventing spoofing attacks where adversaries use photographs, recordings, or artificial reproductions to fool biometric systems. Advanced biometric systems incorporate liveness detection through subtle movements, temperature sensing, pulse detection, or other indicators distinguishing live subjects from reproductions. Without liveness detection, biometric security can be defeated by relatively simple spoofing attempts.
Template protection ensures stored biometric data cannot enable identity theft or impersonation if databases are compromised. Storing raw biometric data poses serious risks since compromised data enables creating reproductions for spoofing attacks and cannot be changed like compromised passwords. Modern systems use irreversible transformations creating templates that enable matching without storing original biometric data, and encrypting templates providing additional confidentiality protection.
Multi-factor authentication commonly combines biometrics with other factors like passwords or tokens providing layered security addressing limitations of individual factor types. This combination particularly suits high-security scenarios requiring strong authentication assurance.
Option A is incorrect because something you know refers to passwords and PINs rather than biometric characteristics.
Option C is wrong because something you have refers to physical tokens and devices rather than inherent personal characteristics.
Option D is incorrect because somewhere you are refers to location-based authentication rather than biometric verification.
Question 71:
What type of attack intercepts communications between two parties without their knowledge?
A) Man-in-the-middle attack
B) Phishing attack
C) Physical theft
D) Denial of service
Answer: A
Explanation:
Man-in-the-middle attacks intercept communications between two parties without their knowledge, positioning attackers between communicating systems to read, modify, or inject messages while both parties believe they are communicating directly with each other. This attack type undermines confidentiality by exposing transmitted data to adversaries, integrity by enabling message modification without detection, and authentication by allowing impersonation of either party to the other.
MITM attacks exploit fundamental trust assumptions in many communication protocols where parties assume direct connections without verifying communication paths. When attackers successfully position themselves in communication paths, they can transparently relay messages between parties while capturing or modifying content. Parties typically remain unaware that interception is occurring since communications appear to function normally despite adversary presence.
Common MITM attack scenarios include ARP spoofing on local networks where attackers send false ARP messages associating their MAC addresses with legitimate IP addresses, causing network switches to forward traffic through attacker systems. DNS spoofing redirects communications by providing false DNS responses directing victims to attacker-controlled systems rather than intended destinations. Rogue wireless access points mimic legitimate networks tricking users to connect through attacker infrastructure. SSL/TLS stripping downgrades encrypted connections to plaintext by intercepting HTTPS requests and communicating with servers via HTTPS while providing unencrypted HTTP to victims. Session hijacking steals or predicts session tokens enabling attackers to impersonate authenticated users without credentials.
The attack is particularly dangerous because it operates transparently to victims who may not realize interception is occurring even while attackers capture credentials, session tokens, sensitive data, and confidential communications. Attackers can selectively modify messages to achieve specific objectives like altering transaction amounts, changing recipient addresses, or injecting malicious content into legitimate communications.
Defense against MITM attacks relies heavily on cryptographic protections and verification mechanisms. Strong encryption through TLS for network communications prevents attackers from reading intercepted content even when positioned in communication paths. Certificate validation ensures communication endpoints are authentic by verifying server certificates against trusted certificate authorities, detecting impersonation attempts using fraudulent certificates. Certificate pinning in applications provides additional protection by accepting only specific certificates or certificate authorities for particular services, preventing acceptance of otherwise valid certificates issued through compromised authorities. Mutual authentication requiring both parties to verify each other prevents one-sided authentication vulnerabilities where clients verify servers but servers accept any client.
Network security controls complement cryptographic protections including network segmentation reducing opportunities for attackers to position themselves in communication paths, ARP inspection validating ARP messages preventing spoofing, DHCP snooping validating DHCP messages preventing rogue server attacks, and wireless security through WPA3 encryption preventing eavesdropping on wireless communications.
User awareness helps detect potential MITM attacks through recognition of certificate warnings indicating validation failures, unexpected prompts for credentials on already authenticated sessions, and unusual network performance suggesting additional relay hops. However, technical controls provide more reliable protection than user vigilance since sophisticated MITM attacks can be difficult for average users to detect.
Organizations should implement comprehensive encryption requiring HTTPS for all web communications, using VPNs for remote access protecting communications across untrusted networks, and encrypting all sensitive data in transit regardless of network trust level to ensure MITM attackers gain no useful information from intercepted communications.
Option B is incorrect because phishing attacks trick users through deceptive messages rather than intercepting communications.
Option C is wrong because physical theft involves stealing tangible assets rather than intercepting network communications.
Option D is incorrect because denial of service attacks disrupt availability rather than intercepting communications between parties.
Question 72:
Which security framework provides guidance for protecting payment card data?
A) PCI DSS
B) Cooking standards
C) Fashion guidelines
D) Building codes
Answer: A
Explanation:
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard provides comprehensive security requirements specifically designed to protect payment card data throughout transaction processing, storage, and transmission. Developed by major payment card brands including Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and JCB, PCI DSS establishes baseline security controls that all organizations handling payment card data must implement to reduce fraud and data breaches affecting cardholder information.
The standard addresses the complete payment ecosystem including merchants accepting card payments, service providers processing transactions or storing cardholder data on behalf of merchants, payment gateways facilitating transaction authorization and settlement, and any other entities storing, processing, or transmitting cardholder data or authentication information. Compliance requirements scale based on annual transaction volumes with more stringent validation requirements for larger merchants and service providers.
PCI DSS organizes security requirements into six major objectives that group related controls providing comprehensive protection. Building and maintaining secure networks requires installing firewalls, avoiding default credentials, and implementing strong access controls. Protecting cardholder data mandates encryption during transmission, restricted storage with strong cryptography, and secure deletion when no longer needed. Maintaining vulnerability management programs requires regular security updates, secure development practices, and antivirus deployment. Implementing strong access control measures demands need-to-know restrictions, unique user identification, and physical access controls. Regularly monitoring and testing networks requires logging, log review, and regular security testing. Maintaining information security policies requires documented policies, security awareness training, and incident response capabilities.
Specific technical requirements include network segmentation isolating payment environments from other systems reducing PCI scope and attack surface, strong cryptography protecting stored cardholder data and transmitted information, multi-factor authentication for remote access and administrative functions, comprehensive logging and monitoring detecting potential compromises, and quarterly vulnerability scanning plus annual penetration testing validating security control effectiveness.
Compliance validation varies by merchant level with the largest merchants requiring annual on-site assessments by qualified security assessors, while smaller merchants can often self-assess using questionnaires evaluating specific requirements. However, self-assessment does not reduce actual security obligations, only validation mechanisms. All merchants must complete attestation of compliance documenting their compliance status.
The consequences of non-compliance can be severe including increased transaction processing fees, loss of ability to accept payment cards representing existential threat for many businesses, contractual penalties from acquiring banks, and liability for fraud losses and breach costs. Beyond contractual consequences, breaches of payment card data trigger notification obligations, regulatory scrutiny, civil litigation, and reputational damage affecting customer trust and business relationships.
Organizations should approach PCI compliance systematically through scoping exercises identifying all locations and systems handling cardholder data including unexpected locations where card data might accumulate, gap analysis comparing current security against requirements, remediation efforts implementing missing controls, documentation proving compliance, and ongoing maintenance ensuring compliance persists through changes and time.
Common compliance challenges include scope creep where cardholder data proliferates beyond intended systems, legacy systems lacking security features required by standards, complex environments with numerous systems requiring consistent controls, and limited security resources particularly for smaller merchants lacking dedicated security teams. Strategies for addressing challenges include reducing scope through minimizing locations storing card data, using payment tokenization replacing card numbers with non-sensitive tokens throughout most systems, outsourcing to compliant service providers shifting compliance burden to specialized vendors, and implementing compensating controls when standard requirements cannot be met directly.
Option B is incorrect because cooking standards address food safety rather than payment card data protection.
Option C is wrong because fashion guidelines address clothing and style rather than payment security requirements.
Option D is incorrect because building codes govern construction rather than payment card data security.
Question 73:
What security control prevents unauthorized software installation on managed devices?
A) Application whitelisting
B) Open installation policy
C) Unrestricted software
D) Universal execution
Answer: A
Explanation:
Application whitelisting prevents unauthorized software installation and execution on managed devices by explicitly allowing only approved applications to run while blocking everything else by default. This default-deny approach inverts traditional antivirus blacklisting that attempts to block known malware while allowing everything else, providing significantly stronger protection against unknown threats including zero-day malware that signature-based detection cannot identify.
Whitelisting security effectiveness stems from dramatically reducing attack surface by preventing execution of unapproved code regardless of whether it is identified as malicious. Malware cannot run if not explicitly approved, eliminating most malware threats immediately since attacks rely on executing malicious code that would not be on whitelist. This approach particularly suits environments with predictable application needs where limited application sets support business operations, making comprehensive whitelisting practical without excessive operational burden.
Implementation approaches vary in granularity and flexibility. Path-based whitelisting allows execution only from specific directories, providing simple implementation but vulnerable to threats placing malicious files in approved locations. Hash-based whitelisting permits only applications matching specific cryptographic hashes ensuring exact files are approved, providing strong security but requiring whitelist updates for every application update since hashes change with any modification. Publisher-based whitelisting allows applications signed by approved publishers, providing balance between security and operational flexibility by permitting updated versions from trusted publishers without constant whitelist maintenance.
Effective whitelisting requires comprehensive application inventory identifying all legitimate software requiring approval, whitelist development including business applications, system utilities, and administrative tools, testing ensuring whitelists support business operations without blocking legitimate activities, deployment gradually implementing across systems with monitoring for issues, and maintenance updating whitelists as new applications are approved or existing applications updated.
Operational challenges include initial deployment effort requiring thorough application discovery and whitelist development before enforcement, ongoing maintenance as applications update requiring whitelist adjustments, legacy applications potentially lacking digital signatures complicating publisher-based whitelisting, compatibility with development environments where frequent code changes make whitelisting impractical, and user productivity impacts when legitimate applications are inadvertently blocked.
Management capabilities should include centralized policy definition ensuring consistent whitelisting across enterprise, reporting capabilities tracking blocked execution attempts identifying both threats and whitelist gaps, automated learning suggesting whitelist additions based on observed execution patterns, temporary exemptions allowing legitimate software while approvals process, and role-based whitelisting enabling different rules for different user groups or system types.
Whitelisting complements other security controls rather than replacing them. Endpoint protection platforms often integrate whitelisting with traditional signature-based detection, behavioral analysis, and exploit prevention providing layered defenses. Organizations should combine whitelisting with least privilege principles limiting what approved applications can do, network segmentation containing compromises if execution controls fail, and monitoring detecting anomalous activities from approved applications if compromised or misused.
Specific use cases where whitelisting provides particular value include critical infrastructure systems where stability and predictability are paramount, point-of-sale systems with limited application needs and high security requirements, kiosks and specialized devices running fixed application sets, servers executing only specific services and administrative tools, and high-security environments protecting sensitive information requiring maximum assurance against malware.
Option B is incorrect because open installation policy allows any software defeating the protection whitelisting provides.
Option C is wrong because unrestricted software permits execution of anything including malware and unauthorized applications.
Option D is incorrect because universal execution allows all code to run rather than limiting execution to approved applications.
Question 74:
Which security principle ensures that multiple people must work together to complete sensitive operations?
A) Single person control
B) Dual control
C) Individual authority
D) Sole responsibility
Answer: B
Explanation:
Dual control mandates that two or more people must participate to complete sensitive operations, ensuring that no single individual can perform critical actions independently without oversight, verification, or cooperation from others. This security principle prevents fraud, errors, and abuse of privileges by requiring collusion between multiple parties rather than enabling individual action, dramatically increasing difficulty of unauthorized activities while providing inherent oversight and verification.
Dual control applies to numerous sensitive scenarios including cryptographic key management where ceremonies for generating, backing up, or destroying encryption keys require multiple custodians physically present and participating. High-value financial transactions exceeding specified thresholds require multiple authorizers independently verifying and approving payments before execution. Critical system changes affecting production infrastructure require separate individuals to authorize changes and execute them preventing single administrator from making unauthorized modifications. Physical security for highly sensitive areas may require two-person rules where individuals cannot access locations alone, ensuring constant mutual oversight. Code signing for software releases may require one developer to create code and another to review and sign it, preventing individual developers from deploying malicious code.
The security value of dual control stems from several factors including collusion difficulty where committing fraud requires multiple people to agree and participate rather than individual action, error prevention through independent verification where second person catches mistakes first person missed, accountability enhancement since multiple people witness and document activities providing stronger evidence chains, and trust distribution avoiding single points of trust where one compromised or malicious individual can cause severe impact.
Implementation requires careful workflow design ensuring both participants meaningfully contribute to operations rather than one person performing actions while the other merely rubber-stamps approval without genuine verification. Technical controls should enforce dual control requirements preventing circumvention through system configuration, requiring both participants to authenticate independently, and documenting both identities in audit trails. Selection of dual control participants should avoid conflicts of interest such as direct reporting relationships, family connections, or shared financial interests that might compromise independence.
Operational considerations include balancing security benefits against workflow efficiency since dual control inherently requires additional time and coordination compared to individual action. Organizations should apply dual control selectively to truly sensitive operations warranting additional protection rather than routine activities where overhead would impede business without proportionate security benefit. Emergency procedures must address scenarios where second person is unavailable, potentially through alternate approvers or break-glass procedures with enhanced monitoring and post-action review.
Audit trails must comprehensively capture both participants for full accountability including who performed what actions, when operations occurred, what was accomplished, and what evidence supports legitimate dual control rather than one person forging participation. Organizations should periodically review dual control effectiveness ensuring participants remain independent, controls cannot be circumvented, and procedures are consistently followed.
Related concepts include separation of duties distributing different aspects of sensitive processes to different people rather than requiring simultaneous participation for single actions, and split knowledge where critical information is divided such that no single person possesses complete knowledge required to compromise security. These principles complement dual control in comprehensive security programs.
Organizations implementing dual control should document policies clearly specifying which operations require dual control, who may serve as participants, procedures for normal operations and exceptions, audit requirements, and periodic review processes ensuring controls remain effective as operations evolve.
Option A is incorrect because single person control allows individuals to act alone, contradicting dual control requirements.
Option C is wrong because individual authority enables unilateral action rather than requiring multiple participants.
Option D is incorrect because sole responsibility places control with one person rather than requiring multiple people.
Question 75:
What security mechanism detects when files have been modified by comparing hash values?
A) File integrity monitoring
B) Color checking
C) Size measurement only
D) Name verification only
Answer: A
Explanation:
File integrity monitoring detects unauthorized modifications to files by calculating and storing cryptographic hash values representing file contents at baseline, then periodically recalculating hashes and comparing them against stored baselines to identify changes. When current hash values differ from baseline values, FIM alerts that files have been modified, indicating potential unauthorized changes from malware, attackers, or system corruption requiring investigation.
FIM provides critical security value by detecting compromises that might otherwise remain hidden. Attackers modifying system files to install rootkits or backdoors trigger FIM alerts. Malware altering executables for persistence or payload delivery creates hash mismatches. Unauthorized configuration changes violating security policies show as modifications to configuration files. Integrity failures from hardware problems or software bugs affecting critical files become visible through unexpected hash changes.
The cryptographic foundation of FIM relies on hash functions producing unique fixed-length outputs from variable-length inputs where even tiny input changes create completely different outputs. This avalanche effect ensures any modification, no matter how small, produces detectable hash changes. Common hash algorithms include SHA-256 providing strong collision resistance appropriate for security purposes, and MD5 or SHA-1 for legacy applications despite known weaknesses making them unsuitable for new implementations.
Baseline establishment represents the critical first step where FIM systems calculate hashes for all monitored files creating known-good references. Baseline integrity is essential since compromised baselines incorporating already-modified files defeat monitoring purposes by treating malicious changes as normal. Organizations should create baselines immediately after clean system installation before deployment or during known-good states verified through other means. Some implementations use read-only media or offline storage protecting baselines from tampering.
Monitoring frequency balances detection speed against system resource consumption since hash calculation requires reading complete file contents consuming disk I/O and CPU cycles. Real-time monitoring provides fastest detection by calculating hashes immediately when files change, while scheduled scanning at intervals reduces resource usage but introduces detection delays. Organizations should monitor critical system files and configurations more frequently than less critical data files, prioritizing detection speed for highest-risk assets.
Change management integration distinguishes authorized legitimate changes from unauthorized modifications. FIM systems should integrate with change control processes receiving notifications about approved changes and temporarily suppressing alerts for expected modifications. Without integration, legitimate changes generate false alarms overwhelming analysts with noise and potentially causing alert fatigue where genuine threats are missed amid legitimate change alerts.
Alert response procedures must address FIM notifications promptly since modified files may indicate active compromises requiring immediate incident response. Investigation determines whether changes are authorized, verifies change control documentation if changes were planned, assesses change appropriateness and compliance with policies, and escalates to incident response teams if unauthorized modifications are confirmed. Some changes may indicate benign issues like automatic updates or routine system maintenance rather than security compromises, requiring analyst judgment to distinguish threats from normal operations.
Scope determination identifies which files require monitoring based on security criticality and change characteristics. Operating system files, security tools, critical application binaries, and configuration files typically warrant monitoring. Frequently changing files like logs or temporary files may be excluded to reduce noise unless specific security requirements mandate their monitoring. Organizations should document monitoring scope, justifications for inclusion and exclusion decisions, and periodic reviews ensuring scope remains appropriate as systems evolve.
Option B is incorrect because color checking addresses visual appearance rather than detecting file modifications through cryptographic verification.
Option C is wrong because size measurement alone cannot reliably detect modifications since changes might not alter file size or attackers might deliberately maintain size.
Option D is incorrect because name verification only detects file renaming rather than content modifications that integrity monitoring identifies.