Visit here for our full CompTIA CAS-005 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 91:
What security assessment evaluates third-party vendor security practices?
A) Vendor risk assessment
B) Product marketing
C) Sales evaluation
D) Financial audit only
Answer: A
Explanation:
Vendor risk assessments evaluate third-party security practices ensuring external organizations with access to organizational data, systems, or networks maintain adequate security controls protecting against breaches, service disruptions, and compliance violations. These assessments address supply chain risks recognizing that organizational security depends not only on internal controls but also on every vendor, partner, and service provider handling sensitive information or providing critical services.
Assessment scope varies based on vendor relationship criticality and access level, evaluating security policies and procedures, technical infrastructure and controls, personnel security practices, incident response capabilities, business continuity planning, compliance with relevant standards and regulations, and subcontractor management for vendors using additional third parties. Critical vendors with extensive access or handling highly sensitive information require thorough assessments while limited-scope vendors need lighter evaluation commensurate with their risk.
Assessment methods include security questionnaires collecting standardized information about vendor practices, on-site audits examining controls directly for critical vendors, third-party certifications and attestations like SOC 2 reports providing independent verification, penetration testing of vendor systems where contractually permitted, continuous monitoring for ongoing risk visibility, and contract review ensuring security requirements are legally enforceable. Organizations often combine methods for comprehensive evaluation balancing thoroughness against assessment costs.
Vendor security requirements should be established before procurement defining minimum acceptable security standards, incorporated into contracts making security obligations legally binding, monitored regularly ensuring ongoing compliance, and enforced through contractual remedies when vendors fail to maintain commitments. Requirements should address data protection, access controls, encryption, vulnerability management, incident notification, audit rights, and termination assistance ensuring smooth data return or destruction when relationships end.
Common vendor risks include data breaches exposing customer information through inadequate vendor security, service disruptions from vendor infrastructure failures or attacks, compliance violations where vendor failures trigger regulatory penalties for customers, intellectual property theft from vendors lacking adequate trade secret protection, and cascading failures where vendor compromises enable attacks against vendor customers. Recent supply chain attacks have demonstrated severe consequences of vendor security failures.
Organizations should maintain vendor inventories tracking all third parties with data or system access, categorize vendors by risk level prioritizing assessment efforts, conduct regular reassessments as vendor relationships and threat landscapes evolve, require incident notifications enabling rapid response when vendor breaches occur, and plan vendor exit strategies enabling transition to alternatives if security degradation necessitates relationship termination. Vendor risk management requires ongoing attention rather than one-time procurement evaluation.
Option B is incorrect because product marketing promotes services rather than evaluating vendor security practices.
Option C is wrong because sales evaluation assesses revenue performance rather than third-party security controls.
Option D is incorrect because financial audits examine accounting rather than comprehensive vendor security practice evaluation.
Question 92:
Which encryption method protects data stored in databases?
A) Encryption at rest
B) Encryption in transit only
C) No encryption
D) Physical security only
Answer: A
Explanation:
Encryption at rest protects data stored in databases by transforming readable information into ciphertext that remains unreadable without proper decryption keys, ensuring confidentiality even if storage media is stolen, improperly disposed, or accessed by unauthorized parties. This protection addresses scenarios where attackers bypass access controls through physical theft, privilege escalation, backup compromise, or insider threats gaining direct storage access.
Database encryption approaches include transparent data encryption operating at database engine level encrypting entire databases or specific sensitive columns without application changes, column-level encryption protecting specific sensitive fields like credit card numbers or social security numbers while leaving other data unencrypted, and application-level encryption where applications encrypt data before database storage providing control over key management independent from database systems. Each approach offers different balances between security granularity, performance impact, and implementation complexity.
Implementation considerations include key management ensuring encryption keys remain secure and available, with keys stored separately from encrypted data preventing theft of both simultaneously, performance assessment since encryption introduces computational overhead though modern hardware acceleration minimizes impact, backup encryption ensuring backups receive the same protection as production databases, and compliance requirements mandating encryption for specific data types like payment cards or personal health information.
Key management presents the critical challenge since encrypted data without keys becomes permanently inaccessible, requiring secure key storage through hardware security modules providing physical protection, key rotation changing keys periodically limiting compromise impact, key escrow maintaining recovery mechanisms for emergencies, and comprehensive key lifecycle management from generation through destruction. Lost keys mean permanent data loss while compromised keys expose all encrypted data, making key management crucial for encryption effectiveness.
Encryption at rest complements encryption in transit since different attack scenarios threaten data in different states. Transit encryption protects against network interception while rest encryption protects against storage theft, unauthorized database access, and improper decommissioning. Comprehensive data protection requires encrypting data throughout its lifecycle across storage, transmission, processing, and disposal.
Organizations should identify sensitive data requiring encryption through data classification, select appropriate encryption approaches balancing security requirements against operational needs, implement robust key management preventing both loss and compromise, maintain encryption at sufficient strength against cryptographic attacks, and regularly audit ensuring encryption remains properly implemented and effective.
Option B is incorrect because encryption in transit protects network communications rather than stored database data.
Option C is wrong because no encryption leaves stored data vulnerable to unauthorized access.
Option D is incorrect because physical security alone cannot protect against logical access by authorized administrators or compromised credentials.
Question 93:
What security control detects and prevents malicious network traffic patterns?
A) Intrusion Prevention System
B) Network hub
C) Power supply
D) Cable connector
Answer: A
Explanation:
Intrusion Prevention Systems detect and prevent malicious network traffic patterns by actively blocking attacks in real-time through inline deployment inspecting all traffic and dropping malicious packets before reaching target systems. Unlike passive intrusion detection systems that only alert administrators, IPS takes immediate action preventing attacks from succeeding, providing proactive defense against network-based threats.
IPS detection employs multiple techniques including signature-based detection matching known attack patterns from regularly updated threat databases containing thousands of attack signatures covering exploits, malware communications, and policy violations, anomaly-based detection identifying deviations from established normal traffic baselines indicating potential unknown attacks, protocol analysis detecting violations of expected communication standards suggesting exploitation attempts, and stateful inspection tracking connection states identifying suspicious patterns across multiple packets.
Deployment locations vary by protection requirements with perimeter placement defending internet connections against external threats, internal segmentation controlling traffic between network zones preventing lateral movement, datacenter protection defending critical servers, and cloud deployment securing cloud workloads through virtual appliances or cloud-native services. Strategic placement ensures comprehensive coverage while maintaining acceptable performance.
IPS tuning balances security against false positives that might block legitimate traffic causing business disruptions. Aggressive blocking maximizes security but risks operational impact while permissive configuration reduces false positives but might allow attacks. Organizations must tune based on risk tolerance, traffic patterns, and business requirements through careful policy development, testing in monitor mode before enabling blocking, ongoing refinement based on operational experience, and documented exceptions for legitimate traffic triggering false alerts.
Performance considerations include throughput ensuring IPS can inspect traffic at network speeds without bottlenecks, latency minimizing delay introduced by inspection, and scalability handling traffic growth and new features. Modern IPS leverage purpose-built hardware, multicore processing, and optimized algorithms maintaining high performance while providing comprehensive protection.
Integration with security ecosystem enhances effectiveness through threat intelligence feeds providing current attack signatures, SIEM systems centralizing alerts for correlation and investigation, and incident response workflows enabling coordinated response when IPS blocks attacks. Automated responses might isolate affected systems, update firewall rules, or trigger additional security measures.
Option B is incorrect because network hubs provide basic connectivity without traffic inspection or attack prevention.
Option C is wrong because power supplies provide electricity rather than detecting malicious traffic patterns.
Option D is incorrect because cable connectors provide physical connections without security functions.
Question 94:
Which security framework focuses on protecting critical infrastructure?
A) NIST Cybersecurity Framework
B) Cooking guidelines
C) Fashion standards
D) Sports regulations
Answer: A
Explanation:
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework focuses on protecting critical infrastructure through comprehensive risk management guidance originally developed for sectors like energy, transportation, communications, and financial services. This framework has gained broad adoption beyond original critical infrastructure targets, becoming widely used across industries and organization sizes for structured cybersecurity program development and improvement.
Framework structure organizes activities into five core functions representing complete security lifecycles. Identify function helps organizations understand business context, assets, risks, and governance requirements establishing foundations for subsequent activities. Protect function implements safeguards ensuring critical service delivery and limiting security incidents through preventive controls. Detect function develops capabilities for timely cybersecurity event identification through monitoring and detection processes. Respond function defines actions regarding detected incidents through planning, communications, and mitigation. Recover function maintains resilience and restoration capabilities for services impaired by incidents.
Each function contains categories grouping related outcomes and subcategories providing detailed guidance referenced to industry standards including ISO 27001, COBIT, and CIS Controls. This structure enables organizations navigating from high-level strategic planning to detailed tactical implementation while leveraging existing security frameworks rather than creating entirely new approaches.
Implementation tiers describe organizational cybersecurity maturity from Partial Tier 1 where practices are reactive and ad hoc, through Risk Informed Tier 2 and Repeatable Tier 3, to Adaptive Tier 4 where organizations actively adapt based on changing threats and lessons learned. Tiers help organizations assess current states and plan improvement roadmaps.
Framework profiles represent alignment of standards and practices to core functions in specific scenarios. Current profiles describe existing cybersecurity posture while target profiles articulate desired future states. Gap analysis between current and target drives strategic planning identifying priority improvements and resource allocation. Organizations create profiles tailored to their specific risk environments, regulatory requirements, and business constraints.
Benefits include flexibility allowing tailored implementation rather than prescriptive requirements, risk-based approaches prioritizing efforts on greatest concerns, common language facilitating communication across technical and business stakeholders, and integration supporting use alongside existing frameworks and standards. Organizations can demonstrate systematic risk management to customers, partners, and regulators through framework alignment.
Option B is incorrect because cooking guidelines address food preparation rather than critical infrastructure cybersecurity.
Option C is wrong because fashion standards govern clothing rather than protecting critical infrastructure.
Option D is incorrect because sports regulations address athletic competition rather than infrastructure security.
Question 95:
What attack technique attempts to gain unauthorized access through repeated password guessing?
A) Brute force attack
B) Encryption process
C) Backup procedure
D) Software update
Answer: A
Explanation:
Brute force attacks attempt gaining unauthorized access through systematic password guessing trying numerous combinations until discovering valid credentials. Attackers use automated tools rapidly testing millions of password possibilities against authentication systems, exploiting weak passwords, default credentials, or insufficient account lockout protections. These attacks succeed through computational power and persistence rather than technical sophistication.
Attack variations include simple brute force trying all possible character combinations exhaustively which becomes impractical for long complex passwords, dictionary attacks testing common passwords and words from dictionaries exploiting predictable password choices, hybrid attacks combining dictionary words with number and symbol substitutions addressing common password patterns, credential stuffing using username-password pairs stolen from previous breaches testing them across multiple sites exploiting password reuse, and rainbow table attacks using precomputed hash values accelerating password cracking from compromised hash databases.
Success factors include password strength where weak short passwords fall quickly while long complex passwords resist brute force, account lockout policies that disable accounts after failed attempts preventing unlimited guessing, rate limiting that slows authentication attempts making brute force impractical, and multi-factor authentication requiring additional verification beyond passwords making discovered passwords insufficient for access. Organizations lacking these protections face significant brute force risks.
Defense strategies employ multiple layers including strong password policies requiring sufficient length and complexity making brute force computationally infeasible, account lockout temporarily disabling accounts after failed attempts though careful implementation prevents denial of service where attackers deliberately trigger lockouts, CAPTCHA challenges distinguishing humans from automated tools after several failures, monitoring detecting unusual authentication patterns indicating attacks, and multi-factor authentication providing protection even if passwords are compromised. Comprehensive approaches combining multiple defenses provide strongest protection.
Password hashing with appropriate algorithms and salting protects stored credentials from brute force attacks if credential databases are compromised. Computationally expensive algorithms like bcrypt or Argon2 dramatically slow brute force attempts making attacks impractical even with powerful hardware. Organizations should use modern password hashing specifically designed for credential protection rather than general-purpose cryptographic hashes.
User education helps prevent weak passwords by explaining brute force risks and proper password creation, though technical controls enforcing requirements provide more reliable protection than user compliance alone. Password managers enable strong unique passwords across services addressing password reuse vulnerabilities that credential stuffing exploits.
Option B is incorrect because encryption transforms data rather than attempting password guessing for unauthorized access.
Option C is wrong because backup procedures preserve data rather than attacking systems through password guessing.
Option D is incorrect because software updates apply patches rather than repeatedly guessing passwords for access.
Question 96:
Which security mechanism prevents execution of unsigned or untrusted code?
A) Application control
B) Open execution
C) Unlimited access
D) Universal permission
Answer: A
Explanation:
Application control prevents execution of unsigned or untrusted code by explicitly allowing only approved applications while blocking everything else, implementing default-deny security model providing stronger protection than blacklist-based approaches attempting to block known malware. This control dramatically reduces attack surface by preventing execution of unauthorized code regardless of whether it is identified as malicious.
Implementation approaches vary in granularity including path-based controls allowing execution only from specific directories providing simple implementation though vulnerable if malicious files reach approved locations, hash-based controls permitting only applications matching approved cryptographic hashes ensuring exact files without any modifications, publisher-based controls allowing code signed by approved publishers providing flexibility for application updates while maintaining security, and behavioral controls monitoring application actions blocking suspicious behaviors even from approved software.
Application control particularly suits environments with predictable software needs including critical infrastructure with limited application sets, point-of-sale systems with fixed functionality, kiosks running specific applications, servers executing only necessary services, and high-security environments protecting sensitive information. These scenarios enable comprehensive whitelisting without excessive operational burden since legitimate software sets are well-defined and relatively stable.
Benefits include preventing malware execution regardless of signature availability eliminating most malware threats immediately, blocking potentially unwanted applications that aren’t malicious but violate organizational policies, protecting against zero-day exploits in unauthorized software, and enforcing software licensing by preventing unauthorized application installation. Organizations gain significant security improvement through this preventive approach.
Challenges include initial deployment requiring thorough application discovery and policy development, ongoing maintenance updating policies as applications change or new software is approved, false positives where legitimate applications are inadvertently blocked disrupting users, and compatibility with development environments where frequent code changes make whitelisting impractical. Successful implementation requires careful planning, testing, and maintenance procedures addressing these operational considerations.
Management capabilities should include centralized policy definition ensuring consistency, automated discovery suggesting policy additions based on observed execution patterns, exception workflows allowing temporary access while approvals process, reporting showing blocked execution attempts for security visibility and policy tuning, and audit trails documenting all application execution and policy changes. Organizations need visibility into what software runs and what attempts are blocked.
Option B is incorrect because open execution allows any code to run defeating protection that application control provides.
Option C is wrong because unlimited access permits execution without restrictions rather than controlling application execution.
Option D is incorrect because universal permission allows all applications rather than limiting execution to approved code.
Question 97:
What security assessment tests employee awareness of security threats?
A) Phishing simulation
B) Network scanning
C) Hardware inspection
D) Software patching
Answer: A
Explanation:
Phishing simulations test employee awareness of security threats by sending controlled fake phishing messages to staff members, measuring who falls for deception by clicking malicious links or entering credentials on fake pages, then providing immediate education about risks and proper responses. These authorized exercises safely demonstrate real attack tactics without actual compromise, identifying individuals needing additional training while reinforcing awareness across organizations.
Simulation programs vary in sophistication from generic campaigns using obvious phishing indicators testing basic awareness, through realistic scenarios closely mimicking actual threats employees might encounter, to highly targeted spear phishing simulations testing susceptibility to personalized attacks. Difficulty progression starts with easily recognizable tests building basic skills before advancing to sophisticated scenarios requiring careful scrutiny. Organizations should calibrate simulation difficulty to current workforce awareness avoiding frustration from excessively difficult tests before foundational training.
Effectiveness depends on immediate feedback provided when employees fail simulations, explaining specific indicators they missed and proper responses they should have taken. This just-in-time training capitalizes on teachable moments when individuals are most receptive to learning after falling for deception. Delayed feedback loses impact as time between failure and education increases. Some programs temporarily block simulated phishing sites redirecting users to training rather than fake credential forms.
Metrics tracked include click rates showing who opened malicious links, credential entry rates measuring who submitted information, reporting rates indicating who properly reported suspicious messages, and improvement trends demonstrating whether awareness improves over time. Organizations should focus on improvement and learning rather than punishment, creating environments where employees feel comfortable admitting mistakes and asking questions rather than hiding failures.
Best practices include conducting regular simulations maintaining awareness rather than one-time tests, varying scenarios testing different attack types, avoiding excessive testing that creates alert fatigue, ensuring messages are realistic without being indistinguishable from legitimate communications creating mistrust, providing positive reinforcement for correct responses not just correction for failures, and integrating simulations with comprehensive awareness programs including formal training sessions, security communications, and ongoing education.
Legal and ethical considerations require clear policies informing employees that simulations occur as part of security programs, obtaining management approval for simulation programs, avoiding scenarios causing excessive stress or embarrassment, and ensuring simulations test security awareness rather than serve as performance evaluation tools. Programs should improve security culture rather than creating fear or mistrust.
Option B is incorrect because network scanning examines systems rather than testing employee security threat awareness.
Option C is wrong because hardware inspection evaluates equipment rather than assessing employee awareness.
Option D is incorrect because software patching applies updates rather than testing user awareness of security threats.
Question 98:
Which protocol provides directory services for centralized authentication?
A) LDAP
B) FTP
C) SMTP
D) HTTP
Answer: A
Explanation:
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol provides directory services enabling centralized authentication and information storage for users, groups, devices, and other network resources. Organizations use LDAP-based directories like Active Directory for unified identity management where applications and systems authenticate users against central directories rather than maintaining separate credential databases, simplifying administration and improving security consistency.
Directory structure organizes information hierarchically using distinguished names uniquely identifying entries, organizational units grouping related objects, and attributes storing specific information about entries. This hierarchical organization mirrors organizational structures facilitating intuitive navigation and delegation of administrative responsibilities matching business organizational charts. Directory schemas define what object types exist and what attributes they contain ensuring consistency across directory implementations.
Authentication mechanisms include simple authentication using plaintext passwords which should only be used over encrypted connections, SASL providing flexible authentication framework supporting multiple methods including Kerberos and certificate-based authentication, and anonymous binding for public directory information not requiring authentication. Organizations should require strong authentication for directory access protecting sensitive information stored in directories beyond just user credentials including contact information, group memberships, system configurations, and application data.
LDAP benefits include centralized user management where administrators create accounts once rather than in every application, single sign-on enabling users to authenticate once for access to multiple integrated applications, consistent access control through centralized group memberships determining permissions across systems, and simplified deprovisioning where disabling directory accounts immediately revokes access across all integrated systems. This centralization dramatically simplifies identity management at enterprise scale.
Security considerations include directory access controls limiting who can read or modify directory information preventing unauthorized access to sensitive data, encrypted connections protecting credentials and data during transmission using LDAPS or STARTTLS, replication security ensuring directory copies on multiple servers remain synchronized securely, and audit logging tracking directory changes for security monitoring and compliance demonstration. Compromised directories impact all integrated systems making directory security critical.
Integration capabilities enable applications authenticating against LDAP directories rather than local credential stores through standardized LDAP protocols. This integration requires proper configuration including correct server addresses and ports, appropriate service accounts for application directory queries, and proper attribute mapping ensuring applications read correct directory fields for required information. Organizations should test integrations thoroughly ensuring proper authentication and authorization behavior.
Option B is incorrect because FTP transfers files rather than providing directory services for centralized authentication.
Option C is wrong because SMTP handles email transmission rather than directory services and authentication.
Option D is incorrect because HTTP serves web content rather than providing centralized directory and authentication services.
Question 99:
What security control logs all actions performed by privileged users?
A) Privileged access management
B) Open access
C) Unrestricted use
D) Anonymous activity
Answer: A
Explanation:
Privileged access management solutions log all actions performed by privileged users including administrators, database administrators, and other accounts with elevated permissions, providing comprehensive audit trails for security monitoring, compliance demonstration, and incident investigation. PAM systems go beyond simple logging by controlling, monitoring, and securing privileged account access through credential vaulting, session recording, just-in-time access, and automated workflows ensuring proper authorization before privilege elevation.
Privileged accounts represent highest-value targets for attackers since compromising administrative credentials enables broad system access, data theft, malware installation, and infrastructure disruption. Organizations must protect these powerful accounts through enhanced controls beyond those applied to regular user accounts. PAM addresses privileged account risks including credential theft through secure storage eliminating stored credentials on user workstations, unauthorized access through approval workflows, undetected abuse through comprehensive monitoring, and credential sharing through unique assignments ensuring accountability.
Core capabilities include password vaulting storing privileged credentials in encrypted repositories accessible only through PAM systems, session management controlling when and how administrators access systems, session recording capturing every action during privileged sessions for audit and investigation, just-in-time access granting elevated privileges only when needed then automatically revoking afterward, and automated password rotation regularly changing privileged credentials limiting compromise impact duration. These capabilities work together providing layered privileged access protection.
Session monitoring provides real-time visibility into privileged activities with capabilities including keystroke logging capturing every command typed during sessions, screen recording providing visual records of administrator actions, command filtering blocking dangerous operations before execution, and real-time alerting notifying security teams when suspicious privileged activities occur. This comprehensive monitoring deters abuse since administrators know their actions are recorded and reviewed.
Workflow automation implements approval processes requiring authorization before granting privileged access, documenting business justification for elevated permissions, notifying relevant managers and security personnel, and maintaining audit trails proving appropriate approvals occurred. Organizations can implement separation of duties preventing single individuals from performing sensitive operations without oversight through multi-person approval requirements for highest-risk activities.
Integration with identity management systems provides automated provisioning and deprovisioning ensuring privileged access aligns with current job responsibilities, immediate revocation when employment ends, and regular access reviews verifying continued need for privileges. PAM reporting capabilities demonstrate compliance with regulations requiring privileged account controls, showing who accessed what systems, when access occurred, what actions were performed, and whether proper approvals existed.
Option B is incorrect because open access provides unrestricted permissions without logging or controlling privileged activities.
Option C is wrong because unrestricted use allows unlimited actions without monitoring or audit trails.
Option D is incorrect because anonymous activity conceals identity rather than logging actions performed by identified privileged users.
Question 100:
Which security mechanism verifies software updates come from legitimate sources?
A) Code signing
B) Random installation
C) Anonymous updates
D) Unrestricted downloads
Answer: A
Explanation:
Code signing verifies software updates come from legitimate sources by applying digital signatures that developers create using private keys, with recipients verifying signatures using corresponding public keys from certificates issued by trusted authorities. This cryptographic verification ensures updates originate from claimed publishers and remain unmodified since signing, protecting against malware distribution through compromised update mechanisms and man-in-the-middle attacks substituting malicious code during download.
Software update security has become critical as supply chain attacks increasingly target update mechanisms delivering malware disguised as legitimate patches. Attackers compromising publisher infrastructure or intercepting update downloads inject malicious code reaching users who trust automatic updates. Code signing prevents these attacks since modified updates fail signature verification, alerting users or blocking installation depending on configured security policies.
Signature verification process includes extracting digital signatures from software packages, decrypting signatures using publisher public keys from certificates, computing hash values of current software content, comparing computed hashes against decrypted signature hashes, and accepting software only when hashes match confirming authenticity and integrity. Mismatched hashes indicate modification or fraudulent signatures triggering warnings or blocks preventing installation.
Certificate validation ensures signatures come from trusted publishers by verifying certificate chains to trusted root authorities, checking certificate validity periods confirming certificates haven’t expired, and consulting revocation lists ensuring certificates haven’t been revoked after compromise. Complete validation provides assurance that signed software truly originates from legitimate publishers rather than attackers using stolen or fraudulent certificates.
Organizations implementing code signing should obtain certificates from reputable certificate authorities through identity verification processes, protect private signing keys using hardware security modules preventing theft, establish secure signing procedures limiting who can sign code, audit signing activities tracking what software is signed, and maintain certificate lifecycle management ensuring renewal before expiration. Compromised signing keys require immediate certificate revocation and investigation of any software signed with compromised credentials.
Automated update mechanisms should verify signatures before applying updates, enforcing policies requiring valid signatures from trusted publishers. User education helps reinforce verification importance when manual updates occur, teaching recognition of signature warnings indicating potential threats. Organizations should trust only established publishers while remaining vigilant since even legitimate publishers occasionally experience compromises affecting signed software.
Option B is incorrect because random installation lacks verification of software source legitimacy.
Option C is wrong because anonymous updates provide no source verification or authenticity assurance.
Option D is incorrect because unrestricted downloads accept software without verifying legitimate publisher origins.
Question 101:
What type of attack floods targets with traffic from multiple compromised systems?
A) DDoS attack
B) Software update
C) Data backup
D) System maintenance
Answer: A
Explanation:
Distributed Denial of Service attacks flood targets with massive traffic from multiple compromised systems simultaneously, overwhelming bandwidth, processing capacity, or connection resources until legitimate users cannot access services. Unlike simple denial of service from single sources, DDoS leverages botnets containing thousands or millions of infected devices generating coordinated attack traffic exceeding what individual sources could produce and complicating mitigation through source diversity.
Attack types include volumetric attacks consuming bandwidth through massive traffic volumes measured in gigabits or terabits per second, protocol attacks exhausting connection resources by abusing protocol weaknesses like SYN floods consuming connection tables, and application layer attacks targeting specific application vulnerabilities or resource-intensive operations requiring fewer requests for maximum impact. Sophisticated attackers combine multiple vectors simultaneously challenging defensive capabilities across different layers.
Botnet infrastructure enables massive scale through compromised computers, Internet of Things devices, servers, and other systems infected with malware allowing remote attacker control. Poorly secured IoT devices have dramatically expanded botnet sizes since many lack basic security protections making infection trivial. Botnets remain active for extended periods conducting multiple attacks before detection and remediation occur.
Attack motivations vary including financial extortion demanding ransom payments to stop attacks, competitive sabotage disrupting rival operations, hacktivism protesting organizational policies or actions, nation-state operations targeting critical infrastructure or government services, and covering tracks diverting attention while other attacks occur simultaneously. Understanding motivation helps predict attacker behavior and persistence.
Defense requires multiple strategies including traffic filtering identifying and blocking malicious patterns, rate limiting restricting request volumes from individual sources, content delivery networks distributing traffic across geographic infrastructure, cloud-based DDoS mitigation services providing massive capacity for absorption and filtering, and architectural resilience through redundancy and load balancing. Organizations should implement layered defenses combining multiple approaches since no single technique addresses all attack types effectively.
Detection challenges include distinguishing attacks from legitimate traffic spikes during popular events, identifying distributed attack sources among normal traffic, and responding quickly before damage accumulates. Automated detection and mitigation reduce response times though careful tuning prevents false positives that might block legitimate users during actual traffic spikes.
Option B is incorrect because software updates apply patches rather than flooding systems with attack traffic.
Option C is wrong because data backup preserves information rather than overwhelming systems with distributed traffic.
Option D is incorrect because system maintenance performs upkeep rather than conducting distributed flooding attacks.
Question 102:
Which security framework provides guidance for federal information systems?
A) FISMA
B) Restaurant codes
C) Fashion rules
D) Sports guidelines
Answer: A
Explanation:
Federal Information Security Management Act provides comprehensive guidance for federal information systems through requirements mandating security programs protecting government information and operations. FISMA establishes framework requiring federal agencies to develop, document, and implement security programs protecting information and information systems supporting agency operations and assets including contractor-operated systems handling federal information.
Framework components include categorizing information and systems based on impact levels from loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability using FIPS 199 standards. Organizations assign low, moderate, or high impact ratings determining required security control baselines. Security control selection follows NIST Special Publication 800-53 providing comprehensive catalog of controls addressing technical, operational, and management security aspects. Agencies select controls appropriate for system categorization, tailoring baselines to specific organizational needs and risks.
Implementation requires agencies deploying selected controls throughout systems and environments, documenting implementation through system security plans describing how controls are implemented, and establishing security awareness training ensuring personnel understand security responsibilities. Continuous monitoring provides ongoing visibility through vulnerability scanning, configuration monitoring, security control assessments, and incident reporting ensuring sustained security effectiveness.
Certification and accreditation processes formerly required have been replaced by Risk Management Framework providing more flexible continuous monitoring approach. RMF includes categorization, control selection, implementation, assessment, authorization, and monitoring phases. Authorizing officials review security assessment results and risk determinations before granting authority to operate accepting residual risks or requiring remediation before operation.
Compliance requirements include annual security reviews, regular security control assessments, continuous monitoring programs, and incident response capabilities. Agencies must report security metrics to OMB, conduct Inspector General audits, and maintain security programs addressing evolving threats. Contractors operating systems on behalf of agencies must meet same security requirements as federal systems ensuring consistent protection regardless of who operates systems.
FISMA has driven substantial improvements in federal cybersecurity through mandatory security programs, standardized risk management, continuous monitoring replacing periodic assessments, and improved security awareness throughout government. Framework influences beyond federal government with many state and local governments adopting similar approaches, plus contractors supporting federal agencies implementing FISMA controls for their own systems.
Option B is incorrect because restaurant codes address food service operations rather than federal information system security.
Option C is wrong because fashion rules govern clothing rather than providing security guidance for government systems.
Option D is incorrect because sports guidelines address athletic activities rather than federal information security requirements.
Question 103:
What security control prevents unauthorized changes to critical system files?
A) File integrity monitoring
B) Open modification
C) Unrestricted editing
D) Anonymous changes
Answer: A
Explanation:
File integrity monitoring prevents unauthorized changes to critical system files by continuously or periodically checking file hash values against known-good baselines, alerting when modifications occur indicating potential compromise, unauthorized changes, or system corruption. FIM provides detective control identifying alterations that bypass preventive controls, enabling rapid response before compromised systems cause further damage.
Critical files requiring monitoring include operating system binaries where modifications might indicate rootkit installation, configuration files where changes could weaken security settings, security tool files ensuring protection mechanisms remain unmodified, application executables preventing backdoor insertion, and audit logs detecting tampering attempts covering malicious activities. Organizations should prioritize monitoring based on file criticality and modification expectations.
Baseline establishment creates known-good reference states during clean system conditions, calculating cryptographic hashes for all monitored files. Timing matters significantly since baselines created after compromise establish malicious files as normal defeating monitoring purposes. Organizations should create baselines immediately after clean installation or during verified clean states, storing baselines securely preventing tampering with reference values themselves.
Monitoring frequency balances detection speed against resource consumption since hash calculation requires reading complete files. Real-time monitoring provides immediate detection but consumes continuous resources. Scheduled scanning reduces overhead but introduces detection delays. Critical system files warrant more frequent monitoring than less critical data. Integration with change management distinguishes authorized legitimate modifications from suspicious unauthorized changes.
Alert response procedures address FIM notifications promptly since detected changes might indicate active compromises requiring immediate incident response. Investigation determines whether changes were authorized with proper documentation, assesses change appropriateness, and escalates security incidents when unauthorized modifications confirm compromise. Some changes indicate benign issues like automatic updates rather than security incidents requiring analyst judgment distinguishing threats from normal operations.
Scope definition identifies monitoring targets based on security importance and change characteristics. Frequently changing files like logs may be excluded reducing noise unless specific requirements mandate monitoring. Documentation of inclusions and exclusions with justifications supports audit and review. Periodic scope reviews ensure monitoring remains appropriate as systems evolve.
Option B is incorrect because open modification allows unrestricted changes without detecting unauthorized alterations.
Option C is wrong because unrestricted editing permits modifications without monitoring or alerting capabilities.
Option D is incorrect because anonymous changes enable modifications without detection or accountability.
Question 104:
Which attack technique manipulates users into performing actions that benefit attackers?
A) Social engineering
B) Encryption process
C) Backup routine
D) Patching procedure
Answer: A
Explanation:
Social engineering manipulates users into performing actions benefiting attackers through psychological manipulation rather than technical exploitation. Attackers exploit human nature including trust, authority respect, helpfulness, fear, and curiosity to trick victims into revealing credentials, granting access, transferring money, or installing malware. These attacks succeed against even organizations with strong technical security since they bypass technical controls by targeting human vulnerabilities.
Common techniques include pretexting creating fabricated scenarios providing credible reasons for requests, phishing using deceptive communications appearing legitimate containing malicious links or credential requests, baiting offering something enticing containing malware, tailgating following authorized personnel through secured entries, and quid pro quo offering services in exchange for information or access. Attackers combine techniques creating sophisticated deceptions difficult to recognize.
Attack psychology exploits universal tendencies including authority compliance where people follow apparent supervisors without questioning, urgency creating pressure preventing careful consideration, trust and rapport where friendly interactions reduce skepticism, curiosity driving interaction with unknown content, and helpfulness causing assistance even when suspicious. These psychological principles work across cultures requiring awareness training to counteract natural responses.
Defense requires layered approaches combining technical controls and human elements. Security awareness training educates users about social engineering tactics, warning signs, verification procedures, and reporting mechanisms. Simulated attacks test awareness through authorized campaigns providing feedback when users fail. Technical controls including email filtering, multi-factor authentication, least privilege, and physical access controls complement awareness efforts providing protection when users make mistakes.
Organizational culture significantly impacts susceptibility where security-conscious environments encouraging questioning reduce successful attacks compared to cultures punishing skepticism. Open communication enabling verification without embarrassment reduces manipulation success. Leadership modeling appropriate security behaviors sets organizational tone.
Verification procedures provide practical defense establishing identity confirmation protocols before sharing sensitive information or granting access, using known contact information rather than provided numbers, implementing approval workflows preventing manipulation of single individuals, and documenting verification attempts providing accountability deterring fraudulent requests.
Option B is incorrect because encryption protects data rather than manipulating users through psychological techniques.
Option C is wrong because backup routines preserve data rather than manipulating users to perform actions.
Option D is incorrect because patching applies updates rather than using psychological manipulation against users.
Question 105:
What security mechanism provides tamper-evident recording of transactions?
A) Blockchain technology
B) Text file
C) Spreadsheet
D) Email
Answer: A
Explanation:
Blockchain technology provides tamper-evident recording of transactions through distributed ledgers where each block contains transaction data plus cryptographic hash of the previous block, creating chains where modifying any block changes its hash breaking the chain and revealing tampering. This structure makes altering historical records extremely difficult since changes require recalculating all subsequent blocks across multiple distributed copies maintained by network participants.
Blockchain characteristics include decentralization where multiple parties maintain copies eliminating single points of failure or control, immutability where recorded transactions become practically unchangeable providing permanent records, transparency where participants can verify transaction history, and cryptographic security through hashing and digital signatures ensuring integrity and authentication. These properties suit applications requiring trusted transaction records without central authorities.
Consensus mechanisms ensure agreement on transaction validity among network participants before adding blocks. Proof of work requires computational effort making malicious block creation expensive, proof of stake uses ownership stakes for validation rights, and other mechanisms balance security, performance, and decentralization differently. Consensus prevents double-spending and ensures network agreement on transaction history.
Applications beyond cryptocurrency include supply chain tracking providing transparency about product origins and handling, healthcare records enabling secure sharing while maintaining patient control, digital identity providing self-sovereign identity management, smart contracts executing automatically when conditions are met, and voting systems providing transparent verifiable elections. Organizations evaluate blockchain for scenarios requiring trusted transaction records among multiple parties without central authority.
Limitations include performance constraints where transaction throughput remains lower than centralized databases, energy consumption particularly for proof of work systems, scalability challenges as blockchain size grows, and privacy concerns since public blockchains expose transaction details. Organizations must evaluate whether blockchain benefits justify these limitations for specific use cases.
Implementation considerations include choosing public blockchains providing maximum decentralization and transparency versus private permissioned blockchains offering better performance and privacy for organizational use, selecting appropriate consensus mechanisms balancing security and efficiency, integrating blockchain with existing systems, and addressing regulatory uncertainty around blockchain applications and smart contract enforceability.
Security considerations include protecting private keys since loss means inability to access assets and theft enables unauthorized transactions, preventing 51 percent attacks where controlling majority of network enables malicious behavior, and smart contract security since code vulnerabilities might enable exploitation. Blockchain provides tamper evidence but doesn’t eliminate all security concerns requiring comprehensive security programs.
Option B is incorrect because text files provide no tamper-evident properties allowing undetectable modifications.
Option C is wrong because spreadsheets lack cryptographic protection enabling easy alteration without detection.
Option D is incorrect because email doesn’t provide tamper-evident transaction recording like blockchain.