Free CompTIA CAS-005 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

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

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

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

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

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

Proper parsing of data is crucial for the SIEM to accurately interpret and analyze the logs being forwarded by the log collector. If the data is not parsed correctly, the SIEM may misinterpret the logs, leading to false positives and inaccurate alerts. Ensuring that the log data is correctly parsed allows the SIEM to correlate and analyze the logs effectively, which is essential for accurate alerting and monitoring.

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

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

The question focuses oninternet-facing hosts, implying external exposure. CVSS scores, remote executability, and exploitavailability guide prioritization. Server2 (205.1.3.5, CVSS 6.5, Bind Server) has a public IP, suggesting it’s internet-facing, unlike Server1 and Server4 (192.168.x.x, private IPs). Server3 (207.1.5.7, CVSS 5.5) is also public but has a lower score and risk compared to Server2’s proof-of-concept (POC) exploit. Server2’s Bind Server (DNS) role is critical and commonly targeted, making it the priority.

Option A:Server1 (CVSS 7.5) is private, not internet-facing.

Option B:Server2 (CVSS 6.5) is internet-facing with an exploit POC, warranting immediate patching.

Option C:Server3 (CVSS 5.5) is internet-facing but less severe.

Option D:Server4 (CVSS 9.8) is critical but private, not internet-facing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On-path decryption attacks, such as BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS) and other related vulnerabilities, often exploit weaknesses in the implementation of CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) mode. To mitigate these attacks, the following actions are recommended:

B. Removing support for CBC-based key exchange and signing algorithms: CBC mode is vulnerable to certain attacks like BEAST. By removing support for CBC-based ciphers, you can eliminate one of the primary vectors for these attacks. Instead, use modern cipher modes like GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) which offer better security properties.

C. Adding TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA256: This cipher suite uses Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE) for key exchange, which provides perfect forward secrecy. It also uses AES in GCM mode, which is not susceptible to the same attacks as CBC. SHA-256 is a strong hash function that ensures data integrity.

The error message"NET::ERR_CERT_WEAK_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM" indicates that the web browser is rejecting the certificate because it uses a weak signature algorithm. This commonly happens with self-signed certificates, which often use outdated or insecure algorithms.

Why Discontinue Self-Signed Certificates?

Security Compliance: Modern browsers enforce strict security standards and may reject certificates that do not comply with these standards.

Trusted Certificates: Using certificates from a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) ensures compliance with security standards and is less likely to be flagged as insecure.

Weak Signature Algorithm: Self-signed certificates might use weak algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1, which are considered insecure.

Other options do not address the specific cause of the certificate error:

A. Rewriting legacy web functions: Does not address the certificate issue.

B. Disabling deprecated ciphers: Useful for improving security but not related to the certificate error.

C. Blocking non-essential ports: This is unrelated to the issue of certificate validation.

A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) is a security policy enforcement point placed between cloud service consumers and cloud service providers to combine and interject enterprise security policies as cloud-based resources are accessed. Implementing a CASB provides several benefits:

A. Improve firewall rules to avoid access to those platforms: This can help but is not as effective or comprehensive as a CASB.

B. Implement a cloud-access security broker: A CASB can provide visibility into cloud application usage, enforce data security policies, and protect against data leaks by monitoring and controlling access to cloud services. It also provides advanced features like data encryption, data loss prevention (DLP), and compliance monitoring.

C. Create SIEM rules to raise alerts for access to those platforms: This helps in monitoring but does not prevent data leaks.

D. Deploy an internet proxy that filters certain domains: This can block access to specific sites but lacks the granular control and visibility provided by a CASB.

Implementing a CASB is the most comprehensive solution to decrease the risk of data leaks by providing visibility, control, and enforcement of security policies for cloud services.