Free CompTIA CAS-005 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 6

A risk register is atool commonly used in risk management to document all identified risks, their assessment in terms of likelihood and impact, and the actions steps to manage them. By adding the newly identified risks to the risk register and assigning an owner and severity, the organization ensures that each risk is visible to stakeholders and has a designated individual responsible for its management. This aligns with the company's requirements for transparency and accountability in risk management.​

The scenario describes a sophisticated attack where the threat actor used steganography within LDAP to exfiltrate data. Given that thehardware and OS firmware were validated and found uncompromised, the attack vector likely exploited a network communication channel. To mitigate such risks, enforcing allow lists for authorized network ports and protocols is the most effective strategy.

Here’s why this option is optimal:

Port and Protocol Restrictions: By creating an allow list, the organization can restrict communications to only those ports and protocols that are necessary for legitimate business operations. This reduces the attack surface by preventing unauthorized or unusual traffic.

Network Segmentation: Enforcing such rules helps in segmenting the network and ensuring that only approved communications occur, which is critical in preventing data exfiltration methods like steganography.

Preventing Unauthorized Access: Allow lists ensure that only predefined, trusted connections are allowed, blocking potential paths that attackers could use to infiltrate or exfiltrate data.

Other options, while beneficial in different contexts, are not directly addressing the network communication threat:

B. Measuring and attesting to the entire boot chain: While this improves system integrity, it doesn’t directly mitigate the risk of data exfiltration through network channels.

C. Rolling thecryptographic keys used for hardware security modules: This is useful for securing data and communications but doesn’t directly address the specific method of exfiltration described.

D. Using code signing to verify the source of OS updates: Ensures updates are from legitimate sources, but it doesn’t mitigate the risk of network-based data exfiltration.

This scenario clearly describes asupply chain attack, where the compromise occurs at the vendor or manufacturing stage before the product reaches the customer. The attack impacts many downstream organizations and sectors. SDLC attacks are focused on software development lifecycles, side-loading involves unauthorized app installations, and remote code signing focuses on authenticating remote software, none of which fully encapsulate the situation described.

A centralized Software Bill of Materials (SBoM) is the best solution for identifying vulnerabilities in container images in aprivate repository. An SBoM provides a comprehensive inventory of all components, dependencies, and their versions within a container image, facilitating quick evaluation and response to vulnerabilities.

Why Centralized SBoM?

Comprehensive Inventory: An SBoM lists all software components, including their versions and dependencies, allowing for thorough vulnerability assessments.

Quick Identification: Centralizing SBoM data enables rapid identification of affected containers when a vulnerability is disclosed.

Automation: SBoMs can be integrated into automated tools for continuous monitoring and alerting of vulnerabilities.

Regulatory Compliance: Helps in meeting compliance requirements by providing a clear and auditable record of all software components used.

Other options, while useful, do not provide the same level of comprehensive and efficient vulnerability management:

A. SAST scan reports: Focuses on static analysis of code but may not cover all components in container images.

C. CIS benchmark compliance reports: Ensures compliance with security benchmarks but does not provide detailed component inventory.

D. Credentialed vulnerability scan: Useful for in-depth scans but may not be as efficient for quick vulnerability evaluation.

When a security analyst receives a notification about an attack that appears to originate from an internal vulnerability scanner, it suggests that the scanner itself might have been compromised. This situation is critical because a compromised scanner can potentially conduct unauthorized scans, leak sensitive information, or execute malicious actions within the network. Theappropriate first action involves containing the threat to prevent further damage and allow for a thorough investigation.

Here’s why quarantining the scanner sensor is the best immediate action:

Containment and Isolation: Quarantining the scanner will immediately prevent it from continuing any malicious activity or scans. This containment is crucial to protect the rest of the network from potential harm.

Forensic Analysis: By isolating the scanner, a forensic analysis can be performed to understand how it was compromised, what actions it took, and what data or systems might have been affected. This analysis will provide valuable insights into the nature of the attack and help in taking appropriate remedial actions.

Preventing Further Attacks: If the scanner is allowed to continue operating, it might execute more unauthorized actions, leading to greater damage. Quarantine ensures that the threat is neutralized promptly.

Root Cause Identification: A forensic analysis can help identify vulnerabilities in the scanner’s configuration, software, or underlying system that allowed the compromise. This information is essential for preventing future incidents.

Other options, while potentially useful in the long term, are not appropriate as immediate actions in this scenario:

A. Create an allow list for the vulnerability scanner IPs to avoid false positives: This action addresses false positives but does not mitigate the immediate threat posed by the compromised scanner.

B. Configure the scan policy to avoid targeting an out-of-scope host: This step is preventive for future scans but does not deal with the current incident where the scanner is already compromised.

C. Set network behavior analysis rules: While useful for ongoing monitoring and detection, this does not address the immediate need to stop the compromised scanner’s activities.

In conclusion, the first and most crucial action is to quarantine the scanner sensor to halt any malicious activity and perform a forensic analysis to understand the scope and nature of the compromise. This step ensures that the threat is contained and provides a basis for further remediation efforts.

The code function provided in the question seems tobe designed to parse JSON formatted logs to check for an alarm state. Option A is a JSON format that matches the structure likely expected by the code. The presence of the "error_log" and "InAlarmState" keys suggests that this is the correct input format.

To prevent emails from being marked as spam, several DNS records related to email authentication need to be properly configured and updated when there are changes to the email server'scertificates:

A. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance): DMARC records help email servers determine how to handle messages that fail SPF or DKIM checks, improving email deliverability and reducing the likelihood of emails being marked as spam.

B. SPF (Sender Policy Framework): SPF records specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of your domain. Updating the SPF record ensures that the new email server is recognized as an authorized sender.

C. DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail): DKIM adds a digital signature to email headers, allowing the receiving server to verify that the email has not been tampered with and is from an authorized sender. Updating DKIM records ensures that emails are properly signed and authenticated.

D. DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions): DNSSEC adds security to DNS by enabling DNS responses to be verified. While important for DNS security, it does not directly address the issue of emails being marked as spam.

E. SASC: This is not a relevant standard for this scenario.

F. SAN (Subject Alternative Name): SAN is used in SSL/TLS certificates for securing multiple domain names, not for email delivery issues.

G. SOA (Start of Authority): SOA records are used for DNS zone administration and do not directly impact email deliverability.

H. MX (Mail Exchange): MX records specify the mail servers responsible for receiving email on behalf of a domain. While important, the primary issue here is the authentication of outgoing emails, which is handled by SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

Risk appetite is the amount of risk an organization is willing to accept to achieve its objectives. When operating with a constrained budget, understanding the organization's risk appetite is crucial because:

It helps prioritize security investments based on the level of risk the organization is willing to tolerate.

High-impact, low-likelihood events may be deemed acceptable if they fall within the organization's risk appetite, allowing for budget allocation to other critical areas.

Properly understanding and defining risk appetite ensures that limited resources are used effectively to manage risks that align with the organization's strategic goals.

Geofencingallows the device to be restricted based on its physical location — disabling or locking devices when they move outside of trusted zones.Full disk encryptionensures that if a device is lost, the data remains inaccessible to unauthorized users. Containerization protects specific apps or data, but does not disable the entire device. Patch management, allow/blocklists, and geotagging serve other important functions but are not directly linked to the requirements in this scenario.

To meet the requirements of only allowing internally signed applications, preventing unauthorized software installations, and logging attempts to run unauthorized software, configuring application control with blocked hashes and enterprise-trusted root certificates is the best solution. This approach ensures that only applications signed by trusted certificates are allowed to execute, while all other attempts are blocked and logged. It effectively prevents unauthorized software installations by restrictingexecution to pre-approved applications.