Free WGU Secure-Software-Design Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

Data integrity requirements within a privacy impact statement ensure that personal information is maintained in an accurate and up-to-date manner. This involves establishing processes to regularly review and update personal data, as well as correct any inaccuracies. These requirements are crucial for maintaining the trustworthiness of the data and ensuring that decisions made based on this information are sound and reliable.

To remediate the vulnerability of servers responding to ping requests with sensitive information, the organization should configure the servers to return as little information as possible to network requests. This practice is known as reducing the attack surface. By limiting the amount of information disclosed, potential attackers have less data to use when attempting to exploit vulnerabilities. Regular updates and patching (Option B) are also important, but they do not address the specific issue of information disclosure. Uninstalling or disabling unnecessary features (Option C) and restricting access to configuration files (Option D) are good security practices, but they do not directly prevent the leakage of server information through ping responses.

The issue described involves a PATCH request causing an unhandled server exception because the API does not support this method. The most direct and effective way to prevent such exceptions is to ensure that the API is configured to accept only the supported request methods: GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE. This can be achieved by implementing strict input validation to reject any requests that do not conform to the defined API specifications, including the request method. By doing so, any requests using unsupported methods like PATCH will be immediately rejected, thus preventing the server from reaching an exception state.

Manual code review is a type of security analysis that requires a significant time investment from a highly skilled team member. This process involves a detailed and thorough examination of the source code to identify security vulnerabilities that automated tools might miss. It is labor-intensive because it relies on the expertise of the reviewer to understand the context, logic, and potential security implications of the code. Unlike automated methods like static or dynamic code analysis, manual code review demands a deep understanding of the codebase, which can be time-consuming and requires a high level of skill and experience.