Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. A DNS sinkhole can be used to capture traffic to known-malicious domains used by attackers, which the reason is that a DNS sinkhole intercepts attempts to visit harmful websites and redirects them to a controlled server, effectively preventing devices from communicating with malicious sites. Several comments confirm that this answer is correct and this is also the same question in Palo Alto Networks PCNSA certification.

I agree with the suggested answer. The best use case for a DNS sinkhole is to capture traffic to known-malicious domains used by attackers.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nA DNS sinkhole is a server that is configured to provide incorrect or non-existent DNS information for specific domain names. This is often used to redirect traffic intended for malicious domains to a safe location where it can be analyzed. When a device on the network attempts to access a known malicious domain, the DNS sinkhole intercepts the request and redirects it to a controlled server. This allows security professionals to monitor and analyze the traffic, identify infected devices, and prevent further communication with the malicious domain.
\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:
\n* **A:** Attackers might find some value, but it's not the primary use case of a DNS sinkhole. Its main goal is defense.
\n* **B:** While a DNS sinkhole could theoretically be misused in this way, this is not its intended or typical function. It is built for defense, not to actively redirect users to attacker-controlled sites.
\n* **D:** This describes a honeypot, not a DNS sinkhole. While both are security tools, they function differently. A DNS sinkhole redirects traffic from malicious domains; a honeypot attracts attackers with decoy systems.\n

\n
• \nCitation: What is a DNS Sinkhole? - Definition, Benefits & Uses, https://www.varonis.com/blog/dns-sinkhole\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn incident analyst finds several image files on a hard disk. The image files may contain geolocation coordinates. Which of the following best describes the type of information the analyst is trying to extract from the image files?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Metadata, which the reason is metadata contains geolocation coordinates and other details about the image. Image files such as .jpeg contain metadata such as geolocation coordinates.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Metadata.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe question states the analyst is trying to extract geolocation coordinates from image files. Geolocation coordinates, along with other information like camera settings, date, and time the image was taken, are stored as metadata within the image file. Therefore, the analyst is trying to extract metadata. Image files such as .jpeg contain metadata such as geolocation coordinates.
\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Log data: Log data typically refers to records of events that occur in a system or application. While images might be *mentioned* in logs (e.g., \"user uploaded image X\"), the geolocation data *within* the image file is not log data.
\n
• C. Encrypted data: While images *can* be encrypted, the question doesn't suggest the images are encrypted. The analyst is trying to extract *existing* information (geolocation coordinates), not decrypt the entire image.
\n
• D. Sensitive data: Geolocation data *can* be considered sensitive, but the most *direct* and accurate term for the type of information the analyst is trying to extract is metadata. Sensitive data is a broader category.
\n

\nSupporting Citations:\n

\n
• Metadata, https://www.loc.gov/standards/metadata/
\n
• JPEG Metadata, https://www.jpeg.org/jpegmeta.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following most likely describes why a security engineer would configure all outbound emails to use S/MIME digital signatures?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is that S/MIME digital signatures provide a way to ensure that the email has not been altered and that it genuinely comes from the sender, thus ensuring non-repudiation. Digital signatures confirm the email's origin and integrity.\n

I agree with the suggested answer of D. To ensure non-repudiation.

\nReasoning: S/MIME (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) is a standard for public key encryption and signing of MIME data. Using S/MIME digital signatures on outbound emails provides a high level of assurance to the recipient about the origin and integrity of the email. This means the sender cannot later deny having sent the email (non-repudiation) because their private key was used to sign it, and the recipient can verify the signature using the sender's public key.

\nHere's a detailed breakdown:\n

\n
• Non-repudiation: This is the core reason for using digital signatures. It ensures that the sender cannot deny sending the message. The digital signature acts as proof of origin and integrity.
\n

\n
• A. To meet compliance standards: While S/MIME can help meet certain compliance standards (e.g., those requiring data integrity and sender authentication), it's not the primary reason a security engineer would implement it. Compliance is a broader goal, and S/MIME is a specific tool that contributes to it.
\n
• B. To increase delivery rates: S/MIME does not directly increase email delivery rates. Delivery rates are more affected by factors like sender reputation, email content, and proper email server configuration.
\n
• C. To block phishing attacks: While S/MIME can help recipients identify legitimate emails and avoid phishing attacks, it doesn't directly block phishing attacks. Other security measures, such as spam filters and user education, are more effective at blocking phishing attempts. S/MIME helps users verify the authenticity of received emails.
\n

\nIn summary, the primary purpose of using S/MIME digital signatures for outbound emails is to provide non-repudiation, ensuring the sender cannot deny having sent the message and guaranteeing the integrity of the email content.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDuring a recent company safety stand-down, the cyber-awareness team gave a presentation on the importance of cyber hygiene. One topic the team covered was best practices for printing centers. Which of the following describes an attack method that relates to printing centers?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D is correct, which the reason is that in a printing center, sensitive documents that are improperly disposed of could be retrieved from the trash by attackers.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best answer is D. Dumpster diving.
\nReasoning: Dumpster diving is the practice of sifting through commercial or residential waste to find items that have been discarded by their owners, but that may be useful to the attacker. In the context of a printing center, improperly disposed documents may contain sensitive information that could be used for identity theft, corporate espionage, or other malicious purposes. This aligns directly with the scenario described in the question, focusing on cyber hygiene best practices in printing centers.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Whaling: This is a phishing attack targeted at high-profile individuals, such as CEOs or other executives. It doesn't directly relate to the vulnerabilities of printing centers.
\n
• B. Credential harvesting: This involves collecting user credentials, such as usernames and passwords, often through phishing or other social engineering techniques. While printing centers might handle documents containing credentials, credential harvesting itself isn't specific to printing center vulnerabilities.
\n
• C. Prepending: This involves adding malicious code or data to the beginning of a file or message. While it could theoretically be used in conjunction with a compromised printing process, it's not directly related to the physical security vulnerabilities of printing centers.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following considerations is the most important regarding cryptography used in an IoT device?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Resource constraints, which the reason is IoT devices typically have limited resources like processing power, memory, and battery life, making it essential to choose efficient cryptographic algorithms.
Other options like available bandwidth, the use of block ciphers, and the compatibility of the TLS version are important, but resource constraints take precedence to ensure the device can perform cryptographic operations.
The comment also pointed out that the use of block ciphers is a concept of cryptography, not a consideration for IoT devices with regards to cryptography.

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is A. Resource constraints.
\nReasoning:
\nThe most important consideration regarding cryptography used in an IoT device is indeed resource constraints. IoT devices often have limited processing power, memory, and battery life. Therefore, the cryptographic algorithms used must be efficient and lightweight to operate effectively within these limitations. Choosing complex and resource-intensive cryptographic methods can quickly drain battery life, slow down device performance, or even make the device unusable. Considerations must be made when choosing a cryptographic solution with a balance of security and performance to not impact the device's performance.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• B. Available bandwidth: While bandwidth is a consideration for data transmission, it is not as critical as resource constraints within the device itself. Cryptographic operations must be feasible on the device regardless of available bandwidth.
\n
• C. The use of block ciphers: The choice of using block ciphers or stream ciphers depends on the specific application and security requirements, but it is not the primary consideration for all IoT devices. Also, the use of block ciphers is a concept of cryptography, not a consideration for IoT devices with regards to cryptography.
\n
• D. The compatibility of the TLS version: TLS version compatibility is important for secure communication, but it is secondary to the ability of the device to perform cryptographic operations at all, given its resource constraints.
\n

\n
• IoT Security Considerations - https://owasp.org/www-project-internet-of-things/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA coffee shop owner wants to restrict internet access to only paying customers by prompting them for a receipt number. Which of the following is the best method to use given this requirement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Captive portal, which the reason is that a captive portal is a web page that users are redirected to when they connect to a network, which is commonly used in public places to enforce policies such as requiring users to enter a receipt number or agree to terms of use before granting internet access.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best method to restrict internet access to paying customers by prompting them for a receipt number is using a Captive portal.
\n
\nReasoning: A captive portal is a web page that users are redirected to when they first connect to a Wi-Fi network. This allows the coffee shop owner to require users to enter a receipt number before granting internet access. This method effectively restricts access to paying customers only.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• WPA3: WPA3 is a wireless security protocol that encrypts the Wi-Fi connection. While it provides secure access, it doesn't have the capability to prompt users for a receipt number or any other form of specific authentication before granting access.
\n
• PSK (Pre-Shared Key): PSK involves using a single password that all users share to access the Wi-Fi network. This method is not suitable for restricting access to only paying customers, as anyone with the password can connect.
\n
• IEEE 802.1X: IEEE 802.1X is a port-based network access control protocol that provides a higher level of security and authentication. It is more commonly used in enterprise environments and requires an authentication server. Implementing 802.1X would be overly complex and costly for a small coffee shop.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhile performing digital forensics, which of the following is considered the most volatile and should have the contents collected first?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is to follow the order of volatility, starting with the most volatile data. RAM is the second priority because it contains active processes, open network connections, user sessions, and temporary data which are lost when the system is powered off. The first should be CPU, Cache and Registers, while temporary files and hard drive/SSD come later.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is B. RAM.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nIn digital forensics, the order of volatility dictates the sequence in which data should be collected. Volatile data is temporary and easily lost when a device is powered off or restarted. RAM (Random Access Memory) is among the most volatile types of data storage in a computer system. It holds the operating system, running applications, and current data being used by the CPU. Because its contents are rapidly lost when power is removed, RAM must be collected early in the forensic process.
\n
\nThe order of volatility is generally considered to be:\n

\n
• CPU, Cache, and Register Contents
\n
• Routing Table, ARP Cache, Process Table, Kernel Statistics
\n
• Memory (RAM)
\n
• Temporary Files
\n
• Disk
\n
• Remote Logging and Monitoring Data
\n
• Physical Configuration, Network Topology
\n
• Archived Media
\n

\n
• A. Hard drive: Hard drives (HDDs) are non-volatile storage devices, meaning they retain data even when powered off. They are collected later in the forensic process.
\n
• C. SSD: Solid State Drives (SSDs) are also non-volatile storage, similar to hard drives, and thus are collected later.
\n
• D. Temporary files: While temporary files can contain useful forensic information, they are less volatile than RAM and are typically stored on a hard drive or SSD. Therefore, they are not the most volatile data to collect first.
\n

\n
• Order of Volatility, https://www.sans.org/blog/digital-forensics-order-volatility/
\n
• Digital Forensics: Investigating Data and Image Files, https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/digital-forensics-investigating-data-and-image-files/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA hosting provider needs to prove that its security controls have been in place over the last six months and have sufficiently protected customer data. Which of the following would provide the best proof that the hosting provider has met the requirements?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. SOC 2 Type 2 report, which the reason is that a SOC 2 Type 2 report provides an audit of the effectiveness of security controls over a period of time (typically 6-12 months), specifically focusing on the operating effectiveness of controls related to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. This report would demonstrate that the controls were not only in place but also effectively protecting customer data over the required period.\n

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. SOC 2 Type 2 report.
\n
\nReasoning:
\n A SOC 2 Type 2 report is the best choice because it specifically assesses and reports on the operational effectiveness of security controls over a period of time, usually six to twelve months. This is exactly what the hosting provider needs to demonstrate: that their controls were not only in place but also functioning effectively to protect customer data during the specified period. The report covers the suitability of the design and operating effectiveness of controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. NIST CSF: The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) is a set of guidelines and best practices for managing cybersecurity risk. While helpful for establishing a security program, it doesn't provide an audit or attestation of controls' effectiveness over time. It's a framework for building security, not a report demonstrating historical performance.
\n
• C. CIS Top 20 compliance reports: The CIS Top 20 (now CIS Controls) are a prioritized set of actions to protect an organization from known cyberattacks. While compliance with these controls is valuable, a compliance report doesn't provide the same level of assurance as a SOC 2 Type 2 report, which includes an independent auditor's opinion on the effectiveness of the controls over a period of time.
\n
• D. Vulnerability report: A vulnerability report identifies weaknesses in systems and applications. While important for ongoing security management, it only provides a snapshot in time and does not demonstrate the consistent effectiveness of security controls over the preceding six months.
\n

\nIn summary, the SOC 2 Type 2 report is the only option that directly addresses the requirement to prove the effectiveness of security controls over a specific period.\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• SOC 2 - AICPA, https://www.aicpa.org/assurance/soc-report
\n
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework, https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
\n
• CIS Controls, https://www.cisecurity.org/controls/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA city municipality lost its primary data center when a tornado hit the facility. Which of the following should the city staff use immediately after the disaster to handle essential public services?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan), which the reason is the DRP offers specific steps to recover critical IT infrastructure and systems, the comments agree that this is the more immediate concern \"immediately after the disaster.\". Other opinions, such as A (BCP), are not correct because BCP is broader in scope and focuses on ensuring that all aspects of the organization can continue to function, rather than immediate IT recovery.

I agree with the suggested answer of C. DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan).
\nReasoning:\nThe scenario describes a complete loss of the primary data center due to a tornado, requiring immediate action to restore essential public services. A Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) is specifically designed to address such scenarios by providing detailed procedures for recovering IT infrastructure and systems after a disaster. The focus is on restoring critical functions as quickly as possible.
\nThe DRP outlines steps for data restoration, system rebuilding, and ensuring essential services can be resumed.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• A. BCP (Business Continuity Plan): While important, a BCP is broader than a DRP. It focuses on maintaining all essential business functions, not just IT recovery. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the priority is restoring IT services, making DRP the more relevant choice.
\n
• B. Communication plan: A communication plan is crucial for informing stakeholders but does not directly address the recovery of IT infrastructure. It complements the DRP but is not the primary tool for immediate disaster response.
\n
• D. IRP (Incident Response Plan): An IRP is designed to address security incidents, not natural disasters causing complete system failure. It is less relevant in this scenario where the issue is physical destruction.
\n

Citation:

\n
• Disaster recovery plan, https://www.ibm.com/topics/disaster-recovery-plan
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is considered a preventive control?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Segregation of duties, which the reason is that segregation of duties prevents users from manipulating processes by splitting duties among different individuals, creating a \"checks and balances\" system. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

I agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is D. Segregation of duties.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nSegregation of duties is a preventive control because it proactively reduces the risk of errors or fraud by dividing critical functions among different individuals or departments. This ensures that no single person has enough control to compromise a system or process. By implementing checks and balances, segregation of duties minimizes the likelihood of unauthorized actions and promotes accountability. This aligns with the definition of a preventive control, which aims to avoid undesirable events before they occur. For example, in financial transactions, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who initiates them or reconciles the accounts. This separation prevents a single individual from embezzling funds without detection.\n
\n
\nWhy the other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Configuration auditing: This is a detective control, as it reviews existing configurations to identify deviations from security baselines. It doesn't prevent misconfigurations from happening in the first place.
\n
• B. Log correlation: This is a detective control used to identify security incidents after they have occurred by analyzing and connecting various log entries.
\n
• C. Incident alerts: This is also a detective control that notifies security personnel about potential security breaches, enabling them to respond to incidents that have already taken place.
\n

Citation:

\n
• Preventive, Detective, and Corrective Security Controls, https://www.varonis.com/blog/preventative-detective-corrective-security-controls
\n
• Segregation of Duties: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, https://securitymetrics.com/blog/segregation-of-duties-definition-examples-and-best-practices
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator notices that a testing system is down. While investigating, the systems administrator finds that the servers are online and accessible from any device on the server network. The administrator reviews the following information from the monitoring system:



Which of the following is the most likely cause of the outage?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A: DoS, which the reason is the test hosts are overwhelmed with excessive traffic, causing them to become unresponsive and crash, which is a clear indicator of a DoS attack.

• Comments suggest a DDOS attack due to the traffic received on the servers.
• Some comments specifically mention that Kerberoasting is not relevant to the exam objectives.

\nBased on the question and the discussion, I agree with the suggested answer A: Denial of Service (DoS).
\n
\nReasoning: The monitoring system data in the question shows a significant spike in network traffic (packets per second) directed at the test hosts, followed by the hosts becoming unresponsive. This pattern strongly suggests a DoS attack where the target system is overwhelmed with excessive traffic, rendering it unable to respond to legitimate requests. The fact that the servers are online but inaccessible further supports this conclusion.
\n
\nReasons for excluding other options:\n

\n
• B. ARP poisoning: ARP poisoning involves manipulating the ARP cache to redirect traffic, potentially causing a man-in-the-middle attack or denial of service. However, the provided information doesn't directly indicate ARP cache manipulation. The primary symptom is high traffic volume, not misdirection of traffic.
\n
• C. Jamming: Jamming is a type of denial-of-service attack that interferes with wireless communication by transmitting noise or other signals on the same frequency. Since the scenario doesn't specify wireless communication, and the logs show network traffic, this option is less likely.
\n
• D. Kerberoasting: Kerberoasting is an attack that targets Kerberos service principals to crack their passwords offline. This attack doesn't directly cause a denial of service and isn't related to the symptoms described in the scenario.
\n

\nTherefore, a Denial of Service (DoS) attack is the most likely cause of the outage, based on the information provided.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security team has been alerted to a flood of incoming emails that have various subject lines and are addressed to multiple email inboxes. Each email contains a URL shortener link that is redirecting to a dead domain. Which of the following is the best step for the security team to take?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Block the URL shortener domain in the web proxy, which the reason is the URL shortener could be used for malicious purposes in the future by redirecting to different domains; therefore, it is necessary to block the URL shortener to prevent users from accessing potential malicious links, and preventing future attacks. Some comments suggest that other options, such as B and C, are not correct because they do not prevent similar attacks using the same URL shortener or could lead to unnecessary disruptions.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Block the URL shortener domain in the web proxy.

\nReasoning:
\n Blocking the URL shortener domain in the web proxy is the most proactive and effective step in this scenario. Here's why:\n

\n
• Prevention of Future Attacks: URL shorteners can be easily re-used for malicious purposes by simply changing the redirection target. Blocking the shortener prevents any future malicious redirects through that service.
\n
• Centralized Control: Blocking at the web proxy provides a centralized point of control, preventing all users on the network from accessing potentially malicious links through that URL shortener.
\n

\n
• A. Create a blocklist for all subject lines: This is not scalable or sustainable. Attackers can easily change subject lines, rendering the blocklist ineffective. It's a reactive approach that doesn't address the root cause.
\n
• B. Send the dead domain to a DNS sinkhole: While sinkholing the dead domain is a good security practice, it doesn't prevent users from clicking on the URL shortener link in the first place. The attacker could easily repoint the shortener to a new malicious domain. It also only addresses *this* specific attack and does not protect against future attacks using the same shortener.
\n
• C. Quarantine all emails received and notify all employees: While alerting employees is a good idea, quarantining emails only addresses the immediate threat. It doesn't prevent future attacks using the same URL shortener and can cause disruption to legitimate email communications. It is a reactive approach.
\n

Therefore, blocking the URL shortener domain offers the best balance of proactive security and minimal disruption.

Citation:

\n
• What is URL shortening and what are the security implications?, https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/4448/what-is-url-shortening-and-what-are-the-security-implications
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator is working to secure company data on corporate laptops in case the laptops are stolen. Which of the following solutions should the administrator consider?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q3 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is A. Disk encryption. The reason is that disk encryption protects the data stored on the laptop, rendering it unreadable even if the laptop is stolen. Some comments suggest that remote wipe is only important when the thief has access to the laptop's login credentials. There's a note that the question becomes more challenging when remote wipe is an option, leading to a more even split of answers between remote wipe and disk encryption. Another opinion suggested GPT, but this was not supported by the majority of comments.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of A. Disk encryption.
\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• The primary goal is to protect company data in case of laptop theft. Disk encryption directly addresses this by rendering the data unreadable to unauthorized users if the laptop is stolen.
  
\n
• Disk encryption protects the entire disk. Without the correct key (password, PIN, etc.), the data is inaccessible.
\n

\n
• B. Data loss prevention (DLP): DLP solutions are designed to prevent sensitive data from leaving the organization's control. While DLP can be helpful in preventing data leakage, it does not protect the data on a stolen laptop in the same way that disk encryption does. DLP solutions are more focused on monitoring and controlling data movement within the organization's network.
\n
• C. Operating system hardening: Operating system hardening involves securing the OS against attacks. While it's a good security practice, it doesn't directly protect data if the physical device is stolen and the hard drive is removed or accessed through other means.
\n
• D. Boot security: Boot security measures, such as secure boot, protect against unauthorized operating systems or bootloaders from being loaded. This is important for preventing malware from compromising the system, but it does not encrypt the data on the disk and therefore does not protect the data if the laptop is stolen.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company needs to keep the fewest records possible, meet compliance needs, and ensure destruction of records that are no longer needed. Which of the following best describes the policy that meets these requirements?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Retention policy, which the reason is a retention policy specifically defines how long records are kept and when they should be destroyed, aligning directly with the company's need to meet compliance and minimize stored records. Other options like security, classification, and access control policies are not as relevant because they do not directly address record retention and disposal.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best policy that meets the requirements of keeping the fewest records possible, meeting compliance needs, and ensuring the destruction of records that are no longer needed is a Retention Policy.
\nReasoning:
\nA retention policy specifically outlines how long records should be kept and when they should be destroyed. This directly addresses the company's need to minimize stored records while adhering to compliance requirements.
\nReasons for eliminating other options:\n

\n
• Security Policy: Focuses on protecting assets from threats, not record retention.
\n
• Classification Policy: Deals with categorizing data based on sensitivity, not retention periods.
\n
• Access Control Policy: Governs who can access what data, not how long data is stored.
\n

\nTherefore, the correct answer is C. Retention policy.\n

Citations:

\n
• Data retention, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a common source of unintentional corporate credential leakage in cloud environments?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Code repositories, which the reason is developers sometimes inadvertently upload sensitive information like API keys, passwords, or private credentials into these public or even private repositories, leading to accidental exposure. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nThe correct answer is A. Code repositories.\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Code repositories, especially public ones like GitHub, are frequently a source of unintentional credential leakage. Developers sometimes mistakenly commit configuration files, scripts, or other code containing API keys, passwords, database connection strings, or other sensitive credentials. If these repositories are publicly accessible or even if they are private but not properly secured, these credentials can be discovered and exploited.
\n
• This is a common problem due to developers not realizing they are committing sensitive data, or not understanding the security implications of doing so. Automation, such as git hooks or static analysis tools, can help prevent these leaks, but they are not always in place.
\n

\n
• B. Dark web: While credentials can be found on the dark web, they are typically the result of a breach or compromise that has already occurred, not the *source* of the initial leakage from a corporate environment. The dark web is a marketplace, not a source of unintentional *initial* leakage.
\n
• C. Threat feeds: Threat feeds provide information about potential threats, vulnerabilities, and malicious activity. They do not directly cause credential leakage.
\n
• D. State actors: State actors are threat actors who may be involved in stealing credentials, but they are not a common source of *unintentional* leakage. Their actions are deliberate.
\n
• E. Vulnerability databases: Vulnerability databases contain information about software vulnerabilities. While exploitation of these vulnerabilities might lead to credential compromise, the database itself is not a *source* of the *unintentional* leakage.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• GitHub Security Best Practices, https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/security-best-practices/removing-sensitive-data-from-a-repository
\n
• NIST Guidelines on securing public code repositories, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-218.pdf
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the best reason an organization should enforce a data classification policy to help protect its most sensitive information?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. The organization will have the ability to create security requirements based on classification levels, which the reason is a data classification policy helps the organization identify and categorize data according to its sensitivity, and then apply appropriate security controls based on the classification level. This approach ensures that the most sensitive information receives the highest level of protection, while less critical data may have less stringent controls.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nReason: A data classification policy is implemented to categorize data based on its sensitivity and criticality. Once data is classified, an organization can then define and enforce security requirements tailored to each classification level. This allows for a risk-based approach to security, ensuring that the most sensitive data receives the strongest protection.
\nWhy other options are not the best choices:\n

\n
• A: While end-user awareness of data classification is a positive outcome, it is not the primary reason for implementing a data classification policy. The main goal is to protect sensitive information through appropriate security controls, not just to make users aware of classifications.
\n
• B: Access levels are a *result* of data classification, not the primary reason for implementing the policy. The policy enables the *creation* of access levels.
\n
• D: Security analysts being able to see the classification *before* opening a document is a useful feature that *supports* the overall goal of data protection, it is not the core reason to enforce a data classification policy. This visibility is a consequence of having a classification system in place.
\n

\n
• Citations:
\n

\n
• Data classification, https://www.sans.org/information-security/glossary/data-classification
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn analyst is performing a vulnerability scan against the web servers exposed to the internet without a system account. Which of the following is most likely being performed?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Non-credentialed scan, which the reason is because a non-credentialed scan is performed without login credentials, mirroring the scenario's focus on vulnerabilities visible to an external attacker without system access. The consensus highlights that this type of scan assesses what an attacker could potentially see or exploit. The comments agree that this aligns with the context of the question which is conducted without logging into the system.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A. Non-credentialed scan.

\nReasoning: A non-credentialed scan is performed without providing any system account credentials. This simulates an attacker's view of the system from the outside, identifying vulnerabilities that are exposed to the internet without requiring any prior access. The question specifies a vulnerability scan against web servers exposed to the internet *without* a system account; therefore, a non-credentialed scan is the most appropriate choice.

\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B. Packet capture: Packet capture involves capturing network traffic, which is a data collection method and not a vulnerability scanning technique. While analyzing packet captures can reveal vulnerabilities, it is not the primary activity described in the question.
\n
• C. Privilege escalation: Privilege escalation is an exploitation technique where an attacker attempts to gain higher-level access to a system. This is something that might occur *after* a vulnerability is found, not during the initial scan itself.
\n
• D. System enumeration: System enumeration involves gathering information about a system, such as user accounts, network shares, and installed software. While enumeration can be part of a vulnerability assessment, the question specifies a vulnerability scan, making \"non-credentialed scan\" a more direct answer.
\n
• E. Passive scan: A passive scan analyzes network traffic to identify vulnerabilities without actively probing the target system. While it doesn't require credentials, it typically focuses on traffic analysis rather than initiating targeted scans for vulnerabilities like a non-credentialed scan would. A non-credentialed scan can actively probe the target.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator is hardening corporate systems and applying appropriate mitigations by consulting a real-world knowledge base for adversary behavior. Which of the following would be best for the administrator to reference?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is MITRE ATT&CK. The reason is that the MITRE ATT&CK framework is a comprehensive and widely used framework for threat intelligence and defensive strategy, categorizing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by adversaries. The selected answer confirms this choice. The other options, such as CSIRT, CVSS, and SOAR, are not the correct answer based on the information provided.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best reference for a security administrator hardening corporate systems and applying mitigations by consulting a real-world knowledge base for adversary behavior is MITRE ATT&CK.
\nThe reason for this is that MITRE ATT&CK is a comprehensive framework that provides a structured knowledge base of adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) based on real-world observations. It allows security administrators to understand how adversaries operate and to develop effective defense strategies.
\nThe reasons for not choosing the other answers are:\n

\n
• CSIRT (Computer Security Incident Response Team) is a team, not a knowledge base.
\n
• CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) is a system for scoring vulnerabilities, not adversary behavior.
\n
• SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation and Response) is a technology solution, not a knowledge base of adversary behavior.
\n

\n
• MITRE ATT&CK, https://attack.mitre.org/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn architect has a request to increase the speed of data transfer using JSON requests externally. Currently, the organization uses SFTP to transfer data files. Which of the following will most likely meet the requirements?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q3 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Microservices Using API, which the reason is using APIs allows for increased speed of data transfer compared to file-based transfer methods. Specifically, APIs enable real-time data exchange that is structured and efficient, unlike SFTP, which depends on batch file transfers.

I agree with the suggested answer of D. Microservices using API.
\nReasoning: The question emphasizes increasing the speed of data transfer for JSON requests externally, compared to the current SFTP method. Microservices using APIs are a better fit for this requirement because APIs facilitate faster, more efficient, and structured data exchange in real-time. SFTP involves file-based transfer, which is slower and less efficient, especially for frequent JSON requests.
\nWhy other options are not suitable:\n

\n
• A. A website-hosted solution: While a website can host data, it doesn't inherently provide a faster transfer mechanism than SFTP. The underlying transfer protocol would still matter.
\n
• B. Cloud shared storage: Cloud storage provides a location to store data, but doesn't directly address the speed of data transfer for JSON requests. It still relies on transfer protocols.
\n
• C. A secure email solution: Email is not designed for high-speed data transfer, especially for structured data like JSON. It's more suitable for document exchange rather than frequent data requests.
\n

Based on the discussion and the need for increased data transfer speed, microservices with APIs offer the most suitable solution by providing a structured and efficient real-time data exchange mechanism, specifically for JSON requests.

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following addresses individual rights such as the right to be informed, the right of access, and the right to be forgotten?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is GDPR, which the reason is because GDPR addresses individual rights such as the right to be informed, access, or to be forgotten. Other options like NIST, PCI DSS, and ISO do not address those rights.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nThe correct answer is A. GDPR.\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nThe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). It also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas. GDPR grants individuals several rights regarding their personal data, including:\n

\n
• The right to be informed: Individuals have the right to know how their data is being used.
\n
• The right of access: Individuals have the right to access their personal data.
\n
• The right to be forgotten (right to erasure): Individuals have the right to have their personal data erased under certain conditions.
\n

\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard): This is a set of security standards designed to protect credit card data. It focuses on securing payment card information and does not address the broad spectrum of individual rights covered by GDPR.
\n
• NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology): NIST develops standards and guidelines to help organizations manage cybersecurity risks. While NIST provides valuable frameworks, it doesn't directly legislate or enforce individual data rights like GDPR.
\n
• ISO (International Organization for Standardization): ISO develops and publishes international standards across various industries. While ISO standards can include security and data protection aspects, they are not specifically focused on individual data rights in the same way as GDPR.
\n

Therefore, GDPR is the only option that specifically addresses individual rights such as the right to be informed, the right of access, and the right to be forgotten.

\n
• What is GDPR, https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn administrator is installing an LDAP browser tool in order to view objects in the corporate LDAP directory. Secure connections to the LDAP server are required. When the browser connects to the server, certificate errors are being displayed, and then the connection is terminated. Which of the following is the most likely solution?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. The administrator needs to install the server certificate into the local truststore, which the reason is that the certificate errors indicate that the LDAP browser tool does not trust the certificate presented by the LDAP server. This often happens when the certificate is self-signed or issued by an internal Certificate Authority (CA) not recognized by the system, or the certificate chain is incomplete or missing in the local truststore.

\n I agree with the suggested answer.
\n The most likely solution to resolve the certificate errors when connecting to the LDAP server is for the administrator to install the server certificate into the local truststore.
\n
\nReasoning:
\n The certificate errors indicate that the LDAP browser tool does not trust the certificate presented by the LDAP server. This often occurs when the certificate is self-signed or issued by an internal Certificate Authority (CA) not recognized by the system. By importing the server's certificate into the local truststore of the system running the LDAP browser, the browser will then recognize and trust the certificate, establishing a secure connection. The local truststore is where a system stores certificates from CAs it trusts. When a secure connection is attempted, the system checks if the certificate presented by the server is signed by a CA in its truststore. If it is, the connection is considered secure.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• \nA. The administrator should allow SAN certificates in the browser configuration: While Subject Alternative Name (SAN) certificates are important, simply allowing them doesn't address the underlying issue of trust. The browser still needs to trust the certificate authority that issued the SAN certificate.\n
\n
• \nC. The administrator should request that the secure LDAP port be opened to the server: Opening the secure LDAP port (typically 636 or 389 with STARTTLS) is a network configuration issue. It does not address certificate trust issues. The port must be open for secure LDAP to work, but opening it won't resolve certificate errors if the client doesn't trust the server's certificate.\n
\n
• \nD. The administrator needs to increase the TLS version on the organization's RA: Increasing the TLS version on the Registration Authority (RA) is related to the security protocols used during certificate issuance and renewal. It is unlikely to directly address the issue of a client not trusting a server's certificate. While keeping TLS versions up-to-date is important for overall security, it doesn't solve the specific problem of a client's truststore not containing the necessary certificate.\n
\n

\n The chosen answer directly addresses the problem of the client (LDAP browser) not trusting the server's certificate, which is the root cause of the certificate errors.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Understanding Certificate Authorities (CAs), https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ibm-mq/9.2?topic=security-understanding-certificate-authorities-cas
\n
• Transport Layer Security (TLS), https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/transport-layer-security-tls/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the most important security concern when using legacy systems to provide production service?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Lack of Vendor Support, which the reason is that without vendor support, there are no updates, security patches, or fixes for newly discovered vulnerabilities, leaving the system exposed to potential attacks. Some comments also pointed out that while the use of insecure protocols is a concern, it can sometimes be mitigated. However, the lack of vendor support to address those protocols is a greater problem because there is no way to patch or upgrade them without vendor assistance. Although some comments support D. Use of insecure protocols, the majority agreed that lack of vendor support is the primary concern.

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Lack of vendor support.

\nReasoning:\nWhen legacy systems are used in production, the most critical security concern is the lack of vendor support. This is because:
\n

\n
• No security patches: Without vendor support, the system will no longer receive security updates or patches to address newly discovered vulnerabilities. This leaves the system highly vulnerable to exploitation.
\n
• No bug fixes: As legacy systems age, they are more likely to have bugs. Vendor support ensures that these bugs are addressed promptly. Without it, the system becomes increasingly unstable and unreliable.
\n
• Inability to address insecure protocols: While using insecure protocols is a valid concern (Option D), the inability to update or replace them due to the lack of vendor support makes it a more significant issue. Vendor support provides the resources and expertise needed to upgrade or migrate to more secure protocols.
\n

\n
• A. Instability: Instability can be a problem with legacy systems, but it is often a result of the lack of updates and maintenance that vendor support provides.
\n
• C. Loss of availability: Loss of availability can occur due to various reasons, including hardware failure or software bugs, but the lack of vendor support to address these issues exacerbates the problem.
\n
• D. Use of insecure protocols: Although a significant concern, insecure protocols can sometimes be mitigated with compensating controls (e.g., network segmentation, intrusion detection systems). The *inability* to address these protocols properly due to the lack of vendor support makes it a secondary issue. It becomes a more significant problem when there's no way to patch or upgrade them.
\n

\n
• \nLack of vendor support is widely recognized as a major security risk for legacy systems, due to the absence of security patches, bug fixes, and updates needed to maintain a secure and stable environment.\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security investigation revealed that malicious software was installed on a server using a server administrator's credentials. During the investigation, the server administrator explained that Telnet was regularly used to log in. Which of the following most likely occurred?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agreed with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. A packet capture tool was used to steal the password, which the reason is the administrator's regular use of Telnet, which transmits data, including credentials, in plain text, making it vulnerable to interception. Therefore, a packet capture tool could easily capture the login credentials, allowing an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the server. Telnet has no encryption.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. A packet capture tool was used to steal the password.
\nReasoning:
\n The question states that the server administrator regularly used Telnet to log in. Telnet transmits data, including usernames and passwords, in clear text. This makes it highly susceptible to eavesdropping using packet capture tools (like Wireshark or tcpdump). An attacker could use a packet capture tool to sniff the network traffic, intercept the Telnet login credentials, and then use those credentials to install malicious software.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:
\n

\n
• A. A spraying attack was used to determine which credentials to use: Spraying attacks involve trying a few common passwords against many accounts. While possible, the direct mention of Telnet being used makes packet capture a more likely scenario.
\n
• C. A remote-access Trojan was used to install the malware: While a RAT could be used, the question emphasizes the use of Telnet for login. A RAT is a more complex attack vector than simply capturing credentials sent in plaintext.
\n
• D. A dictionary attack was used to log in as the server administrator: A dictionary attack attempts to guess a password by trying common words and phrases. Like spraying attacks, the use of Telnet strongly suggests the simpler packet capture scenario.
\n

\nSupporting Citations:\n

\n
• Telnet Definition, https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/Telnet
\n
• Packet Sniffing Definition, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/security/what-is-packet-sniffing/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA user is requesting Telnet access to manage a remote development web server. Insecure protocols are not allowed for use within any environment. Which of the following should be configured to allow remote access to this server?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is SSH, which the reason is because SSH provides strong encryption for all data transmitted and allows secure remote access to servers, making it a secure alternative to Telnet, which transmits data in plaintext.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is C. SSH.
\nReasoning: The question explicitly states that insecure protocols are not allowed. Telnet is an insecure protocol because it transmits data in plaintext. The requirement is to provide a secure alternative for remote server management.
\nSSH (Secure Shell) is a cryptographic network protocol that provides a secure way to access a remote computer. It encrypts all traffic between the client and the server, protecting against eavesdropping, connection hijacking, and other attacks. This makes it a secure alternative to Telnet.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure): While HTTPS provides secure communication between a web browser and a web server, it's primarily used for securing web traffic, not general-purpose remote server management.
\n
• B. SNMPv3 (Simple Network Management Protocol version 3): SNMP is used for network management and monitoring. While SNMPv3 does offer security features, it's not a direct replacement for Telnet for remote server access.
\n
• D. RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol): RDP provides a graphical user interface for remote access, but it is designed for desktop environments, and while it does offer encryption, SSH is generally preferred for command-line server management due to its lower overhead and security features.
\n
• E. SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol): SMTP is used for sending email and is not relevant for remote server management.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator is working to find a cost-effective solution to implement certificates for a large number of domains and subdomains owned by the company. Which of the following types of certificates should the administrator implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer A. From the internet discussion from Q2 2021 to Q1 2025, the consensus is that a wildcard certificate is the correct answer because it's a cost-effective solution for securing multiple subdomains under a single domain name. Other opinions, such as self-signed certificates, are not considered suitable as they may not be appropriate for public-facing services. Also, some comments mentioned SAN certificates are required for multiple domains.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer A, which is Wildcard certificate.
\nReasoning: The question specifically asks for a cost-effective solution to implement certificates for a large number of domains and subdomains. A wildcard certificate allows you to secure a domain and all its subdomains with a single certificate, making it the most cost-effective option for this scenario. It simplifies certificate management and reduces the overhead of obtaining and maintaining individual certificates for each subdomain.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B. Client certificate: Client certificates are used to authenticate users or devices to a server. They are not suitable for securing multiple domains and subdomains.
\n
• C. Self-signed: Self-signed certificates are not issued by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA). While they are free, they are generally not trusted by browsers and are not suitable for public-facing websites or applications. They would generate security warnings for users.
\n
• D. Code signing: Code signing certificates are used to digitally sign software or code to verify its authenticity and integrity. They are not used for securing domains and subdomains.
\n

\nThe consensus from online discussions also confirms that wildcard certificates are the go-to solution for securing multiple subdomains efficiently. Although SAN certificates (mentioned in the discussion summary) can cover multiple domains, wildcard certificates are more suited for securing subdomains of a single domain, and are generally easier to manage in this context.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn auditor discovered multiple insecure ports on some servers. Other servers were found to have legacy protocols enabled. Which of the following tools did the auditor use to discover these issues?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which includes comments from Q3 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to the question is A. The reasoning behind this choice is that Nessus is a vulnerability scanner designed to identify potential security risks by detecting vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in systems, including open ports and outdated protocols. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A. Nessus.
\nReason: Nessus is a comprehensive vulnerability scanner that is specifically designed to identify vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and security risks in systems. It can discover open ports, identify legacy protocols, and detect other security weaknesses, making it the ideal tool for an auditor to use in this scenario. Nessus is widely recognized as an industry-standard tool for vulnerability assessments.
\nReasons for excluding other options:\n

\n
• B. curl: curl is a command-line tool used for transferring data with URLs. While it can be used to test connectivity to specific ports, it is not designed for comprehensive vulnerability scanning or identifying legacy protocols across multiple servers.
\n
• C. Wireshark: Wireshark is a network protocol analyzer. It captures and analyzes network traffic. While it can be useful for identifying protocols in use, it's not designed for broad vulnerability scanning or identifying insecure ports in an automated fashion across multiple systems. It requires manual analysis of captured traffic.
\n
• D. netcat: netcat is a command-line utility for reading from and writing to network connections using TCP or UDP. It can be used for basic port scanning and testing network connectivity, but it lacks the comprehensive vulnerability scanning capabilities of a tool like Nessus.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst received a tip that sensitive proprietary information was leaked to the public. The analyst is reviewing the PCAP and notices traffic between an internal server and an external host that includes the following:

...
12:47:22.327233 PPPoE [ses 0x8122] IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto IPv6 (41), length 331) 10.5.1.1 > 52.165.16.154: IP6 (hlim E3, next-header TCP (6) paylcad length: 271) 2001:67c:2158:a019::ace.53104 > 2001:0:5ef5:79fd:380c:dddd:a601:24fa.13788: Flags [P.], cksum 0xd7ee (correct), seq 97:348, ack 102, win 16444, length 251
...

Which of the following was most likely used to exfiltrate the data?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Encapsulation (A), which the reason is the PCAP shows traffic using IPv6 encapsulated within IPv4 (proto IPv6 (41)). This encapsulation can hide sensitive data within seemingly normal network traffic and bypass security controls and filters. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\n I agree with the suggested answer of Encapsulation (A).
\nReasoning: The provided PCAP data shows IPv6 traffic encapsulated within IPv4. Specifically, the line \"proto IPv6 (41)\" indicates that IPv6 is being carried as the payload of an IPv4 packet (protocol 41 is IPV6). This technique is a form of encapsulation and can be used to bypass security controls that are not configured to inspect the encapsulated IPv6 traffic. This makes it a likely method for exfiltrating data, hiding the true nature of the traffic.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B. MAC address spoofing: MAC address spoofing is used to impersonate a device on the local network, which is not directly related to hiding data within network traffic for exfiltration.
\n
• C. Steganography: Steganography involves hiding data within other data (e.g., an image or audio file). While possible, the PCAP data does not provide direct evidence of steganography, which would require deeper inspection of the packet contents beyond the headers.
\n
• D. Broken encryption: While broken encryption can lead to data leaks, the PCAP data doesn't explicitly point to broken encryption. It mainly highlights the encapsulation technique.
\n
• E. Sniffing via on-path position: Sniffing involves capturing network traffic, but it doesn't inherently exfiltrate data. The encapsulation technique is the more direct method of hiding and moving data in this scenario.
\n

Citation:

\n
• IANA Protocol Numbers, https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company wants to reduce the time and expense associated with code deployment. Which of the following technologies should the company utilize?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is to select A, which is Serverless architecture. The comments agree with this answer because it eliminates server management tasks, reduces deployment time, lowers costs by only charging for actual code execution, automatically scales based on demand, and allows developers to focus solely on writing code, all of which handle infrastructure and scaling automatically. AWS Lambda is a specific example of a serverless architecture, where you can upload code and run functions without managing servers, automatically scaling and charging only for compute time used.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of A. Serverless architecture.\n
\nReasoning: The question asks for a technology that reduces the time and expense associated with code deployment. Serverless architecture directly addresses this by abstracting away the underlying infrastructure management. This allows developers to focus solely on code, leading to faster deployment times and reduced operational costs. The key benefits of serverless, such as automatic scaling, pay-per-use billing, and reduced operational overhead, all contribute to minimizing both time and expense related to deployment.\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• B. Thin clients: These primarily reduce hardware costs by relying on a central server for processing. They don't directly impact code deployment time or expense.
\n
• C. Private cloud: While a private cloud can offer benefits like increased control and customization, it still requires significant infrastructure management, which can increase deployment time and expense compared to serverless.
\n
• D. Virtual machines: Like private clouds, virtual machines still require managing the operating system, patching, and other server-related tasks, which adds to deployment time and operational overhead.
\n

Citations:

\n
• What is Serverless? - AWS, https://aws.amazon.com/serverless/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator is performing an audit on a stand-alone UNIX server, and the following message is immediately displayed:

(Error 13): /etc/shadow: Permission denied.

Which of the following best describes the type of tool that is being used?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Password cracker, which the reason is the error \"Permission denied\" typically arises when a tool attempts to access the /etc/shadow file, which stores hashed passwords and is restricted to privileged users. Password crackers often try to access this file to obtain password hashes for cracking, making this the most probable cause. However, some users supported File Integrity Monitor (FIM), arguing that FIM tools are used during audits to ensure file integrity. FIM could also trigger a \"permission denied\" error if misconfigured; however, given the context of attempting to access /etc/shadow, the consensus favors the password cracker as the more likely scenario.

Based on the question and discussion, I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Password cracker.

\nReasoning:
\nThe error message \"/etc/shadow: Permission denied\" indicates an attempt to access the shadow file, which stores password hashes on UNIX-like systems. Password crackers often try to access this file to obtain these hashes for cracking purposes. Due to the sensitive nature of this file, access is restricted, hence the \"Permission denied\" error when an unauthorized tool (like a password cracker run without sufficient privileges) attempts to read it. The context strongly suggests an unauthorized attempt to read password hashes.

\nReasons for not choosing other answers:
\n

\n
• A. Pass-the-hash monitor: A pass-the-hash monitor detects attempts to reuse compromised credentials, not necessarily attempts to directly access the /etc/shadow file. While related to password security, the error message doesn't directly indicate this type of attack.
\n
• B. File integrity monitor: While a file integrity monitor (FIM) could potentially trigger a \"permission denied\" error if misconfigured or if it attempts to access a restricted file without proper permissions, the /etc/shadow file is not a file FIM will monitor frequently because its content is expected to change often. The context of auditing a stand-alone UNIX server and encountering this specific error points more directly to password-related activities.
\n
• C. Forensic analysis: Forensic analysis is a broader investigation process and not a specific tool that would immediately produce a \"permission denied\" error upon execution. While forensic tools might eventually interact with the /etc/shadow file, the immediate error suggests a more targeted action.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator needs to create firewall rules for the following protocols: RTP, SIP, H.323. and SRTP. Which of the following does this rule set support?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is VoIP, which the reason is that the protocols RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol), SIP (Session Initiation Protocol), H.323, and SRTP (Secure Real-time Transport Protocol) are commonly used in Voice over IP (VoIP) communications.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nReasoning: The question lists RTP, SIP, H.323, and SRTP. These protocols are all related to Voice over IP (VoIP) technology. Specifically, they are used for establishing, managing, and transmitting voice and video data over IP networks. Therefore, firewall rules created for these protocols would support VoIP communications.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. RTOS (Real-Time Operating System): This is an operating system designed for real-time applications, not directly related to the listed network protocols.
\n
• C. SoC (System on a Chip): This refers to integrating all components of a computer or other electronic system into a single integrated circuit. While VoIP applications might run on SoCs, the protocols themselves don't directly support SoCs.
\n
• D. HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning): This relates to environmental control systems and has no connection to the specified network protocols.
\n

\nThe correct answer is B. VoIP\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following best describes a social engineering attack that uses a targeted electronic messaging campaign aimed at a Chief Executive Officer?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Whaling, which the reason is Whaling is a type of social engineering attack specifically targeting high-profile individuals such as CEOs or other executives. It is a form of spear phishing that focuses on these high-value targets with highly personalized and convincing messages.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nThe best answer is A. Whaling.\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nWhaling is a specific type of social engineering attack that targets high-profile individuals, such as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) or other senior executives. It's a form of spear phishing that focuses on these high-value targets. The messages are highly personalized and designed to be very convincing, often leveraging information specific to the target or their organization to increase the likelihood of success. The objective is typically to gain access to sensitive information, financial resources, or privileged systems.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• B. Spear Phishing: While whaling is a *form* of spear phishing, spear phishing is a broader term that can apply to any targeted phishing attack, not necessarily those aimed at high-profile individuals. Whaling is the more specific and accurate term in this scenario.
\n
• C. Impersonation: Impersonation is a broader term referring to pretending to be someone else. While a whaling attack might involve impersonation, the core of whaling is the targeted, high-profile nature of the attack, making it a more precise description.
\n
• D. Identity Fraud: Identity fraud involves stealing someone's identity for illicit purposes. While a successful whaling attack *could* lead to identity fraud, the attack itself is not identity fraud, but rather a means to potentially *achieve* it.
\n

\nTherefore, given the specific context of a targeted electronic messaging campaign aimed at a CEO, \"Whaling\" is the most accurate and specific description of the social engineering attack.\n

Citations:

\n
• Whaling attack, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/whaling-attack
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDuring a penetration test, a flaw in the internal PKI was exploited to gain domain administrator rights using specially crafted certificates. Which of the following remediation tasks should be completed as part of the cleanup phase?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which includes from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Patching the CA, which the reason is the **CA (Certificate Authority) should be patched to fix any identified vulnerabilities in the certificate issuance process, as it directly addresses the root cause of the PKI vulnerability.** Updating the CRL is also important, but it primarily deals with revoking compromised certificates rather than fixing the underlying vulnerability, which is the clean up phase.\n

I agree with the suggested answer of B. Patching the CA.

\nReasoning: The question states that a flaw in the internal PKI was exploited. This means there is a vulnerability in the Certificate Authority (CA) itself. Patching the CA is the most direct way to address the root cause of the vulnerability. By patching, you are fixing the underlying issue that allowed the attacker to create specially crafted certificates and gain domain administrator rights.

\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Updating the CRL (Certificate Revocation List) - While important for invalidating compromised certificates, updating the CRL does not fix the underlying vulnerability in the CA. It's a reactive measure, not a preventative one. The cleanup phase should prioritize fixing the root cause.
\n
• C. Changing passwords - Changing passwords is a good security practice, but it does not address the vulnerability in the PKI. The attacker was able to gain domain administrator rights using certificates, not stolen passwords.
\n
• D. Implementing SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation and Response) - SOAR is a valuable tool for automating security tasks, but it does not directly address the PKI vulnerability. SOAR would be helpful in detecting and responding to future attacks, but the root cause still needs to be fixed first.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company wants to implement MFA. Which of the following enables the additional factor while using a smart card?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. PIN, which the reason is the use of a smart card in MFA. The smart card is 'something you have' and the PIN is 'something you know'. The combination of these two factors confirms the use of MFA. The other options such as hardware tokens, user ID, and SMS, are not directly related to the smart card.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nReason: A PIN (Personal Identification Number) is the correct answer because it's the additional factor that, when combined with a smart card, enables multi-factor authentication (MFA). A smart card represents \"something you have,\" and the PIN represents \"something you know.\" This combination fulfills the requirement of using two different factors for authentication.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Hardware token: While hardware tokens are used for MFA, the question specifically asks about using a smart card. A hardware token is a separate device.
\n
• C. User ID: A User ID is typically considered \"something you know\" and is usually paired with a password, which is a single-factor authentication method. It doesn't provide an additional factor when used with a smart card.
\n
• D. SMS: SMS-based authentication is another form of MFA, specifically \"something you have\" (access to the phone), but the question specifically concerns smart cards, making this option incorrect.
\n

\nTherefore, a PIN is the correct additional factor when using a smart card for MFA.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company hired an external consultant to assist with required system upgrades to a critical business application. A systems administrator needs to secure the consultant's access without sharing passwords to critical systems. Which of the following solutions should most likely be utilized?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is E. PAM Software, which the reason is that PAM (Privileged Access Management) software is designed to manage and secure privileged accounts and access credentials. It allows administrators to grant temporary, controlled access to critical systems without directly sharing passwords. PAM software also provides the ability to track, monitor, and log all activities performed by the consultant. Several comments explicitly mentioned \"PAM\" or \"Privileged Access Management\" as the correct solution.\n

\nBased on the question and the discussion, I agree with the suggested answer E: PAM software.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe scenario describes a need to provide a consultant with access to critical systems without sharing passwords. PAM software is specifically designed for this purpose. It allows for granting temporary, controlled, and monitored access to privileged accounts, making it ideal for securing consultant access. It centrally manages and monitors privileged access, preventing direct password sharing, and auditing all consultant activities.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. TACACS+: TACACS+ is a protocol for centralized authentication, authorization, and accounting. While it helps in managing user access, it doesn't directly address the need for temporary, password-less access for consultants. It is more focused on network device administration.
\n
• B. SAML: SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) is an open standard for exchanging authentication and authorization data between parties, primarily for web-based applications. It's not directly related to managing privileged access to systems without password sharing.
\n
• C. An SSO platform: An SSO (Single Sign-On) platform allows users to access multiple applications with one set of credentials. While it simplifies user authentication, it doesn't address the core requirement of providing privileged access to systems without sharing passwords.
\n
• D. Role-based access control: Role-based access control (RBAC) is a method of regulating access to computer or network resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization. While RBAC is a good security practice, it doesn't inherently prevent the need to share passwords or provide temporary access to external consultants without traditional credentials.
\n

\n
• Privileged Access Management (PAM), https://www.beyondtrust.com/resources/glossary/privileged-access-management-pam
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA newly implemented wireless network is designed so that visitors can connect to the wireless network for business activities. The legal department is concerned that visitors might connect to the network and perform illicit activities. Which of me following should the security team implement to address this concern?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion from Q3 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is users logging into captive portals and accepting the terms and conditions before gaining access should address the concern raised by the legal department. It is mentioned that options A, B, and D don't account for people performing illicit activities.

I agree with the suggested answer of C. Add a guest captive portal requiring visitors to accept terms and conditions.

\nReasoning:
\nThe primary concern is addressing the legal department's worries about visitors using the network for illicit activities. A captive portal is the most suitable solution because it presents users with terms and conditions that they must accept before gaining access. This creates a legal agreement and provides a level of accountability, which is exactly what the legal department is seeking.\n
\nWhy other options are not suitable:\n

\n
• A. Configure a RADIUS server to manage device authentication: RADIUS is for authentication and authorization but does not directly address the legal concerns of illicit activities. It verifies the identity of the user but does not present them with terms and conditions.
\n
• B. Use 802.1X on all devices connecting to wireless: 802.1X provides port-based network access control and enhanced security through authentication. Similar to RADIUS, it focuses on authentication rather than legal compliance related to user activities.
\n
• D. Allow for new devices to be connected via WPS: WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup) is a simplified method for connecting devices to a wireless network. It is generally considered a security risk and does not offer any legal protection or accountability for user actions.
\n

Citation:

\n
• Captive Portals: What They Are & Why Use Them? - Cisco, https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/small-business/resource-center/security/captive-portals.html
\n
• 802.1X Authentication: What It Is and How It Works - JumpCloud, https://jumpcloud.com/blog/802-1x-authentication
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following data roles is responsible for identifying risks and appropriate access to data?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which includes from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Owner, which the reason is that the data owner is ultimately accountable for identifying risks associated with the data and determining appropriate access controls to protect it, and is responsible for defining the access policies. Although some comments suggested Data Steward or Custodian, these roles are not primarily responsible for making decisions about who should access the data.

I agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is A. Owner.
\nReasoning: The data owner is ultimately responsible for the data, including identifying risks and determining appropriate access controls. They define who should have access to the data and the level of access they should be granted. The owner is accountable for ensuring the data is protected and used appropriately.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• B. Custodian: A data custodian is responsible for the safe custody, transport, storage, and implementation of security policies related to the data. They do not typically define access policies.
\n
• C. Steward: A data steward is responsible for data quality and ensuring compliance with data policies and standards. While they contribute to data governance, they aren't primarily responsible for access control decisions.
\n
• D. Controller: This term is more common in the context of data privacy regulations like GDPR, where the controller determines the purposes and means of processing personal data. While related to data governance, it is not the best fit for the general data role focused on risk identification and access control in this question.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following physical controls can be used to both detect and deter? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: AD. From the internet discussion, which spanned from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is AD because the combination of lighting and motion sensors can both detect and deter unwanted activity. Lighting illuminates the area, and motion sensors detect movement, effectively deterring potential wrongdoers. Other options were found to be incorrect as signs, for example, do not have the ability to detect unwanted activity.

\n I agree with the suggested answer of AD.
\nReasoning:
\n Both lighting and sensors can be used to both detect and deter.\n

\n
• Lighting: Well-lit areas deter potential intruders by increasing the risk of being seen. Lighting also helps in detecting unauthorized activity by improving visibility for security personnel or cameras.
\n
• Sensors: Sensors, such as motion detectors, can detect unauthorized entry or movement in a secured area. The activation of an alarm or notification can deter intruders from proceeding further.
\n

\n
• Fencing: While fencing is a strong deterrent, it primarily deters and does not actively detect. Detection would require additional elements like sensors on the fence.
\n
• Signage: Signage primarily serves as a deterrent by informing potential intruders about security measures. It does not detect any activity.
\n
• Bollard: Bollards are physical barriers that primarily deter vehicle-based attacks. They do not actively detect threats.
\n
• Lock: Locks deter unauthorized access to physical resources, but they don't provide active detection.
\n

\n Therefore, the best answer is AD because both lighting and sensors can serve to both detect and deter unauthorized activity.\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Physical Security Controls, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/physical-security-controls
\n
• Deterrence Theory, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/deterrence-theory
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA multinational bank hosts several servers in its data center. These servers run a business-critical application used by customers to access their account information. Which of the following should the bank use to ensure accessibility during peak usage times?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Load balancer, which the reason is load balancers are specifically designed to distribute incoming network traffic across multiple servers, ensuring optimal resource utilization, maximizing throughput, minimizing response time, and preventing overload on any single server, which is critical for maintaining the accessibility of a business-critical, customer-facing application like that of a multinational bank, especially during peak usage times.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe question asks about ensuring accessibility of a business-critical application during peak usage times.\n
\nA load balancer is the most appropriate solution for this scenario because it distributes network traffic across multiple servers. This ensures that no single server is overwhelmed, maintaining application availability and responsiveness even during peak demand.
\n
\nHere's why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• B. Cloud backups: While cloud backups are important for disaster recovery, they don't directly address the issue of application accessibility during peak usage. Backups are for restoring data, not for handling real-time traffic.
\n
• C. Geographic dispersal: Geographic dispersal (or geographic redundancy) can improve availability in case of a regional outage, but it doesn't inherently load balance traffic during normal operations or specifically address peak usage within a single region. It's more of a disaster recovery and high availability strategy than a load management technique.
\n
• D. Disk multipathing: Disk multipathing improves storage availability by providing multiple paths to storage devices. It doesn't help distribute network traffic to application servers and is not directly related to handling peak application usage.
\n

\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Load balancers are specifically designed to distribute incoming network traffic across multiple servers, preventing any single server from becoming overloaded. This directly addresses the problem of maintaining accessibility during peak usage times.
\n
• Cloud backups, geographic dispersal, and disk multipathing address other aspects of system reliability and availability, but they do not directly manage network traffic in real time to ensure optimal performance during peak loads.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe author of a software package is concerned about bad actors repackaging and inserting malware into the software. The software download is hosted on a website, and the author exclusively controls the website's contents. Which of the following techniques would best ensure the software's integrity?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion within the past year, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Code Signing, which the reason is that code signing helps ensure the integrity and authenticity of software packages by preventing bad actors from repackaging software with malware, as the digital signature would no longer match. Users can verify that the software comes from the original source and hasn't been tampered with, increasing trust and security.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Code signing is the most effective technique to ensure the software's integrity in this scenario.

\nReasoning:
\n Code signing involves digitally signing the software with the author's private key. This creates a digital signature that is unique to the software and the author. When a user downloads the software, they can verify the digital signature using the author's public key. If the signature is valid, it confirms that the software has not been tampered with and that it comes from the original author. If a bad actor repackages the software and inserts malware, the digital signature will no longer be valid, and users will be warned that the software may be compromised. This process ensures both the integrity and authenticity of the software.

\nWhy other options are not the best:\n

\n
• A. Input validation: Input validation is a security technique used to ensure that user input is valid and does not contain malicious code. While input validation is important for preventing vulnerabilities such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting, it does not directly address the problem of software repackaging.
\n
• C. Secure cookies: Secure cookies are used to protect cookies from being intercepted by attackers. While secure cookies are important for protecting user privacy, they do not directly address the problem of software repackaging.
\n
• D. Fuzzing: Fuzzing is a software testing technique used to discover vulnerabilities by providing invalid or unexpected input to the software. While fuzzing can help identify vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers, it does not directly address the problem of software repackaging.
\n

\n

Suggested Answer: B

\n

Citations:

\n
• Code Signing - Sign & Protect Your Code: https://sectigo.com/resource-center/code-signing
\n
• What is Code Signing? How Does it Work?: https://www.entrust.com/resources/glossary/code-signing
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA third-party vendor is moving a particular application to the end-of-life stage at the end of the current year. Which of the following is the most critical risk if the company chooses to continue running the application?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is lack of security updates.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most critical risk when continuing to run an application that has reached its end-of-life is A. Lack of security updates.
\nReason: When a vendor stops supporting an application, they no longer provide security patches or updates to address newly discovered vulnerabilities. This leaves the application, and by extension the systems and data it interacts with, exposed to potential exploits and attacks. This is a critical risk because it directly impacts the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information assets.\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• B. Lack of new features: While the absence of new features might impact usability or competitiveness, it doesn't pose the same immediate and severe threat as security vulnerabilities.
\n
• C. Lack of support: The lack of support is a valid concern, as it means no official assistance is available to troubleshoot issues. However, the lack of security updates is a more pressing risk because vulnerabilities can be actively exploited.
\n
• D. Lack of source code access: While having the source code can be beneficial for maintaining or modifying the application independently, the immediate risk of running an end-of-life application is the absence of security updates, which can lead to exploits regardless of source code availability.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• End of Life (EoL), TechTarget, https://www.techtarget.com/searchapparchitecture/definition/end-of-life-EoL
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst recently read a report about a flaw in several of the organization's printer models that causes credentials to be sent over the network in cleartext, regardless of the encryption settings. Which of the following would be best to use to validate this finding?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Wireshark, which the reason is that Wireshark is a network packet analyzer and can capture and inspect network traffic, allowing the security analyst to monitor traffic between printers and other devices and check for cleartext credential transmission.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nWireshark is the best tool to validate the finding of credentials being sent in cleartext over the network. Here's why:
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Wireshark is a network packet analyzer. It captures network traffic and allows you to inspect the contents of the packets. This means you can see the actual data being transmitted between the printer and other devices.
\n
• If the credentials are being sent in cleartext, Wireshark will allow you to view them directly within the captured packets.
\n

\n
• netcat: While netcat can send and receive data over network connections, it's not primarily a packet sniffer and analyzer like Wireshark. It wouldn't be as effective for passively monitoring network traffic to detect cleartext credentials.
\n
• Nessus: Nessus is a vulnerability scanner. It identifies security weaknesses in systems, but it doesn't capture and analyze network traffic in real-time to check for cleartext credentials. It would be used more to discover if the printer has configuration issues that *might* lead to the vulnerability.
\n
• Nmap: Nmap is a network mapper and port scanner. It's used to discover devices on a network and identify open ports and services. While useful for initial reconnaissance, it doesn't capture and analyze network traffic to the level needed to detect cleartext credentials.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA development team is launching a new public-facing web product. The Chief Information Security Officer has asked that the product be protected from attackers who use malformed or invalid inputs to destabilize the system. Which of the following practices should the development team implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is A, which is Fuzzing. The comments agree because fuzzing involves feeding a system with invalid, unexpected, or random inputs to try to crash it or trigger errors and is a automated software testing technique to identify vulnerabilities. Other opinions suggest Static Code Analysis, but this is not considered as the best answer for this question.

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is A. Fuzzing.
\nReasoning:
\nFuzzing is a software testing technique that involves providing invalid, unexpected, or random data as input to a program. The goal is to identify vulnerabilities, bugs, or crashes that could be exploited by attackers. In the context of a public-facing web product, fuzzing can help the development team discover and address issues related to malformed or invalid inputs that could destabilize the system. It is an automated method of vulnerability discovery, focusing on input validation weaknesses.
\nWhy other options are not the best:\n

\n
• \nB. Continuous deployment: This is a DevOps practice focused on automating the release of software changes. While it's valuable for rapid iteration, it doesn't directly address the problem of malformed or invalid inputs.\n
\n
• \nC. Static code analysis: This technique examines the source code for potential vulnerabilities without executing the program. While useful, it may not catch all input validation issues that fuzzing would reveal. Static analysis is better for identifying code-level vulnerabilities, such as buffer overflows or SQL injection flaws in the source code itself, not runtime issues caused by unexpected inputs.\n
\n
• \nD. Manual peer review: While code reviews are beneficial for finding errors and improving code quality, they are not as effective as fuzzing for detecting vulnerabilities related to malformed or invalid inputs. Humans may not anticipate all possible input variations that could cause problems.\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDuring an annual review of the system design, an engineer identified a few issues with the currently released design. Which of the following should be performed next according to best practices?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Change control process (D) is the answer that received the most agreement from the internet discussion from Q2 2021 to Q1 2025. The consensus is that after identifying issues during an annual review, the change control process is the best next step to systematically evaluate, approve, and document modifications to the design. Other opinions like design review process (C) or risk management process (A) are not correct, design review process has already occurred during the annual review, and the risk management process should occur earlier. Change Control Process is the most appropriate as the system design is already released and needs a structured process to address identified issues without introducing unintended risks.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Change control process.
\nReasoning: After an annual review identifies issues with a released system design, the next logical step is to implement a structured change control process. This process ensures that all proposed changes are properly evaluated, documented, tested, and approved before being implemented. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity and security of the system, especially since the design is already in production. The change control process would typically involve steps such as: identifying the need for change, assessing the impact of the change, developing a plan for implementing the change, testing the change, and documenting the change.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Risk management process: While risk management is important, it typically occurs earlier in the system development lifecycle. Addressing identified issues after a release requires a focused change management approach rather than a broad risk assessment.
\n
• B. Product design process: This process is for creating new products or making significant alterations. After a product has been released, changes are managed through a change control process, not a complete redesign.
\n
• C. Design review process: The design review has already occurred, as indicated in the question. The next step is to manage the changes identified during that review.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is best to use when determining the severity of a vulnerability?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System), which the reason is CVSS provides a standardized method for assessing vulnerability severity.

\nThe suggested answer is correct.
\nCVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) is the best choice because it is specifically designed to provide a standardized and numerical measure of vulnerability severity. This allows organizations to prioritize vulnerability management efforts based on the potential impact.
\nHere's why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures): While CVEs provide unique identifiers for vulnerabilities, they do not inherently indicate severity. They are more like a catalog of known vulnerabilities.
\n
• OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence): OSINT involves gathering information from publicly available sources. While it can be used to discover vulnerabilities, it doesn't provide a standardized severity score.
\n
• SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response): SOAR systems automate security tasks and incident response. They rely on vulnerability data, including severity scores, but do not determine the severity themselves.
\n

\nThe Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is an industry standard for assessing the severity of security vulnerabilities. It provides a numerical score reflecting the severity of a vulnerability, enabling organizations to prioritize remediation efforts.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization experienced a security breach that allowed an attacker to send fraudulent wire transfers from a hardened PC exclusively to the attacker's bank through remote connections. A security analyst is creating a timeline of events and has found a different PC on the network containing malware. Upon reviewing the command history, the analyst finds the following:

PS>.\\mimikatz.exe \"sekurlsa::pth /user:localadmin /domain:corp-domain.com /ntlm:B4B9B02E1F29A3CF193EAB28C8D617D3F327

Which of the following best describes how the attacker gained access to the hardened PC?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. The attacker performed a pass-the-hash attack using a shared support account, which the reason is because the command history indicates that the attacker used Mimikatz to perform a pass-the-hash (PTH) attack, which involves using a hashed password (NTLM hash) to authenticate without needing to know the plaintext password. This suggests that the attacker exploited the credentials of a local admin account to access the hardened PC.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. The attacker performed a pass-the-hash attack using a shared support account.
\nReasoning:
\n The command history shows the use of Mimikatz with the `sekurlsa::pth` command. This command is specifically used to perform a pass-the-hash (PTH) attack. The command line includes the `/user`, `/domain`, and `/ntlm` parameters, which are required to execute a PTH attack. The NTLM hash provided (B4B9B02E1F29A3CF193EAB28C8D617D3F327) is used to authenticate to the hardened PC without needing the actual password.
\n A PTH attack allows an attacker to use the hash of a user's password to authenticate to a system, effectively bypassing the need for the plaintext password. This technique is often used to move laterally within a network after initial compromise.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:
\n A. The attacker created fileless malware that was hosted by the banking platform: This option is less likely because the command history specifically points to a pass-the-hash attack using Mimikatz.
\n C. The attacker utilized living-off-the-land binaries to evade endpoint detection and response software: While living-off-the-land tactics might be in play, the core issue highlighted by the command history is the pass-the-hash attack.
\n D. The attacker socially engineered the accountant into performing bad transfers: Social engineering is a possible attack vector, but the given command history directly indicates a technical attack (pass-the-hash) rather than social manipulation.\n

\nIn summary, the presence of the `sekurlsa::pth` command in the Mimikatz execution strongly suggests a pass-the-hash attack, making option B the most accurate answer.\n

Citations:

\n
• Mimikatz Usage, https://github.com/gentilkiwi/mimikatz
\n
• Pass the Hash Attack, https://www.ired.team/offensive-security-experiments/active-directory-kerberos-abuse/pass-the-hash
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the best resource to consult for information on the most common application exploitation methods?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the answer to this question is generally agreed upon to be A. OWASP. The reason is that OWASP provides resources like the OWASP Top 10, which is a list of the most critical security risks for web applications. Other opinions, such as E (CVE), are not as accurate because while CVE is a comprehensive list of vulnerabilities, the question specifically asks for the most common application exploitation methods, and OWASP's Top 10 directly addresses this for web applications. There is also one comment suggests \"GPT\", but this answer does not contain enough information to answer the question.\n

\nThe suggested answer is A. OWASP.
\nReasoning: The question asks for the best resource on common application exploitation methods. OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project) is a non-profit organization focused on improving software security. It provides resources, tools, and documentation, including the OWASP Top 10, which lists the most critical security risks to web applications. This directly addresses common exploitation methods.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• B. STIX (Structured Threat Information Expression) is a standardized language for communicating cyber threat information. While useful for threat intelligence, it doesn't directly address application exploitation methods.
\n
• C. OVAL (Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language) is a language for describing system configurations and assessing vulnerabilities. It's a technical language and not a primary resource for common exploitation methods.
\n
• D. Threat intelligence feed provides data about potential threats, but it isn't focused solely on application exploitation methods. It provides more of a broad picture of the threat landscape, so it would not be the best fit for this particular question.
\n
• E. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a dictionary of publicly known security vulnerabilities. While it lists vulnerabilities, it does not categorize them by common exploitation methods in the same way that OWASP does, especially regarding application security.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst is reviewing the logs on an organization's DNS server and notices the following unusual snippet:



Which of the following attack techniques was most likely used?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Footprinting the internal network, which the reason is that AXFR (Authoritative Zone Transfer) requests can be used to gather information about an internal network. This is because AXFR requests allow attackers to obtain a complete list of DNS records, including hostnames and IP addresses, which provides a detailed map of the internal network, a key component of footprinting. This information can then be used for further attacks. Other answers are not explicitly mentioned as incorrect, but the comments focus on AXFR's role in the footprinting process.\n

\n I agree with the suggested answer. The most likely attack technique used, based on the provided DNS server log snippet, is C. Footprinting the internal network.

\nReasoning:
\n The log snippet shows a DNS query for AXFR (Authoritative Zone Transfer). AXFR requests are used to transfer the entire contents of a DNS zone from a primary DNS server to a secondary DNS server. However, if an attacker can initiate an AXFR request, they can obtain a complete list of DNS records, including hostnames, IP addresses, and other valuable information about the target network. This process is known as footprinting, which involves gathering information about a target network to identify potential vulnerabilities and attack vectors.

\n The query shown in the log is suspicious because AXFR requests are typically restricted to authorized DNS servers. A successful AXFR query from an unauthorized source indicates an attempt to gather information about the network's structure and resources, which is a crucial step in footprinting.

\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• A. Determining the organization's ISP-assigned address space: While an AXFR request *could* reveal some information about externally facing IP addresses, it is more focused on internal network details. There are more direct ways to determine an organization's ISP-assigned address space.
\n
• B. Bypassing the organization's DNS sinkholing: DNS sinkholing involves redirecting malicious domain names to a safe IP address. An AXFR request, while potentially revealing information about sinkholes, isn't primarily used for bypassing them.
\n
• D. Attempting to achieve initial access to the DNS server: While the information gleaned from a successful AXFR request *could* be used to facilitate initial access, the AXFR request itself is primarily an information-gathering technique. This choice is less direct than footprinting.
\n
• E. Exfiltrating data from fshare.int.complia.org: AXFR is about DNS zone data, not general data exfiltration. The specific domain `fshare.int.complia.org` does not change the fundamental purpose of an AXFR request.
\n

\n
\n

\nCitation:\n

\n
• DNS Zone Transfer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_zone_transfer
\n
• Footprinting (security), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footprinting_(security)
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst at an organization observed several user logins from outside the organization's network. The analyst determined that these logins were not performed by individuals within the organization. Which of the following recommendations would reduce the likelihood of future attacks? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is B. Conditional access policies and D. Implementation of additional authentication factors, which received the most agreement. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that conditional access policies can restrict access based on various conditions like location or risk level, effectively blocking unauthorized logins. Additionally, implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) provides an extra layer of security, making it significantly harder for unauthorized individuals to gain access, even with the correct credentials.

I agree with the suggested answer of B and D.
\nReasoning: The question describes unauthorized logins from outside the organization's network. The best ways to combat this are:\n

\n
• B. Conditional access policies: These policies allow you to control access to resources based on certain conditions, such as location, device, or user risk. This can prevent logins from unexpected locations.
\n
• D. Implementation of additional authentication factors: Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) adds an extra layer of security, requiring users to provide more than just a password to log in. This makes it significantly harder for unauthorized individuals to gain access, even if they have stolen credentials.
\n

\n
• A. Disciplinary actions for users: While important for internal policy enforcement, disciplinary actions don't directly prevent unauthorized external logins.
\n
• C. More regular account audits: Account audits are useful for identifying anomalies and potential security breaches, but they don't actively prevent unauthorized logins from happening in the first place. They are reactive, not proactive.
\n
• E. Enforcement of content filtering policies: Content filtering is primarily focused on controlling the type of content users can access and does not directly address the issue of unauthorized logins.
\n
• F. A review of user account permissions: Reviewing user account permissions is good practice for least privilege, but it doesn't directly address logins from outside the organization's network.
\n

These recommendations align with industry best practices for securing access to organizational resources.

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security team is addressing a risk associated with the attack surface of the organization's web application over port 443. Currently, no advanced network security capabilities are in place. Which of the following would be best to set up? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is AE. The comments generally agree that a Web Application Firewall (WAF) and a Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) are the most appropriate choices for enhancing advanced network security capabilities for a web application. The WAF provides application-level protection by filtering and monitoring HTTP/HTTPS traffic, and the NIDS monitors network traffic for suspicious activity. Some users have suggested other options like SIEM, but these suggestions received less agreement because SIEM primarily focuses on monitoring and reporting rather than direct prevention. HIPS is not the answer because it is for single host monitoring, and this question asks for network capabilities.

\nBased on the question and the discussion, I agree with the suggested answer of AE.
\nThe best options to set up, considering the need for advanced network security capabilities for a web application over port 443, are a WAF (Web Application Firewall) and a NIDS (Network Intrusion Detection System).\n
\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• \nWAF (Web Application Firewall): A WAF is specifically designed to protect web applications by filtering and monitoring HTTP/HTTPS traffic. It can prevent attacks such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and other common web application vulnerabilities. Given that the web application is running over port 443 (HTTPS), a WAF is a highly relevant security measure.\n
\n
• \nNIDS (Network Intrusion Detection System): A NIDS monitors network traffic for suspicious activity and known attack patterns. It can detect intrusions and alert security personnel to potential threats targeting the web application. Since the question specifies that no advanced network security capabilities are currently in place, implementing a NIDS would significantly improve network security monitoring and threat detection.\n
\n

\n
• \nHoneypot: A honeypot is a decoy system designed to attract and trap attackers. While honeypots can provide valuable information about attack techniques, they do not directly enhance the security of the web application itself. They are more useful for intelligence gathering.\n
\n
• \nCertificate Revocation List (CRL): A CRL is a list of digital certificates that have been revoked by the issuing certificate authority. While important for maintaining trust in SSL/TLS connections, a CRL does not provide advanced network security capabilities to protect against application-level attacks.\n
\n
• \nHIPS (Host Intrusion Prevention System): A HIPS is installed on individual hosts to detect and prevent malicious activity. While HIPS can be valuable, the question specifies a need for *network* security capabilities. HIPS focuses on the host and is not primarily a network-based solution.\n
\n
• \nSIEM (Security Information and Event Management): A SIEM system collects and analyzes security logs from various sources to provide a centralized view of security events. While a SIEM can be a valuable tool for security monitoring and incident response, it does not directly prevent attacks in the same way that a WAF or NIDS does. It is more of a monitoring and reporting tool rather than a preventative control.\n
\n

\n
• Web Application Firewall (WAF), https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cloud-security/what-is-a-web-application-firewall/
\n
• Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS), https://www.ibm.com/topics/intrusion-detection-system
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator would like to create a point-in-time backup of a virtual machine. Which of the following should the administrator use?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C) As We can take screenshot of current state of a VM., which the reason is that a snapshot captures the current state of a virtual machine, allowing for a rollback to that state if needed. While other options might involve data capture or analysis, the ability to capture the VM's state at a specific point in time is the core function of a snapshot.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is C. Snapshot.
\nReasoning: A snapshot is a point-in-time copy of a virtual machine's disk and memory state. It allows the administrator to revert the VM to the exact state it was in when the snapshot was taken. This is the most appropriate method for creating a point-in-time backup.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Replication: Replication creates a copy of the VM on a different storage location. This is for disaster recovery, not point-in-time backups.
\n
• B. Simulation: Simulation is a model of a system, and not related to backups.
\n
• D. Containerization: Containerization is a method of packaging applications and their dependencies. It is not directly related to point-in-time backups of virtual machines.
\n

\n The functionality of snapshots aligns directly with the requirement of creating a point-in-time backup of a virtual machine. This allows for restoration to a specific state if needed.\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Snapshot, https://www.vmware.com/topics/glossary/content/snapshot
\n
• Replication, https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/was/9.0.5?topic=technologies-replication
\n
• Containerization, https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security administrator notices numerous unused, non-compliant desktops are connected to the network. Which of the following actions would the administrator most likely recommend to the management team?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Decommissioning, which the reason is that decommissioning unused and non-compliant desktops will reduce security risks by removing potential points of vulnerability from the network and helps to ensure that only compliant and necessary devices are connected. Other opinions, such as isolating the desktops, are not correct because if they are unused and non-compliant, they should be decommissioned and removed.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of B. Decommissioning.
\nReasoning: The question explicitly states that the desktops are \"unused\" and \"non-compliant.\" Decommissioning is the most appropriate action for devices that are both unused and non-compliant. It reduces the attack surface and removes potential vulnerabilities from the network. If the devices are not needed, keeping them connected, even in an isolated state, introduces unnecessary risk and management overhead. Decommissioning fully addresses the problem by removing the devices entirely.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Monitoring: Monitoring might be a useful activity in general, but it does not address the immediate issue of non-compliant and unused devices. Monitoring would only tell you that the devices are still there and non-compliant, not remove the risk.
\n
• C. Patching: Patching applies to devices intended for use. If the desktops are unused, patching them is a waste of resources. Furthermore, the question specifies that the desktops are \"non-compliant\" which may involve more than just patching (e.g., outdated software, incorrect configurations).
\n
• D. Isolating: Isolating is a reasonable security measure for devices that may be compromised or untrusted but are still required. However, the question states that the devices are \"unused\", so there is no business need to keep them on the network, even in an isolated segment. Decommissioning is a more effective and efficient solution in this case.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a common data removal option for companies that want to wipe sensitive data from hard drives in a repeatable manner but allow the hard drives to be reused?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Sanitization, which the reason is that sanitization involves methods like overwriting the data multiple times to ensure that the data cannot be recovered and the drives can be reused safely. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A. Sanitization.
\nReasoning:
\nSanitization is the process of securely removing data from a storage device in a way that ensures the data cannot be recovered using standard forensic techniques, while still allowing the device to be reused. This often involves overwriting the data multiple times with different patterns.
\n

\n
• Sanitization is a data removal method that allows for reuse of the hard drives.
\n

\n
• Formatting: Quick formatting only removes the file system, leaving the data intact and easily recoverable. A full format overwrites the data, but is generally less thorough than sanitization.
\n
• Degaussing: This method uses a strong magnetic field to erase data, but it typically renders the hard drive unusable. Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of reusability.
\n
• Defragmentation: This process reorganizes files on a hard drive to improve performance; it does not remove or wipe data.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization wants to improve the company's security authentication method for remote employees. Given the following requirements:

•\tMust work across SaaS and internal network applications
•\tMust be device manufacturer agnostic
•\tMust have offline capabilities

Which of the following would be the most appropriate authentication method?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: D. Time-based tokens. From the internet discussion, which has been going on from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is time-based tokens, which the reason is that time-based tokens are used in two-factor authentication (2FA) systems. They generate a unique code that changes periodically, work across various platforms, and can be used offline. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Time-based tokens.

\nReasoning: Time-based tokens, commonly used in multi-factor authentication (MFA) systems, effectively address the requirements outlined in the question:\n

\n
• Works across SaaS and internal network applications: Time-based tokens can be integrated with a wide variety of applications, both cloud-based (SaaS) and those hosted on internal networks. This versatility is a key advantage.
\n
• Must be device manufacturer agnostic: Time-based token solutions are generally compatible with a range of devices (smartphones, tablets, computers) regardless of the manufacturer. This ensures that all remote employees can use the authentication method.
\n
• Must have offline capabilities: Some time-based token solutions, particularly those that use a software authenticator app on a mobile device, can generate codes even when the device is offline. This is crucial for employees who may need to authenticate without an internet connection.
\n

\n
• A. Username and password: While ubiquitous, username and password alone is the least secure option and doesn't fulfill the need for improved security authentication. It does not inherently support offline capabilities.
\n
• B. Biometrics: Biometrics can be device-dependent (e.g., requiring a fingerprint scanner or facial recognition camera), which could violate the requirement for device manufacturer agnosticism. Also, biometric authentication typically requires online connectivity to a central server for verification, hindering offline use.
\n
• C. SMS verification: SMS verification is vulnerable to SIM swapping and interception, making it less secure. It also requires cellular connectivity, which may not always be available.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security officer is implementing a security awareness program and has placed security-themed posters around the building and assigned online user training. Which of the following will the security officer most likely implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Phishing campaign, which the reason is that a phishing campaign is the most effective way to test and improve employee's ability to recognize and respond to phishing attempts, especially after conducting security awareness program such as placing security-themed posters and assigning online training.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most likely next step is C. Phishing campaign.
\nReasoning: The question describes a security awareness program that includes posters and online training. To gauge the effectiveness of this program, a phishing campaign would be the most logical next step. This allows the security officer to assess how well employees can identify and respond to phishing attempts after receiving the training. It provides practical feedback on the program's success and highlights areas where further training may be needed.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• A. Password policy: While a password policy is crucial for security, it's a foundational element, not a direct assessment of a security awareness program's effectiveness.
\n
• B. Access badges: Access badges control physical access and are not directly related to testing the effectiveness of security awareness training on phishing.
\n
• D. Risk assessment: A risk assessment is a broader security activity and not a direct measure of the security awareness program's impact on employee susceptibility to phishing.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA malicious update was distributed to a common software platform and disabled services at many organizations. Which of the following best describes this type of vulnerability?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Supply Chain, which the reason is that the consensus highlights how the vulnerability arises from malicious updates affecting software platforms relied upon by numerous organizations, emphasizing the risks associated with third-party software and dependencies and exploiting vulnerabilities in the network of trusted vendors or suppliers.\n

Here's a breakdown:

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Supply chain.
\nReasoning: The question describes a scenario where a malicious update, distributed through a common software platform, disabled services across numerous organizations. This directly aligns with the concept of a supply chain attack. A supply chain attack occurs when an attacker compromises a vendor or supplier in the software or hardware supply chain to distribute malicious code to the vendor's customers. In this case, the malicious update acts as the compromised element in the supply chain, affecting all organizations that rely on the software platform. The core idea of supply chain attacks is exploiting the trust relationship between organizations and their vendors. The impact is often widespread, as seen in the question's scenario.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• \nA. DDoS attack: A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack aims to overwhelm a system with traffic, making it unavailable. While disruptive, it doesn't involve malicious updates or compromised software platforms, thus doesn't fit the question scenario.\n
\n
• \nB. Rogue employee & C. Insider threat: While a rogue employee or insider threat can cause damage, the question specifically mentions a malicious update distributed through a common software platform. This indicates an external compromise of the supply chain rather than an internal actor. Insider threats involve individuals within the organization exploiting their access, whereas this scenario points to a vulnerability originating outside the organizations being affected.\n
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Supply chain attack, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/understanding-supply-chain-risks
\n
• What is a Supply Chain Attack?, https://www. Crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/supply-chain-attack/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company web server is initiating outbound traffic to a low-reputation, public IP on non-standard pat. The web server is used to present an unauthenticated page to clients who upload images the company. An analyst notices a suspicious process running on the server hat was not created by the company development team. Which of the following is the most likely explanation for his security incident?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer is A. A web shell has been deployed to the server, which the reason is that the uploaded image file is actually a web shell. This shell would allow the attacker to gain unauthorized access and control over the server. The outbound traffic to a low-reputation public IP and use of a non-standard port are consistent with command-and-control (C2) communication often associated with web shell activity.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most likely explanation for this security incident is that a web shell has been deployed to the server through the page (Option A).
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe scenario describes a web server that allows unauthenticated image uploads. This is a common attack vector. If the server doesn't properly sanitize or validate uploaded files, an attacker could upload a file disguised as an image but containing malicious code (e.g., a web shell written in PHP, ASP, or similar scripting language). Once uploaded, the attacker could then access this file through a web browser, executing the code on the server. The suspicious process running on the server that was not created by the company development team strongly suggests unauthorized code execution.
\nThe outbound traffic to a low-reputation, public IP on a non-standard port is indicative of command-and-control (C2) communication, which is often associated with web shells. The web shell allows the attacker to remotely control the compromised server, and this control can include initiating connections to external servers.
\n
\nWhy the other options are less likely:
\n* **Option B (A vulnerability has been exploited to deploy a worm to the server):** While possible, a worm typically spreads to other systems. The description focuses on a single server and a suspicious process, making a web shell more direct explanation. Additionally, exploiting a vulnerability to deploy a worm is a more complex process than uploading a web shell in an image.
\n* **Option C (Malicious insiders are using the server to mine cryptocurrency):** While insiders could potentially use the server for cryptocurrency mining, the outbound traffic to a low-reputation IP and non-standard port doesn't directly support this. Cryptocurrency mining typically involves connections to mining pools, but the \"low-reputation\" aspect is more indicative of a compromised system communicating with a malicious actor.
\n* **Option D (Attackers have deployed a rootkit Trojan to the server over an exposed RDP port):** While an exposed RDP port is a security risk, there is no mention of RDP being used in the question. The unauthenticated image upload page is a more direct and readily exploitable attack vector in this scenario. Furthermore, rootkit deployment is often more complex than simply uploading a web shell.
\n

\n
• OWASP Web Shells, https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/latest/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/07-Input_Validation_Testing/12-Testing_for_Web_Shell
\n
• SANS Institute, Understanding Web Shells: An Attacker's Pervasive Tool, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/36443/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization requests a third-party full-spectrum analysis of its supply chain. Which of the following would the analysis team use to meet this requirement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

D. Illumination tool is the suggested answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Illumination tool, which the reason is that it is specifically designed for a comprehensive overview and analysis of a supply chain, identifying risks, vulnerabilities, and potential points of failure across the entire spectrum. Other answers, such as SCAP, vulnerability scanner, and penetration test, are more focused on cybersecurity aspects and not the broader supply chain visibility required for full-spectrum evaluation.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Illumination tool.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe question asks for a \"full-spectrum analysis\" of a supply chain. This implies a broad, comprehensive assessment covering various aspects, not just cybersecurity vulnerabilities. An illumination tool is designed to provide exactly this kind of holistic view.
\n
\nAn illumination tool provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the entire supply chain, identifying risks, vulnerabilities, and potential points of failure. This aligns with the requirement for a 'full-spectrum' analysis, which requires insight into many facets of the supply chain beyond IT security.
\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• A. Vulnerability scanner: Vulnerability scanners are primarily focused on identifying security weaknesses in systems and applications. While important, this is a narrow focus compared to a full-spectrum supply chain analysis. It doesn't cover other supply chain risks like financial stability of suppliers, geopolitical risks, or ethical sourcing.
\n
• B. Penetration test: Similar to vulnerability scanners, penetration tests are security-focused. They simulate attacks to identify exploitable vulnerabilities. Again, too narrow for a full-spectrum analysis.
\n
• C. SCAP: SCAP (Security Content Automation Protocol) is a framework for automating security configuration and vulnerability assessment. It's a useful tool for compliance and security management, but it doesn't provide the broad, end-to-end visibility required for a supply chain risk analysis. SCAP focuses on the configuration and security posture of systems, not the broader supply chain.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator deployed a monitoring solution that does not require installation on the endpoints that the solution is monitoring. Which of the following is described in this scenario?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion within the past year, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is agentless monitoring does not require the installation of software on the target device, utilizing standard protocols to gather information. This approach is less intrusive and demands fewer resources.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nThe question describes a monitoring solution that doesn't require installation on endpoints. This is the defining characteristic of an agentless solution.\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nAn agentless monitoring solution gathers data from devices without installing software (agents) on them. It relies on existing protocols like SNMP, SSH, or WMI to collect information remotely. This is less resource-intensive and easier to deploy than agent-based solutions.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Client-based solution: This is the opposite of what's described. A client-based solution requires software to be installed on the endpoint.
\n
• C. Open port: While agentless solutions do use open ports to communicate, the term \"open port\" itself doesn't describe the monitoring solution. It's a component, not the whole solution.
\n
• D. File-based solution: This isn't a standard term in monitoring. It might refer to log file analysis, but agentless solutions don't necessarily rely on files. They can use various protocols.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Agentless Monitoring: A Complete Guide, https://www.paessler.com/it-explained/agentless-monitoring
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst is reviewing the source code of an application in order to identify misconfigurations and vulnerabilities. Which of the following kinds of analysis best describes this review?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is static analysis involves reviewing the source code of an application without executing it to identify misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and potential security flaws.
\n

\n
• Static code analysis is defined as reviewing the source code.
\n
• Dynamic analysis (A) involves analyzing the application while it is running, which is not the correct approach.
\n
• Gap analysis (C) identifies discrepancies between current security measures and desired standards.
\n
• Impact analysis (D) assesses the potential consequences of identified vulnerabilities.
\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer. The best description of the review is Static.\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nStatic analysis is the process of analyzing source code to identify vulnerabilities and misconfigurations without executing the program. This aligns directly with the question's scenario where a security analyst is reviewing source code.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• Dynamic analysis (A) involves running the application and observing its behavior, which is not what the analyst is doing in the question.
\n
• Gap analysis (C) is a comparison between an organization's security posture and industry best practices or compliance requirements, not a code review technique.
\n
• Impact analysis (D) assesses the potential damage caused by a security breach or vulnerability, which is a different type of security assessment.
\n

\nTherefore, static analysis is the most accurate description of the code review process in the given scenario.\n

\n
• Static code analysis - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_program_analysis
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following agreement types is used to limit external discussions?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. NDA: Non-Disclosure Agreement, which the reason is an NDA is a legal document that prohibits the disclosure of details agreed upon, including limiting external discussions.

\n I agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is B. NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement).
\nReasoning: An NDA is a legally binding agreement that establishes a confidential relationship. The parties signing the agreement agree that sensitive information they may obtain will not be made available to any others. This directly limits external discussions about specific information. This is especially important in business when trade secrets or proprietary information are involved.
\nReasons for eliminating other options:\n

\n
• A. BPA (Business Partnership Agreement): A BPA is a legal agreement that defines the terms of a business partnership, including each partner's responsibilities, profit and loss sharing, and decision-making processes. It doesn't primarily focus on limiting external discussions, but rather on governing the partnership itself.
\n
• C. SLA (Service Level Agreement): An SLA is an agreement between a service provider and a customer that defines the level of service expected by the customer. It focuses on the services provided, their availability, and performance metrics, not on restricting external discussions.
\n
• D. MSA (Master Service Agreement): An MSA is a contract between two parties where one party agrees to provide services to the other party on a recurring basis. While an MSA might include clauses about confidentiality, its primary purpose is not to limit external discussions in general but to establish the framework for future service agreements.
\n

\n Therefore, based on the question and available information, the best answer is B. NDA as it directly addresses the limitation of external discussions.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Non-disclosure agreement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst is evaluating a SaaS application that the human resources department would like to implement. The analyst requests a SOC 2 report from the SaaS vendor. Which of the following processes is the analyst most likely conducting?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q3 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is D. Due diligence. The comments agree with this answer because due diligence is the process of evaluating the security, compliance, and risk associated with a third-party vendor or service, such as a SaaS application, and requesting a SOC 2 report is a common part of this process. The other options are incorrect because:\n

\n
• Internal audit (A) refers to an organization's internal review of its own processes, not an external vendor.
\n
• Penetration testing (B) involves actively testing for vulnerabilities by simulating attacks, which is not applicable in this scenario.
\n
• Attestation (C) refers to a third-party audit or certification, such as the SOC 2 report itself, but the analyst is conducting due diligence by requesting the report.
\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer of D. Due diligence.
\nReasoning:\nThe scenario describes a security analyst evaluating a SaaS application for the HR department and requesting a SOC 2 report from the vendor. This action aligns directly with the definition of due diligence, which involves investigating and understanding the risks and security posture of a third-party vendor before engaging with them. Requesting a SOC 2 report is a standard practice in due diligence to assess the vendor's controls and compliance. This is substantiated by the definition of due diligence in a cybersecurity context, which emphasizes the importance of evaluating third-party risks. \n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• A. Internal audit: This is incorrect because an internal audit refers to an organization's review of its own processes and controls, not the evaluation of an external vendor.
\n
• B. Penetration testing: This is incorrect because penetration testing involves actively simulating attacks to identify vulnerabilities, which is a specific security assessment method, not the overall process of evaluating a vendor.
\n
• C. Attestation: This is incorrect because attestation refers to the result of an audit, such as the SOC 2 report itself. The analyst is performing due diligence by requesting and reviewing this attestation.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is used to conceal credit card information in a database log file?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Masking, which the reason is masking is used to conceal sensitive information like credit card numbers in log files by partially redacting the data (e.g., showing only the last four digits), ensuring it's not easily readable while maintaining some usability. Tokenization is also mentioned, it replaces the original data with a token, which is more for secure storage. Hashing is not suitable because it is a one-way function. Obfuscation is also not suitable because it is less structured and secure than masking.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Masking.

\nReasoning: Masking is the most suitable technique for concealing credit card information in database log files while still allowing for some level of usability. Masking typically involves replacing a portion of the data with asterisks or other characters, allowing analysts to identify patterns or troubleshoot issues without exposing the full credit card number. For instance, displaying only the last four digits of a credit card number while masking the rest is a common practice.

\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• Tokenization: Tokenization replaces sensitive data with non-sensitive substitutes called tokens. While very secure, it's more suitable for scenarios where the original data needs to be stored securely but isn't required for immediate analysis in its original form. It's less practical for log files where partial data might be needed for debugging or auditing.
\n
• Hashing: Hashing is a one-way function and irreversible, making it unsuitable for concealing data in log files where the original data, or a portion of it, might be required for analysis or auditing purposes. Hashing is primarily used for password storage or data integrity checks.
\n
• Obfuscation: Obfuscation is a more general technique that aims to make data or code difficult to understand. While it can be applied to sensitive data, it's less structured and secure than masking and tokenization. It may slow down someone trying to read the data, it does not replace the data with something else, or protect it like masking and tokenization would.
\n

Therefore, masking is the best choice for concealing credit card information in database log files while retaining some usability.

\n
• Masking is a better option when it comes to databases, because it still provides some of the information while hiding the more sensitive information.
\n

\nSupporting Citations:
\n

\n
• Data Masking Techniques: https://www.imperva.com/learn/data-security/data-masking/
\n
• Tokenization Definition: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/tokenization
\n
• Hashing Explanation: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/security/what-is-hashing/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSIMULATION
-

A systems administrator is configuring a site-to-site VPN between two branch offices. Some of the settings have already been configured correctly. The systems administrator has been provided the following requirements as part of completing the configuration:

•\tMost secure algorithms should be selected
•\tAll traffic should be encrypted over the VPN
•\tA secret password will be used to authenticate the two VPN concentrators


INSTRUCTIONS
-

Click on the two VPN Concentrators to configure the appropriate settings.

If at any time you would like to bring back the initial state of the simulation, please click the Reset All button.









\n

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is that the provided configuration details for VPN Concentrators 1 and 2, including the Phase 1 and Phase 2 settings, are correct. This is supported by the most upvoted and accepted comments which show the specific configurations for both VPN concentrators. Other opinions focused on specifics like the usage of PSK (Pre-Shared Key) for authentication, where some suggested PKI might be more secure, but it was clarified that the question specifically asks for PSK. Another comment suggested potential confusion around the local and remote network masks, but it was then clarified that the /24 notation is equivalent to the 255.255.255.0 subnet mask, thus confirming the correctness of the provided answer.

I agree with the suggested answer. The configuration provided in the image accurately reflects the requirements outlined in the question: employing secure algorithms, encrypting all traffic, and using a pre-shared key (PSK) for authentication.

\nHere's a breakdown of why the configuration is appropriate:\n

\n
• Most Secure Algorithms: The suggested answer employs AES256 for encryption and SHA256 for hashing, which are considered strong and secure algorithms for VPNs.
\n
• All Traffic Encrypted: Configuring both Phase 1 and Phase 2 settings ensures that the VPN tunnel is fully established and all data transmitted through it is encrypted.
\n
• PSK Authentication: The configuration uses a pre-shared key (PSK), which directly addresses the question's requirement to use a \"secret password\" for authentication.
\n

\nReason for agreeing with the Suggested Answer:
\nThe suggested answer effectively implements the requirements of strong encryption (AES256), secure hashing (SHA256), and PSK authentication, leading to a secure site-to-site VPN connection between the two branch offices.

\nReason for not choosing other answers:
\nWithout specific alternative answers to compare, it's difficult to provide concrete reasons for rejecting them. However, any alternative configuration that deviates from the suggested answer's use of strong encryption algorithms (AES256), secure hashing (SHA256), and PSK authentication would be less secure and fail to meet the requirements of the problem. Specifically, configurations using weaker encryption (e.g., DES, 3DES), weaker hashing (e.g., MD5, SHA1), or different authentication methods (without cause) should be rejected.\n

\n
• AES Encryption: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ztpf/1.1.0.15?topic=security-advanced-encryption-standard-aes
\n
• SHA256 Hashing: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-sha-256/
\n
• Pre-Shared Key (PSK): https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/pre-shared-key-psk
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization recently started hosting a new service that customers access through a web portal. A security engineer needs to add to the existing security devices a new solution to protect this new service. Which of the following is the engineer most likely to deploy?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. WAF (Web Application Firewall), which the reason is that a WAF is specifically designed to protect web applications by filtering, monitoring, and blocking HTTP/S traffic. It's most appropriate for web services accessed through a portal, as it helps to prevent common web-based attacks such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting (XSS). Other options like Layer 4 firewalls, NGFW, and UTM do not provide the specialized web application protection that a WAF offers.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, C. WAF (Web Application Firewall).
\nReasoning: A Web Application Firewall (WAF) is the most suitable solution to protect a new web service accessed through a web portal. WAFs are specifically designed to filter, monitor, and block HTTP/HTTPS traffic, thereby protecting against common web-based attacks like SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and other application-layer exploits. This is particularly important when hosting new services exposed to the internet.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Layer 4 firewall: Operates at the transport layer and primarily filters traffic based on IP addresses and ports. It lacks the application-level intelligence needed to protect against web application attacks.
\n
• B. NGFW (Next-Generation Firewall): Offers more advanced features than traditional firewalls, such as intrusion prevention and application awareness. While NGFWs can provide some web application protection, they are not as specialized as WAFs.
\n
• D. UTM (Unified Threat Management): A comprehensive security solution that combines multiple security features, including firewall, intrusion detection/prevention, antivirus, and VPN. While UTMs can offer broad protection, they may not provide the granular web application security offered by a dedicated WAF.
\n

\n Therefore, considering the specific requirement of protecting a new web service accessed through a web portal, a WAF is the most appropriate choice.\n

Citations:

\n
• What is a WAF?, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cloud-security/what-is-a-waf/
\n
• Next-generation firewall, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-a-next-generation-firewall
\n
• Unified Threat Management (UTM), https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/unified-threat-management-utm
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following topics would most likely be included within an organization's SDLC?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer D. From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is branch protection requirements, which the reason is that branch protection is directly related to the software development process, especially in version control and code management to ensure the integrity and quality of the software. \n Other opinions included penetration testing methodology and information security policy, but the comments stated that penetration testing is a part of security testing, but not directly tied to the SDLC phases and the information security policy is a broader organizational policy, not a part of SDLC.

\nI agree with the suggested answer D.
\nReasoning:
\nBranch protection requirements are directly related to the software development process, particularly in version control systems. They are implemented to ensure code integrity and quality by preventing direct commits to important branches, requiring code reviews, and enforcing other policies. This directly impacts how software is developed and maintained within the SDLC. Branch protection is specifically a part of the coding and integration stages of the SDLC.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Service-level agreements (SLAs) are contracts defining the level of service expected from a vendor or service provider. While important, they are not typically integrated into the SDLC itself.
\n
• B. Information security policy is a broad organizational policy that sets the framework for security. While it influences the SDLC, it is not a specific element within the SDLC phases themselves.
\n
• C. Penetration testing methodology is a part of security testing, which can be included as a phase in the SDLC, but the methodology itself is not inherently part of every SDLC. It is a security activity that validates the security implemented during the SDLC.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following control types is AUP an example of?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which is a managerial control. The reason is that the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) outlines guidelines and expectations for how users interact with an organization's systems, which falls under the category of management controls as it defines policies and procedures. Some comments referenced the Comptia SY0-701 study guide and other sources to support that AUP is a managerial control, ensuring security strategies align with its business goals. One comment, and some users, suggest that AUP can be operational control and define day-to-day practices, procedures, and standards. However, this opinion did not receive the most agreement from the internet.

I agree with the suggested answer. An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a document that outlines rules and restrictions for the proper use of an organization's assets, including computer systems, networks, data, and the internet. It sets expectations for user behavior and defines what activities are permitted or prohibited.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nAUPs are primarily examples of managerial controls because:
\n

\n
• They define policies and procedures related to security.
\n
• They are designed to influence the way people act.
\n
• They help align security with business objectives.
\n

\n
• Physical controls involve tangible security mechanisms, such as locks, fences, and security guards, which is not applicable to AUP.
\n
• Technical controls involve the use of technology to enforce security policies, such as firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and access control lists, which is not the primary function of an AUP.
\n
• Operational controls are the day-to-day procedures and practices that support the implementation of security policies. While an AUP may influence operational practices, its main function is to establish the overall policy framework.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization is adopting cloud services at a rapid pace and now has multiple SaaS applications in use. Each application has a separate log-in, so the security team wants to reduce the number of credentials each employee must maintain. Which of the following is the first step the security team should take?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Select an IdP (Identity Provider), which the reason is an IdP centralizes authentication and allows users to log in once and gain access to multiple applications, reducing the number of credentials employees must maintain. After selecting an IdP, technologies like SAML or OAuth can be configured to manage authentication. Other opinions such as password vaulting (C) were suggested, but the comments pointed out that password vaulting doesn't reduce the need for multiple logins nor does it provide the benefits of centralized identity management.\n

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Select an IdP.
\nReasoning:
\n The question describes a scenario where an organization is using multiple SaaS applications, each requiring separate login credentials. The security team wants to reduce the number of credentials each employee must manage. The first step in addressing this issue is to select an Identity Provider (IdP). An IdP centralizes authentication, allowing users to log in once and gain access to multiple applications. This approach significantly reduces the number of credentials users need to maintain and simplifies identity management. Selecting an IdP is a foundational step before implementing technologies like SAML or OAuth. These technologies are used to facilitate single sign-on (SSO) *after* an IdP is chosen and configured.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• \nA. Enable SAML: Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) is an XML-based standard for exchanging authentication and authorization data between security domains (an identity provider and a service provider). Enabling SAML is a step that comes *after* selecting an IdP. SAML relies on having a central identity provider in place.\n
\n
• \nB. Create OAuth tokens: OAuth (Open Authorization) is an authorization framework that enables applications to obtain limited access to user accounts on an HTTP service. Similar to SAML, OAuth is a technology that is used *after* an IdP has been selected and implemented. It does not address the initial problem of having multiple separate logins.\n
\n
• \nC. Use password vaulting: Password vaulting helps users manage their existing passwords, but it does not reduce the *number* of credentials required. Users would still need to create and manage separate logins for each application. Furthermore, password vaulting does not provide the centralized identity management benefits that an IdP offers.\n
\n

\n In summary, selecting an IdP is the logical first step in centralizing identity management and reducing the number of credentials users need to maintain across multiple SaaS applications.\n

The final answer is D. Select an IdP.

\n Citations:\n

\n
• SAML - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Assertion_Markup_Language
\n
• OAuth - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth
\n
• Identity management - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company's online shopping website became unusable shortly after midnight on January 30, 2023. When a security analyst reviewed the database server, the analyst noticed the following code used for backing up data:



Which of the following should the analyst do next?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Suggested Another Answer From the internet discussion, which includes posts from the Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is B, as the comments suggested that reviewing Web Application Firewall (WAF) logs is the best first step to determine if there's an external command injection attack. The reasoning is that the code, which drops the database on a specific date, may be triggered by an external attack. And A (checking for recently terminated DBAs) is less relevant in this situation.

\n I agree with the suggested answer from the discussion, which is B (Review WAF logs for evidence of command injection).\n
\nReasoning:\n
\n The provided code snippet shows a database backup script that includes a potentially malicious command to drop the database on a specific date (January 30, 2023). The website outage occurring shortly after midnight on that date strongly suggests that this command was executed. Since the code itself is suspicious, the most relevant next step is to determine how this code was triggered. A Web Application Firewall (WAF) sits in front of web applications and can log potential attacks, including command injection attempts. By reviewing the WAF logs, the analyst can look for evidence of an external attacker exploiting a vulnerability to inject this malicious code or trigger its execution. This provides valuable information on the attack vector and helps identify the root cause of the incident.\n
\nWhy other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• A (Check for recently terminated DBAs): While insider threats are a possibility, this is less likely than an external attack in this scenario. Checking WAF logs provides more immediate information about potential external command injection attempts, if it is indeed from outside, it can save a lot of time.
\n
• C (Scan the database server for malware): Scanning for malware is a good practice, but it's not the most immediate and relevant step in this situation. The analyst already has a strong indicator of a specific malicious command being executed. Identifying how this command was triggered is the priority.
\n
• D (Search the web server for ransomware notes): The scenario describes a database outage due to a likely malicious command. Ransomware typically involves encrypting data and demanding payment, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Searching for ransomware notes is not the most relevant action in this situation.
\n

\nIn summary, B is the best next step to investigate potential command injection.\n

Citations:

\n
• OWASP, Command Injection, https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/OS_Command_Injection
\n
• Imperva, Web Application Firewall (WAF), https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/web-application-firewall-waf/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would be the best way to test resiliency in the event of a primary power failure?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q2 2021 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is D. Production failover, which received the most agreement from the internet. The reasoning is that production failover directly tests the actual system response to a power failure by switching to a backup system in a real-world environment, validating real-world backup power and system recovery capabilities. Other opinions such as A, C were suggested, but were refuted because A, parallel processing is not related to power resiliency, and C, simulation testing, does not fully replicate the impact of a real production failover.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Production failover.

\nReasoning:
\nProduction failover involves intentionally switching from the primary system to a backup system to ensure business continuity during an outage or disaster. Simulating a primary power failure and initiating a failover to a secondary power source or backup system is the most direct and effective way to test resiliency.
\nProduction failover directly assesses how the systems and applications respond to a real-world power outage scenario. This includes testing the effectiveness of backup power solutions (e.g., generators, UPS), the failover process itself, and the ability of the backup systems to take over the workload seamlessly. This ensures minimal disruption and validates recovery capabilities under pressure.\n\n
\nWhy the other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• A. Parallel processing: Parallel processing is a method of simultaneously using multiple processors or computers to solve a single problem. It focuses on improving processing speed and efficiency, but it doesn't directly address power failure resiliency. While it can contribute to redundancy in some architectures, it is not a primary test for power failure scenarios.
\n
• B. Tabletop exercise: A tabletop exercise is a discussion-based activity where participants walk through a simulated emergency situation to evaluate plans and procedures. While useful for planning and training, it doesn't involve actual system testing or validation of failover capabilities under real conditions.
\n
• C. Simulation testing: Simulation testing involves creating a model of a system or environment to test its behavior under different conditions. While this can be valuable for identifying potential weaknesses, it is less comprehensive than a real production failover, which validates the entire failover process and backup system's capabilities in a live environment. A simulation may not accurately replicate all the complexities and dependencies of a live production environment.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would be the most appropriate way to protect data in transit?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. TLS 1.3, which the reason is that TLS 1.3 is the most appropriate protocol for protecting data in transit as it provides encryption, integrity, and secure authentication between two communicating parties. SHA-256 is a hashing algorithm, primarily used for ensuring data integrity, not for encrypting data in transit. SSL 3.0 is an outdated and vulnerable protocol. AES-256 is an encryption algorithm, typically used for data at rest or as part of protocols like TLS for data in transit.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most appropriate way to protect data in transit is C. TLS 1.3.
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• TLS 1.3 (Transport Layer Security) is a cryptographic protocol designed to provide secure communication over a network. It encrypts data in transit, ensuring confidentiality and integrity, and provides authentication.
\n
• TLS 1.3 is the most up-to-date and secure version of the TLS protocol.
\n

\n
• A. SHA-256: SHA-256 (Secure Hash Algorithm 256-bit) is a hashing algorithm used for verifying data integrity. It does not encrypt data, so it does not protect data in transit.
\n
• B. SSL 3.0: SSL 3.0 (Secure Sockets Layer) is an outdated and insecure protocol. It has known vulnerabilities and should not be used.
\n
• D. AES-256: AES-256 (Advanced Encryption Standard with a 256-bit key) is a symmetric encryption algorithm. While AES is used within protocols like TLS to encrypt the data, AES-256 itself doesn't handle the key exchange, authentication, and other aspects of secure communication that TLS provides. AES-256 is often used for data at rest.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a common, passive reconnaissance technique employed by penetration testers in the early phases of an engagement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agreed with the suggested answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion is that the answer to this question is A. OSINT. The reasoning is that OSINT (Open-source intelligence) is a passive reconnaissance technique where information is gathered from publicly available sources like websites and social media without direct interaction with the target systems. The other options such as port scanning, pivoting, and exploit validation are active techniques and are usually used later in the penetration testing process. The comments cited that OSINT helps in identifying potential vulnerabilities and understanding the target's environment before more intrusive methods are used.\n

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A. Open-source intelligence.
\nReasoning:\nOpen-source intelligence (OSINT) is a passive reconnaissance technique. This means it involves gathering information from publicly available sources without directly interacting with the target system. This is typically done in the early phases of a penetration test to gain an understanding of the target's environment and identify potential vulnerabilities. Common OSINT sources include websites, social media, public records, and news articles.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Port scanning: This is an active reconnaissance technique that involves sending packets to a target system to determine which ports are open.
\n
• C. Pivoting: This is a technique used to move from one compromised system to other systems on the same network. It is an active technique and typically performed later in the penetration testing process.
\n
• D. Exploit validation: This involves attempting to exploit known vulnerabilities on a target system to confirm their existence and assess their impact. This is an active technique and performed even later in the process than pivoting.
\n

Therefore, OSINT is the only passive reconnaissance technique listed, making it the correct answer.

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following threat actors is the most likely to seek financial gain through the use of ransomware attacks?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is ORGANIZED CRIME (A), which the reason is that it is the correct answer.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nOrganized crime is the most likely threat actor to seek financial gain through ransomware attacks.
\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Organized crime groups are primarily motivated by financial profit. Ransomware attacks provide a direct and often lucrative method for generating revenue.
\n
• Ransomware is a type of malware that encrypts a victim's files, making them inaccessible until a ransom is paid. This aligns perfectly with the financial goals of organized crime.
\n

\n
• Insider threats: While insider threats can cause significant damage, their motivation is usually not solely financial gain. It can be revenge, sabotage, or even unintentional actions.
\n
• Nation-state: Nation-state actors are typically motivated by espionage, political objectives, or disruption of critical infrastructure, not direct financial gain. While they may use ransomware as a tool, financial gain is not their primary objective.
\n
• Hacktivists: Hacktivists are driven by ideological or political motives. While they might cause financial damage as a result of their actions, their primary goal is not financial profit.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would a systems administrator follow when upgrading the firmware of an organization’s router?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q4 2024, the consensus is that the answer is D. Maintenance window. The reason is that when upgrading firmware, a systems administrator would typically follow a maintenance window. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of D. Maintenance window.
\nReasoning: When upgrading the firmware of a router, a systems administrator should follow a pre-defined maintenance window to minimize disruption to users. This involves scheduling the upgrade for a time when network usage is low, notifying users in advance, and having a rollback plan in case the upgrade fails. This ensures minimal impact on network services and allows for troubleshooting if issues arise after the upgrade.\n

\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Software development life cycle: The software development life cycle (SDLC) is a structured process for developing software applications. While firmware is software, the SDLC is not directly applicable to the process of upgrading existing firmware.
\n
• B. Risk tolerance: Risk tolerance refers to the level of risk an organization is willing to accept. While risk assessment is important before any system change, risk tolerance itself isn't something you \"follow\" during an upgrade. It influences the decision of whether to proceed, but the maintenance window dictates *how* the upgrade is executed.
\n
• C. Certificate signing request: A certificate signing request (CSR) is used to request a digital certificate from a certificate authority. This is not directly related to upgrading router firmware.
\n

\nTherefore, a maintenance window is the most appropriate answer in this scenario.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe security team has been asked to only enable host A (10.2.2.7) and host B (10.3.9.9) to the new isolated network segment (10.9.8.14) that provides access to legacy devices.
Access from all other hosts should be blocked. Which of the following entries would need to be added on the firewall?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n

\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tB.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n

\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tC.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\n Most Voted\n

\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tD.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is most comments agree with this answer and indicate it's the correct option based on the question focusing on a single IP address using a /32 subnet mask. The question is asking for single IP address, for single Ip Address, the subnet mask is used as /32 .

\nI agree with the suggested answer C.
\nThe question requires allowing only two specific hosts (10.2.2.7 and 10.3.9.9) to access the isolated network segment (10.9.8.14) and blocking all other hosts. The key here is to ensure that the rules are specific to the individual hosts. This is best accomplished using a /32 subnet mask, which specifies a single IP address. Rules must be created for each allowed host. Also, a final rule must be created to block all other traffic to the network segment.
\nThe reason of choosing this answer:
\nThis answer provides the necessary rules to allow only host A (10.2.2.7) and host B (10.3.9.9) to access the 10.9.8.14 network, while blocking all other traffic. The explicit \"deny any\" rule ensures that any traffic not specifically allowed is blocked, fulfilling the security requirement.
\nThe reason of not choosing the other answers:
\nA: This option does not provide a \"deny any\" rule, so it does not fulfill the question requirements.
\nB: This option uses a /24 subnet mask. This subnet mask is used for a range of IP address, which does not fulfill the question requirements.
\nD: This option is incorrect because it uses an incorrect subnet mask (/24 instead of /32 for individual hosts) and lacks a default deny rule to block all other traffic.\n

\n
• Citations:
\n
• Subnet Mask Definition, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/network-layer/what-is-a-subnet-mask/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSIMULATION
-

A security analyst is creating the first draft of a network diagram for the company’s new customer-facing payment application that will be hosted by a third-party cloud service provider.


INSTRUCTIONS
-

Click the ? to select the appropriate icons to create a secure, redundant web application. Then use the dropdown menu to select the appropriate subnet type. Every space in the diagram must be filled.

If at any time you would like to bring back the initial state of the simulation, please click the Reset All button.



\n

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is that the correct order should be: WAF at the top, followed by Load Balancers in the public subnet, then scalable instances, and finally the database. The reasoning is based on security and redundancy best practices. Specifically, WAFs protect against web attacks as the first point of entry, Load Balancers distribute traffic and should be redundant, and the database should be in the private subnet for secure data storage. The discussions highlight the importance of understanding the placement of security controls and infrastructure components in a multi-tier application architecture.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe solution proposes a well-structured, secure, and redundant web application architecture suitable for a customer-facing payment application hosted in a third-party cloud environment. The architecture incorporates essential components like WAF, load balancers, autoscaling instances, and private subnets for databases, aligning with security and high-availability best practices.\n
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe architecture correctly places the WAF at the entry point to filter malicious traffic, followed by load balancers to distribute traffic across multiple instances for redundancy and scalability. The instances, designed to handle application workloads, are configured for autoscaling to dynamically adjust to changing demand. Critically, the database instances are correctly placed in a private subnet to restrict direct internet access, enhancing data security. This layered approach provides robust protection and ensures high availability.
\n
\nThe placement of components and subnet types is appropriate because:
\n

\n
• WAF (Web Application Firewall): Positioned at the top to inspect incoming traffic, mitigating web-based attacks before they reach the application.
  \n This aligns with best practices for securing web applications by filtering out malicious traffic at the perimeter.
\n
• Load Balancer: Distributes incoming traffic across multiple instances, enhancing availability and responsiveness. Located in the public subnet to be accessible from the internet.
  \n Load balancers are essential for distributing traffic and preventing overload on individual instances.
\n
• Autoscaling Instances: Dynamically adjust the number of instances based on demand, ensuring optimal performance and cost efficiency. Placed behind the load balancer to handle traffic.
  \n Autoscaling ensures the application can handle varying levels of traffic without manual intervention.
\n
• Private Subnet for Database: Secures sensitive data by preventing direct internet access, reducing the attack surface.
  \n Databases should always be placed in private subnets to protect sensitive data.
\n

\n
• Placing the database in a public subnet would expose it to direct internet access, creating a significant security risk.
\n
• Omitting the WAF would leave the application vulnerable to web-based attacks.
\n
• Removing the load balancer would eliminate redundancy and create a single point of failure.
\n
• Not using autoscaling would result in either under-provisioning during peak loads or over-provisioning during low loads, leading to either performance issues or unnecessary costs.
\n

\n
• Web Application Firewall (WAF), https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cloud-security/what-is-a-web-application-firewall-waf/
\n
• Load Balancing, https://www.nginx.com/resources/glossary/load-balancing/
\n
• Autoscaling, https://aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/
\n
• Subnet, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/network-layer/what-is-a-subnet/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator needs to ensure the secure communication of sensitive data within the organization’s private cloud. Which of the following is the best choice for the administrator to implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. IPSec (Internet Protocol Security), which the reason is IPSec provides confidentiality, data integrity, and authentication by authenticating and encrypting each IP packet in a communication session, and is commonly used for creating secure Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), making it ideal for securing communication in a private cloud.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best choice for a systems administrator to implement secure communication of sensitive data within the organization’s private cloud is A. IPSec.
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• IPSec (Internet Protocol Security) provides a suite of protocols to ensure secure communication over IP networks. It offers confidentiality, integrity, and authentication by encrypting and authenticating each IP packet. This makes it highly suitable for securing communication within a private cloud environment, especially for creating VPNs or securing inter-server communication.
\n
• SHA-1 is a hashing algorithm used for verifying data integrity, but it does not provide encryption for secure communication. Moreover, SHA-1 is considered cryptographically broken and should not be used for new implementations.
\n
• RSA is an asymmetric encryption algorithm. While it can be used for secure communication, it's generally used for key exchange or digital signatures, not for encrypting large volumes of data due to its computational cost. IPSec often uses RSA for initial key exchange, but the bulk encryption is done with symmetric algorithms.
\n
• TGT (Ticket Granting Ticket) is part of the Kerberos authentication protocol, used for granting access to services within a domain. It is not directly involved in securing communication channels.
\n

\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• SHA-1 is outdated and only provides integrity checks, not encryption.
\n
• RSA is typically used for key exchange, not bulk data encryption.
\n
• TGT is for authentication, not securing communications channels directly.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following should an internal auditor check for first when conducting an audit of the organization’s risk management program?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: A. Policies and procedures. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Policies and procedures, which the reason is that these documents form the foundation of the risk management program, outlining the organization’s approach, goals, roles, responsibilities, and processes for managing risks.\n

I agree with the suggested answer: A. Policies and procedures.
\nReasoning: When auditing an organization's risk management program, the auditor should first examine the policies and procedures. Policies and procedures are the foundational documents that define the risk management program. These documents outline the organization's approach to risk management, its goals, the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, and the processes for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. Without well-defined and implemented policies and procedures, the risk management program will likely be ineffective. Reviewing them first allows the auditor to understand the intended operation of the risk management framework and then assess whether it is being followed and is effective.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• B. Asset management: Asset management is a component of risk management, but the policies and procedures provide the overall framework within which asset management is conducted.
\n
• C. Vulnerability assessment: A vulnerability assessment is a specific activity performed within the risk management process, used to identify weaknesses. It's a downstream activity that is guided by the overarching policies and procedures.
\n
• D. Business impact analysis: A business impact analysis (BIA) identifies the potential effects of disruptions to business operations. Similar to a vulnerability assessment, a BIA is part of the overall risk management process, but is governed by the established policies and procedures.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following activities are associated with vulnerability management? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is AB, which the reason is that comments agree with the answer choices Reporting and Prioritization as core parts of the vulnerability management process. Reporting involves documenting and communicating vulnerabilities, while Prioritization focuses on addressing the most critical vulnerabilities first. Other opinions suggest that Containment is also a correct answer, but the comments state that containment is associated with incident response and not vulnerability management. Also, other options such as Exploiting and Tabletop exercise are not considered as part of vulnerability management.

I agree with the suggested answer of AB.
\nReasoning: Vulnerability management is a cyclical process that includes identifying, classifying, remediating, and mitigating vulnerabilities. Reporting and Prioritization are key aspects of this process. Reporting involves documenting and communicating the findings of vulnerability assessments to relevant stakeholders. Prioritization involves ranking vulnerabilities based on severity, risk, and potential impact to the organization, ensuring that the most critical vulnerabilities are addressed first.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• C. Exploiting: Exploiting vulnerabilities is part of penetration testing, not vulnerability management.
\n
• D. Correlation: While correlating data can be useful in identifying vulnerabilities, it is not a primary activity of vulnerability management itself.
\n
• E. Containment: Containment is more closely associated with incident response, aiming to limit the damage caused by an active security incident.
\n
• F. Tabletop exercise: Tabletop exercises are simulations used to test incident response plans and are not directly part of vulnerability management.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Vulnerability Management, https://www.tenable.com/cyber-exposure/vulnerability-management
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn administrator wants to perform a risk assessment without using proprietary company information. Which of the following methods should the administrator use to gather information?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Open-source intelligence, which the reason is OSINT is used to gather publicly available information like websites, social media, forums and other publicly accessible data to perform a risk assessment. This allows the administrator to gather useful insights without accessing proprietary company information.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe question asks for a method to perform a risk assessment *without* using proprietary company information. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is the best choice because it relies on publicly available information.
\n
\nHere's a detailed breakdown:\n

\n
• C. Open-source intelligence: This is the correct answer. OSINT involves gathering information from publicly available sources. This includes websites, social media, news articles, and other accessible data. It allows for risk assessment without needing to access internal or confidential company information, aligning perfectly with the question's requirements.
\n
• A. Network scanning: Network scanning involves actively probing a network to identify open ports, services, and vulnerabilities. This would typically be performed *on* the company's network and would therefore require access to proprietary company information, making it unsuitable.
\n
• B. Penetration testing: Penetration testing is a simulated attack on a system or network to identify vulnerabilities. Like network scanning, penetration testing requires direct interaction with the target system and involves proprietary company assets, making it unsuitable.
\n
• D. Configuration auditing: Configuration auditing involves reviewing the configuration settings of systems and devices. This also requires access to internal systems and proprietary information to determine if they adhere to security best practices or organizational policies.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator is concerned about vulnerabilities within cloud computing instances. Which of the following is most important for the administrator to consider when architecting a cloud computing environment?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. VM escape, which the reason is that in a cloud computing environment, particularly one using virtualization, VM escape is a critical vulnerability to consider. It occurs when an attacker exploits a vulnerability in a virtual machine (VM) to \"escape\" the VM and gain access to the underlying hypervisor or other VMs running on the same physical host, posing a significant security risk in multi-tenant environments, such as those found in cloud computing.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is C. VM escape.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nIn a cloud computing environment, especially those heavily reliant on virtualization, VM escape is a paramount security consideration. This vulnerability allows an attacker to breach the confines of a virtual machine (VM) and gain unauthorized access to the hypervisor or other VMs residing on the same physical host. Given the multi-tenant nature of most cloud environments, where numerous VMs from different customers share the same hardware, a successful VM escape can have catastrophic consequences. It could lead to data breaches, service disruptions, and a loss of trust. Therefore, when designing a cloud infrastructure, it is crucial to implement robust security measures to prevent and detect VM escape attempts. These measures include keeping hypervisors and guest operating systems up to date with the latest security patches, implementing strong access controls, and using intrusion detection systems to monitor for suspicious activity.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:
\n

\n
• A. SQL injection: While SQL injection is a serious vulnerability, it primarily targets databases. In the context of architecting a cloud environment, it is a general web application vulnerability that needs to be addressed through secure coding practices and web application firewalls, but is not specific to the cloud architecture itself.
\n
• B. TOC/TOU (Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use): This is a type of race condition that can occur when a program checks the state of a resource and then uses that resource, but the state changes between the check and the use. While TOC/TOU vulnerabilities can exist in cloud environments, they are not as critical or directly related to the cloud architecture as VM escape vulnerabilities.
\n
• D. Tokenization: Tokenization is a data security technique where sensitive data is replaced with non-sensitive substitute values called tokens. This is a data protection method, but is not a direct architectural concern for cloud computing vulnerabilities in the same way as VM escape.
\n
• E. Password spraying: Password spraying is a brute-force attack technique where an attacker tries a list of common passwords against many different accounts. This is a general security threat, but not as specific to the architectural considerations of cloud computing as VM escape.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA database administrator is updating the company’s SQL database, which stores credit card information for pending purchases. Which of the following is the best method to secure the data against a potential breach?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Tokenization, which the reason is it replaces sensitive data (like credit card numbers) with a unique, non-sensitive equivalent called a token, so even if the database is breached, the stolen tokens are meaningless without the mapping system, thus minimizing the risk and ensuring compliance with PCI DSS. Some comments suggest D. Masking is the correct answer, but the majority of comments support tokenization, with the argument that masking is used to disguise original data, and tokenization is the better method to secure credit card information in a database.

I agree with the suggested answer of C. Tokenization.
\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Tokenization is the process of replacing sensitive data (like credit card numbers) with non-sensitive data equivalents, referred to as tokens. These tokens have no intrinsic or exploitable meaning or value. The mapping between the token and the actual data is stored in a secure token vault, separate from the database.
\n
• In the event of a data breach, the attackers would only obtain the tokens, which are useless without access to the token vault. This significantly reduces the risk associated with storing sensitive credit card information.
\n
• Tokenization aligns with Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requirements for protecting cardholder data.
\n

\n
• A. Hashing: Hashing is a one-way function that transforms data into a fixed-size string of characters. While it can protect data at rest, it's not ideal for credit card information that may need to be retrieved and used for transactions. Also, determined attackers might be able to use techniques like rainbow tables to crack hash values.
\n
• B. Obfuscation: Obfuscation makes the data harder to understand but doesn't fundamentally protect it. It's a weak security measure and can be easily reversed.
\n
• D. Masking: Masking hides portions of the data but leaves the underlying data intact. While useful for displaying data in a user interface, it's not a strong security measure for protecting sensitive data at rest. Masking is mainly used for data display purposes, not for data security in case of a breach.
\n

In summary, tokenization is the most effective method among the choices for securing credit card information in a database against a potential breach because it replaces sensitive data with non-sensitive tokens, rendering the stolen data useless to attackers without access to the token vault. This approach minimizes risk and supports compliance with relevant security standards like PCI DSS.

Answer: C. Tokenization

Supporting Documents:

\n
• Tokenization - SearchSecurity, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/tokenization
\n
• Understanding Tokenization - PCI Compliance Guide, https://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/understanding-tokenization/
\n
• Data Masking vs. Tokenization: What’s the Difference?, https://www.varonis.com/blog/data-masking-vs-tokenization
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a benefit of vendor diversity?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is B. Zero-day resiliency, which the reason is vendor diversity means using products and services from multiple vendors instead of relying on a single provider, which helps improve resiliency. For example, if a zero-day vulnerability affects one vendor’s product, other vendor systems may remain unaffected. Some users also mentioned that different vendors have different systems and will not be vulnerable to the same type of vulnerability, so this approach can improve security by reducing the impact of vulnerabilities specific to a single vendor.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Zero-day resiliency.
\nReasoning: Vendor diversity, which involves using products and services from multiple vendors, enhances an organization's resilience against zero-day exploits. If a zero-day vulnerability impacts a product from one vendor, systems from other vendors might remain unaffected, thus limiting the overall damage.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Patch availability: While vendor diversity can influence patch management, it doesn't directly guarantee better patch availability. Patch availability depends more on the vendor's responsiveness and patch management practices.
\n
• C. Secure configuration guide applicability: Secure configuration guides are typically vendor-specific. Vendor diversity might complicate the application of secure configuration guides, not simplify it.
\n
• D. Load balancing: Load balancing is a technique used to distribute network traffic across multiple servers or resources to improve performance and availability. It is not a direct benefit of vendor diversity.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Vendor diversity, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/vendor-diversity
\n
• Zero-day vulnerability, https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/zero-day-exploit
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn employee used a company’s billing system to issue fraudulent checks. The administrator is looking for evidence of other occurrences of this activity. Which of the following should the administrator examine?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Application logs, which the reason is application logs contain detailed information about the operations of specific applications, such as the billing system. These logs can provide records of user activities, system events, transactions, and other relevant information related to the fraudulent issuance of checks.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nReasoning: The question describes a scenario where an employee is using a company's billing system to issue fraudulent checks, and the administrator needs to find evidence of this activity. The most relevant source of information for this type of investigation would be the application logs of the billing system.
\nApplication logs record detailed information about the operations performed within an application. In the context of a billing system, these logs would contain records of user activities, transactions, and system events, which are crucial for identifying and investigating fraudulent activities such as the issuance of unauthorized checks. The logs can reveal who issued the checks, when they were issued, the amount of the checks, and any other relevant details.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Vulnerability scanner logs: These logs contain information about security vulnerabilities detected in the system. While useful for overall security posture, they are not directly related to tracking fraudulent transactions within a specific application.
\n
• C. IDS/IPS logs: Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) logs monitor network traffic for malicious activity. While they might detect unusual patterns, they won't provide specific details about transactions within the billing system.
\n
• D. Firewall logs: Firewall logs record network traffic that passes through the firewall. They are useful for identifying network-based attacks but do not provide detailed information about application-level transactions.
\n

\n
• Application Logs: Definition & Importance, https://www.splunk.com/en_us/data-insider/what-are-application-logs.html
\n
• Vulnerability Scanner Logs: Understanding Vulnerability Scanning, https://www.rapid7.com/fundamentals/vulnerability-scanning/
\n
• IDS/IPS Logs: Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems, https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/intrusion-detection-prevention-system-idps
\n
• Firewall Logs: What are Firewall Logs?, https://www.solarwinds.com/resources/it-glossary/firewall-logs
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization is looking to optimize its environment and reduce the number of patches necessary for operating systems. Which of the following will best help to achieve this objective?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Containers, which the reason is containers are a lightweight virtualization technology that allows you to package applications and their dependencies into portable units, which
\n

\n
• Reduce overall patch management complexity
\n
• Enable consistent deployment across different systems
\n
• Minimize operating system-level patch requirements
\n
• Provide better resource utilization
\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Containers.
\n
\nReasoning: Containers offer a streamlined approach to application deployment and management. By packaging applications with their necessary dependencies, containers abstract away the underlying operating system. This significantly reduces the number of OS-level patches required, as each container operates in its isolated environment.\n
\n

\n
• **Reduced Patching:** Containers bundle dependencies, minimizing reliance on the host OS and thus the need for OS patches.
\n
• **Consistency:** Ensure consistent application behavior across environments, which simplifies testing and deployment.
\n
• **Resource Optimization:** Containers share the OS kernel, making them lightweight and efficient in resource utilization compared to full virtualization.
\n

\n
• **A. Microservices:** While microservices are an architectural approach that can improve application modularity, they do not inherently reduce the need for OS patching. Each microservice still runs on an operating system that requires maintenance.
\n
• **B. Virtualization:** Virtualization involves running entire operating systems within virtual machines. This approach increases the patching burden because each VM requires its own set of OS patches.
\n
• **C. Real-time operating system (RTOS):** RTOS are designed for specific, time-critical applications. They don't inherently reduce the number of patches needed for general-purpose operating systems in an organization's environment.
\n

\n
• Containers, https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/containers/what-are-linux-containers
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following tasks is typically included in the BIA process?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Estimating the recovery time of systems, which the reason is that the Business Impact Analysis (BIA) process focuses on identifying and evaluating the effects of disruptions to critical business processes. Estimating Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) for systems is a key part of the BIA to determine how quickly systems need to be restored to minimize business impact. Other options are not correct because they are part of other plans, such as an incident response or disaster recovery plan, or risk management plans, not the BIA.

I agree with the suggested answer of A. Estimating the recovery time of systems.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe Business Impact Analysis (BIA) is a crucial process in business continuity planning that focuses on identifying and evaluating the potential effects of disruptions to an organization's critical business functions and processes. Estimating the recovery time of systems is a core component of the BIA. This involves determining the Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) for various systems, which define the maximum acceptable downtime for each system. RTOs are essential for prioritizing recovery efforts and ensuring that the most critical systems are restored first.
\n
\nEstimating the recovery time of systems (Option A) directly aligns with the objectives of the BIA, as it helps to understand the impact of system downtime on business operations and informs the development of appropriate recovery strategies. According to Ready.gov, the BIA identifies the time-sensitive or critical business functions and processes and the resources that support them (https://www.ready.gov/business-impact-analysis). This aligns perfectly with estimating recovery times of systems. SANS Institute also confirms that BIA helps to identify the Recovery Time Objective (RTO) which means how long can the business survive without the resource (https://www.sans.org/white-papers/172/).
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• B. Identifying the communication strategy: Communication strategies are typically developed as part of incident response or crisis management plans, not the BIA itself.
\n
• C. Evaluating the risk management plan: Risk management plan evaluations are distinct activities and not a primary focus of the BIA. While the BIA can inform risk assessments, it does not directly evaluate the risk management plan.
\n
• D. Establishing the backup and recovery procedures: Establishing backup and recovery procedures is a component of disaster recovery planning, which is informed by the results of the BIA but is not part of the BIA process itself.
\n
• E. Developing the incident response plan: Developing the incident response plan is a separate process that relies on the findings of the BIA to understand the potential impact of incidents and prioritize response efforts.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a risk of conducting a vulnerability assessment?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\nAgree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. A disruption of business operations, which the reason is that vulnerability assessments involve scanning systems, which can inadvertently disrupt business operations. This is because scanning can consume significant system resources, cause performance degradation, or even trigger unintended issues like system crashes or downtime. Some comments also mention that while false positives are a result of vulnerability assessment, they are less of a risk as they can be ignored over time as they have no impact on the networks.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is A. A disruption of business operations.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nVulnerability assessments, while crucial for identifying security weaknesses, involve actively scanning and probing systems. This process can inadvertently consume significant system resources, potentially leading to performance degradation, service interruptions, or even system crashes. This disruption of business operations is a genuine risk associated with conducting vulnerability assessments. For example, running a network vulnerability scan during peak business hours might overwhelm network devices and slow down critical applications.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• B. Unauthorized access to the system: While a poorly executed vulnerability assessment could theoretically create a vulnerability that an attacker might exploit, this is not the direct and primary risk. Vulnerability assessments are designed to *prevent* unauthorized access, not cause it.
\n
• C. Reports of false positives: False positives are an inconvenience and require time to investigate, but they don't directly pose a risk to business operations in the same way that a system outage does. They are a consequence of the assessment's methodology, not a direct risk to operations. While they can cause wasted effort, their impact is less severe.
\n
• D. Finding security gaps in the system: Finding security gaps is the *goal* of a vulnerability assessment, not a risk. It is the purpose for performing the assessment.
\n

\nIn Summary: Disruption of service is a greater risk due to the active scanning involved and the resource consumption that comes with it.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following techniques would attract the attention of a malicious attacker in an insider threat scenario?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Creating a false text file in /docs/salaries, which the reason is to set up a honeypot or decoy to attract insider threats by creating a false text file labeled with something enticing, such as \"salaries\". If an insider attempts to access it, their behavior can be monitored or flagged. This method doesn't compromise system security but acts as bait to detect malicious activity. Other opinions suggest that setting weak passwords, which is one of the techniques for malicious insider, would compromise the system security and invite external attackers, so it's not a good method for insider threat detection.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A. Creating a false text file in /docs/salaries.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe best technique to attract the attention of a malicious attacker in an insider threat scenario, without compromising system security, is to create a honeypot. Creating a false text file in a location likely to be accessed by someone looking for sensitive information (such as salaries) is a good example of this. If an insider accesses this file, it raises suspicion and can trigger monitoring or further investigation. This method allows for the detection of malicious activity without directly weakening system security.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• B. Setting weak passwords in /etc/shadow: This severely weakens system security and makes the system vulnerable to both internal and external attacks. It's not a method for detecting insider threats, but rather a security vulnerability.
\n
• C. Scheduling vulnerable jobs in /etc/crontab: Similar to setting weak passwords, this creates a vulnerability that can be exploited. It doesn't specifically target or detect insider threats.
\n
• D. Adding a fake account to /etc/passwd: This can be a way to create a honeypot, but adding it directly to /etc/passwd is risky. A more sophisticated attacker would likely notice it and it could also create system instability. Creating a fake file is less risky and easier to monitor.
\n

\n
• Honeypot, https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/honeypot
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization maintains intellectual property that it wants to protect. Which of the following concepts would be most beneficial to add to the company’s security awareness training program?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Insider threat detection, which the reason is that insider threat detection focuses on identifying and mitigating risks posed by individuals within the organization who may intentionally or unintentionally compromise the organization's sensitive assets, such as intellectual property. Training employees to recognize warning signs of insider threats, along with appropriate actions to take if they suspect suspicious behavior, is critical for protecting intellectual property. While option D, also suggested insider threat detection, there is a comment indicating that this answer should be A instead.

\n I agree with the suggested answer A. Insider threat detection would be most beneficial to add to the company’s security awareness training program.
\nReasoning: Intellectual property is most often compromised by insiders, whether malicious or negligent. Training employees to detect and report potential insider threats is a proactive measure to protect this sensitive data.
\nWhy other options are not the best choice:\n

\n
• B. Simulated threats: While useful for testing security controls, simulated threats don't directly address the insider threat to intellectual property.
\n
• C. Phishing awareness: Phishing awareness is important, but it primarily focuses on external threats attempting to gain access, not internal threats that already have access.
\n
• D. Business continuity planning: BCP focuses on maintaining business operations during disruptions and is not directly related to protecting intellectual property from insider threats.
\n

\n Citation:\n

\n
• Insider Threat Mitigation Guide, https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Insider_Threat_Mitigation_Guide_508.pdf
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization plans to expand its operations internationally and needs to keep data at the new location secure. The organization wants to use the most secure architecture model possible. Which of the following models offers the highest level of security?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n Agree with Suggested Answer: C. From the internet discussion from Q2 2021 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is On-premises, which the reason is that the on-premises model provides the highest level of security because the organization has full control over its infrastructure, data, and security measures, allowing for strict access controls, physical security measures, and the implementation of tailored security policies to protect sensitive data. Another answer, A is proposed, but it is not the most secure answer. Another answer, D, a hybrid architecture, is also mentioned, but it is not the most secure answer because the statement didn't ask about scalability.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is C. On-premises.
\n
\nReasoning: The question specifically asks for the architecture model that offers the *highest* level of security. An on-premises model, where the organization maintains complete control over the infrastructure, data, and security measures, provides the greatest opportunity to implement and enforce strict security policies. This includes physical security, access controls, and tailored security configurations.
\n
\nWhy other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• A. Cloud-based: While cloud solutions offer various security features, the organization shares responsibility with the cloud provider. This shared responsibility model inherently introduces some level of reliance on the provider's security practices, which may not always align perfectly with the organization's specific needs or risk tolerance.
\n
• B. Peer-to-peer: Peer-to-peer networks are inherently less secure due to their decentralized nature. Lack of centralized control and security measures makes them difficult to secure.
\n
• D. Hybrid: A hybrid model combines on-premises and cloud resources. While it may offer some benefits in terms of scalability or cost, it also inherits the security concerns of both models, making it generally less secure than a purely on-premises solution.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• On-premises vs. Cloud: Security Considerations, https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/on-premises-vs-cloud
\n
• Shared Responsibility Model, https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/what-is/shared-responsibility-model.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the most relevant reason a DPO would develop a data inventory?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer B From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is that the Data Protection Officer (DPO) is responsible for ensuring that an organization complies with data protection regulations like GDPR. Developing a data inventory (also known as a data map) provides a clear understanding of the data an organization holds, where it is stored, how it is processed, and who has access to it. It helps to determine the impact in the event of a breach.

I agree with the suggested answer of B. To determine the impact in the event of a breach.

\nReasoning:\nA Data Protection Officer (DPO) is responsible for overseeing data protection strategy and implementation to ensure compliance with data protection requirements.
\nA data inventory is a detailed catalog of all the data that an organization collects, stores, processes, and shares.
\n

\n
• Purpose of Data Inventory:\n
  \n
  • Identifying data assets: It allows the DPO to understand what data the organization holds.
  \n
  • Assessing risk: It helps to determine the potential impact of a data breach by understanding the type and sensitivity of data stored.
  \n
  • Ensuring compliance: It aids in compliance with regulations such as GDPR, CCPA, etc., which require organizations to know what personal data they hold and how it is processed.
  \n
  • Incident Response: Facilitates quicker and more effective incident response by quickly identifying affected data sets.
  \n
  \n
\n

\n
• A. To manage data storage requirements better: While a data inventory can indirectly help with data storage management, it's not the primary reason a DPO would develop it. Data storage optimization is more of an IT concern.
\n
• C. To extend the length of time data can be retained: A DPO is more concerned with compliant data retention policies, not extending retention unnecessarily. Data retention is governed by legal and regulatory requirements and organizational policies.
\n
• D. To automate the reduction of duplicated data: Reducing duplicated data is more related to data quality and efficiency. While a data inventory might reveal duplicated data, its primary purpose isn't to automate its reduction.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following cryptographic solutions protects data at rest?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is Whole-disk encryption or Full Disk Encryption is a cryptographic solution that protects data at rest. It ensures that the data on a storage device is encrypted, making it unreadable to unauthorized users even if the device is lost or stolen.

I agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is B. Full Disk Encryption.

\nReasoning: Full Disk Encryption (FDE) is specifically designed to protect data at rest by encrypting the entire storage device. This ensures that all data on the disk, including the operating system, applications, and user files, is unreadable without the correct decryption key. This protects against unauthorized access if the device is lost, stolen, or improperly decommissioned. This aligns perfectly with the question's requirement of protecting data at rest.

\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Digital Signatures: Digital signatures provide data integrity and authentication, ensuring that a file hasn't been tampered with and verifying the sender's identity. They do not, however, encrypt the data itself to protect it at rest. They protect data in transit or verify its origin and integrity.
\n
• C. Private Key: A private key is a component of asymmetric cryptography used for encryption and decryption. While a private key is essential for decrypting data, it doesn't, by itself, represent a data protection solution for data at rest. It's a tool used in such solutions.
\n
• D. Steganography: Steganography is the practice of concealing a file, message, image, or video within another file, message, image, or video. While it can provide a layer of obscurity, it's not a robust cryptographic solution for protecting data at rest, because the existence of the hidden data is often unknown, making it vulnerable once discovered.
\n

Therefore, Full Disk Encryption (FDE) is the most appropriate solution to protect data at rest.

Citations:

\n
• Full Disk Encryption, https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/full%20disk%20encryption.html
\n
• Digital Signatures, https://www.entrust.com/resources/glossary/digital-signature
\n
• Steganography, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/steganography
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following should an organization use to protect its environment from external attacks conducted by an unauthorized hacker?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. NIPS (Network-based Intrusion Prevention System), which the reason is a NIPS is specifically designed to monitor network traffic for malicious activity or violations of security policies. It works at the network level, analyzing incoming and outgoing traffic for known attack patterns and behaviors.

I agree with the suggested answer.

\nThe recommended answer is D. NIPS (Network-based Intrusion Prevention System).

\nReasoning:\n

\n
• A NIPS is designed to actively protect a network from external attacks by analyzing network traffic for malicious activity and taking automated actions to block or prevent intrusions. This aligns directly with the question's requirement to protect an environment from external attacks conducted by an unauthorized hacker.
\n

\n
• A. ACL (Access Control List): ACLs are used to filter traffic based on predefined rules but are typically static and do not provide real-time intrusion prevention capabilities. While ACLs provide a layer of security, they don't offer the active threat prevention that a NIPS provides.
\n
• B. IDS (Intrusion Detection System): An IDS passively monitors network traffic and alerts administrators to potential threats. It does not actively block or prevent attacks. The question asks for something to *protect* the environment, indicating a need for active prevention.
\n
• C. HIDS (Host-based Intrusion Detection System): A HIDS monitors a single host for malicious activity. It does not protect the entire network environment from external attacks. While HIDS is valuable, it does not address the network-level protection sought in the question.
\n

In summary, a NIPS is the most appropriate choice for actively protecting an organization's environment from external attacks conducted by an unauthorized hacker.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would enable a data center to remain operational through a multiday power outage?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer A. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. A generator, which the reason is that a generator is the most appropriate solution for a multiday power outage, ensuring the data center remains operational. Generators provide backup power for extended periods, unlike UPS which only provides initial failover. Based on CompTIA book, UPS is only for the initial blackout event, followed by a generator for longer periods. The comments also indicate that UPS is not enough for a multiday outage.

I agree with the suggested answer of A. Generator.
\nReasoning:
\nA generator is the most suitable solution for enabling a data center to remain operational through a multiday power outage. Generators are designed to provide a sustained source of backup power for extended durations, which aligns perfectly with the scenario described in the question.
\nAn uninterruptible power supply (UPS) provides immediate, short-term power during an outage but is not designed to sustain operations for multiple days. Replication and parallel processing are strategies related to data redundancy and computational efficiency, respectively, and do not address the fundamental need for continuous power supply.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• B. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS): UPS devices offer short-term power to allow for a graceful shutdown or to bridge the gap until a generator starts. They do not have the capacity to power a data center for multiple days.
\n
• C. Replication: Replication ensures data redundancy across multiple locations but does not provide power during an outage. It addresses data availability, not power continuity.
\n
• D. Parallel processing: Parallel processing improves computational speed but does not address power supply issues.
\n

\n

\n
• Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), https://www.vertiv.com/en-us/about/news-and-insights/articles/critical-infrastructure/what-is-uninterruptible-power-supply-ups/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company installed cameras and added signs to alert visitors that they are being recorded. Which of the following controls did the company implement? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

The internet discussion, from Q4 2024, concludes that the correct answer is BD. The reasoning behind this is that deterrent measures include signs, and detective measures involve cameras. The comments highlight this association, with several users confirming the answer. No other opinions were mentioned.

I agree with the suggested answer of BD.
\nReasoning:
\nThe question describes a scenario where a company installs cameras and adds signs to alert visitors that they are being recorded. This implementation serves two primary purposes from a security control perspective:\n

\n
• Deterrent Control: The signs serve as a deterrent, aiming to discourage potential malicious actors from engaging in unwanted activities because they are aware of the surveillance.
\n
• Detective Control: The cameras act as a detective control, designed to detect and record any security incidents or unauthorized activities that may occur.
\n

\n
• A. Directive: Directive controls are management-oriented controls, which specify acceptable rules of conduct. While policies may support the use of cameras, the cameras and signs themselves aren't directive controls.
\n
• C. Preventive: While cameras and signs *can* have a preventive effect, the deterrent control is the *primary* function of the signs. Preventive controls actively block activity, which cameras don't inherently do.
\n
• E. Corrective: Corrective controls are implemented after an incident to restore systems or mitigate damage. Cameras are used to detect, not correct.
\n
• F. Technical: While cameras are technical in nature, the question asks about the *type of control* implemented, not the technology.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Security Control Types, https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/auditing/security-control-types-36297
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the best way to securely store an encryption key for a data set in a manner that allows multiple entities to access the key when needed?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Key escrow refers to a system where encryption keys are stored in a secure, third-party repository, allowing authorized entities to access the key when necessary., which the reason is that the definition of key escrow matches the description provided. The answer received the most agreement from the internet.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of D. Key escrow.
\n
\nReasoning: Key escrow is a system where encryption keys are securely stored with a trusted third party. This allows multiple authorized entities to access the key when needed, such as for legal or recovery purposes. This directly addresses the question's requirement of secure storage with multi-entity access.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is a system for managing digital certificates and public keys, enabling secure electronic communication and transactions. While PKI involves key management, it's not specifically designed for escrowing encryption keys for data sets. It's more about verifying identities and securing communications.
\n
• B. Open public ledger is a decentralized database that is publicly accessible and transparent. It is not suitable for securely storing encryption keys, as the keys would be exposed to unauthorized access.
\n
• C. Public key encryption is a method of encryption that uses a pair of keys: a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. While fundamental to cryptography, it doesn't inherently provide a mechanism for multiple entities to access a key like key escrow does.
\n

\n
• Key escrow, TechTarget, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/key-escrow
\n
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Entrust, https://www.entrust.com/resources/glossary/public-key-infrastructure-pki
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFor which of the following reasons would a systems administrator leverage a 3DES hash from an installer file that is posted on a vendor’s website?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion within the range from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which is verifying the integrity of a file using a cryptographic hash. The reason is that a 3DES hash (or more accurately, a cryptographic hash such as MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256) provided by the vendor is used to verify that the downloaded file has not been altered or corrupted during the download process. Matching values indicate the file has not been tampered with or corrupted. 3DES is an encryption algorithm, not a hashing algorithm.

I agree with the suggested answer A.
\nThe primary reason a system administrator would leverage a cryptographic hash (such as one mistakenly referred to as \"3DES hash\" in the question, which is likely referring to MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, or similar) from an installer file posted on a vendor’s website is to test the integrity of the file.
\n
\nHere's the reasoning:\n

\n
• Integrity Verification: A cryptographic hash acts as a digital fingerprint of a file. If the downloaded file's hash matches the hash provided by the vendor, it confirms that the file hasn't been altered or corrupted during the download process. This ensures that the installer you're using is exactly what the vendor intended.
\n

\n
• B. To validate the authenticity of the file: While verifying the integrity contributes to establishing trust, it doesn't directly confirm the vendor's identity. Digital signatures and certificates are used for that.
\n
• C. To activate the license for the file: Hashes are unrelated to license activation. Licensing typically involves product keys or other activation mechanisms.
\n
• D. To calculate the checksum of the file: Checksums are a simpler form of integrity check, but cryptographic hashes provide stronger guarantees against malicious tampering. The question states the hash is provided by the vendor, so there is no need to calculate it.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Cryptographic hash function - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company is redesigning its infrastructure and wants to reduce the number of physical servers in use. Which of the following architectures is best suited for this goal?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that virtualization enables multiple virtual machines (VMs) to operate on a single physical server, thus minimizing the number of physical servers required. This methodology maximizes resource utilization, streamlines management, and curtails expenses while furnishing the adaptability to scale and isolate workloads according to demands.\n

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is C. Virtualization.
\nReasoning: Virtualization is the technology that allows multiple virtual machines (VMs) to run on a single physical server. This directly addresses the company's goal of reducing the number of physical servers needed. By consolidating multiple workloads onto fewer physical machines, virtualization maximizes resource utilization, simplifies management, and lowers costs.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Isolation: While isolation is a security principle important in infrastructure design, it doesn't directly address the reduction of physical servers. Isolation can be achieved through various methods, including virtualization, but it's not an architecture in itself that leads to server reduction.
\n
• B. Segmentation: Similar to isolation, segmentation is a security practice that divides a network or system into smaller, isolated parts. It enhances security but doesn't inherently reduce the number of physical servers.
\n
• D. Redundancy: Redundancy involves having duplicate systems or components to ensure availability in case of failure. While important for reliability, redundancy typically *increases* the number of physical servers, rather than decreasing them.
\n

\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• What is virtualization? - IBM, https://www.ibm.com/topics/virtualization
\n
• Virtualization - VMware, https://www.vmware.com/topics/virtualization.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following security concepts is being followed when implementing a product that offers protection against DDoS attacks?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion within the past year, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Availability, which the reason is that availability ensures that systems, services, and data are accessible and operational when needed, even under potential threats like Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. A DDoS attack aims to overwhelm a target system, causing it to become unavailable to legitimate users.

\n I agree with the suggested answer.
\n The correct answer is A. Availability.
\n Here's a breakdown of why:\n

\n
• Availability: DDoS attacks directly target the availability of a system or service. The goal is to make the service unavailable to legitimate users by overwhelming it with malicious traffic. Protection against DDoS attacks ensures that the service remains available even under attack.
\n
• Non-repudiation: Non-repudiation refers to the ability to prove that a specific action or transaction occurred and that the sender cannot deny having sent it. While important for security, it's not the primary concern when dealing with DDoS attacks.
\n
• Integrity: Integrity refers to the accuracy and completeness of data. While a successful DDoS attack *could* potentially compromise data integrity in some scenarios, the main impact is on availability.
\n
• Confidentiality: Confidentiality refers to protecting information from unauthorized access. DDoS attacks primarily aim to disrupt service availability, not to steal or expose confidential data.
\n

\n Therefore, protecting against DDoS attacks directly aligns with the security concept of ensuring availability.\n

\n Reasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• Non-repudiation is about proving actions, not maintaining uptime.
\n
• Integrity is about data accuracy, not service accessibility.
\n
• Confidentiality is about data secrecy, not preventing service disruption.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• DDoS Attacks, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/what-is-a-ddos-attack/
\n
• The three pillars of information security: confidentiality, integrity and availability, https://www.ibm.com/blogs/systems/uk-en/three-pillars-information-security-confidentiality-integrity-availability/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security manager created new documentation to use in response to various types of security incidents. Which of the following is the next step the manager should take?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is that a tabletop exercise is the next logical step after creating new documentation for responding to security incidents. This helps to identify gaps or inconsistencies in the documentation, ensure team members understand their roles and responsibilities during an incident, and test the incident response plan in a controlled environment without disrupting operations.

I agree with the suggested answer of D. Conduct a tabletop exercise with the team.

\nReasoning: The question describes a scenario where a security manager has created new documentation for responding to security incidents. The most appropriate next step is to test and validate this documentation to ensure its effectiveness and to familiarize the team with the procedures. A tabletop exercise is a facilitated discussion where team members walk through incident scenarios, discussing their roles, responsibilities, and the steps they would take. This allows for identifying gaps in the documentation, clarifying roles, and improving the overall incident response plan.

\nWhy other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• A. Setting the maximum data retention policy, while important for data governance, is not directly related to testing and validating incident response documentation.
\n
• B. Securely storing the documents on an air-gapped network is important for security, but does not test the documentation or prepare the team to use it.
\n
• C. Reviewing the documents' data classification policy is a relevant security practice, but it's more about ensuring the documentation itself is handled securely, not about testing its operational effectiveness.
\n

\n
• Title: SANS Institute, 6 Steps for an Effective Cyber Security Tabletop Exercise, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/38297/
\n
• Title: NIST, Guide to Test, Training, and Exercise Programs for IT Plans and Capabilities, https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/sp/800-84/archive/2008-pdf/sp800-84.pdf
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAfter failing an audit twice, an organization has been ordered by a government regulatory agency to pay fines. Which of the following causes this action?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Non-compliance, which the reason is that the organization failed an audit twice and has been ordered to pay fines by a government regulatory agency, which indicates that the organization has not met required legal, regulatory, or industry compliance standards. This is a case of non-compliance. Regulatory agencies enforce security, privacy, and financial controls. Repeated audit failures signal continued non-compliance, leading to penalties, fines, or legal action.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A. Non-compliance.
\nReasoning: Failing an audit twice and subsequently being fined by a government regulatory agency directly indicates a failure to adhere to required regulations or standards. This is the essence of non-compliance. Regulatory agencies are specifically tasked with ensuring organizations adhere to various security, privacy, and financial controls. When an organization fails to meet these standards, particularly after repeated audits, it demonstrates a persistent state of non-compliance. This, in turn, leads to penalties such as fines.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B. Contract violations: While contract violations can lead to penalties, the question specifies a government regulatory agency imposing fines after failed audits, which points more directly to regulatory non-compliance than a simple contractual issue.
\n
• C. Government sanctions: Government sanctions are broader and typically imposed on entities (individuals, organizations, or even countries) for political or economic reasons, not specifically due to audit failures.
\n
• D. Rules of engagement: Rules of engagement typically refer to guidelines for behavior and communication, especially in conflict or negotiation scenarios. They don't directly relate to regulatory audit failures and associated fines.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Compliance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance
\n
• Regulatory Compliance, https://www.techtarget.com/what-is/definition/regulatory-compliance
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company is developing a critical system for the government and storing project information on a fileshare. Which of the following describes how this data will most likely be classified? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is BF, which the reason is the data involved in the critical system for the government is sensitive and must be protected. The classifications Confidential and Restricted are suitable to protect the project information from unauthorized access and misuse. Confidential is often used for data that is sensitive and should only be accessible to authorized personnel. Restricted indicates that access is limited to those with a need-to-know basis, often because the data is critical to national security or contains sensitive government information. Other options like Private and Public are not suitable for government project data.

I agree with the suggested answer of BF.
\nReasoning: Since the company is developing a critical system for the government, the data involved is highly sensitive and requires stringent protection. Classifying the data as both \"Confidential\" and \"Restricted\" is appropriate to ensure its security.
\nConfidential: This classification is typically applied to information that, if disclosed without authorization, could have adverse effects on the organization. Government project information often falls under this category.
\nRestricted: This classification denotes an even higher level of sensitivity, limiting access to individuals with a specific \"need-to-know.\" Data related to critical government systems usually warrants this level of protection.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• Private: This classification is generally used for personal information and is not suitable for government project data.
\n
• Public: This classification is for information freely available to anyone and is inappropriate for sensitive government projects.
\n
• Operational: This term describes the state of a system rather than a data classification.
\n
• Urgent: Similar to operational, urgent describes a state or priority, not a data classification.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Data Classification, https://www.ibm.com/topics/data-classification
\n
• Data Classification, https://www.varonis.com/blog/data-classification
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following activities is included in the post-incident review phase?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is the lessons learned process should invoke root cause analysis or the effort to determine how the incident was able to occur.

\n I agree with the suggested answer (A).
\n The post-incident review phase focuses on analyzing what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. \n Determining the root cause of the incident is a critical activity in this phase, as it helps identify the underlying issues that led to the incident.\n
\n\n Here's a breakdown of why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• B. Developing steps to mitigate the risks of the incident: While mitigation is important, it's more closely associated with the incident response and recovery phases. Mitigation strategies are typically developed and implemented during or immediately after the incident to limit its impact.
\n
• C. Validating the accuracy of the evidence collected during the investigation: Evidence validation is a key part of the investigation phase. Ensuring the integrity and accuracy of evidence is crucial for understanding the incident and taking appropriate action, but it precedes the post-incident review.
\n
• D. Reestablishing the compromised system’s configuration and settings: This activity is part of the recovery phase. Reestablishing systems to their normal operational state is essential for restoring services after an incident.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide,\n https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r2.pdf\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following attacks exploits a potential vulnerability as a result of using weak cryptographic algorithms?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2021 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Password cracking, which the reason is the discussion mainly agreed that password cracking exploits vulnerabilities in systems that use weak cryptographic algorithms. This makes passwords easier to crack through methods like brute-force attacks, dictionary attacks, and the use of rainbow tables, as stated in several comments. Some opinions suggested B. On-path attacks, but the comments argued that these attacks exploit insecure transmission channels by intercepting network traffic, which is a separate vulnerability, not a direct result of weak cryptographic algorithms.

\n I agree with the suggested answer.
\n The answer is A. Password cracking.
\nReason: Password cracking directly exploits vulnerabilities arising from the use of weak cryptographic algorithms. These algorithms make it easier for attackers to compromise passwords through methods such as brute-force attacks, dictionary attacks, and rainbow tables. Weak hashing algorithms or short key lengths directly contribute to the success of password cracking attempts.\n
\nReasons for excluding other options:\n

\n
• B. On-path attacks: While on-path attacks are serious, they primarily exploit insecure transmission channels or vulnerabilities in network configurations by intercepting network traffic. They are not a direct result of weak cryptographic algorithms used for password storage or encryption.
\n
• C. Digital signing: Digital signing relies on cryptographic algorithms to ensure the authenticity and integrity of data. A vulnerability here would typically be related to the implementation or misuse of the digital signature algorithm itself, rather than weak cryptography in password handling.
\n
• D. Side-channel attacks: Side-channel attacks exploit information leaked from the physical implementation of a cryptographic system (e.g., power consumption, timing variations). While they can compromise cryptographic keys, they are not directly linked to the strength of the cryptographic algorithm itself but rather its implementation.
\n

\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Password cracking techniques - OWASP, https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Password_Cracking
\n
• NIST Cryptographic Standards and Guidelines, https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-standards-and-guidelines
\n
• Understanding On-Path Attack, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/security/man-in-the-middle-attack/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a preventive physical security control?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Bollards, which received the most agreement from the internet, and the reason is that bollards are physical barriers designed to prevent unauthorized access, such as vehicle access to a restricted area, therefore acting as a preventive physical security control. Other options were considered less suitable because:\n

\n
• Video surveillance systems are primarily detective controls.
\n
• Alarm systems are also detective controls.
\n
• Motion sensors are detective controls.
\n

\n I agree with the suggested answer of B. Bollards.
\nReasoning: Bollards are physical barriers designed to deter or prevent vehicle access to a restricted area. This makes them a clear example of a preventive physical security control. They are proactively implemented to stop an incident from occurring in the first place.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:
\n

\n
• A. Video surveillance system: Video surveillance is primarily a detective control. It helps to detect and record security breaches, but it does not actively prevent them.
\n
• C. Alarm system: An alarm system is also a detective control. It alerts security personnel to a potential breach but does not prevent the breach itself.
\n
• D. Motion sensors: Motion sensors are detective controls as well. They detect movement and can trigger an alarm or other response, but they do not physically prevent access.
\n

\nIn Summary: Bollards directly prevent unauthorized access, fitting the definition of a preventive physical security control, while the other options are detective measures.\n

\nCitation:\n

\n
• Preventative Security Measures, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preventative_security_measures
\n
• Physical Security Controls: Definition, Types & Examples, https://securityintelligence.com/articles/physical-security-controls-definition-types-examples/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is most likely to be used as a just-in-time reference document within a security operations center?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. A playbook is a practical, action-oriented document that provides step-by-step instructions for responding to specific security incidents or scenarios, which the reason is security operations center (SOC) analysts commonly use playbooks as just-in-time reference materials to ensure consistent and efficient responses to security events, such as handling phishing emails or mitigating DDoS attacks.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most likely answer is C. Playbook.
\nReason: Playbooks are designed for just-in-time reference in a SOC. They provide step-by-step instructions for responding to specific security incidents. This allows analysts to quickly and consistently handle events as they occur.
\nReasons for eliminating other options:\n

\n
• A. Change management policy: While important, it's a broader governance document, not a quick reference for incident response.
\n
• B. Risk profile: A risk profile is a high-level overview of organizational risks, not a guide for immediate action during an incident.
\n
• D. SIEM profile: A SIEM profile describes the configuration and capabilities of the SIEM system, not a response guide for security events.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• SANS Institute, Security Playbooks: Automating and Orchestrating Incident Response, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/36762/
\n
• NIST, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-61/rev-2/final
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security engineer configured a remote access VPN. The remote access VPN allows end users to connect to the network by using an agent that is installed on the endpoint, which establishes an encrypted tunnel. Which of the following protocols did the engineer most likely implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is IPsec is the protocol for VPN. The other options, such as Generic Routing Encapsulation, Internet Security Protocol, Software-defined Wide Area Network, and Extensible Authentication Protocol, were not mentioned as correct options.

I agree with the suggested answer of B. IPSec.
\nReasoning:
\nThe question describes a remote access VPN that establishes an encrypted tunnel using an agent on the endpoint. IPSec (Internet Protocol Security) is a widely used protocol suite for securing IP communications by authenticating and encrypting each IP packet of a communication session. This aligns perfectly with the description in the question.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• A. GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation): GRE is a tunneling protocol, but it doesn't provide encryption by itself. It's often used in conjunction with IPSec to create secure VPNs, but on its own, it doesn't fulfill the requirement of an encrypted tunnel as the question specifies.
\n
• C. SD-WAN (Software-Defined Wide Area Network): SD-WAN is a broader networking approach that can utilize various VPN technologies, including IPSec, but it's not a specific protocol itself. It's a management and orchestration solution for WANs.
\n
• D. EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol): EAP is an authentication framework commonly used in network access control, especially in wireless networks (like 802.1X). While important for VPN authentication, it doesn't provide the actual encrypted tunnel itself.
\n

Supporting Citations:

\n
• IPSec definition, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/vpn/what-is-ipsec/
\n
• GRE Protocol, https://www.imperva.com/learn/networking/gre-generic-routing-encapsulation/
\n
• SD-WAN definition, https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/sd-wan
\n
• EAP definition, https://www.juniper.net/us/en/research-library/glossary/extensible-authentication-protocol.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutives at a company are concerned about employees accessing systems and information about sensitive company projects unrelated to the employees’ normal job duties. Which of the following enterprise security capabilities will the security team most likely deploy to detect that activity?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer A. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A: User Behavior Analytics (UBA), which the reason is UBA focuses on monitoring and analyzing user behaviors to detect anomalies, such as accessing systems or information outside of an employee's normal job duties. This makes it the most appropriate tool for the scenario described. The comments agree that if an incident already happened, then Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) would be the appropriate tool, but UBA is more suited for proactively identifying unusual or potentially malicious activities.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A: UBA (User Behavior Analytics).
\nReasoning: The question describes a scenario where executives are concerned about employees accessing sensitive company information outside their normal job duties. UBA is specifically designed to detect such anomalies by establishing a baseline of normal user behavior and then identifying deviations from that baseline. Accessing systems or data unrelated to an employee's job function would be flagged as unusual behavior. EDR is useful if an incident already happened, DLP is good to prevent data loss, and NAC is for network access control. Therefore, UBA is the most appropriate technology to address the concern.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• B. EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response): EDR focuses on detecting and responding to threats on individual endpoints (e.g., laptops, desktops). While it can identify malicious activity, it is not specifically designed to detect unusual access patterns across the enterprise. EDR is more reactive than proactive.
\n
• C. NAC (Network Access Control): NAC controls which devices and users can access the network. It does not monitor user behavior or detect unusual access to specific systems or data.
\n
• D. DLP (Data Loss Prevention): DLP focuses on preventing sensitive data from leaving the organization. While it could potentially detect employees downloading sensitive information, it would not necessarily identify employees simply accessing systems or data they should not be accessing.
\n

Suggested Answer: A

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSeveral customers want an organization to verify its security controls are operating effectively and have requested an independent opinion. Which of the following is the most efficient way to address these requests?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is a third-party attestation report, such as a SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, is the most efficient way to address multiple customer requests. These reports provide an independent assessment of an organization's security controls, enhancing credibility and reducing the need for individual audits. Furthermore, the report can be shared with multiple customers.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is D: Provide a third-party attestation report.
\nReasoning: A third-party attestation report, such as a SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, is the most efficient way to address multiple customer requests for independent verification of security controls. These reports provide an independent assessment of an organization's security controls, enhancing credibility and reducing the need for individual audits. Furthermore, the report can be shared with multiple customers.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A: Hiring a vendor to perform a penetration test is useful for identifying vulnerabilities but does not provide a comprehensive assessment of overall security controls. It addresses a specific aspect of security rather than a broad attestation.
\n
• B: Performing an annual self-assessment lacks the independent verification that customers are seeking. Self-assessments are inherently biased and may not be trusted by external parties.
\n
• C: Allowing each client the right to audit is inefficient and resource-intensive. It would require the organization to undergo multiple audits, each with potentially different requirements, leading to significant disruption and cost.
\n

\n
• SOC 2, https://www.aicpa.org/
\n
• ISO 27001, https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA university employee logged on to the academic server and attempted to guess the system administrators’ log-in credentials. Which of the following security measures should the university have implemented to detect the employee’s attempts to gain access to the administrators’ accounts?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is because User activity logs track user actions, including failed login attempts, unauthorized access attempts, and unusual activity. These logs would record the employee's repeated attempts to guess system administrator credentials, which could then be reviewed and flagged as suspicious behavior.. By analyzing these logs, security teams can detect and investigate potential unauthorized access attempts.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of D. User activity logs.
\nReasoning: User activity logs are crucial for detecting unauthorized access attempts. In this scenario, the university employee's attempts to guess the system administrators' login credentials would be recorded in the user activity logs. These logs track user actions, including failed login attempts, unauthorized access attempts, and unusual activity. By reviewing these logs, the university's security team could detect the employee's suspicious behavior and take appropriate action. This aligns with the principle of monitoring and auditing user activity to identify potential security breaches.\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Two-factor authentication: While two-factor authentication enhances security by requiring a second form of verification, it wouldn't directly detect the employee's attempts to guess the administrators' passwords. It would only prevent access if the employee didn't have the second factor.
\n
• B. Firewall: A firewall primarily controls network traffic based on predefined rules and wouldn't typically detect or log specific user login attempts on a server. Firewalls are designed to prevent unauthorized network access, not to monitor user behavior within the network.
\n
• C. Intrusion prevention system (IPS): An IPS is designed to detect and prevent malicious network activity, such as exploits and denial-of-service attacks. While an IPS might detect some brute-force login attempts, it's not specifically designed for tracking individual user login behavior like user activity logs.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• User Activity Monitoring, https://www.varonis.com/blog/user-activity-monitoring
\n
• What are User Activity Logs?, https://www.netwrix.com/user_activity_log.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following consequences would a retail chain most likely face from customers in the event the retailer is non-compliant with PCI DSS?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the answer to this question is D, which is \"Reputational damage\". The main reason is that the question specifies \"from customers,\" and customers are most likely to perceive reputational damage. The other options, such as fines, are not imposed by customers but by regulatory bodies. Some comments suggested that reputational damage is the direct result of a security breach, and other answers, such as fines, are a consequence of non-compliance with standards. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of D. Reputational damage.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe question specifically asks about the consequences \"from customers\" due to PCI DSS non-compliance. While all the options might be potential consequences of non-compliance, reputational damage is the most direct and likely impact *felt by the retailer from the customers' perspective*. Customers who lose trust in a retailer due to data breaches or perceived security weaknesses are likely to take their business elsewhere and spread negative opinions, directly damaging the retailer's reputation.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Contractual impacts: Contractual impacts are more likely to be between the retailer and its payment processors or acquiring banks, not directly initiated by the customers.
\n
• B. Sanctions: Sanctions are typically imposed by regulatory bodies or payment card brands, not directly by customers.
\n
• C. Fines: Fines are also imposed by regulatory bodies or payment card brands, not by customers.
\n

Supporting Citations:

\n
• PCI DSS - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard
\n
• The Cost of a Data Breach - IBM, https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst is reviewing logs and discovers the following:



Which of the following should be used to best mitigate this type of attack?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Input Sanitization, which the reason is the log entry indicates a potential command injection attack due to a suspicious User-Agent header containing a shell command. Input sanitization, specifically removing or escaping special characters like shell metacharacters, command separators, and path traversal characters, is the correct approach to mitigate this type of vulnerability. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\nBased on the log entry provided, which shows a suspicious User-Agent header containing what appears to be a command injection attempt, the best mitigation strategy is Input Sanitization.
\nThe log shows a malformed User-Agent string attempting to execute shell commands, indicating a command injection vulnerability. Input sanitization focuses on cleaning and validating user-supplied input to prevent malicious code from being executed.\n

\nReasoning:\n

\n
• A. Input sanitization: This is the correct approach. Input sanitization involves validating and cleaning user-supplied input to ensure it does not contain malicious code or commands. In this case, sanitizing the User-Agent header to remove or escape special characters would prevent the command injection attack.
\n
• B. Secure cookies: Secure cookies help protect the confidentiality and integrity of cookies transmitted between the client and server. While important for overall security, they do not directly address command injection vulnerabilities.
\n
• C. Static code analysis: Static code analysis is a method of debugging by examining the source code before a program is run. It can help identify potential vulnerabilities, but it's a preventative measure and not a direct mitigation technique for an active attack.
\n
• D. Sandboxing: Sandboxing involves running code in a restricted environment to limit the damage it can cause. While sandboxing can help contain the impact of a successful attack, it does not prevent the initial injection from occurring.
\n

\n
• Secure cookies (B) do not prevent command injection.
\n
• Static code analysis (C) is a preventative measure, not a real-time mitigation.
\n
• Sandboxing (D) contains damage but doesn't prevent the initial injection.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• OWASP Input Validation, https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/2021/A03_2021-Injection/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn administrator is installing an SSL certificate on a new system. During testing, errors indicate that the certificate is not trusted. The administrator has verified with the issuing CA and has validated the private key. Which of the following should the administrator check for next?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that for an SSL/TLS certificate to be trusted, the system must have the root certificate (and any intermediate certificates) from the issuing Certificate Authority (CA) installed in its trusted certificate store. If the root or intermediate certificate is missing, the system will not recognize the SSL certificate as valid, leading to trust errors during testing.

I agree with the suggested answer C.
\nReasoning: The question describes a scenario where an SSL certificate is not trusted despite validation of the private key and verification with the issuing CA. This strongly suggests a problem with the trust chain. For an SSL/TLS certificate to be trusted, the system must have the root certificate (and any intermediate certificates) from the issuing Certificate Authority (CA) installed in its trusted certificate store. If the root or intermediate certificate is missing, the system will not recognize the SSL certificate as valid, leading to trust errors during testing. This aligns perfectly with the problem described in the question.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. If the wildcard certificate is configured: While incorrect configuration of wildcard certificates can cause issues, the general problem of a certificate not being trusted points more directly to a missing root or intermediate certificate. A wildcard certificate issue would typically manifest as a problem with specific subdomains, not a complete lack of trust.
\n
• B. If the certificate signing request is valid: The CSR is used to generate the certificate. If the CSR was invalid, the CA would not have issued the certificate in the first place. The problem arises after the certificate has been issued.
\n
• D. If the public key is configured: The public key is part of the SSL certificate itself. The question says the administrator validated with the issuing CA, meaning the certificate itself (containing the public key) is not the problem.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• SSL Certificates - Common Installation Issues, https://www.ssl.com/article/common-ssl-certificate-installation-issues/
\n
• How SSL Certificates Work, https://www.digicert.com/how-ssl-certificates-work
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn employee emailed a new systems administrator a malicious web link and convinced the administrator to change the email server’s password. The employee used this access to remove the mailboxes of key personnel. Which of the following security awareness concepts would help prevent this threat in the future?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which is providing situational awareness training. The reason is that the scenario describes a phishing attack where an employee tricked the systems administrator, and situational awareness training can help employees recognize manipulation and verify security-sensitive actions. While some responses initially suggested A, security awareness training, the consensus favors B because the insider threat is better addressed by situational awareness training. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

I disagree with the suggested answer of A and recommend answer B, Providing situational awareness training.
\nReasoning:
\nThe scenario describes a social engineering attack, specifically phishing, where the employee manipulates the new systems administrator into divulging credentials. While recognizing phishing (Option A) is a valid security awareness concept, it primarily focuses on identifying fraudulent emails or websites. In this case, the attack went beyond a simple phishing email; it involved persuasion and deception leading to a change in the email server's password.
\nSituational awareness training (Option B) is a broader concept that equips individuals with the ability to perceive and understand their environment, anticipate potential threats, and make informed decisions. This type of training would help the administrator to:
\n

\n
• Recognize the manipulative tactics employed by the employee.
\n
• Understand the potential consequences of their actions (changing the email server's password).
\n
• Verify the request through proper channels before taking action.
\n

\n
• A: While phishing awareness is helpful, it doesn't encompass the broader scope of social engineering tactics used in this scenario.
\n
• C: Password management is important but doesn't prevent someone from being tricked into revealing a password.
\n
• D: Reviewing email policies might help with general security practices but won't necessarily prevent someone from being socially engineered.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Situational Awareness, https://www.sans.org/security-awareness-training/glossary/situational-awareness
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following strategies should an organization use to efficiently manage and analyze multiple types of logs?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, which includes comments from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is to deploy a SIEM solution. The reason is that SIEM solutions are designed to collect, aggregate, and analyze large volumes of logs from different sources such as network devices, servers, endpoints, and security systems. The SIEM helps with log collection and aggregation, alert management, correlation and analysis, reporting and visualization, and access control and security.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nReasoning: The question asks for the most efficient way to manage and analyze multiple types of logs. A Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solution is specifically designed for this purpose. SIEMs aggregate logs from various sources, correlate events, and provide analysis and reporting capabilities, making them the most efficient choice.\n
\nWhy other options are not the best:\n

\n
• B. Creating custom scripts can be time-consuming and difficult to maintain, especially as the number of log sources grows.
\n
• C. EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) technology focuses primarily on endpoint security and may not provide comprehensive log management across the entire organization.
\n
• D. UTM (Unified Threat Management) appliances are more focused on perimeter security and do not typically offer the in-depth log analysis capabilities of a SIEM.
\n

\nTherefore, deploying a SIEM solution is the most efficient strategy for managing and analyzing multiple types of logs.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA new security regulation was announced that will take effect in the coming year. A company must comply with it to remain in business. Which of the following activities should the company perform next?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Gap Analysis (A), which the reason is that it is the crucial first step to evaluate the company's current security posture and practices to identify any discrepancies between the existing state and the requirements set out by the new regulation, which including:\n

\n
• Compares what you have (existing security) vs what you need (required security)
\n
• Shows what's missing
\n
• Creates plan to fill the gaps
\n
• Helps meet new security requirements efficiently
\n

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best first step for a company facing a new security regulation is to perform a Gap Analysis (A).
\nReasoning: A gap analysis is a systematic assessment of the difference between the current state of an organization's security posture and the desired future state dictated by the new regulation. This process identifies specific areas where the company's existing security controls, policies, and procedures fall short of meeting the regulatory requirements. This understanding is crucial for developing a targeted and efficient remediation plan.\n

\n
• It provides a clear understanding of what needs to be fixed.
\n
• It helps prioritize remediation efforts.
\n
• It ensures that the company focuses on the most critical areas of non-compliance.
\n

\n
• Policy Review (B): While a policy review is important, it should come *after* a gap analysis. The gap analysis will inform the policy review, highlighting which policies need to be updated or created to comply with the new regulation. A policy review without knowing where the gaps are would be inefficient.
\n
• Security Procedure Evaluation (C): Similar to policy review, a security procedure evaluation is a necessary step, but it's more effective *after* the gap analysis has pinpointed which procedures are deficient. The gap analysis provides the context for a targeted evaluation.
\n
• Threat Scope Reduction (D): Threat scope reduction is a continuous security activity but is not the immediate, most relevant response to a new regulatory requirement. Addressing compliance gaps takes precedence to ensure the company can continue operating legally. Focusing solely on threat scope reduction without addressing compliance could leave the company vulnerable to fines or other penalties.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn accountant is transferring information to a bank over FTP. Which of the following mitigations should the accountant use to protect the confidentiality of the data?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: C. Encryption. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Encryption, which the reason is that when transferring sensitive data over FTP (File Transfer Protocol), encryption is the best method to ensure the confidentiality of the data. FTP itself does not provide any encryption, meaning the data is transmitted in plain text. This opinion received the most agreement from the internet.

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is C. Encryption.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe question focuses on protecting the confidentiality of data during transfer over FTP. FTP, by default, transmits data in plaintext, making it vulnerable to interception. Encryption is the most suitable mitigation because it transforms the data into an unreadable format during transit, ensuring confidentiality. Encryption is the standard method for protecting data in transit, especially over insecure protocols like FTP.
\n
\nWhy other options are not the best:\n

\n
• A. Tokenization: Tokenization replaces sensitive data with non-sensitive substitutes (tokens). While it protects data at rest or in specific applications, it's not primarily designed for securing data in transit over a protocol like FTP.
\n
• B. Data masking: Data masking hides portions of the data, typically used for displaying data in a non-sensitive manner (e.g., showing only the last four digits of a credit card). It does not provide strong confidentiality during data transfer.
\n
• D. Obfuscation: Obfuscation makes the data harder to understand but does not provide strong confidentiality. It is primarily used to protect code, not data in transit.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization has recently decided to implement SSO. The requirements are to leverage access tokens and focus on application authorization rather than user authentication. Which of the following solutions would the engineering team most likely configure?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which is the correct answer. The reasoning provided is that OAuth is preferred for authorization, SAML is preferred for authentication, and LDAP is often used more for internal network resources and directory services. This is supported by the understanding that OAuth enables applications to access resources on behalf of a user without sharing credentials. Furthermore, OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework allowing third-party applications to obtain limited access to an HTTP service.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. OAuth.

\nReasoning:
\nThe question explicitly states the need for access tokens and focuses on application authorization rather than user authentication. OAuth (Open Authorization) is specifically designed for this purpose. It allows applications to obtain limited access to user accounts on an HTTP service, such as those provided by Facebook, GitHub, and DigitalOcean. OAuth focuses on granting permissions to applications to access resources, which aligns perfectly with the scenario described.

\nOAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework that enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.\n

\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol): LDAP is primarily used for directory services, managing and accessing directory information. It's more focused on user authentication and managing user information within a directory, not application authorization using access tokens.
\n
• B. Federation: Federation is a broader concept related to trust relationships between different identity providers. While it can involve SSO, it doesn't directly address the specific requirements of using access tokens for application authorization. Federation often relies on protocols like SAML.
\n
• C. SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language): SAML is mainly used for authentication and passing user identity information between identity providers and service providers. It's less focused on application authorization with access tokens. While SAML can be used in SSO scenarios, the problem emphasized application authorization rather than user authentication.
\n

Citations:

\n
• OAuth 2.0 Overview, https://oauth.net/2/
\n
• LDAP Protocol, https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ztpf/2023?topic=overview-ldap-protocol
\n
• SAML, https://www.okta.com/identity-101/saml/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would most likely be used by attackers to perform credential harvesting?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is A, which aligns with \"credential harvesting\" and social engineering techniques. The reasoning is that the question is about gathering valid credentials to gain unauthorized access, and A directly reflects this by explaining credential harvesting through social engineering. Other answers are not correct because they don't directly relate to credential harvesting techniques.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of A. Social engineering.
\nReasoning: The question asks about techniques used to perform credential harvesting, which is the process of gathering user credentials (usernames and passwords). Social engineering is a method where attackers manipulate individuals into divulging sensitive information, such as their login credentials. This makes it a direct method for credential harvesting.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• B. Supply chain compromise: While supply chain compromises can lead to security breaches, they don't directly involve harvesting credentials from end-users through manipulation.
\n
• C. Third-party software: Third-party software vulnerabilities can be exploited, but the question specifically asks about credential harvesting. While malware within third-party software could be used to steal credentials, the option itself is not a method of *performing* credential harvesting, but rather a potential vector.
\n
• D. Rainbow table: Rainbow tables are precomputed tables used to crack password hashes. They are used *after* the attacker has obtained the password hashes, not for harvesting the initial credentials from users.
\n

\nIn summary, social engineering is a direct method for attackers to trick users into revealing their credentials, making it the most likely technique used for credential harvesting.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security engineer would like to enhance the use of automation and orchestration within the SIEM. Which of the following would be the primary benefit of this enhancement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is the automation and orchestration within a SIEM system allow security teams to respond to incidents more quickly and efficiently. This effectively \"multiplies\" the workforce's capability, enabling a smaller team to handle more incidents or data points.

I agree with the suggested answer, D (It acts as a workforce multiplier).

\nReasoning:
\nThe primary benefit of enhancing automation and orchestration within a SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) system is that it significantly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the security team. By automating repetitive tasks and orchestrating complex workflows, the SIEM enables security professionals to handle a larger volume of alerts and incidents with the same or even fewer resources. This \"multiplies\" the capabilities of the existing workforce, allowing them to focus on more strategic and critical activities.

\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. It increases complexity: While introducing automation and orchestration *can* add complexity if not implemented properly, the goal and primary benefit are to *reduce* overall complexity by streamlining processes.
\n
• B. It removes technical debt: Automation and orchestration may help *address* some technical debt over time, but this is not the primary or most direct benefit. Technical debt refers to the implied cost of rework caused by choosing an easy solution now instead of using a better approach that would take longer.
\n
• C. It adds additional guard rails: Automation and orchestration can indeed *implement* guardrails, but the core *benefit* is the amplified workforce capability through efficiency and speed.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• SIEM Benefits, https://www.ibm.com/topics/siem
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator receives an alert that a company’s internal file server is very slow and is only working intermittently. The systems administrator reviews the server management software and finds the following information about the server:



Which of the following indicators most likely triggered this alert?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. resource consumption, which the reason is that it is the correct answer selected by the user.

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Resource consumption.
\nReasoning: The image provided indicates high CPU utilization (100%), high memory utilization (98%), and disk I/O utilization at 99%. These are all related to resource consumption. When a server's resources are highly utilized, it can lead to performance issues such as slowness and intermittent operation, which aligns with the problem description in the question.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Concurrent session usage: While high concurrent sessions can impact performance, the provided data focuses on CPU, Memory and Disk I/O which point directly to resource constraints, without any direct information of concurrent session.
\n
• B. Network saturation: Although network issues can cause slowness, the image focuses on CPU, memory, and disk I/O within the server itself, not network traffic. Without network data, this is less likely than resource consumption.
\n
• C. Account lockout: Account lockouts would prevent users from accessing the server, but the problem is slowness and intermittent operation, and high resource usage is a much more direct indicator of the described problem.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Server Resource Monitoring, https://www.paessler.com/it-explained/server-monitoring
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following data states applies to data that is being actively processed by a database server?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer from the internet discussion within the period from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. In use, which the reason is that In use refers to data actively being processed or accessed, such as when it is being manipulated, queried, or updated by a database server. This data is typically loaded into memory and actively engaged by applications or systems.\n

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A. In use.
\n Here's a detailed explanation:\n

\n
• Reasoning: The question asks about the data state when it's actively being processed by a database server. \"In use\" accurately describes this state because it signifies that the data is currently being accessed, manipulated, queried, or updated. This means the data is loaded into memory and actively utilized by the database server.
\n
• Why other options are incorrect:\n
  \n
  • B. At rest: This refers to data that is stored and not actively being accessed, such as data on a hard drive or in an archive.
  \n
  • C. In transit: This refers to data that is being transmitted between locations, such as data being sent over a network.
  \n
  • D. Being hashed: While hashing is a data processing activity, it's a specific operation rather than a general state of data being actively processed by a database server. A database server may hash data, but the data's state is still \"in use\" during that process.
  \n
  \n
\n

\n The conclusion aligns with the general understanding of data states in cybersecurity and data management. Data \"in use\" is dynamically changing and being actively worked on by a system or application.\n

\n Therefore, A. In use is the most accurate and appropriate answer.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Data States, https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=security-data-states
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following architectures is most suitable to provide redundancy for critical business processes?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Cloud-native, which the reason is because cloud-native architectures are specifically designed to utilize the cloud's features like scalability, flexibility, and redundancy. These architectures often employ distributed systems, microservices, and containerization to ensure high availability and fault tolerance. Other opinions suggested D. Multitenant, but this answer is not widely agreed, because multitenant architectures primarily focus on resource sharing and efficiency, and while they can contribute to redundancy, they are not specifically designed for it in the same way as cloud-native approaches.

\n I agree with the suggested answer. The most suitable architecture for providing redundancy for critical business processes is C. Cloud-native.\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• Cloud-native architectures are designed to leverage the cloud's inherent capabilities, including scalability, elasticity, and, most importantly, redundancy.
\n
• These architectures often employ distributed systems, microservices, and containerization to ensure high availability and fault tolerance. This means that if one component fails, others can seamlessly take over, minimizing downtime and ensuring business continuity.
\n
• Cloud providers offer various services and features (e.g., auto-scaling, load balancing, and multi-region deployments) that further enhance redundancy in cloud-native environments.
\n

\n
• A. Network-enabled: This term is too broad and doesn't inherently imply redundancy. While networks are essential for any architecture, simply being \"network-enabled\" doesn't guarantee high availability.
\n
• B. Server-side: This term describes where processing occurs but says nothing about redundancy or fault tolerance. A server-side architecture could be a single point of failure.
\n
• D. Multitenant: While multitenancy can contribute to resource efficiency and cost savings, it doesn't directly address redundancy. A multitenant system can still be vulnerable to single points of failure, and its primary focus is on sharing resources among multiple users or tenants, not on ensuring high availability through redundancy mechanisms. Although a multitenant cloud-native environment could be redundant, multitenancy itself isn't the core reason for the redundancy.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Cloud Native Definition, https://cncf.io/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAfter a security incident, a systems administrator asks the company to buy a NAC platform. Which of the following attack surfaces is the systems administrator trying to protect?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is that Network Access Control (NAC) is designed to enforce security policies on devices attempting to connect to a network. The primary attack surface that a NAC platform aims to protect is typically the wired network.

\n I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe systems administrator is trying to protect the Wired attack surface by asking the company to buy a NAC platform.
\nReasoning: NAC (Network Access Control) solutions are primarily designed to control access to a wired network by enforcing security policies before granting access. NAC examines the device posture (e.g., antivirus status, OS version, patch level) before allowing it to connect to the network.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A: Bluetooth is a wireless communication protocol, and while NAC can integrate with wireless access points, it's not its primary focus.
\n
• C: NFC (Near Field Communication) is a short-range wireless technology, not typically managed by NAC.
\n
• D: SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems are industrial control systems, and while network security is important for SCADA, NAC is not the primary solution for securing them. Other specialized security measures are usually implemented for SCADA systems.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Network access control, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_access_control
\n
• SCADA Security, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/industrial-control-systems/scada
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhile reviewing logs, a security administrator identifies the following code:



Which of the following best describes the vulnerability being exploited?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, most users **agreed with answer A, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)**. The reasoning is that the presence of the code snippet \"<script>function (send_info)</script>\" in the logs strongly suggests a potential XSS attack, as it's indicative of injected JavaScript code. Other options like SQL injection, DDoS, and CSRF were dismissed, as they don't directly involve JavaScript injection as seen in the given code. Some comments pointed out that the code snippet might be incomplete on its own but the presence of <script> tags hints at an attempted XSS attack.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is A. XSS (Cross-Site Scripting).
\n
\nReasoning: The code snippet provided, particularly the presence of <script>function (send_info)</script>, is a strong indicator of a potential Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack. XSS vulnerabilities occur when malicious scripts are injected into otherwise benign and trusted websites. These scripts can then execute in the user's browser, potentially stealing cookies, session tokens, or redirecting the user to malicious websites. The <script> tag is the standard HTML tag used to embed or reference executable JavaScript code, making its presence in the logs highly suspicious.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B. SQLi (SQL Injection): SQL injection involves exploiting vulnerabilities in a database query to inject malicious SQL code. While SQL injection is a serious threat, the provided code snippet doesn't show any evidence of SQL-related syntax or database interaction.
\n
• C. DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service): DDoS attacks aim to overwhelm a system with traffic, making it unavailable to legitimate users. The code snippet doesn't suggest any attempt to flood a system with requests.
\n
• D. CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery): CSRF attacks trick users into performing actions they didn't intend to, often by leveraging authenticated sessions. While CSRF is a significant security concern, the provided code doesn't exhibit any characteristics of a CSRF attack, which typically involves manipulating HTTP requests.
\n

\n
• OWASP, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/xss/
\n
• SANS Institute, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks, https://www.sans.org/security-resources/glossary/cross-site-scripting
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization issued new laptops to all employees and wants to provide web filtering both in and out of the office without configuring additional access to the network. Which of the following types of web filtering should a systems administrator configure?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is agent-based web filtering provides granular control over web traffic on individual devices, ensuring consistent filtering policies regardless of network location and can monitor devices without accessing the company's network.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best option is A. Agent-based.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nAgent-based web filtering is the most suitable choice because it installs a software agent directly on each laptop. This agent enforces web filtering policies regardless of the laptop's location, whether it's inside or outside the office network. This approach doesn't require additional network configuration and ensures consistent web filtering for all users.
\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• B. Centralized proxy: A centralized proxy requires all web traffic to be routed through a central server. This approach necessitates additional network configuration and might not be effective when employees are outside the office network.
\n
• C. URL scanning: URL scanning typically involves scanning URLs against a database of known malicious or inappropriate websites. While effective, it may not provide the same level of granular control as agent-based filtering and might not work as effectively outside the corporate network without additional configurations.
\n
• D. Content categorization: Content categorization involves categorizing websites based on their content. Like URL scanning, it may not be as effective as agent-based filtering in providing granular control and consistent filtering policies regardless of the network location.
\n

Detailed Explanation:
\nAgent-based web filtering operates by installing a software agent on each endpoint device (in this case, laptops). This agent monitors and filters web traffic directly on the device. The key advantage is that the filtering policies are applied regardless of the user's location or network connection. When a user attempts to access a website, the agent checks the URL against predefined policies and either allows or blocks access. This ensures consistent filtering whether the laptop is connected to the corporate network or an external network.
\n
\nThis method is particularly effective for organizations that need to enforce web filtering policies for remote workers or employees who frequently travel. It eliminates the need for VPNs or other network-based solutions, simplifying the deployment and management of web filtering.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following should be used to aggregate log data in order to create alerts and detect anomalous activity?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. SIEM (Security Information and Event Management), which the reason is that SIEM systems are designed to collect, aggregate, and analyze log data from various sources, providing capabilities for creating alerts, detecting anomalous activity, and providing a centralized view of security events.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best choice for aggregating log data to create alerts and detect anomalous activity is A. SIEM.\n

\nReasoning:\n

\n
• SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) systems are specifically designed to collect, aggregate, analyze, and correlate log data from various sources across an organization's IT infrastructure.
\n
• This aggregation and analysis enable the detection of anomalous activities, security threats, and policy violations.
\n
• SIEMs provide alerting capabilities based on predefined rules or detected anomalies.
\n

\n
• B. WAF (Web Application Firewall): WAFs protect web applications from specific types of attacks, such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting. While they generate logs, their primary function isn't general log aggregation and analysis for broader security monitoring.
\n
• C. Network taps: Network taps are hardware devices used to intercept network traffic. They provide a copy of the traffic for analysis but don't perform log aggregation, alerting, or anomaly detection themselves.
\n
• D. IDS (Intrusion Detection System): An IDS monitors network traffic or system activity for malicious activity. While it can generate alerts, it typically focuses on specific intrusion attempts and doesn't provide the broad log aggregation and correlation capabilities of a SIEM.
\n

\nIn summary, SIEM provides the comprehensive log management, analysis, and alerting capabilities needed for detecting anomalous activity, making it the most appropriate choice.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following provides the best protection against unwanted or insecure communications to and from a device?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. The comments suggest that a host-based firewall is designed to control inbound and outbound traffic to and from a device, acting as a barrier by filtering network traffic based on predefined security rules. This filtering prevents malicious network traffic, providing protection from network-based attacks. The provided explanations highlight that a host-based firewall offers both detection and protection, while an IDS is only for detection.

I agree with the suggested answer, which is B. Host-based firewall.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nA host-based firewall is specifically designed to control network traffic to and from a single device. It acts as a barrier, filtering inbound and outbound connections based on a defined set of rules. This makes it the most direct and effective solution for preventing unwanted or insecure communications. It can block unauthorized access attempts, malicious traffic, and insecure communication protocols, thereby providing a strong layer of protection. As stated in the discussion, host-based firewalls offer both detection and protection, actively blocking malicious traffic, offering a more robust security posture.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:
\n

\n
• A. System hardening: System hardening is a broader process of securing a system by reducing its attack surface, which may include disabling unnecessary services, patching vulnerabilities, and configuring security settings. While system hardening enhances overall security, it doesn't directly control network communications in the same way a firewall does. It is a preventive measure but not a real-time protection mechanism against unwanted communications.
\n
• C. Intrusion detection system (IDS): An IDS is a monitoring system that detects malicious activity or policy violations. However, it primarily focuses on detection and alerting, not prevention. An IDS identifies suspicious traffic but does not inherently block or prevent unwanted communications. It requires additional systems or human intervention to take corrective action.
\n
• D. Anti-malware software: Anti-malware software is designed to detect and remove malicious software from a device. While it can help prevent malware-related communications, it does not provide the same level of control over all network traffic as a firewall. It focuses specifically on malware threats, rather than general network security.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Host-based firewall, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/host-based-firewall
\n
• System hardening, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/system-hardening
\n
• Intrusion detection system, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/intrusion-detection-system
\n
• Anti-malware software, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/antimalware
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the primary purpose of a service that tracks log-ins and time spent using the service?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Accounting, which the reason is Accounting refers to tracking and recording user activities, such as log-ins and the time spent using a service. It helps in auditing, monitoring usage patterns, and ensuring compliance with usage policies.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe primary purpose of a service that tracks log-ins and time spent using the service is B. Accounting.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nAccounting, in this context, refers to tracking and recording user activities, such as log-ins and the duration of service usage. This data is crucial for:
\n

\n
• Auditing: Verifying user activity for security and compliance purposes.
\n
• Monitoring Usage Patterns: Identifying trends in service usage to optimize resource allocation and identify potential security threats.
\n
• Ensuring Compliance: Confirming adherence to usage policies and terms of service.
\n

\n
• A. Availability: Availability refers to the uptime and accessibility of the service, not the tracking of user activity.
\n
• C. Authentication: Authentication is the process of verifying a user's identity, which is a separate function from tracking their activity.
\n
• D. Authorization: Authorization is the process of granting a user specific permissions or access levels after they have been authenticated. It is also a separate function from tracking their activity.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Accounting - Definition, Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accounting.asp
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn employee who was working remotely lost a mobile device containing company data. Which of the following provides the best solution to prevent future data loss?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which spans from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer to this question is Mobile Device Management (MDM). The comments agree that MDM is a comprehensive solution that allows for remote wiping, security policy enforcement, and proactive prevention of data loss, which makes it the best approach to address the risk of a lost or stolen device. Other opinions, such as Full Disk Encryption (FDE), are considered helpful for protecting data on a lost device, but MDM offers a more complete solution by also providing control over the device and preventing future data loss.

\nBased on my expert knowledge and the discussion summary, I agree with the suggested answer of A. MDM.\n
\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nMDM (Mobile Device Management) is the most suitable solution for preventing future data loss in the event of a lost or stolen mobile device. MDM solutions offer a centralized platform to manage and secure mobile devices, enabling features like remote wiping, password enforcement, application whitelisting/blacklisting, and location tracking. These capabilities allow administrators to remotely erase sensitive data, enforce security policies, and prevent unauthorized access to company resources, mitigating the risk of data breaches and ensuring compliance with data protection regulations.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• \nB. DLP (Data Loss Prevention): While DLP is crucial for monitoring and preventing sensitive data from leaving the organization's control, it is not as effective as MDM in addressing the specific scenario of a lost or stolen mobile device. DLP primarily focuses on data in transit and at rest within the network, but it may not offer the same level of remote management and control as MDM.\n
\n
• \nC. FDE (Full Disk Encryption): FDE is undoubtedly an essential security measure for protecting data on a lost device by encrypting the entire storage volume, but it doesn't provide the same level of remote management and control as MDM. While FDE can prevent unauthorized access to data, it does not allow administrators to remotely wipe the device or enforce security policies. It's a reactive, not a proactive control.\n
\n
• \nD. EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response): EDR solutions focus on detecting and responding to security threats on endpoints, such as malware infections and unauthorized access attempts. While EDR is valuable for identifying and mitigating security incidents, it is not specifically designed to address the risk of data loss from lost or stolen mobile devices. EDR is more about threat detection and response, not device management and data protection.\n
\n

\nTherefore, MDM is the best comprehensive solution as it offers both proactive prevention and reactive measures to protect company data on mobile devices.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn IT administrator needs to ensure data retention standards are implemented on an enterprise application. Which of the following describes the administrator’s role?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer B. From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is Custodian, which the reason is the custodian is responsible for managing and maintaining data on behalf of the data owner, including implementing policies and procedures for data retention, storage, archiving, and disposal. The comments highlight the custodian's role in protecting data from unauthorized access, loss, or damage, distinguishing it from other roles like the processor, privacy officer, and owner.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer B. The role that describes an IT administrator who needs to ensure data retention standards are implemented on an enterprise application is the Custodian.
\n
\nReasoning: A data custodian is responsible for the day-to-day management and protection of data, including implementing data retention policies. They ensure that data is stored, archived, and disposed of according to the established standards.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• Processor: A processor handles data processing activities but is not primarily responsible for data retention policies.
\n
• Privacy officer: A privacy officer is concerned with ensuring compliance with privacy regulations but doesn't directly implement data retention standards on an application.
\n
• Owner: The owner is responsible for defining the data retention requirements but delegates the implementation to the custodian.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• Data Custodian Responsibilities, https://www.educause.edu/focus-areas/information-technology-governance-risk-and-compliance/data-governance/resources/data-stewardship-roles-and-responsibilities
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company plans to secure its systems by:

•\tPreventing users from sending sensitive data over corporate email
•\tRestricting access to potentially harmful websites

Which of the following features should the company set up? (Choose two.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is AB, which the reason is the selected answer from the discussion. The answer states that DLP is used to stop users from sending sensitive data and DNS filtering is used to block unwanted websites.

\nI agree with the suggested answer of AB.
\nHere's the reasoning:\n

\n
• A. DLP software: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) software is specifically designed to prevent sensitive data from leaving an organization's control. It can monitor, detect, and block the transmission of sensitive data via email, thus directly addressing the requirement of preventing users from sending sensitive data over corporate email.
\n
• B. DNS filtering: DNS filtering blocks access to malicious or inappropriate websites by filtering domain name system (DNS) requests. This directly addresses the requirement of restricting access to potentially harmful websites.
\n

\nHere's why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• C. File integrity monitoring: While important for security, file integrity monitoring focuses on detecting unauthorized changes to critical system files, not preventing data leakage or website access.
\n
• D. Stateful firewall: A stateful firewall monitors the state of network connections and can block traffic based on rules, but it doesn't inherently prevent sensitive data from being sent in emails or specifically filter website content in the same way as DLP or DNS filtering. It provides broad network security, not targeted content control.
\n
• E. Guardrails: The term \"guardrails\" is very general and usually refers to a set of policies and procedures. While guardrails can contribute to overall security, they are not a specific technical solution for preventing data loss or restricting website access.
\n
• F. Antivirus signatures: Antivirus signatures are used to detect and prevent malware infections. While important, they don't directly address the requirements of preventing sensitive data from being sent over email or restricting access to harmful websites.
\n

\nTherefore, AB is the most appropriate answer.\n

\n
• Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Definition, https://www.imperva.com/learn/data-loss-prevention/data-loss-prevention-dlp/
\n
• DNS Filtering: What It Is, How It Works, and Benefits, https://www.forcepoint.com/cyber-security-glossary/dns-filtering
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA company processes and stores sensitive data on its own systems. Which of the following steps should the company take first to ensure compliance with privacy regulations?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. Develop and provide training on data protection policies, which the reason is ensuring the staff understands the importance of data protection and the specific regulations. Some comments also agreed with A. Implement access controls and encryption because it is a core component of the regulation, but some comment states it is more effective after the policies and procedures have been developed and communicated.

I disagree with the suggested answer A and instead recommend answer B, \"Develop and provide training on data protection policies.\"

\nReasoning:
\nWhile implementing access controls and encryption (Option A) is crucial for data security, the first step in ensuring compliance with privacy regulations should be to ensure that all personnel understand the importance of data protection and the specific regulations that apply. This is achieved through developing and providing training on data protection policies (Option B). Training establishes a baseline understanding of what data needs protection, why it needs protection, and how to protect it. Without this understanding, the implementation of technical controls like access control and encryption might be misdirected or ineffective. Compliance starts with awareness and education.

\nWhy other options are less suitable:
\n

\n
• Option A (Implement access controls and encryption): While critical, these are technical implementations that should follow a clear understanding of the policies and regulations. Implementing these controls without proper training can lead to misconfiguration or incomplete protection.
\n
• Option C (Create incident response and disaster recovery plans): These are important for business continuity and security incident handling but are reactive measures. Proactive compliance begins with establishing and communicating policies and training.
\n
• Option D (Purchase and install security software): Similar to Option A, this involves technical controls that are more effective after policies are established and personnel are trained. Simply installing software without understanding its purpose or proper configuration is not sufficient for ensuring compliance.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following cryptographic methods is preferred for securing communications with limited computing resources?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

I disagree with the suggested answer of C and recommend answer D. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC).

\nReasoning: While symmetric encryption (Option C) is indeed resource-efficient, Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) (Option D) is generally preferred for securing communications with limited computing resources in modern systems. This is because ECC offers a higher level of security for a given key size compared to other public-key cryptosystems, which translates to less computational overhead. This efficiency is crucial for devices with limited processing power, memory, and bandwidth, such as mobile phones, IoT devices, and embedded systems.

\nWhy not the other options:\n

\n
• A. Hashing algorithm: Hashing algorithms are one-way functions used for data integrity and are not suitable for securing communications directly.
\n
• B. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI): PKI is a framework for managing digital certificates and public keys. While PKI can be used with ECC, PKI itself is not a cryptographic method. Furthermore, implementing a full PKI requires significant resources.
\n
• C. Symmetric encryption: While less computationally intensive than other asymmetric algorithms, symmetric encryption requires key exchange, and ECC provides a more efficient means to exchange keys securely, in addition to its efficient encryption capabilities.
\n

\n
• Elliptic Curve Cryptography, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/elliptic-curve-cryptography
\n
• NIST, Comparison of Security provided by Common Symmetric and Asymmetric Crypto Algorithms, https://www.keylength.com/en/compare
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA network administrator wants to ensure that network traffic is highly secure while in transit.

Which of the following actions best describes the actions the network administrator should take?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion within the period from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is because EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) software is designed to protect endpoints from threats like malware, ransomware, and unauthorized applications, it is not specifically designed to secure network traffic in transit. The primary focus should be on encrypting the communication channels using protocols such as TLS (Transport Layer Security).

\n The suggested answer is B. The question asks about securing network traffic while in transit. Option B directly addresses this by focusing on using encrypted protocols like TLS.\n
\n Here's a detailed breakdown:\n
\nReasoning for choosing B:\n

\n
• TLS (Transport Layer Security) and other encrypted protocols are specifically designed to protect data confidentiality and integrity during transmission across a network. By ensuring that only these protocols are used, the network administrator can be confident that the data is protected from eavesdropping and tampering.
\n
• Restricting traffic to authorized communication via secure protocols ensures that only trusted and encrypted communication is allowed, further enhancing security.
\n

\n
• A: NAC (Network Access Control) and firewalls are important security measures, but they primarily control access to the network and filter traffic based on predefined rules. While they contribute to overall security, they don't inherently encrypt the traffic itself, and are not as focused on securing *in transit* traffic as TLS is.
\n
• C: IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) is designed to detect and block malicious traffic based on signatures. While it can protect against certain attacks like directory traversal, it doesn't encrypt the traffic itself. Furthermore, focusing solely on inbound HTTPS traffic neglects other potentially vulnerable protocols.
\n
• D: EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) software focuses on monitoring and responding to threats on endpoints. While important for overall security, it doesn't directly address the security of network traffic in transit.
\n

\n Therefore, option B is the most appropriate answer because it directly addresses the question's focus on securing network traffic in transit through encryption.\n

Citations:

\n
• Transport Layer Security (TLS), https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/transport-layer-security-tls/
\n
• Network Access Control (NAC), https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/small-business/resource-center/security/what-is-network-access-control.html
\n
• Intrusion Prevention System (IPS), https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/intrusion-prevention-system
\n
• Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/endpoint-detection-response-edr/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following definitions best describes the concept of log correlation?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is that the correct answer is B. The reason is that log correlation involves analyzing log data from multiple sources to identify patterns, trends, or events that may indicate malicious activity or security incidents. By correlating logs from different devices or systems (e.g., firewalls, servers, intrusion detection systems), security analysts can detect complex threats that might be missed when looking at logs in isolation. This helps to identify attacks that involve multiple steps or components, such as a coordinated intrusion attempt, or to detect abnormal behavior patterns that are indicative of a security breach. Combining logs from multiple sources is log aggregation, not correlation.

The suggested answer B is correct.
\nLog correlation is best described as searching and processing data to identify patterns of malicious activity. It involves analyzing log data from multiple sources to identify patterns, trends, or events that may indicate malicious activity or security incidents. This process helps in detecting complex threats that might be missed when logs are examined in isolation.
\nHere's a breakdown of why the other options are less accurate:\n

\n
• A. Combining relevant logs from multiple sources into one location: This describes log aggregation, which is a preliminary step to log correlation but not correlation itself.
\n
• C. Making a record of the events that occur in the system: This defines log generation or logging.
\n
• D. Analyzing the log files of the system components: While log analysis is related, it doesn't specifically address the \"correlation\" aspect, which involves linking related events from different sources.
\n

\n
• Log Correlation, https://www.rapid7.com/fundamentals/log-correlation/
\n
• SIEM, https://www.ibm.com/topics/siem
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn enterprise security team is researching a new security architecture to better protect the company’s networks and applications against the latest cyberthreats. The company has a fully remote workforce. The solution should be highly redundant and enable users to connect to a VPN with an integrated, software-based firewall. Which of the following solutions meets these requirements?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. SASE (Secure Access Service Edge), which the reason is SASE is a cloud-based security architecture that integrates networking and security services, making it ideal for enterprises with a fully remote workforce. It combines VPN, software-defined networking (SD-WAN), firewall-as-a-service (FWaaS), zero-trust access, and cloud security into a single, scalable solution. Key benefits that align with the requirements include high redundancy, integrated VPN (often replaced with ZTNA), software-based firewall, and protection against latest cyberthreats using SWG, CASB, and DLP.

\nBased on the question and discussion, I agree with the suggested answer C. SASE (Secure Access Service Edge).\n
\n
\nReasoning: The question describes a need for a security architecture that supports a fully remote workforce, offers high redundancy, and integrates VPN connectivity with a software-based firewall. SASE is a cloud-based architecture that converges networking and security functions into a unified service. This aligns perfectly with the requirements, as SASE solutions typically include:\n

\n
• VPN (or more modern ZTNA - Zero Trust Network Access) for secure remote access.
\n
• Firewall-as-a-Service (FWaaS), a software-based firewall delivered from the cloud.
\n
• SD-WAN capabilities for optimized network performance and redundancy.
\n
• Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) for securing cloud applications.
\n
• Secure Web Gateway (SWG) for protecting users from web-based threats.
\n

\nThe integrated nature of SASE ensures high redundancy and centralized security management, catering well to a distributed workforce and offering robust protection against modern cyber threats.\n
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. IPS (Intrusion Prevention System): An IPS is a security appliance that monitors network traffic for malicious activity and takes automated actions to block or prevent attacks. While important, it doesn't provide the comprehensive, integrated solution described in the question, especially the VPN and remote access aspects.
\n
• B. SIEM (Security Information and Event Management): A SIEM system collects and analyzes security logs from various sources to identify potential security threats. It's a valuable tool for threat detection and incident response, but it doesn't provide the network security and access control capabilities needed for a remote workforce.
\n
• D. CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker): A CASB is a security solution that sits between cloud users and cloud applications, enforcing security policies and protecting sensitive data. While CASB is a component *within* a comprehensive SASE solution, it doesn't provide the all-encompassing network and security functionality required by the scenario.
\n

\nTherefore, SASE is the most appropriate solution because it delivers a holistic approach to network security, combining VPN (or ZTNA), firewall, and other essential security services into a single, cloud-delivered platform, highly suitable for a fully remote workforce and meeting all the listed requirements.\n

\n
• SASE: Secure Access Service Edge, https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/secure-access-service-edge-sase
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is the best way to validate the integrity and availability of a disaster recovery site?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Lead a simulated failover, which the reason is it's the most effective method to validate the integrity and availability of a disaster recovery (DR) site. It involves simulating a real-world disaster, such as a primary site failure, and activating the DR site to take over the workload. This action ensures the DR site can handle operations as expected and confirms the site's data and configurations are correct and intact. Conducting a tabletop exercise, although valuable for training, doesn't validate the DR site's functionality.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best way to validate the integrity and availability of a disaster recovery site is: A. Lead a simulated failover.
\nReasoning:
\nA simulated failover is the most comprehensive method to test a disaster recovery (DR) site. It involves actually activating the DR site and transferring operations to it, mimicking a real disaster scenario. This process validates not only the availability of the DR site but also the integrity of the data and configurations. It confirms that the DR site can effectively take over the workload and maintain business continuity.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:
\n

\n
• B. Conduct a tabletop exercise: A tabletop exercise is a discussion-based simulation, which is useful for training and identifying potential issues, but it does not actually test the functionality of the DR site. It doesn't validate whether the DR site can handle the actual workload or if the data is correctly replicated.
\n
• C. Periodically test the generators: Testing generators is important for ensuring power availability, but it only addresses one aspect of the DR site. It doesn't validate the data integrity, application functionality, or overall operational readiness of the DR environment.
\n
• D. Develop requirements for database encryption: Developing encryption requirements is a security measure and does not directly validate the integrity and availability of the DR site. Encryption protects data, but it doesn't guarantee that the DR site is functional or that data can be properly recovered in a disaster.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Disaster Recovery Plan: How to Create One, https://www.ibm.com/topics/disaster-recovery-plan
\n
• Disaster Recovery, https://www.techtarget.com/searchdisasterrecovery/definition/disaster-recovery
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following allows an exploit to go undetected by the operating system?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which includes posts from approximately Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the consensus answer is C. Memory injection. The comments agree because memory injection allows malicious code to be executed directly within a running process's memory, thus evading file-based detection systems. Other opinions, such as those suggesting firmware vulnerabilities, were deemed less accurate because, while firmware vulnerabilities are dangerous, they do not necessarily bypass OS detection. Additionally, encrypted payloads were determined to be less appropriate as an answer.

I agree with the suggested answer of C. Memory injection.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nMemory injection is a technique where malicious code is inserted directly into the memory space of a running process. This allows the exploit to bypass many traditional detection methods because the code isn't written to disk as a file, thus avoiding file-based antivirus and integrity checks. The operating system might not detect this activity because the injected code operates within the context of a legitimate process.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Firmware vulnerabilities: While firmware vulnerabilities are critical and can lead to significant compromise, they don't inherently bypass OS detection in the same way memory injection does. Exploiting a firmware vulnerability typically involves modifying the firmware image itself or exploiting a vulnerability that then allows for other malicious activities.
\n
• B. Side loading: Side loading refers to installing applications without using an official app store. While it can introduce risks, it doesn't inherently allow an exploit to go undetected by the OS. The side-loaded application could still be subject to OS-level security checks and detection mechanisms.
\n
• D. Encrypted payloads: Encrypted payloads aim to conceal the nature of the malicious code during transmission or storage, but they must eventually be decrypted to be executed. Once decrypted, the code is potentially detectable by the OS or other security mechanisms. Therefore, encryption only provides temporary obfuscation, not complete evasion.
\n

\n
• Memory Injection, https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1055/
\n
• Firmware Vulnerabilities, https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/2017/A7_2017-Insufficient_Attack_Protection
\n
• Side Loading, https://www.androidauthority.com/sideloading-on-android-58215/
\n
• Encrypted Payloads, https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/09/16/a-payload-encryption-deep-dive/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA malicious insider from the marketing team alters records and transfers company funds to a personal account. Which of the following methods would be the best way to secure company records in the future?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A: Permission restrictions, which the reason is that permission restrictions are a broader and more effective approach for securing company records against insider threats. The comments agree that permission restrictions, applied on files, folders, and drives, ensure only authorized personnel have access to sensitive records, thereby minimizing insider threats.\n

\nBased on the question and discussion, I agree with the suggested answer: A (Permission restrictions).
\n
\nReasoning:\nThe scenario describes a malicious insider who was able to alter records and transfer funds. The best way to prevent this in the future is to limit who has access to sensitive data and systems in the first place. Permission restrictions, when properly implemented, ensure that only authorized personnel can access, modify, or delete specific files, folders, and applications. This directly addresses the insider threat by minimizing the potential for unauthorized actions.\n
\n
\nWhy other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• B. Hashing: Hashing is a cryptographic technique used to verify data integrity. While useful for detecting if a file has been altered, it doesn't prevent an authorized user from making those changes in the first place. Therefore, it doesn't directly address the insider threat described in the scenario.
\n
• C. Input validation: Input validation is a security measure used to prevent malicious data from being entered into a system. This is more relevant for preventing external attacks (e.g., SQL injection) and not particularly effective against an insider who already has authorized access.
\n
• D. Access control list (ACL): ACLs are a component of permission restrictions. While ACLs are important, the term \"permission restrictions\" is a broader and more encompassing term. In this context, \"permission restrictions\" better reflects the comprehensive strategy needed to prevent insider threats. It includes not just ACLs but also user rights management, group policies, and other controls to limit user access based on the principle of least privilege.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization is required to provide assurance that its controls are properly designed and operating effectively. Which of the following reports will best achieve the objective?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is an independent audit, conducted by a third-party organization, is the process that evaluates and verifies an organization's controls to ensure they are properly designed and operating effectively.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\n The question asks which report best provides assurance that controls are properly designed and operating effectively.
\nThe best answer is C. Independent audit because an independent audit is a systematic and objective assessment conducted by an independent third party to evaluate the effectiveness of an organization's internal controls, risk management processes, and governance. It provides assurance to stakeholders that these controls are properly designed and operating effectively.
\nReasoning for choosing C:\n

\n
• An independent audit is specifically designed to evaluate and verify the design and effectiveness of controls.
\n
• It provides an objective assessment performed by a qualified third party.
\n
• The audit report offers assurance to stakeholders regarding the reliability of the organization's control environment.
\n

\n
• A. Red teaming: Red teaming is a security assessment technique that simulates real-world attacks to test an organization's security posture. It focuses on identifying vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the organization's defenses, rather than evaluating the overall design and effectiveness of controls.
\n
• B. Penetration testing: Penetration testing is a type of security assessment that focuses on finding vulnerabilities in systems and networks by actively exploiting them. It's a point-in-time exercise and doesn't provide ongoing assurance about the design and operation of all controls.
\n
• D. Vulnerability assessment: A vulnerability assessment identifies potential weaknesses in systems and applications. While it's a valuable security practice, it doesn't provide the same level of assurance as an independent audit regarding the overall effectiveness of an organization's controls.
\n

\n

In conclusion, an independent audit provides the most comprehensive assurance that controls are properly designed and operating effectively.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA systems administrator successfully configures VPN access to a cloud environment. Which of the following capabilities should the administrator use to best facilitate remote administration?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is that a jump host (or bastion host) is a highly secured server located in a controlled security zone, designed to facilitate secure remote access to a cloud or internal environment. Administrators connect to the jump host first, and from there, they can securely access other systems within the environment.
\n Other options are not correct: SSH is for connecting to the system network, not design for cloud. A reverse proxy is for website not for remote administration of cloud systems. MDM is for securing and managing mobile devices, not for remote administration of cloud environments.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best capability for the systems administrator to use for facilitating remote administration after successfully configuring VPN access to a cloud environment is: A jump host in the shared services security zone.\n
\n
\nReasoning:\n

\n
• A jump host (also known as a bastion host) is a hardened server that sits between the external network (in this case, the internet via VPN) and the internal cloud environment. It acts as a single point of entry and control, requiring strong authentication and authorization. Once connected to the jump host, the administrator can then access other resources within the cloud environment. This significantly enhances security by limiting direct exposure of cloud resources to the internet.
\n

\n
• B. An SSH server within the corporate LAN: While SSH is a secure protocol, placing an SSH server directly on the corporate LAN and accessible via VPN is not as secure as using a jump host. It exposes the internal network to potential vulnerabilities if the SSH server is compromised.
\n
• C. A reverse proxy on the firewall: A reverse proxy is primarily used for web traffic and load balancing, not for secure remote administration of cloud systems. It does not provide the same level of access control and auditing as a jump host.
\n
• D. An MDM solution with conditional access: MDM (Mobile Device Management) is focused on managing and securing mobile devices, not on providing secure remote access to cloud infrastructure for system administrators. While conditional access can add security, it doesn't replace the need for a secure entry point like a jump host.
\n

\nA jump host provides a secure and controlled way to access and manage cloud resources remotely, making it the best option in this scenario.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following best describes the concept of information being stored outside of its country of origin while still being subject to the laws and requirements of the country of origin?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q4 2024, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. Data sovereignty, which the reason is that data sovereignty is the concept that data is subject to the laws and regulations of the country in which it is stored, regardless of its physical location. This means that if data is stored in a data center located in a different country, it is still subject to the legal framework and requirements of the country where the data originated.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer. The question describes a scenario where data is stored outside its country of origin but remains subject to the laws of that country. This aligns directly with the definition of data sovereignty.\n

\nReasoning: Data sovereignty is the idea that data is subject to the laws and governance structures of the nation within which it is collected or resides. Even if the physical storage is in another country, the laws of the originating country still apply.\n

\nWhy the other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• Geolocation: Geolocation refers to the geographical location of a device or data. It doesn't inherently address the legal jurisdiction over the data.
\n
• Intellectual property: Intellectual property relates to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols, names, and images used in commerce. It doesn't directly deal with data location and legal jurisdiction.
\n
• Geographic restrictions: Geographic restrictions are limitations placed on accessing content or services based on the user's location. While related to location, it doesn't encompass the broader concept of data being subject to the laws of its origin country regardless of where it's stored.
\n

\n
• Data sovereignty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sovereignty
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn audit reveals that cardholder database logs are exposing account numbers inappropriately. Which of the following mechanisms would help limit the impact of this error?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D: Masking, which the reason is masking obscures or redacts sensitive data, like account numbers, in logs or outputs, reducing the exposure of sensitive data and minimizing the impact of inappropriate access or disclosure.\n

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe question asks about limiting the impact of exposing account numbers inappropriately in cardholder database logs. The most appropriate mechanism to achieve this is masking.\n

\nReasoning:
\nMasking is a data security method that obscures sensitive data by replacing it with modified or dummy values. In the context of cardholder data, masking would hide the actual account numbers in the logs while still allowing the logs to be used for analysis and troubleshooting without exposing sensitive information. This directly addresses the problem of inappropriate exposure by limiting the visibility of the actual account numbers.\n

\nWhy other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• Segmentation: While segmentation can isolate the cardholder data environment, it doesn't directly address the issue of account numbers being exposed in the logs themselves. Segmentation is more about network isolation.
\n
• Hashing: Hashing is a one-way function that transforms data into a fixed-size string. While it can protect data at rest or in transit, it's not suitable for masking logs because hashing makes the data unreadable and unusable for analysis. We need the logs to be readable, just with the sensitive information obscured.
\n
• Journaling: Journaling is a process of recording changes made to a database or system. It doesn't inherently protect or obscure sensitive data; it simply records the changes that occur. Therefore, it does not limit the impact of exposing account numbers.
\n

\nTherefore, masking is the most effective mechanism for limiting the impact of inappropriately exposed account numbers in cardholder database logs.\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst attempts to start a company's database server. When the server starts, the analyst receives an error message indicating the database server did not pass authentication. After reviewing and testing the system, the analyst receives confirmation that the server has been compromised and that attackers have redirected all outgoing database traffic to a server under their control. Which of the following MITRE ATT&CK techniques did the attacker most likely use to redirect database traffic?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\nProcess injection (B) received the most agreement from the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025. The comments suggest that process injection is the most relevant technique because it allows attackers to inject code into a legitimate database process to redirect traffic. Valid accounts (C) is considered to be another possible option, this technique explains how the attacker gained initial access. However, the correct answer should be a technique used to redirect the traffic, and thus, is the primary focus in this scenario. Escape to host (D), is determined as incorrect because this is related to a privilege escalation from a container to the host machine, instead of redirecting network traffic.\n

\nBased on the question and discussion, I disagree with the suggested answer of C (Valid accounts) and recommend B (Process injection).\n
\n
\nReasoning:\nThe scenario describes a situation where outgoing database traffic has been redirected to a server controlled by attackers. While valid accounts could be used for initial access, the core issue is the redirection of traffic. Process injection aligns more closely with this scenario because it allows attackers to inject malicious code into the database server process, enabling them to intercept and redirect network traffic.\n
\n
\nWhy other options are less likely:\n

\n
• A. Browser extension: This technique typically affects browser activity, not server-level database traffic redirection.
\n
• C. Valid accounts: While valid accounts might be used for initial access, they don't directly explain how the traffic is redirected. It is a plausible method for initial access, but not the method used for redirection of traffic.
\n
• D. Escape to host: This technique is related to containerization and privilege escalation, not the redirection of network traffic from a database server.
\n

\nThe MITRE ATT&CK framework describes process injection as a technique where an attacker injects code into a running process to gain control or modify its behavior. This injected code can then be used to redirect network traffic as described in the question.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA penetration tester enters an office building at the same time as a group of employees despite not having an access badge. Which of the following attack types is the penetration tester performing?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A tailgating attack is a breach of security where an unauthorized actor gains access to a controlled area by closely following someone with legitimate access credentials, which the reason is the definition of tailgating.\n

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A. Tailgating.
\nReasoning: Tailgating is a social engineering attack where an unauthorized person gains access to a restricted area by following an authorized person. In this scenario, the penetration tester entered the office building by following employees without using a badge, which perfectly fits the definition of tailgating.\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• B. Shoulder surfing: This involves observing someone's screen or input to steal information, which is not relevant to the scenario.
\n
• C. RFID cloning: This involves copying the data from an RFID card to gain unauthorized access, which is not described in the scenario.
\n
• D. Forgery: This involves creating fake documents or credentials, which is not the method used by the penetration tester.
\n

\nCitation:\n

\n
• Tailgating, https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/tailgating/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following enables the ability to receive a consolidated report from different devices on the network?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. SIEM, which the reason is that a SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) system is designed to collect, aggregate, and analyze logs and data from various devices on the network, including firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), servers, and more.

I agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is C. SIEM.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nA SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) system is specifically designed to collect, aggregate, and analyze logs and data from various security devices and systems across the network. This consolidation allows for a centralized view of security events, making it possible to identify and respond to threats more effectively.
\n
\nReasons for eliminating other options:\n

\n
• A. IPS (Intrusion Prevention System): An IPS focuses on detecting and preventing malicious activity on the network, but it doesn't inherently provide a consolidated report from different devices.
\n
• B. DLP (Data Loss Prevention): DLP systems are designed to prevent sensitive data from leaving the organization, not to consolidate reports from different network devices.
\n
• D. Firewall: A firewall controls network traffic based on security rules, but it doesn't typically provide a consolidated report from various devices in the same way that a SIEM does.
\n

\n
• SIEM definition - IBM, https://www.ibm.com/topics/siem
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following should an organization focus on the most when making decisions about vulnerability prioritization?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System), which the reason is that CVSS is the most widely used method for prioritizing vulnerabilities, providing a standardized score that indicates the severity of a vulnerability by considering factors such as exploitability and impact. Other answers, such as the exposure factor, are also important, but CVSS is considered more comprehensive for vulnerability prioritization.

\nI agree with the suggested answer, which is B. CVSS.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nWhen prioritizing vulnerabilities, an organization should focus on CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) the most because:
\n

\n
• CVSS is a standardized scoring system: It provides a numerical score reflecting the severity of a vulnerability, making it easier to compare and prioritize vulnerabilities across different systems and vendors.
\n
• CVSS considers multiple factors: It takes into account various factors such as exploitability metrics (e.g., attack vector, attack complexity, privileges required, user interaction) and impact metrics (e.g., confidentiality, integrity, availability) to provide a comprehensive assessment.
\n
• CVSS is widely adopted: It's a widely used and recognized standard, enabling consistent vulnerability prioritization across different organizations and industries.
\n

\n
• A. Exposure factor: While understanding the exposure factor (i.e., how much of the organization is affected) is important, it doesn't provide a standardized severity score like CVSS. Exposure factor is a part of risk calculation, but CVSS helps quantify the initial risk.
\n
• C. CVE: CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) is a list of publicly known vulnerabilities. It provides identification numbers for vulnerabilities but doesn't inherently provide a prioritization mechanism. CVSS scores are often associated with CVE entries.
\n
• D. Industry impact: While understanding the potential impact on the industry can inform prioritization, it is not as direct and quantifiable as CVSS. Industry impact may be a secondary consideration after the inherent severity (CVSS) is understood.
\n

\nIn summary: CVSS is the most appropriate choice because it's a standardized and comprehensive scoring system that considers various factors to determine the severity of a vulnerability, enabling effective prioritization.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn organization needs to monitor its users’ activities in order to prevent insider threats. Which of the following solutions would help the organization achieve this goal?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is behavioral analytics and user behavior analytics (UBA) are specifically designed to identify anomalies in user behavior. These techniques use machine learning and data mining to analyze user activity data, such as login times, access patterns, and data transfers, to detect suspicious activity that may indicate an insider threat. UBA focuses on monitoring and analyzing user behaviors to detect anomalies, such as accessing systems or information outside of an employee's normal job duties.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.\n
\nReasoning:\n
\nThe question asks about solutions to monitor user activities to prevent insider threats. Behavioral analytics is the most suitable solution for this purpose.\n

\n
• Behavioral analytics involves monitoring and analyzing user behavior to detect anomalies that may indicate malicious activity or insider threats. It establishes a baseline of normal user behavior and then identifies deviations from that baseline.
\n

\n
• Access control lists (ACLs): ACLs define permissions for accessing resources but do not actively monitor user behavior for threat detection. They are primarily focused on authorization.
\n
• Identity and access management (IAM): IAM focuses on managing user identities and access rights. While it's essential for security, it doesn't directly monitor user behavior for threat detection.
\n
• Network intrusion detection system (NIDS): NIDS monitors network traffic for malicious activity, but it doesn't focus specifically on user behavior within the organization. It is more focused on external threats rather than insider threats.
\n

\n
• Behavioral Analytics, https://www.ibm.com/topics/behavioral-analytics
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA customer of a large company receives a phone call from someone claiming to work for the company and asking for the customer’s credit card information. The customer sees the caller ID is the same as the company's main phone number. Which of the following attacks is the customer most likely a target of?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Vishing, which the reason is vishing is a type of social engineering attack that uses phone calls or voice messages to trick individuals into disclosing sensitive information, such as credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, or login credentials.

\n I agree with the suggested answer.
\n The most likely attack the customer is a target of is D. Vishing.
\nReasoning: Vishing is a type of social engineering attack conducted over the phone, often using techniques like caller ID spoofing to appear legitimate. The scenario describes a phone call where the attacker is attempting to obtain sensitive information (credit card details) by impersonating a representative of a trusted organization (the company). This aligns perfectly with the definition of vishing.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• Phishing: Phishing typically involves deceptive emails or websites, not phone calls.
\n
• Whaling: Whaling is a targeted phishing attack aimed at high-profile individuals (e.g., executives), not necessarily applicable to a general customer.
\n
• Smishing: Smishing uses SMS text messages, not phone calls, to deceive victims.
\n

\nVishing Definition: Vishing (voice phishing) is a type of phishing attack conducted over the phone, often using social engineering techniques to trick individuals into divulging personal or financial information. Attackers may spoof caller ID to appear as a legitimate organization.\n

\nCaller ID Spoofing: Caller ID spoofing is the practice of falsifying the information transmitted as caller ID to display a different number than the one actually being used to make the call. This is often used in vishing attacks to deceive victims into trusting the call.\n

\nSocial Engineering: Social engineering is the art of manipulating people so they give up confidential information.\n

\nTherefore, the answer is D. Vishing\n

\nCitation:\n

\n
• Vishing, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/email-security/vishing/
\n
• Caller ID Spoofing, https://www.fcc.gov/spoofing
\n
• Social Engineering, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/what-social-engineering
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA security analyst is reviewing logs to identify the destination of command-and-control traffic originating from a compromised device within the on-premises network. Which of the following is the best log to review?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Firewall, which the reason is firewall logs are the best to review for identifying the destination of command-and-control (C2) traffic because they track inbound and outbound network traffic, including source and destination IP addresses, ports, and protocols. Additional opinions suggest that IDS does not necessarily track traffic for destination, and application logs primarily track software/applications and do not show network-level traffic or C2 server destinations.

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe best log to review for identifying the destination of command-and-control (C2) traffic originating from a compromised device within the on-premises network is the Firewall log.
\nReason: Firewall logs are designed to record all network traffic that passes through the firewall, including the source and destination IP addresses, ports, and protocols used. This information is crucial for identifying the destination of C2 traffic. A security analyst can review these logs to determine which external server(s) the compromised device is communicating with, helping to pinpoint the C2 server.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• IDS (Intrusion Detection System): While an IDS can detect malicious activity, it primarily focuses on identifying and alerting suspicious behavior based on signatures or anomalies. It may not always log the specific destination of the traffic in a readily usable format for tracking C2 communication.
\n
• Antivirus: Antivirus software primarily focuses on detecting and removing malware on individual endpoints. It does not typically log network traffic in a way that would be useful for identifying C2 destinations.
\n
• Application: Application logs are specific to the applications running on a system and do not generally provide detailed information about network traffic or the destination of C2 servers.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Firewall Logs: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-a-firewall-log
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhen trying to access an internal website, an employee reports that a prompt displays, stating that the site is insecure. Which of the following certificate types is the site most likely using?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is the browser cannot verify the authenticity of the website’s SSL/TLS certificate, most commonly caused by the site using a self-signed certificate, which lacks validation from a trusted Certificate Authority (CA).

\n I agree with the suggested answer, which is D. Self-signed.
\nReasoning: When an employee encounters a prompt stating that an internal website is insecure, it strongly suggests the website is using a self-signed certificate. Self-signed certificates are created and signed by the website's server itself, rather than a trusted Certificate Authority (CA). Browsers do not inherently trust self-signed certificates because they cannot verify the authenticity of the issuer. This leads to a warning message indicating that the site is not secure.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Wildcard: Wildcard certificates cover multiple subdomains of a domain. While a misconfigured or expired wildcard certificate *could* cause issues, the generic \"insecure\" prompt is more indicative of a self-signed certificate.
\n
• B. Root of trust: Root of trust refers to a set of functions that are always trusted by the computer operating system (OS). The root of trust allows other functions to be executed. A root of trust issue would likely result in a more fundamental failure, not just an \"insecure\" website warning.
\n
• C. Third-party: Third-party certificates are issued by trusted Certificate Authorities (CAs). If properly installed and configured, these certificates should not trigger \"insecure\" warnings in browsers.
\n

\n Citations: \n

\n
• Self-signed certificate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-signed_certificate
\n
• What is Root of Trust?, https://www.entrust.com/resources/glossary/root-of-trust
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following would most likely be deployed to obtain and analyze attacker activity and techniques?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Honeypot, which the reason is that a honeypot is specifically designed to attract, detect, and analyze attacker activity by mimicking a real system or network resource. It allows security teams to monitor attackers' techniques, tools, and behaviors in a controlled environment to understand attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

I agree with the suggested answer.
\nThe most likely device deployed to obtain and analyze attacker activity and techniques is C. Honeypot.
\nReasoning:
\nA honeypot is specifically designed to mimic real systems or networks to attract and trap attackers. This allows security personnel to observe and analyze attacker behavior, tools, and techniques in a controlled environment. By analyzing the attacker's actions, security teams can gain valuable insights into their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) and improve their overall security posture (SANS Institute). Honeypots serve as decoys that provide valuable intelligence on attacker methodologies without putting legitimate systems at risk (NIST).\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Firewall: Firewalls primarily control network traffic based on pre-defined rules and do not inherently analyze attacker techniques. While they log traffic, the primary purpose is filtering, not in-depth behavioral analysis.
\n
• B. IDS: Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) monitor network traffic or system activity for malicious activity and policy violations. While they can detect attacks, their primary goal is alerting, not necessarily detailed analysis of attacker techniques. They generate alerts based on signatures or anomalies but don't actively try to attract attackers like honeypots do.
\n
• D. Layer 3 switch: Layer 3 switches are used for routing network traffic and do not have specific capabilities for analyzing attacker activity or techniques.
\n

\nSuggested Answer: C. Honeypot\n

\nFull answer with reasoning:\n

\n
• Firewall: Firewalls are primarily used to control network traffic based on security rules and do not focus on attracting or analyzing attacker behavior. Their main function is to block unauthorized access.
\n
• IDS (Intrusion Detection System): An IDS monitors network traffic for suspicious activities and alerts administrators. It does not actively attract or engage attackers to study their techniques. Its primary function is detection.
\n
• Honeypot: A honeypot is specifically designed to mimic a real system or network to attract attackers. By observing their activities, security professionals can analyze their methods, tools, and motives. This makes it ideal for studying attacker behavior.
\n
• Layer 3 Switch: A Layer 3 switch is a networking device that routes data packets and does not have specific features for analyzing attacker activities.
\n

Therefore, the best answer is C. Honeypot, as it's designed to attract and analyze attacker activity.

\n
• SANS Institute, Understanding Honeypots, https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/detection/understanding-honeypots-33644
\n
• NIST, An Introduction to Honeypots, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/honeypot
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following objectives is best achieved by a tabletop exercise?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is that tabletop exercises are designed to test and refine an organization's response to simulated incidents. They are crucial for preparing for real-world incidents by highlighting vulnerabilities and enhancing coordination.

\nI agree with the suggested answer.
\nReason: Tabletop exercises are designed to familiarize participants with the incident response process. They provide a structured environment to discuss and analyze potential security incidents, allowing teams to practice their response strategies and identify areas for improvement. This aligns with the primary goal of tabletop exercises, which is to prepare for real-world incidents.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• B: Deciding red and blue team rules of engagement: Red and blue team exercises are different from tabletop exercises. While rules of engagement are important, they are not the primary focus of a tabletop exercise.
\n
• C: Quickly determining the impact of an actual security breach: Tabletop exercises deal with simulated incidents, not actual breaches. Determining the impact of a real breach would involve incident response and investigation activities, not a tabletop exercise.
\n
• D: Conducting multiple security investigations in parallel: This is related to incident response and forensic analysis, which are separate from the preparation and planning focus of a tabletop exercise.
\n

\nThe core function of a tabletop exercise is to walk through scenarios and discuss the roles, responsibilities, and procedures involved in responding to an incident, reinforcing the incident response process for all participants.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• NIST Definition of Tabletop Exercises, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/tabletop_exercise
\n
• SANS Institute on Incident Response Tabletop Exercises, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/12-steps-successful-incident-response-tabletop-exercise/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe private key for a website was stolen, and a new certificate has been issued. Which of the following needs to be updated next?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t