CAS-005 Exam Dumps - CompTIA SecurityX Questions and Answers

In serverless computing, organizations rely heavily on CSPs to manage the infrastructure, runtime, and scaling. A key risk is thelevel of control and influence governments have over CSPs, potentially affecting availability, access, or confidentiality of hosted services due to legal orders or government actions. Concerns about virtualization technologies, scalability, or third-party monitoring are valid but less critical compared to the overarching legal and control risks tied to CSP reliance.

A.Creating a secondary, immutable storage array and updating it with live data on a continuous basis: An immutable storage array ensures that data, once written, cannot be altered or deleted. This greatly reduces the risk of backup compromise and provides resilience against ransomware attacks, as the ransomware cannot modify or delete the backup data. Maintaining multiple copies of production data with an immutable storage solution ensures data integrity and compliance with the requirement for multiple copies.

Other options:

B. Utilizing two connected storage arrays and ensuring the arrays constantly sync: While this ensures data redundancy, it does not provide protection against ransomware attacks, as both arrays could be compromised simultaneously.

C. Enabling remote journaling on the databases: This ensures real-time transaction mirroring but does not address the requirement for reducing the risk of backup compromise or resilience to ransomware.

D. Setting up anti-tampering on the databases: While this helps ensure data integrity, it does not provide a comprehensive backup solution that meets all the specified requirements.

To prevent unauthorized applications from running, the company needs a mechanism to explicitly define and enforce which applications are allowed to execute. "Permit listing" (often referred to as "whitelisting" in security contexts) is the most effective solution here. It involves creating a list of approved applications, and only those on the list are permitted to run, blocking all others by default. This directly addresses the root cause—users installing unapproved software—by restricting execution to only authorized programs.

Option A (Signing):Code signing ensures the authenticity and integrity of software by verifying it comes from a trusted source and hasn’t been tampered with. While useful, it doesn’t inherently prevent unauthorized applications from running unless combined with a policy like whitelisting.

Option B (Access control):Access control governs who can access systems or resources but doesn’t specifically restrict which applications can execute. It’s too broad for this scenario.

Option C (HIPS):A Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) can detect and block malicious behavior, but it’s reactive and relies on signatures or heuristics, not a proactive allow-only approach.

Option D (Permit listing):This is the best fit, as it proactively enforces a policy where only explicitly authorized applications can run, preventing malware introduced by unauthorized software.

Implementing the given commands in the Dockerfile ensures that the container runs with non-root user privileges. Running applications as a non-root user reduces the risk of privilege escalation attacks because even if anattacker compromises the application, they would have limited privileges and would not be able to perform actions that require root access.

A. Implementing the following commands in the Dockerfile: This directly addresses the privilege escalation attack surface by ensuring the application does not run with elevated privileges.

B. Installing an EDR on the container's host: While useful for detecting threats, this does not reduce the privilege escalation attack surface within the containerized application.

C.Designing a multi-container solution: While beneficial for modularity and remediation, it does not specifically address privilege escalation.

D. Running the container in an isolated network: This improves network security but does not directly reduce the privilege escalation attack surface.

Based on the provided authentication logs, we observe that User1's accountexperienced multiple failed login attempts within a very short time span (at 8:01:23 AM on 12/15). This pattern indicates a potential brute-force attack or an attempt to gain unauthorized access. Here’s a breakdown of why disabling User1's account is the appropriate first step:

Failed Login Attempts: The logs show that User1 had four consecutive failed login attempts:

VM01 at 8:01:23 AM

VM08 at 8:01:23 AM

VM01 at 8:01:23 AM

VM08 at 8:01:23 AM

Security Protocols and Best Practices: According to CompTIA Security+ guidelines, multiple failed login attempts within a short timeframe should trigger an immediate response to prevent further potential unauthorized access attempts. This typically involves temporarily disabling the account to stop ongoing brute-force attacks.

Account Lockout Policy: Implementing an account lockout policy is a standard practice to thwart brute-force attacks. Disabling User1's account will align with these best practices and prevent further failed attempts, which might lead to successful unauthorized access if not addressed.

The security engineer should modify the following to fix the email migration issues:

Email CNAME Record: The email CNAME record must be changed to a type A record pointing to 192.168.1.10. This is because CNAME records should not be used where an IP address (A record) is required. Changing it to an A record ensures direct pointing to the correct IP.

TXT Record for DMARC: The TXT record must be changed to "v=dmarc ip4:192.168.1.10 include

com -all". This ensures proper configuration of DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) to include the correct IP address and the email service provider domain.

DMARC: Ensuring the DMARC record is correctly set up helps in preventing email spoofing and phishing, aligning with email security best practices.

The most likely cause of the anti-malware alerts on customer workstations is unsecure bundled libraries. When developing and deploying new applications, it is common for developers to use third-party libraries. If these libraries are not properly vetted for security, they can introduce vulnerabilities or malicious code.

Why Unsecure Bundled Libraries?

Third-Party Risks: Using libraries that are not secure can lead to malware infections if the libraries contain malicious code or vulnerabilities.

Code Dependencies: Libraries may have dependencies that are not secure, leading to potential security risks.

Common Issue: This is a frequent issue in software development where libraries are used for convenience but not properly vetted for security.

Other options, while relevant, are less likely to cause widespread anti-malware alerts:

A. Misconfigured code commit: Could lead to issues but less likely to trigger anti-malware alerts.

C. Invalid code signing certificate: Would lead to trust issues but not typically anti-malware alerts.

D. Data leakage: Relevant for privacy concerns but not directly related to anti-malware alerts.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Determining if attacks are from the same actor requires unique attribution. Let’s analyze:

A. Code stylometry:Analyzes coding style to identify authorship, the best method for linking malware to a specific actor per CAS-005’s threat intelligence focus.

B. Common IOCs:Indicates similar attacks but not necessarily the same actor.

C. IOCextractions:Similar to B, lacks specificity for attribution.

Chain of custody ensures that evidence is protected, documented, and accounted for from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court or a legal proceeding. Properly maintaining chain of custody is critical to proving that the evidence has not been tampered with. Although encryption protects data during transit, and legal issues are important, without a documented chain of custody, the integrity of the evidence itself could be challenged and invalidated.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The question focuses on the historical design assumptions behind older operational technology (OT)systems, particularly in the context of command, control, and telemetry.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. operating in an isolated/disconnected system: This is the most accurate assumption for many legacy OT systems. Historically, these systems weredesigned to operate in air-gapped environments, completely isolated from external networks (including the internet).