CS0-003 Exam Dumps - CompTIA CySA+ Questions and Answers

Eradication is a step in the incident response process that involves removing any traces or remnants of the incident from the affected systems or networks, such as malware, backdoors, compromised accounts, or malicious files. Eradication also involves restoring the systems or networks to their normal or secure state, as well as verifying that the incident is completely eliminated and cannot recur. In this case, the analyst is remediating items associated with a recent incident by isolating the vulnerabilityand actively removing it from the system. This describes the eradication step of the incident response process.

The correct answer is A. Orange team.

An orange team is a team that is involved in facilitation and training of other teams in cybersecurity. An orange team assists the yellow team, which is the management or leadership team that oversees the cybersecurity strategy and governance of an organization. An orange team helps the yellow team to understand the cybersecurity risks and challenges, as well as the roles and responsibilities of other teams, such as the red, blue, and purple teams12.

In this scenario, the analyst is conducting monitoring against an authorized team that will perform adversarial techniques. This means that the analyst is observing and evaluating the performance of another team that is simulating real-world attacks against the organization’s systems or networks. This could be either a red team or a purple team, depending on whether they are working independently or collaboratively with the defensive team345.

The analyst interacts with the team twice per day to set the stage for the techniques to be used. This means that the analyst is providing guidance and feedback to the team on how to conduct their testing and what techniques to use. This could also involve setting up scenarios, objectives, rules of engagement, and success criteria for the testing. This implies that the analyst is facilitating and training the team to improve their skills and capabilities in cybersecurity12.

Therefore, based on these descriptions, the analyst is a member of an orange team, which is involved in facilitation and training of other teams in cybersecurity.

The other options are incorrect because they do not match the role and function of the analyst in this scenario.

Option B is incorrect because a blue team is a defensive security team that monitors and protects the organization’s systems and networks from real or simulated attacks. A blue team does not conduct monitoring against an authorized team that will perform adversarial techniques, but rather defends against them345.

Option C is incorrect because a red team is an offensive security team that discovers and exploits vulnerabilities in the organization’s systems or networks by simulating real-world attacks. A red team does not conduct monitoring against an authorized team that will perform adversarial techniques, but rather performs them345.

Option D is incorrect because a purple team is not a separate security team, but rather a collaborative approach between the red and blue teams to improve the organization’s overall security. A purple team does not conduct monitoring against an authorized team that will perform adversarial techniques, but rather works with them345.

1. Analyze the Screenshot: The provided image shows a vulnerability scan report (likely from OWASP ZAP). The specific alert highlighted in blue is "Cross-Domain Misconfiguration" with 34 occurrences. In CompTIA performance-based questions, the highlighted item dictates the problem you need to solve.

2. Identify the Vulnerability: Cross-Domain Misconfiguration typically refers to issues with CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing).

CORS is a mechanism that allows a server to indicate any other origins (domains, schemes, or ports) than its own from which a browser should permit loading of resources.

A common misconfiguration occurs when the server sends the header Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *. This wildcard tells the browser to allow any website to access the resources on your server, which defeats the browser's Same-Origin Policy protection.

3. Evaluate the Solution (Option C): To tune this and fix the vulnerability without breaking functionality for legitimate partners, the analyst should change the configuration from a wildcard (*) to a specific allowlist.

Remediation: Set the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header to strictly define which authorized domains (e.g., https://partner.example.com) are allowed to access the resources.

This aligns perfectly with Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Set an HttpOnly flag to force communication by HTTPS:

This is incorrect for two reasons. First, it addresses the "Cookie No HttpOnly Flag" alert, not the highlighted "Cross-Domain" alert. Second, the definition is technically wrong: the HttpOnly flag prevents client-side scripts (like JavaScript) from accessing cookies (mitigating XSS); it does not force HTTPS. The Secure flag or HSTS headers are used to force HTTPS.

B. Block requests without an X-Frame-Options header:

This is the remediation for Clickjacking (seen in the alert list as "Missing Anti-clickjacking Header"), not Cross-Domain Misconfiguration.

D. Disable the cross-origin resource sharing header:

While removing the header entirely defaults the browser back to the strict Same-Origin Policy (which is secure), "tuning" implies adjusting the setting to work correctly. If the application requires cross-domain communication (which the presence of the header suggests), disabling it entirely would break the application. Configuring it correctly (Option C) is the professional remediation.

Fuzzing is a process used to test applications by inputting unexpected or random data to see how the application behaves. This method is particularly effective in identifying vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows, input validation errors, and other anomalies that could cause the application to crash or behave unexpectedly. By using fuzzing, the security team can ensure the new application is robust and capable of handling unexpected strings with anomalous formats without crashing.

1. Analyze the Log Evidence: The log displays a specific sequence of rapid-fire events (within 18 seconds) characteristic of automated reconnaissance tools used to map Active Directory environments.

20:06:05 (LDAP Reads): The attacker queries the directory for high-value groups (Domain Admins) and critical infrastructure (Domain Servers). They are not trying to log in; they are reading the membership lists to see who is important and where the servers are.

20:06:09 (EDR Enumeration): The attacker checks the local Administrators group. This is to see if the current compromised user has admin rights or who does.

20:06:23 (SMB Connections): The host PC021 attempts to connect to multiple other hosts. This indicates the attacker is testing where they can move laterally using the credentials or access they currently have.

2. Why this is "Finding the Shortest Path" (Option A): This behavior is the textbook signature of tools like BloodHound (or its data collector, SharpHound).

Concept: Adversaries use these tools to visualize relationships in Active Directory. They query LDAP to find out: "I am User A. Which computers can I access? Who is a Domain Admin? Is a Domain Admin logged into a computer I can access?"

Goal: The tool calculates the mathematical "shortest path" (graph theory) from the attacker's current low-level foothold to the ultimate target (Domain Admin).

The combination of LDAP querying (mapping the graph) and SMB connection attempts (verifying sessions/local admin rights) confirms the adversary is mapping out the network to find the most efficient route to total compromise.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. An adversary is performing a vulnerability scan: Vulnerability scanners (like Nessus or Qualys) typically probe ports and services to identify unpatched software (CVEs). They generally do not focus on querying LDAP for "Domain Admins" group membership as their primary action.

C. An adversary is escalating privileges: While the attacker intends to escalate privileges eventually, the logs show enumeration (Discovery phase). They are currently looking for the path to escalate, not actively exploiting a vulnerability (like a kernel exploit) to change their privilege level in this specific snapshot.

D. An adversary is performing a password stuffing attack: Password stuffing involves high volumes of failed authentication attempts against a login service. The logs here show read operations and connection attempts, not the "Invalid Credential" errors associated with stuffing.

Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)solutions allow organizations tointegrate security tools, automate response actions, and aggregate threat intelligence. This matches the organization's goal ofthreat detection, real-time analysis, and data aggregation​.

Option A (DLP - Data Loss Prevention)is focused ondata securityrather than threat aggregation and response automation.

Option B (Heuristics)is amethod for threat detection, not aplatformfor security automation.

Option D (NAC - Network Access Control)manages device access rather than handling security automation.

Thus,C (SOAR) is the correct answer, asit automates threat detection, intelligence integration, and real-time response​.

Host03 should be patched first, based on the metrics, as it has the highest risk score and the highest number of critical vulnerabilities. The risk score is calculated by multiplying the CVSS score by the exposure factor, which is the percentage of systems that are vulnerable to the exploit. Host03 has a risk score of 10 x 0.9 = 9, which is higher than any other host. Host03 also has 5 critical vulnerabilities, which are the most severe and urgent to fix, as they can allow remote code execution, privilege escalation, or data loss. The other hosts have lower risk scores and lower numbers of critical vulnerabilities, so they can be patched later.

The threat was detected from the time the emails were sent at 8:30 a.m. to when the recipients started alerting the organization’s help desk about the email at 8:45 a.m., taking a total of 15 minutes. The detection time is the time elapsed between the occurrence of an incident and its discovery by the security team . The other options are either too short or too long based on the given information. References: : Detection Time : Incident Response Metrics: Mean Time to Detect and Mean Time to Respond

The described behavior(pivoting across network segments, targeting domain servers, and exfiltrating data to an unknown location)is characteristic of anadvanced persistent threat (APT), often linked tonation-state actors​.

Option A (Hacktivist)attackers typically engage indefacements or disruptionrather thanstealthy exfiltration.

Option B (Zombie)refers tocompromised hosts in a botnet, but botnets do not usually pivot across networks.

Option C (Insider threat)could involve unauthorized access, but the traffic pattern suggests anexternalattacker withlateral movementtechniques.

Thus,D is the correct answer, asnation-state actors often use sophisticated tactics, including data exfiltration and network pivoting​.