PT0-003 Exam Dumps - CompTIA PenTest+ Questions and Answers

In a pin tumbler lock, the key interacts with a series of pins within the lock cylinder. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Components of a Pin Tumbler Lock:

Key Pins: These are the pins that the key directly interacts with. The cuts on the key align these pins.

Driver Pins: These are pushed by the springs and sit between the key pins and the springs.

Springs: These apply pressure to the driver pins.

Plug: This is the part of the lock that the key is inserted into and turns when the correct key is used.

Cylinder: The housing for the plug and the pins.

Operation:

When the correct key is inserted, the key pins are pushed up by the key’s cuts to align with the shear line (the gap between the plug and the cylinder).

The alignment of the pins at the shear line allows the plug to turn, thereby operating the lock.

Why Pins Are the Correct Answer:

The correct key aligns the key pins and driver pins to the shear line, allowing the plug to turn. If any pin is not correctly aligned, the lock will not open.

Illustration in Lock Picking:

Lock picking involves manipulating the pins so they align at the shear line without the key. This demonstrates the critical role of pins in the functioning of the lock.

======

Watering Hole Attack Explanation:

A watering hole attack involves compromising a website that the target frequently visits.

The attacker injects malicious code into the site, which then exploits users who access it.

Why Not Other Options?

B: DDoS attacks disrupt services but do not align with the watering hole strategy.

C: Social engineering may be effective but is not a watering hole attack.

D: Phishing is unrelated to compromising trusted websites.

CompTIA Pentest+ References:

Domain 3.0 (Attacks and Exploits)

Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) tools emulate real-world attacks to test security controls.

Atomic Red Team (Option C):

Atomic Red Team is an open-source BAS framework that provides simple commands to simulate MITRE ATT&CK® techniques.

It allows controlled adversary simulations without real exploitation.

Stakeholder alignment is the most effective way to prevent deliverable rejection because it ensures everyone agrees—before testing begins—on scope, objectives, success criteria, assumptions, constraints, and what the final report will contain. PenTest+ pre-engagement activities stress confirming stakeholders (technical owners, management, legal/compliance) share the same understanding of rules of engagement, in-scope/out-of-scope targets, testing windows, permitted techniques, evidence handling, and reporting requirements (format, depth, risk rating method, and required artifacts). When these expectations are aligned early, the final deliverable is far less likely to be rejected for being “the wrong kind of report,” missing required sections, violating constraints, or addressing the wrong priorities.

Goal reprioritization can occur mid-engagement, but it does not inherently prevent rejection and can actually introduce mismatch if not formally managed. An NDA supports confidentiality but does not define acceptance criteria for the report. Business impact analysis strengthens findings, yet it is usually a component shaped by stakeholder expectations—so alignment is the primary factor that reduces rejection risk.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

When a penetration tester finds a deprecated web directory that’s publicly accessible, the goal is to gather as much information as possible without triggering alerts.

Enumerating cached pages (such as those stored by Google Cache, the Wayback Machine, or local proxy caches) allows the tester to:

View historical or deleted content that might contain sensitive data, credentials, or configuration info.

Gather evidence without directly interacting with the target system, thus minimizing detection risk.

Why not the others:

B. Looking for externally available services: Useful for attack surface mapping, but not for extracting data from the discovered directory.

C. Scanning for exposed ports: Active probing that increases detection risk; unrelated to exploring a directory.

D. Searching for vulnerabilities/exploits: Premature; reconnaissance and content discovery come first.

CompTIA PT0-003 Mapping:

Domain 2.0: Information Gathering and Vulnerability Scanning

OSINT and passive reconnaissance to identify exposed data and files.

The script shows:

Use of BlobServiceClient.from_connection_string() — this is Azure Blob Storage interaction.

It opens a local file in binary mode (with open(file_path, "rb")).

Calls blob_client.upload_blob(data) — clearly indicating uploading the local file to cloud storage.

This matches data exfiltration activity, where stolen or sensitive local files are sent to an external system (cloud storage).

Why not the others?

A. API endpoint: The code uses Azure Blob storage SDK, not a REST API endpoint.

B. Download data from cloud storage: Code uploads, not downloads.

C. Alternate data streams (ADS): That’s a Windows NTFS feature, unrelated to cloud storage.

CompTIA PT0-003 Objective Mapping:

Domain 3.0 Attacks and Exploits

3.2: Post-exploitation techniques (data exfiltration, cloud storage use).

La opción C, dig axfr @local.dns.server, realiza una transferencia de zona DNS (Zone Transfer). Si el servidor DNS está mal configurado y permite este tipo de solicitudes, el atacante puede obtener todos los registros DNS del dominio interno.

La opción A muestra solo registros A/AAAA. La B no hace enumeración completa. La D no es válida como sintaxis.

Referencia: PT0-003 Objective 3.3 – Perform domain enumeration using dig and DNS zone transfer techniques.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

f.readlines() returns each line including trailing newline and any extra fields (labels). Given targets.txt lines contain URL followed by a label separated by whitespace, target will contain "http://10.10.6.4/ CompTIA-MR1\n ". Concatenating that directly with api yields an invalid URL. Splitting the line on whitespace and taking the first element (target.split(" ")[0] or better target.split()[0]) extracts just the URL (http://10.10.6.4/) before building url = target + api. This removes the descriptive label and newline so the resulting url is valid.

Why not the others:

A: Changes API format incorrectly.

C: Stripping http:// would make an invalid absolute URL for requests.post.

D: Passing api as the second positional parameter to requests.post is wrong (it expects data= or json=), and doesn’t fix the problem of extra label text in target.

PT0-003 mapping: Domain 4 — robust parsing and input sanitization when reusing scripts.

The GetUserSPNs.py script (part of Impacket) is used in Kerberoasting attacks. It requests Service Principal Names (SPNs) for users with associated services, retrieves TGS tickets, and then allows offline cracking of those tickets.

From the CompTIA PenTest+ PT0-003 Study Guide (Chapter 8 – Post-Exploitation):

“Kerberoasting involves requesting service tickets for SPNs, which can then be cracked offline to retrieve service account passwords.”

Risk scoring is the report element that most directly enables an organization to prioritize remediation work because it translates technical findings into an ordered view of business risk. In PenTest+ reporting guidance, testers are expected to communicate not only what is vulnerable but also how severe the issue is and how likely it is to be exploited, often incorporating factors such as exploitability, impact, exposure, and the presence of compensating controls. This produces a defensible ranking that helps stakeholders decide what to fix first when time and resources are limited.

Proof of concept supports validation by demonstrating that exploitation is possible, but it does not inherently provide comparative urgency across multiple findings. An attack narrative explains the path the tester used to achieve objectives (useful for understanding chaining and scope impact), but it is typically descriptive rather than a prioritization mechanism. The executive summary is aimed at leadership-level communication and overall posture, yet it usually depends on underlying risk ratings to justify what should be addressed first. Therefore, risk scoring most directly drives remediation prioritization.