CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam Questions and Answers

To prevent sensitive corporate information from being exposed if a laptop is stolen, the solution must ensure that data is not stored locally and access is tightly controlled. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 4: Governance, Risk, and Compliance, 4.3), Desktop as a Service (DaaS) hosts data and applications in the cloud, reducing the risk of data exposure on physical devices. Combining DaaS with multifactor authentication (MFA) ensures that even if a laptop is stolen, unauthorized access to the cloud environment is prevented.

Option B:IP allow lists and SSO do not address data stored locally on the laptop, which could be accessed offline.

Option C:MDM and stronger passwords help but do not prevent data exposure if the device is compromised (e.g., via offline attacks).

Option D:Updating policies and monitoring breaches are reactive measures that do not directly protect data on a stolen laptop.

Option A:DaaS ensures no sensitive data resides on the device, and MFA secures access, making it the best solution.

Per SecurityX CAS-005 GRC principles, outsourcing a function does not transfer accountability for protecting personally identifiable information (PII). While subprocessors handle data, the originating organization remains responsible under most data protection laws and frameworks (e.g., GDPR, CCPA).

Due care in procurement (option B) is important, but it is a supporting concept, not the primary driver in this context.

Jurisdictional compliance (option D) is a requirement, but the underlying reason for risk assessment is that accountability for PII protection remains with the organization.

To reduce the number of failed patch deployments, the systems administrator should implement a robust change management process. Change management ensures that all modifications to systems or applications are planned, tested, and approved before deployment. This systematic approach reduces the risk of unplanned changes that can cause patch failures and ensures that patches are deployed in a controlled and predictable manner.

CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures)provides unique identifiers for publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities and exposures. Each CVE entry includes a description and, often, remediation information. CVSS refers to scoring severity, CCE focuses on configuration issues, and CPE deals with naming standardized platforms and systems.

The routing entry 0.0.0.0/0 forces all traffic from remote clients—including traffic destined for the public internet—through the VPN tunnel. This is called full-tunnel VPN routing. While it ensures strong security by forcing all traffic to pass through corporate controls, it can also overload VPN gateways and cause slow access to both internal and external applications, as seen in this scenario.

The correct fix is to enable split tunneling (B). Split tunneling allows only corporate traffic (e.g., private IP ranges or internal applications) to flow through the VPN, while internet-bound traffic routes directly to the internet. This reduces congestion on VPN concentrators, improves performance for remote users, and ensures efficient use of bandwidth.

Moving servers to a screened subnet (A) relates to internal segmentation but does not fix the VPN bottleneck. NAC (C) enforces device compliance but does not address routing inefficiencies. DNS over HTTPS (D) secures name resolution but is unrelated to network congestion.

Thus, enabling split tunneling balances security and performance for remote workers.

A computer screen shot of a diagram Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a computer error Description automatically generated

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) (A)monitors and protects applications in real time by detecting and blocking attacks as they occur. Unlike traditional security solutions, RASP is integrated into the application itself, meaning it works regardless of the programming language used. It effectively mitigates common vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, XSS, and buffer overflows.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (C) is a passive scanning approach that may not prevent attacks in real-time, while Network Intrusion PreventionSystems (NIPS) (D) focuses on network traffic, not application-layer security.

To provide secure access tointernal and external cloud resources, eliminate split-tunnel traffic flows, and enable identity and access management capabilities, the most appropriate solutions are CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker) and SASE (Secure Access Service Edge).

Why CASB and SASE?

CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker):

Secure Access: CASB solutions provide secure access to cloud resources by enforcing security policies and monitoring user activities.

Identity and Access Management: CASBs integrate with identity and access management (IAM) systems to ensure that only authorized users can access cloud resources.

Visibility and Control: They offer visibility into cloud application usage and control over data sharing and access.

SASE (Secure Access Service Edge):

Eliminate Split-Tunnel Traffic: SASE integrates network security functions with WAN capabilities to ensure secure access without the need for split-tunnel configurations.

Comprehensive Security: SASE provides a holistic security approach, including secure web gateways, firewalls, and zero trust network access (ZTNA).

Identity-Based Access: SASE leverages IAM to enforce access controls based on user identity and context.

Other options, while useful, do not comprehensively address all the requirements:

A. Federation: Useful for identity management but does not eliminate split-tunnel traffic or provide comprehensive security.

B. Microsegmentation: Enhances security within the network but does not directly address secure access to cloud resources or split-tunnel traffic.

D. PAM (Privileged Access Management): Focuses on managing privileged accounts and does not provide comprehensive access control for internal and external resources.

E. SD-WAN: Enhances WAN performance but does not inherently provide the identity and access management capabilities or eliminate split-tunnel traffic.

The security diagram proposed by the security architect depicts a Zero Trust security model. Zero Trust is asecurity framework that assumes all entities, both inside and outside the network, cannot be trusted and must be verified before gaining access to resources.

Key Characteristics of Zero Trust in the Diagram:

Role-based Access Control: Ensures that users have access only to the resources necessary for their role.

Mandatory Access Control: Additional layer of security requiring authentication for access to sensitive areas.

Network Access Control: Ensures that devices meet security standards before accessing the network.

Multi-factor Authentication (MFA): Enhances security by requiring multiple forms of verification.

This model aligns with the Zero Trust principles of never trusting and always verifying access requests, regardless of their origin.

Homomorphic encryption allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it, preserving confidentiality. However, its adoption faces significant challenges due to performance overhead. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study materials (Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, 3.3), homomorphic encryption requires substantial computational resources, which standard processors struggle to provide efficiently. Specialized hardware, such as coprocessors (e.g., GPUs or TPUs), is oftenneeded to handle the complex mathematical operations involved. The lack of widespread, optimized coprocessor support in existing infrastructure is a primary barrier to adoption.

Option A (Incomplete mathematical primitives):While early homomorphic encryption schemes had limitations, modern schemes (e.g., CKKS, BFV) have mature mathematical foundations, making this less of a challenge today.

Option B (No use cases):Use cases exist, such as secure cloud computing and privacy-preserving data analytics, so this is not accurate.

Option C (Quantum computers):Homomorphic encryption is not dependent on quantum computing, and quantum computers are unrelated to its current challenges.

Option D (Insufficient coprocessor support):This is the most accurate, as performance bottlenecks require specialized hardware that is not yet widely available or integrated.

To determine how the acquisition of Company B will impact the attack surface, the following steps are crucial:

A. Documenting third-party connections used by Company B: Understanding all external connections is essential for assessing potential entry points for attackers and ensuring that these connections are secure.

E. Performing an architectural review of Company B's network: This review will identify vulnerabilities and assess the security posture of the acquired company's network, providing a comprehensive understanding of the new attack surface.

These actions will provide a clear picture of the security implications of the acquisition and help in developing a plan to mitigate any identified risks.

Encrypting patient data at rest ensures that sensitive information is protected from unauthorized access, thereby maintaining patient privacy. Additionally, encryption supports data portability by allowing secure transfer and storage of data across different systems and devices without compromising confidentiality. This practice is crucial for healthcare providers to comply with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which mandates the protection of patient information.​

RACI matrix(Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) is used for role mapping across the project lifecycle.

CMDB is a configuration inventory; ITIL is a framework. Recall trees are for disaster recovery/business continuity.

FromCAS-005, Domain 1: Security Governance and Compliance:

“The RACI matrix is essential in role assignment and accountability for software development and operational processes.”

To mitigate the issue of excessive permissions and privilege creep, the best solutions are:

Implementing a Role-Based Access Policy:

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): This policy ensures that access permissions are granted based on the user's role within the organization, aligning with the principle of least privilege. Users are only granted access necessary for their role, reducing the risk of excessive permissions.

The best option is Mandatory Access Control (MAC). In MAC, access decisions are centrally controlled by the system or administrators, not by individual users. This ensures that healthcare staff who enter patient information cannot grant access to others, thereby preventing accidental or malicious disclosure. MAC enforces strict policies based on data sensitivity and user clearance, which aligns with compliance requirements like HIPAA.

Option A (rule-based) defines access through specific rules but is not as rigidly enforced as MAC. Option B (attribute-based) is flexible but could still allow dynamic grants of access. Option D (discretionary) explicitly allows users to assign access rights, which is exactly what must be avoided in this scenario.

CAS-005 stresses using centralized, non-discretionary controls when protecting sensitive medical data, making MAC the correct choice for hospitals.

The strings utility extracts human-readable text from binary files. Security analysts use it to identify Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) such as URLs, IP addresses, filenames, and commands embedded in the malware.

Option A (reconstructing timeline) would require event logs or forensic timeline tools.

Option C (replicating the attack) involves execution in a sandbox, not static string extraction.

This scenario clearly describes asupply chain attack, where the compromise occurs at the vendor or manufacturing stage before the product reaches the customer. The attack impacts many downstream organizations and sectors. SDLC attacks are focused on software development life cycles, side-loading involves unauthorized app installations, and remote code signing focuses on authenticating remote software, none of which fully encapsulate the situation described.

OpenSSH vulnerabilityispublic facingand has acritical CVSS of 9.2.

Exploitable SSH services can lead to direct server compromise.

Although Apache has a higher score, it's internal.

FromCAS-005, Domain 3: Vulnerability Management:

“Prioritize external vulnerabilities with high CVSS and exposed attack surfaces.”

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.

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).

The error message"NET::ERR_CERT_WEAK_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM" indicates that the web browser is rejecting the certificate because it uses a weak signature algorithm. This commonly happens with self-signed certificates, which often use outdated or insecure algorithms.

Why Discontinue Self-Signed Certificates?

Security Compliance: Modern browsers enforce strict security standards and may reject certificates that do not comply with these standards.

Trusted Certificates: Using certificates from a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) ensures compliance with security standards and is less likely to be flagged as insecure.

Weak Signature Algorithm: Self-signed certificates might use weak algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1, which are considered insecure.

Other options do not address the specific cause of the certificate error:

A. Rewriting legacy web functions: Does not address the certificate issue.

B. Disabling deprecated ciphers: Useful for improving security but not related to the certificate error.

C. Blocking non-essential ports: This is unrelated to the issue of certificate validation.

To design resilience in an enterprise system that can survive environmental catastrophes, recover within 24 hours, and be resilient to active exploitation, the best strategy is to allocate fully redundant and geographically distributed standby sites. Here’s why:

Geographical Redundancy: Having geographically distributed standby sites ensures that if one site is affected by an environmental catastrophe, the other sites can take over, providing continuity of operations.

Full Redundancy: Fully redundant sites mean that all critical systems and data are replicated, enabling quick recovery in the event of a critical loss of availability.

Resilience to Exploitation: Distributing resources across multiple sites reduces the risk of a single point of failure and increases resilience against targeted attacks.

The requirements demand detailed asset tracking and inventory management. Let’s analyze:

A. SBoM (Software Bill of Materials):Tracks software components, not hardware or network topology.

B. CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker):Secures cloud apps but doesn’t map physical switches or OS counts.

C. GRC(Governance, Risk, and Compliance):Focuses on risk management, not detailed asset tracking.

To reduce the risk of unauthorized BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) usage, the organization should implement Conditional Access and Network Access Control (NAC).

Why Conditional Access and NAC?

Conditional Access:

User-to-Device Binding: Conditional access policies can enforce that only registered and compliant devices are allowed to access corporate resources.

Context-Aware Security: Enforces access controls based on the context of the access attempt, such as user identity, device compliance, location, and more.

Network Access Control (NAC):

DeviceConfiguration Requirements: NAC ensures that only devices meeting specific security configurations are allowed to connect to the network.

Access Control: Provides granular control over network access, ensuring that BYOD devices comply with security policies before gaining access.

Other options, while useful, do not address the specific need to control and secure BYOD devices effectively:

A. Cloud IAM to enforce token-based MFA: Enhances authentication security but does not control device compliance.

D. PAM to enforce local password policies: Focuses on privileged account management, not BYOD control.

E. SD-WAN to enforce web content filtering: Enhances network performance and security but does not enforce BYOD device compliance.

F. DLP to enforce data protection capabilities: Protects data but does not control BYOD device access and compliance.

For bulk PKI enrollment:

MDM integration with directory services streamlines certificate request and deployment per device, leveraging existing authentication methods.

Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP) with one-time passwords allows automated, secure, large-scale certificate issuance without manual CSR handling.

clientAuth templates are used for device authentication, but selecting it alone is insufficient without automated enrollment mechanisms.

A single certificate for all devices violates PKI security principles and compromises individual device accountability.

A Configuration Management Database (CMDB) provides the best foundation for identifying which specific assets are affected by a given vulnerability. A CMDB maintains detailed information about the IT environment, including hardware, software, configurations, and relationships between assets. This comprehensive view allows organizations to quickly identify and address vulnerabilities affecting specific assets.

When dealing with false positives and false negatives reported by a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system, the goal is to enhance the accuracy of the alerts and ensure that actual threats are identified correctly. The following sources of information best support the analysis process:

A. Third-party reports and logs: Utilizing external sources of information such as threat intelligence reports, vendor logs, and other third-party data can provide a broader perspective on potential threats. These sources often contain valuable insights and context that can help correlate events more accurately, reducing the likelihood of false positives and false negatives.

B. Trends: Analyzing trends over time can help inunderstanding patterns and anomalies in the data. By observing trends, the security team can distinguish between normal and abnormal behavior, which aids in fine-tuning the SIEM configurations to better detect true positives and reduce false alerts.

Other options such as dashboards, alert failures, network traffic summaries, and manual review processes are also useful but are more operational rather than foundational for understanding the root causes of reporting errors in SIEM configurations.

Useruser-cis showinganomalous behavior across multiple machines, attempting to run administrative tools such as cmd.exe and appwiz.CPL, which are commonly used by attackers for system modification. The activity pattern suggests a lateral movement attempt, potentially indicating a compromised account.

user-a (A)anduser-b (B)attempted to run applications but only on one machine, suggesting less likelihood of compromise.

user-d (D)was blocked running cmd.com, but user-c’s pattern is more consistent with an attack technique.

Whencreating a threat model to identify vulnerabilities in an organization's infrastructure, prioritizing external-facing infrastructure with known exploited vulnerabilities is critical. Here’s why:

Exposure to Attack: External-facinginfrastructure is directly exposed to the internet, making it a primary target for attackers. Any vulnerabilities in this layer pose an immediate risk to the organization's security.

Known Exploited Vulnerabilities: Vulnerabilities that are already known and exploited in the wild are of higher concern because they are actively being used by attackers. Addressing these vulnerabilities reduces the risk of exploitation significantly.

Risk Mitigation: By prioritizing external-facing infrastructure with known exploited vulnerabilities, the organization can mitigate the most immediate and impactful threats, thereby improving overall security posture.

The best way to automate reporting from disparate security appliances that do not currently communicate is to configure an API Integration to aggregate the different data sets. Here's why:

Interoperability: APIs allow different systems to communicate and share data, even if they were not originally designed to work together. This enables the integration of various security appliances into a unified reporting system.

Automation: API integrations can automate the process of data collection, aggregation, and reporting, reducing manual effort and increasing efficiency.

Scalability: APIs provide a scalable solution that can easily be extended to include additional security appliances or data sources as needed.

The log snippet indicates a DNS AXFR (zone transfer) request, which can be exploited by attackers to gather detailed information about an internal network's infrastructure. Disabling DNS zone transfers is the best solution to mitigate this risk. Zone transfers should generally be restricted to authorized secondary DNS servers and not be publicly accessible, as they can reveal sensitive network information that facilitates lateral movement during an attack.

A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) is a security policy enforcement point placed between cloud service consumers and cloud service providers to combine and interject enterprise security policies as cloud-based resources are accessed. Implementing a CASB provides several benefits:

A. Improve firewall rules to avoid access to those platforms: This can help but is not as effective or comprehensive as a CASB.

B. Implement a cloud-access security broker: A CASB can provide visibility into cloud application usage, enforce data security policies, and protect against data leaks by monitoring and controlling access to cloud services. It also provides advanced features like data encryption, data loss prevention (DLP), and compliance monitoring.

C. Create SIEM rules to raise alerts for access to those platforms: This helps in monitoring but does not prevent data leaks.

D. Deploy an internet proxy that filters certain domains: This can block access to specific sites but lacks the granular control and visibility provided by a CASB.

Implementing a CASB is the most comprehensive solution to decrease the risk of data leaks by providing visibility, control, and enforcement of security policies for cloud services.

The best solution to address reported vulnerabilities in third-party libraries is integrating a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool as part of the development pipeline. Here’s why:

Early Detection: SAST tools analyze source code for vulnerabilities before the code is compiled. This allows developers to identify and fix security issues early in the development process.

Continuous Security: By integrating SAST tools into the CI/CD pipeline, the organization ensures continuous security assessment of the codebase, including third-party libraries, with each code commit and build.

Comprehensive Analysis: SAST tools provide a detailed analysis of the code, identifying potential vulnerabilities in both proprietary code and third-party dependencies, ensuring that known issues in libraries are addressed promptly.

Understanding the Security Event:

Unauthorized usersgained access from non-production to production.

IAM policies were weak, allowingbulk user creation.

Vulnerability assessments were disabled, andpatching was delayed.

Logs were unavailable, making incident response difficult.

Why Options A, D, and E areCorrect:

A (Disable bulk user creation by IAM team)→ Prevents unauthorized mass user account creation, which could beexploited by attackers.

D (Routine updates for endpoints & network devices)→ Patch management ensuresvulnerabilities are not left open for attackers.

E (Ensure all security/network devices send logs to SIEM)→ Helps withreal-time monitoring and detection of unauthorized activities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B (180-day log retention)→ While log retention is good,real-time monitoring is the priority.

C (Review application allow list daily)→ Reviewing itdaily is impractical. Regular audits are better.

F (Restrict production-to-non-production traffic)→ The issue isunauthorized access, not traffic routing.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) digitally signs outbound messages with the organization’s private key, enabling recipients to verify integrity and authenticity using the corresponding public key in DNS.

SPF validates sending server IPs, not message integrity.

DMARC builds policy enforcement on top of SPF and DKIM results.

TLS secures the transport channel, not the message content itself.

The logs indicate unauthorized access from104.18.16.29, an external IP, to the building camera’s administrative console during off-hours.Restricting access only to approved IPsensures that only authorized personnel can remotely control the cameras, reducing the risk of unauthorized access and manipulation.

Implementing WAF protection (A)secures against web application attacks but does not restrict unauthorized administrative access.

Upgrading the firmware (B)is good security hygiene but does not immediately mitigate the active threat.

Blocking IP 104.18.16.29 (D)is a temporary measure, as an attacker can switch to another IP. A better long-term solution is whitelisting trusted IPs.

The best description of the cyber threat to a central bank implementing strict risk mitigations for the hardware supply chain, including an allow list for specific countries of origin, is the risk of physical implants and tampering. Here’s why:

Supply Chain Security: The supply chain is a critical vector for hardware tampering and physical implants, which can compromise the integrity and security of hardware components before they reach the organization.

Targeted Attacks: Banks and financial institutions are high-value targets, making them susceptible to sophisticated attacks, including those involving physical implants that can be introduced during manufacturing or shipping processes.

Strict Mitigations: Implementing an allow list for specific countries aims to mitigate the risk of supply chain attacks by limiting the sources of hardware. However, the primary concern remains the introduction of malicious components through tampering.

The best way is to perform a Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) assessment. SAMM provides a structured framework to evaluate current software security maturity across people, process, and technology. The assessment highlights gaps and generates a roadmap tailored to the organization’s development environment.

Option B (threat modeling) only applies to specific applications, not the entire SDLC process. Option C risks misalignment with technical practices by relying only on CISO goals. Option D (OWASP secure coding manual) is useful but provides guidelines, not a maturity-based roadmap.

CAS-005 stresses leveraging maturity models for structured, measurable improvements. SAMM directly addresses this by producing a customized, actionable roadmap for secure coding practices.

Model poisoning occurs when an attacker manipulates the training data or the training process of an AI model so that its predictions are deliberately inaccurate or biased. In the SecurityX CAS-005 objectives, this is part of understanding emerging technology threats, specifically AI/ML vulnerabilities. This differs from:

Social engineering, which manipulates humans rather than AI models.

Output handling, which deals with how outputs are processed but doesn’t cause inaccuracy at the model level.

Prompt injections, which manipulate the model at query time, not during training.Because model poisoning directly corrupts the AI model itself, it is the clearest reason AI outputs could be inaccurate.

The issue is tracing the original source of requests in a tiered architecture with a load balancer. The web server logs show internal IPs (192.168.1.10), not the external client IPs, because the load balancer forwards requests without preserving the source. Enabling theX-Forwarded-Forheader on the load balancer adds the client’s original IP to the HTTP request headers, allowing downstream servers to log it. This ensures traceability without altering the architecture significantly.

Option A:Correct—X-Forwarded-For is the standard solution for preserving client IPs through load balancers.

Option B:A Host-based Intrusion Detection System (HIDS) detects anomalies but doesn’t address IP traceability.

Option C:A trusted CA certificate fixes the self-signed warning but is unrelated to source tracking.

Option D:Stored procedures improve database security but don’t help with IP logging.

Option E:Storing $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] captures the loadbalancer’s IP, not the client’s, unless X-Forwarded-For is enabled.

Understanding Business Impact Analysis (BIA):

ABIA assesses the effects of disruptionsto an organization's operations.

It helpsprioritize resourcesbased on the potential impact ofdowntime, compliance issues, and critical processes.

Why Options B, C, and F are Correct:

B (Applicable contract obligations)→ Many companies havelegal and compliance obligationsregarding downtime, availability, and SLAs. This information helps determine whatrisk levelsare acceptable.

C (Costs associated with downtime)→ BIA quantifies the financial impact of system failures. Knowinglost revenue, regulatory fines, and recovery costshelps in planning.

F (Critical processes)→ Identifyingcore business processesallows an organization toprioritize recoveryeffortsandmaintain operational continuity.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Inventory details)→ While useful for asset management, it doesnot directly impact business continuity planning.

D (Network diagrams)→ These help in security architecture but arenot directly related to the financial/business impact analysis.

E (Contingency plans)→ BIA isperformed before contingency planningto identifywhat needs protection.

The event timeline indicates a sequence where a file (hr-reporting.docx) was saved, scanned, executed, and eventually found to contain malware. The critical issue here is that the malware scan completed after the file was already executed. This suggests a Time-Of-Check to Time-Of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability, where the state of the file changed between the time it was checked and the time it was used.

Implementing security and quality checks in a CI/CD pipeline ensures that:

Container images are scanned for vulnerabilities beforedeployment.

Version control is enforced, preventing unauthorized changes.

Hashes validate image integrity.

Other options:

A (Configuring ACLs on mesh networks) improves access control but does not ensure scanning.

C (Audits on container images) detect changes but do not enforce best practices.

D (Pulling from a vendor repository) does not ensure vulnerability scanning.

The best solution is Conditional Access (D). Conditional access policies enforce access requirements based on contextual signals such as device compliance, user identity, location, or risk profile. In this case, the administrator can configure conditional access to ensure that only managed, corporate-approved devices are allowed to access confidential data. If an employee attempts to use a personal laptop, the access request will be blocked or redirected to a secure process (e.g., virtual desktop).

Option A (OCSP stapling) relates to certificate revocation checking and does not control device access. Option B (CASB) provides cloud access visibility and control but is broader and less precise than enforcing direct device-level conditional policies. Option C (SOAR) orchestrates responses but is not primarily designed for access enforcement. Option E (package monitoring) detects software changes but does not prevent unauthorized device usage.

Conditional access is a core principle in Zero Trust and modern IAM, making it the best solution for ensuring that sensitive data can only be accessed from trusted devices.

Limiting the platform's abilities to only non-sensitive functions helps to mitigate risks associated with AI operations. By ensuring that the AI-enabled digital worker is only allowed to perform tasks that do not involve sensitive or critical data, the organization reduces the potential impact of any security breaches or misuse.

Enhancing the training model's effectiveness (Option B) is important but does not directly address security guardrails. Granting the system the ability to self-govern (Option C) could increase risk as it may act beyond the organization's control. Requiring end-user acknowledgement of organizational policies (Option D) is a good practice but does not implement technical guardrails to secure the AI environment.

The vulnerability lies in line [10], where the function strcpy(transmit, input) is used. The strcpy function does not perform boundary checking when copying strings. Since input is defined with a size of 256 characters and transmit only has 20 characters allocated, the strcpy operation will cause a buffer overflow when the contents of input exceed the allocated size of transmit. This creates a significant security vulnerability, as attackers can overwrite adjacent memory, potentially injecting malicious code or altering program execution.

Lines [02], [04], [07], and [08] are not inherently vulnerable by themselves. Line [04] defines the oversized input, but the vulnerability only materializes when combined with the unsafe copy in line [10]. Secure coding practices recommend using safer alternatives like strncpy, which includes a length parameter, or implementing runtime checks to ensure the destination buffer size is not exceeded.

Thus, the vulnerable line that must be changed is line [10], where strcpy is used.

To meet the requirements of having allendpoints establish telemetry with a SIEM, integrate into an XDR platform, and allow SOC services to monitor the XDR platform, the best approach is to implement Host Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS) and a host-based firewall. HIPS can provide detailed telemetry data to the SIEM and can be integrated into the XDR platform for comprehensive monitoring and response. The host-based firewall ensures that only authorized traffic is allowed, providing an additional layer of security.

Vendor lock-in occurs when a client is overly dependent on a vendor, limiting flexibility. Risks include:

Option B:Vendors changing offerings (e.g., features, pricing) can disrupt the client, a key lock-in risk.

Option D:Decreased quality of service may result from reliance on a single vendor without alternatives.

Option A:Seamless data movement is a benefit, not a risk.

Option C:Sufficient service is neutral or positive, not a risk.

Option E:Multicloud is hindered by lock-in, not a risk of it.

Option F:Increased interoperability contradicts lock-in’s limitations.

Step by Step Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario: The question describes a proactive security measure where an organization maintains a registry of software dependencies and their corresponding hashes. This registry is used to verify the integrity of software packages.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

A. Supply chain attack: This type of attack involves compromising the software supply chain by injecting malicious code into legitimate software packages.

Configuring a span port on the perimeter firewall to ingest logs is the best architectural change to ensure that all client proxy traffic is captured for analysis. Here’s why:

Comprehensive Traffic Capture: A span port (or mirror port) on the perimeter firewall can capture all inbound and outbound traffic, including traffic that might bypass the proxy. This ensures that all network traffic is available for analysis.

Centralized Logging: By capturing logs at the perimeter firewall, the organization can centralize logging and analysis, making it easier to detect and investigate anomalies.

Minimal Disruption: Implementing a span port is a non-intrusive method that does not require significant changes to the network architecture, thus minimizing disruption to existing services.

This scenario describes anenterprise VPN setup that requires machine authenticationbefore a user logs in. The best explanation for this requirement is that theVPN client selects the appropriate certificate automaticallybased on the key extension in the machine certificate.

Understanding the Key Extension Requirement:

PKI (Public Key Infrastructure)issues machine certificates that include specific key usages such asClient AuthenticationorIPSec IKE Intermediate.

Key usage extensionsdefine how a certificate can be used, ensuring that onlyvalid certificates are selected by the VPN client.

Why Option B is Correct:

The VPNautomaticallyselects the correct machine certificate with the appropriate key extension.

The process occurswithout user intervention, ensuring seamless VPN authentication before login.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (MFA requirement):Certificates used in this scenario are for machine authentication, not user MFA. MFA typically involves user credentials plus a second factor (like OTPs or biometrics), which isnot applicable here.

C (Wi-Fi connectivity before login):This refers topre-logon networking, which is a separate concept where devices authenticate to a Wi-Fi network before login, usually via 802.1X EAP-TLS. However, this question specifically mentions VPN authentication, not Wi-Fi authentication.

D (SSL VPN with certificates):While SSL VPNs do use certificates,this scenario involves machine certificates issued by an internal PKI, which are commonly used inIPSec VPNs, not SSL VPNs.

The attacker gained domain control by collecting the KRBTGT hash (used for Kerberos tickets). Let’s evaluate:

A. Deleting SQLSV:Irrelevant since pass-the-hash failed there.

B. Reimaging ADMIN01S:Addresses the compromised host but not domain control.

C. Rotating KRBTGT password:Invalidates stolen Kerberos tickets, mitigating domain control per CAS-005’s focus on identity security.

Regression testing is a software testingpractice that ensures that recent code changes have not adversely affected existing functionalities. In this scenario, the reintroduction of a previously fixed bug indicates that changes or integrations brought back the old issue. Implementing comprehensive regression testing would help detect such reintroductions by systematically retesting the existing functionalities whenever changes are made to the codebase. This practice is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the application, especially in complexsystems where multiple components interact.​

In a federated environment divided by region, if user identities are not synchronized across regions, authentication may be slow or fail when employees travel. CAS-005 IAM guidance states that identity synchronization ensures user attributes and credentials are consistently available in all regions, reducing latency and login issues.

Option A creates separate identities, which breaks single identity management.

Option C is unrelated to the login performance issue.

Option D may resolve SSO appliance sync but not cross-region identity data availability.

HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code)ensures the integrity and authentication of API requests without exposing static or hard-coded private keys. It uses a secret key and a hash function, preventing replay attacks and tampering. VPNs secure the transport layer, MFA protects user accounts (not API-to-database communications), and DSA is a signature algorithm but does not address hard-coding risk directly.

When a security analyst receives a notification about an attack that appears to originate from an internal vulnerability scanner, it suggests that the scanner itself might have been compromised. This situation is critical because a compromised scanner can potentially conduct unauthorized scans, leak sensitive information, or execute malicious actions within the network. The appropriate first action involves containing the threat to prevent further damage and allow for a thorough investigation.

Here’s why quarantining the scanner sensor is the best immediate action:

Containment and Isolation: Quarantining the scanner will immediately prevent it from continuing any malicious activity or scans. This containment is crucial to protect the rest of the network from potential harm.

Forensic Analysis: By isolating the scanner, a forensic analysis can be performed to understand how it was compromised, what actions it took, and what data or systems might have been affected. This analysis will provide valuable insights into the nature of the attack and help in taking appropriate remedial actions.

Preventing Further Attacks: If the scanner is allowed to continue operating, it might execute more unauthorized actions, leading to greater damage. Quarantine ensures that the threat is neutralized promptly.

Root Cause Identification: A forensic analysis can help identify vulnerabilities in the scanner’s configuration, software, or underlying system that allowed the compromise. This information is essential for preventing future incidents.

Other options, while potentially useful in the long term, are not appropriate as immediate actions in this scenario:

A. Create an allow list for the vulnerability scanner IPs to avoid false positives: This action addresses false positives but does not mitigate the immediate threat posed by the compromised scanner.

B. Configure the scan policy to avoid targeting an out-of-scope host: This step is preventive for future scans but does not deal with the current incident where the scanner is already compromised.

C. Set network behavior analysis rules: While useful for ongoing monitoring and detection, this does not address the immediate need to stop the compromised scanner’s activities.

In conclusion, the first and most crucial action is to quarantine the scanner sensor to halt any malicious activity and perform a forensic analysis to understand the scope and nature of the compromise. This step ensures that the threat is contained and provides a basis for further remediation efforts.

Tokenizationreplaces sensitive data (e.g., PII) with non-sensitive placeholders while maintaining format consistency, ensuring compliancewithout disrupting testing. This method is commonly used forPCI-DSS and GDPR compliancewhile preserving data structure for functional tests.

Encryption (A)secures data but does not remove sensitivity or solve testing concerns.

Truncation (B)removes portions of data but may impact testing if format requirements are strict.

Synthetic data (C)can be useful but may not always match real-world scenarios perfectly for testing purposes.

The best solution is to provide a hash of all data made available (D). Hashing ensures the integrity of the threat intelligence data provided to customers. Clients can verify that the data received via API matches the published hash, ensuring no tampering occurred in transit or at rest. This supports customer trust and aligns with the objective of protecting data integrity while maintaining availability.

Option A (API secret keys) improves authentication and reduces attack surface but does not address integrity or compute efficiency. Option B (publishing IoCs publicly) increases attack surface and reduces control over distribution, which conflicts with security objectives. Option C (rate limiting) helps availability and cost control but does not guarantee data integrity.

By providing hashes, the company ensures customers can validate authenticity regardless of delivery method, reducing the risk of manipulated IoCs. This approach also minimizes compute spend since hashing is lightweight compared to continuous verification processes.

Therefore, the strongest alignment with all stated objectives—availability, reduced spend, reduced attack surface, and integrity—is achieved by providing hashes of all threat intelligence data.

A centralized Software Bill of Materials (SBoM) is the best solution for identifying vulnerabilities in container images in aprivate repository. An SBoM provides a comprehensive inventory of all components, dependencies, and their versions within a container image, facilitating quick evaluation and response to vulnerabilities.

Why Centralized SBoM?

Comprehensive Inventory: An SBoM lists all software components, including their versions and dependencies, allowing for thorough vulnerability assessments.

Quick Identification: Centralizing SBoM data enables rapid identification of affected containers when a vulnerability is disclosed.

Automation: SBoMs can be integrated into automated tools for continuous monitoring and alerting of vulnerabilities.

Regulatory Compliance: Helps in meeting compliance requirements by providing a clear and auditable record of all software components used.

Other options, while useful, do not provide the same level of comprehensive and efficient vulnerability management:

A. SAST scan reports: Focuses on static analysis of code but may not cover all components in container images.

C. CIS benchmark compliance reports: Ensures compliance with security benchmarks but does not provide detailed component inventory.

D. Credentialed vulnerability scan: Useful for in-depth scans but may not be as efficient for quick vulnerability evaluation.

SecurityX CAS-005 network architecture objectives emphasize limiting exposure of vulnerable systems by using application-aware firewalls with strict rule sets.

This approach directly reduces the attack surface by allowing only approved application traffic to and from the vulnerable systems, mitigating risk until systems are patched or replaced.

EDR (A) enhances detection but doesn’t inherently reduce the exposed services.

Network segmentation in monitor mode (B) doesn’t block threats.

IDS (C) detects activity but does not block it.

The hijacked administrator account was used across multiple ASNs (indicating different network locations) in a short time, despite MFA and SSO. This suggests a stolen session or token misuse. Let’s analyze:

A. Token theft detection with lockouts:Useful for detecting stolen SSO tokens, but it’s reactive and may not prevent initial misuse across networks.

B. Context-based authentication:This adds real-time checks (e.g., geolocation, IP changes) to verify login attempts. Given the rapid ASN changes, this proactively mitigates the issue by challenging suspicious logins, aligning with CAS-005’s focus on adaptive security.

C. Decentralize accounts:This removes SSO, increasing complexity and weakening MFA enforcement, which isn’t practical or secure.

The requirements for archiving data and immutable backups directly align with legal hold compliance (E) and ransomware resilience (F).

Legal hold compliance ensures that organizations can retain data in a tamper-proof manner when required for litigation, regulatory mandates, or audits. Immutable backups satisfy this by preventing unauthorized changes or deletion, ensuring evidence and records are preserved.

Ransomware resilience is also a key factor. Immutable backups allow recovery from ransomware attacks, as attackers cannot encrypt or delete data stored in read-only or write-once media. This reduces downtime and supports business continuity.

Options A (crypto-export), B (supply chain), C (device attestation), and D (quality assurance) do not relate directly to data archiving or immutable storage.

CAS-005 stresses aligning security controls with business continuity and compliance requirements. By focusing on legal and ransomware-related considerations, the organization ensures both regulatory and operational resilience.

To meet the requirements of centrally managing configurations, pushing policies, remotely wiping devices, and maintaining an asset inventory, the best solution is to implement a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution.

MDM Capabilities:

Central Management: MDM allows administrators to manage the configurations of all devices from a central console.

Policy Enforcement: MDM solutions enable the push of security policies and updates to ensure compliance across all managed devices.

Remote Wipe: In case a device is lost or stolen, MDM provides the capability to remotely wipe the device to protect sensitive data.

Asset Inventory: MDM maintains an up-to-date inventory of all managed devices, including their configurations and installed applications.

Other options do not provide the same comprehensive capabilities required for managing specialized endpoints.

Removing unnecessary services from existing endpoints reduces the attack surface by minimizing the number of potential vulnerabilities attackers could exploit. This is a cost-effective method to harden devices without requiring new purchases, aligning perfectly with a purchasing freeze. Deploying new EDR solutions or disposing of devices would likely conflict with the resource freeze, and reimaging systems does not address minimizing services proactively.

The Subject Alternative Name (SAN) field in an X.509 certificate specifies additional hostnames, FQDNs, or IP addresses that the certificate will secure. To allow mutual TLS authentication for multiple hostnames and an IP address, these identities must be included in the SAN field.

Organizational Unit (B) is an informational attribute, not related to TLS authentication.

Extended Key Usage (C) defines purpose (e.g., serverAuth, clientAuth) but not hostnames.

“Certificate extension” (D) is a generic term; SAN is the specific required extension.

SecurityX CAS-005 cloud architecture guidance emphasizes horizontal scaling for workloads that need to handle both predictable and fluctuating growth over time. Horizontal scaling allows the infrastructure to add nodes for both compute and storage dynamically, providing elasticity to meet fluctuating computational demands while accommodating exponential storage growth.

Vertical scaling (B) has hardware limits and is not as flexible for large, sustained growth.

CDN (A) is optimized for content distribution, not intensive compute workloads.

Load balancing (C) distributes workloads but does not address scaling for data growth.

Code Snippet 1

Vulnerability 1: SQL injection

SQL injection is a type of attack that exploits a vulnerability in the code that interacts with a database. An attacker can inject malicious SQL commands into the input fields, such as username or password, and execute them on the database server. This can result in data theft, data corruption, or unauthorized access.

Fix 1: Perform input sanitization of the userid field.

Input sanitization is a technique that prevents SQL injection byvalidating and filtering the user input values before passing them to the database. The input sanitization should remove any special characters, such as quotes, semicolons, or dashes, that can alter the intended SQL query. Alternatively, the input sanitization can use a whitelist of allowed values and reject any other values.

Code Snippet 2

Vulnerability 2: Cross-site request forgery

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) is a type of attack that exploits a vulnerability in the code that handles web requests. An attacker can trick a user into sending a malicious web request to a server that performs an action on behalf of the user, such as changing their password, transferring funds, or deleting data. This can result in unauthorized actions, data loss, or account compromise.

Fix 2: Implement anti-forgery tokens.

Anti-forgery tokens are techniques that prevent CSRF by adding a unique and secret value to each web request that is generated by the server and verified by the server before performing the action. The anti-forgery token should be different for each user and each session, and should not be predictable or reusable by an attacker. This way, only legitimate web requests from the user’s browser can be accepted by the server.

To prevent emails from being marked as spam, several DNS records related to email authentication need to be properly configured and updated when there are changes to the email server'scertificates:

A. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance): DMARC records help email servers determine how to handle messages that fail SPF or DKIM checks, improving email deliverability and reducing the likelihood of emails being marked as spam.

B. SPF (Sender Policy Framework): SPF records specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of your domain. Updating the SPF record ensures that the new email server is recognized as an authorized sender.

C. DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail): DKIM adds a digital signature to email headers, allowing the receiving server to verify that the email has not been tampered with and is from an authorized sender. Updating DKIM records ensures that emails are properly signed and authenticated.

D. DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions): DNSSEC adds security to DNS by enabling DNS responses to be verified. While important for DNS security, it does not directly address the issue of emails being marked as spam.

E. SASC: This is not a relevant standard for this scenario.

F. SAN (Subject Alternative Name): SAN is used in SSL/TLS certificates for securing multiple domain names, not for email delivery issues.

G. SOA (Start of Authority): SOA records are used for DNS zone administration and do not directly impact email deliverability.

H. MX (Mail Exchange): MX records specify the mail servers responsible for receiving email on behalf of a domain. While important, the primary issue here is the authentication of outgoing emails, which is handled by SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

The correct snippet is Option A, which shows an Ansible YAML playbook designed to deploy and maintain security software on Linux servers. Ansible is a configuration management tool widely used in enterprise environments, and the ansible.builtin.apt module specifically manages package installation on Debian/Ubuntu-based Linux distributions. This ensures consistent security software deployment across multiple servers.

Option B is XML-based and does not represent a valid configuration management script. Option C incorrectly uses JSON format and references Microsoft’s store (com.microsoft.store.latest), which is irrelevant for Linux. Option D also uses JSON syntax with “AppX,” which applies to Windows applications, not Linux.

CAS-005 emphasizes infrastructure as code (IaC) and automation as best practices for secure system configuration. YAML-based playbooks in Ansible provide repeatability, auditability, and scalability, making Option A the most secure and appropriate solution.

SecurityX CAS-005 exam content emphasizes integrating security into the SDLC and using automated tools to identify vulnerabilities early.

Software dependency management solutions track and analyze libraries and components for known vulnerabilities before deployment, using vulnerability databases such as NVD or OSS Index.

IAST scanning still requires the application to be running and may detect issues later.

WAF policies help block attacks in production but do not prevent vulnerable code from being deployed.

SIEM monitoring is reactive and identifies issues after they occur.By detecting vulnerable dependencies early, software dependency management solutions prevent late-stage deployment delays and reduce security risk.

In the given scenario, the security engineer is likely examining login activities and their associated geolocations. This type of analysis is aimed at identifying unusual login patterns that might indicate an impossible travel scenario. An impossible travel scenario is when a single user account logs in from geographically distant locations in a short time, which is physically impossible. By assessing login activities using geolocation, the engineer can tune alerts to identify and respond to potential security breaches more effectively.

Privileged Access Management (PAM)restricts elevated permissions, reducing the risk of widespread ransomware attacks.Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)protects against credential theft and ensures that even if passwords are compromised, accounts are not easily accessible.Network segmentationbreaks the flat network into secure zones, limiting lateral movement by attackers. SD-WAN and BGP relate to network routing and efficiency, not security architecture specifically. Remote access VPN secures external access but does not solve internal flat network issues. Network Access Control (NAC) is helpful but secondary compared to PAM, MFA, and segmentation in this context.

The most likely driver for approving additional network security budget is that the audit revealed that the existing architecture contained security controls that could be easily bypassed. This indicates fundamental weaknesses in defense-in-depth and suggests that attackers could gain access to sensitive systems or data despite the presence of controls.

Option A (unused budgets) is not a strategic reason for approving security investment. Option B (compliance reports requested by customers) may influence investment in compliance initiatives, but it does not explain the need for an in-depth defense architecture. Option D (PCI DSS low score) is a compliance-specific issue but would not, on its own, drive a broad architectural budget approval unless PCI was the only focus.

Security audits often uncover systemic flaws—such as flat networks, insufficient segmentation, or single points of failure—that create the conditions for bypassing controls. Addressing these issues requires rearchitecting the environment, introducing layered defenses, and strengthening monitoring capabilities, all of which demand significant budget. Thus, option C aligns with the decision to invest in robust defense-in-depth strategies.

The best solution to reduce the likelihood of firmware-level attacks and rootkits is to implement measured boot. Measured boot is a hardware-assisted security mechanism that leverages Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and Secure Boot processes. It records cryptographic measurements of each stage of the boot process—from firmware to operating system loaders—and stores them in the TPM. Security software, such as attestation services, can then verify that the system booted into a known, trusted state. If firmware or boot-level code has been tampered with, the measurements will not match expected values, alerting administrators to compromise.

Option A (software integrity checks) validates application-level integrity but does not address firmware rootkits that load before the operating system. Option B (self-encrypting drives) protects data at rest but does not prevent rootkits. Option D (host-based encryption) ensures confidentiality but does not detect or mitigate firmware-level persistence.

Measured boot specifically targets low-level tampering, making it the most relevant control to defend against rootkits and firmware exploits.

To develop a baseline of security configurations that will be automatically utilized when a machine is created, the security architect should deploy Ansible. Here’s why:

Automation: Ansible is an automation tool that allows for the configuration, management, and deployment of applications and systems. It ensures that security configurations are consistently applied across all new machines.

Scalability: Ansible can scale to manage thousands of machines, making it suitable for large enterprises that need to maintain consistent security configurations across their infrastructure.

Compliance: By using Ansible, organizations can enforce compliance with security policies and standards, ensuring that all systems are configured according to best practices.

When the cost to mitigate certain risks is higher than the asset values, the best approach is to purchase insurance. Thismethod allows the company to transfer the risk to an insurance provider, ensuring that financial losses are covered in the event of an incident. This approach is cost-effective and ensures that risks are prioritized appropriately without overspending on mitigation efforts.

Homomorphic encryption allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it, providing strong privacy guarantees. However, the adoption of homomorphic encryption is challenging due to several factors:

A. Incomplete mathematical primitives: This is not the primary barrier as the theoretical foundations of homomorphic encryption are well-developed.

B. No use cases to drive adoption: There are several compelling use cases for homomorphic encryption, especially in privacy-sensitive fields like healthcare and finance.

C. Quantum computers not yet capable: Quantum computing is not directly related to the challenges of adopting homomorphic encryption.

D. Insufficient coprocessor support: The computational overhead of homomorphic encryption is significant, requiring substantial processing power. Current general-purpose processors are not optimized for the intensive computations required by homomorphic encryption, limiting its practical deployment. Specialized hardware or coprocessors designed to handle these computations more efficiently are not yet widely available.

Proper parsing of data is crucial for the SIEM to accurately interpret and analyze the logs being forwarded by the log collector. If the data is not parsed correctly, the SIEM may misinterpret the logs, leading to false positives and inaccurate alerts. Ensuring that the log data is correctly parsed allows the SIEM to correlate and analyze the logs effectively, which is essential for accurate alerting and monitoring.

Risk mitigation involves taking actions to reduce either the likelihood or impact of a threat. By implementing a firewall between the two environments, Company A is minimizing the risk of threats from Company B impacting its own systems. Accepting the risk would involve taking no action, avoiding it would mean terminating activities with Company B, and transferring would involve outsourcing the risk, none of which occurred here.

Disabling unneeded servicesreduces the attack surface by closing open ports.Patchingensures that endpoint protection software and operating systems are up-to-date, reducing vulnerability exposure.Removing unused accountseliminates access paths for malicious users exploiting dormant accounts. Secure boot, BIOS passwords, and drive encryption are important, but they address different layers of security than the vulnerabilities listed.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) is crucial for identifying and addressing security vulnerabilities during the software development life cycle (SDLC). Ensuring that DAST scans are routinely scheduled helps in maintaining a secure development process.

Why Routine DAST Scans?

Continuous Security Assessment: Regular DAST scans help in identifying vulnerabilities in real-time, ensuring they are addressed promptly.

Compliance: Routine scans ensure that the development process complies with security standards and regulations.

Proactive Threat Mitigation: Regular scans help in early detection and mitigation of potential security threats, reducing the risk of breaches.

Integration into SDLC: Ensures security is embedded within the development process, promoting a security-first approach.

Other options, while relevant, do not directly address the continuous assessment and proactive identification of threats:

A. If developers are unable to promote to production: This is more of an operational issue than a security assessment.

B. If DAST code is being stored to a single code repository: This concerns code management rather than security testing frequency.

D. If role-based training is deployed: While important, training alone does not ensure continuous security assessment.

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.

The most appropriate technique to improve the cryptographic strength of a password-storage component in a web application without completely replacing the crypto-module is key stretching. Here's why:

Enhanced Security: Key stretching algorithms, such as PBKDF2, bcrypt, and scrypt, increase the computational effort required to derive the encryption key from the password, making brute-force attacks more difficult and time-consuming.

Compatibility: Key stretching can be implemented alongside existing cryptographic modules, enhancing their security without the need for a complete overhaul.

Industry Best Practices: Key stretching is a widely recommended practice for securely storing passwords, as it significantly improves resistance to password-cracking attacks.