The SecOps Group CAP - Certified AppSec Practitioner Exam

A Dependency Confusion Attack occurs when an attacker uploads a malicious package with the same name as a private package to a public package repository (e.g., npm, PyPI), causing a package manager to prioritize the malicious public package over the intended private one due to misconfiguration or version precedence. To identify potential private packages for such an attack, attackers analyze dependency configuration files that list the application’s dependencies.

Option A ("package.json"): This file is used by npm (Node.js package manager) to define dependencies for JavaScript projects. It lists package names and versions, making it a prime target for identifying private packages that might be targeted in a dependency confusion attack.

Option B ("requirements.txt"): This file is used by pip (Python package manager) to define dependencies for Python projects. It similarly lists package names and versions, making it another target for identifying private packages.

Option C ("Both A and B"): Correct, as both package.json (JavaScript/Node.js) and requirements.txt (Python) are dependency configuration files that can reveal private package names, which an attacker might exploit in a dependency confusion attack.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as both files are relevant.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Supply Chain Attacks" and "Dependency Management."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Dependency Confusion Attacks," "Software Supply Chain Security," and "OWASP Dependency-Check Guide" sections.

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) and TLS (Transport Layer Security) are cryptographic protocols used to secure communication over a network. The security of these protocols has evolved over time, with older versions being deprecated due to identified vulnerabilities.SSLv2andSSLv3are considered insecure because they are vulnerable to attacks such as POODLE (Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption), which exploits weaknesses in their padding schemes. Similarly,TLSv1.0andTLSv1.1are also deemed insecure due to vulnerabilities like BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS) and weak cipher support, and they have been deprecated by modern standards (e.g., PCI DSS).TLSv1.2andTLSv1.3are considered secure when properly configured with strong ciphers.

Option A correctly identifies SSLv2 and SSLv3 as insecure, but it omits TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1. Option B correctly identifies TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 as insecure but omits SSLv2 and SSLv3. Option C ("Both A and B") encompasses all insecure protocols (SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1.0, and TLSv1.1), making it the most comprehensive and correct answer. Option D is incorrect because it includes TLSv1.2 and TLSv1.3, which are secure when used with modern configurations. This aligns with the CAP syllabus focus on secure communication protocols and vulnerability management.References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Secure Communication," "SSL/TLS Configuration," and "OWASP Secure Headers" sections.

Multifactor Authentication (MFA) enhances security by requiring multiple forms of verification (e.g., something you know, like a password, and something you have, like a one-time code) to authenticate a user. It is effective against attacks that rely on stolen credentials, but let’s evaluate its impact on the listed vulnerabilities:

Option A ("Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability"): XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) involves injecting malicious scripts into a web application that execute in the victim’s browser. MFA does not prevent XSS because it occurs after authentication; an attacker can exploit XSS to steal session cookies or perform actions on behalf of the authenticated user, bypassing MFA’s protection.

Option B ("Cross-Site Request Forgery Vulnerability"): CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) tricks a user’s browser into making unintended requests to a site where they are authenticated. MFA does not prevent CSRF because the attack leverages the user’s existing session (post-authentication). The browser automatically sends cookies (e.g., session cookies) with the forged request, and MFA does not interfere with this process.

Option C ("Path Traversal Vulnerability"): Path Traversal allows an attacker to manipulate file paths (e.g., ../../etc/passwd) to access unauthorized files on the server. MFA does not prevent this because it is an application-level vulnerability unrelated to user authentication; an attacker with or without credentials can exploit it if the application fails to validate input.

Option D ("All of the above"): Correct, as MFA is designed to secure the authentication process, not to mitigate vulnerabilities like XSS, CSRF, or Path Traversal, which exploit application logic or session management after authentication.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Multifactor Authentication" and "Application Security Vulnerabilities."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "MFA Implementation," "XSS/CSRF/Path Traversal Mitigation," and "OWASP Authentication Cheat Sheet" sections.

The scenario describes a vulnerability where a user can manipulate the order_id parameter in theURL (e.g., https://example.com/?order_id=53870) to access other users’ order details, indicating a lack of proper access control. This is a classic case of an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR)attack. IDOR occurs when an application exposes a reference to an internal object (e.g., an order ID) that can be manipulated by an unauthorized user to access resources they should not have access to, without validating the user’s permissions.

Option A ("Insecure Direct Object Reference"): Correct, as the ability to change order_id to view arbitrary orders fits the definition of IDOR.

Option B ("Session Poisoning"): Incorrect, as session poisoning involves corrupting or altering a user’s session data, which is not indicated here.

Option C ("Session Riding OR Cross-Site Request Forgery"): Incorrect, as CSRF involves tricking a user into submitting a request (e.g., via a malicious form), not manipulating a URL parameter directly.

Option D ("Server-Side Request Forgery"): Incorrect, as SSRF involves tricking the server into making unauthorized requests to internal or external resources, which is not the case here.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)" and "OWASP Top 10 (A04:2021 - Insecure Design)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "IDOR Vulnerabilities," "Access Control," and "OWASP Testing Guide" sections.

Asymmetric key encryption (also known as public-key cryptography) uses a pair of keys: a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption (or vice versa for signing). Symmetric key encryption, on the other hand, uses the same key for both encryption and decryption. Let’s evaluate the options:

Option A ("AES"): AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a single key (e.g., 128, 192, or 256 bits) for both encryption and decryption, making it a symmetric algorithm, not an asymmetric one.

Option B ("RSA"): RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) is an asymmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a public key to encrypt data and a private key to decrypt it, making it a classic example of asymmetric cryptography.

Option C ("Diffie-Hellman"): Diffie-Hellman is an asymmetric key exchange algorithm. While it is primarily used for key exchange rather than direct encryption, it relies on asymmetric principles (public and private keys) to securely establish a shared secret, so it is considered part of asymmetric cryptography.

Option D ("DSA"): DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm) is an asymmetric algorithm used for digital signatures. It uses a pair of keys (public and private) for signing and verification, making it an asymmetric algorithm.

The correct answer is A, as AES is the only symmetric algorithm listed, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cryptography Fundamentals" and "Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Encryption."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Cryptographic Algorithms," "Symmetric and Asymmetric Encryption," and "OWASP Cryptographic Storage Cheat Sheet" sections.

Symmetric key encryption algorithms use the same key for both encryption and decryption, while asymmetric algorithms use a pair of keys (public and private). Let’s evaluate the options:

Option A ("RC4"): RC4 is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It is a stream cipher that uses a single key to both encrypt and decrypt data, though it is considered insecure due to known cryptographic weaknesses (e.g., biases in the keystream).

Option B ("AES"): AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a single key (e.g., 128, 192, or 256 bits) for both encryption and decryption, widely regarded as secure when properly implemented.

Option C ("DES"): DES (Data Encryption Standard) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a 56-bit key for both encryption and decryption, but it is now considered insecure due to its small key size and vulnerability to brute-force attacks.

Option D ("RSA"): RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) is an asymmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a public key to encrypt and a private key to decrypt, making it an asymmetric algorithm, not a symmetric one.

The correct answer is D, as RSA is the only asymmetric algorithm listed, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cryptography Fundamentals" and "Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Encryption."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Symmetric Encryption Algorithms," "Asymmetric Encryption," and "OWASP Cryptographic Storage Cheat Sheet" sections.

A Race Condition vulnerability occurs in multi-threaded or multi-process applications when two or more threads access a shared resource concurrently, and the outcome depends on the non-deterministic order of their execution. This can lead to inconsistent states or security issues, such as privilege escalation or data corruption, if the access is not properly synchronized (e.g., using locks or semaphores). The classic definition focuses on concurrent access to the same resource.

Option A ("A situation that occurs when two threads access the same resource at the same time"): Correct, as this accurately describes a race condition where the lack of synchronization on a shared resource (e.g., a file, variable, or database entry) can lead to unpredictable behavior.

Option B ("A situation that occurs when two threads access different resources at the same time"): Incorrect, as race conditions specifically involve contention over the same resource, not different ones.

Option C ("A situation that occurs when a single thread unpredictably accesses two resources"): Incorrect, as race conditions require multiple threads or processes; a single thread’s behavior is not a race condition.

Option D ("A situation that occurs when a single thread predictably accesses two resources"): Incorrect, as predictability negates the race condition concept, and it still involves only one thread.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Race Condition Vulnerabilities" and "Multi-Threaded Security."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Concurrency Issues," "Race Conditions," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.

This question is identical to Question 52, describing a scenario where a TLS certificate has expired, causing a TLS error message, and asking about the correct course of action. The analysis remains the same:

Option A ("There is no urgency to renew the certificate as the communication is still over TLS"): Incorrect. An expired TLS certificate invalidates the trust model, even if the connection technically uses TLS. Browsers will issue warnings, and users may bypass them, but the lack of a valid certificate compromises security, making renewal urgent.

Option B ("There is an urgency to renew the certificate as the users of the website may get conditioned to ignore TLS warnings and therefore ignore a legitimate warning which could be a real Man-in-the-Middle attack"): Correct. Repeated exposure to TLS warnings due to an expired certificate may desensitize users, increasing the risk that they ignore legitimate warnings from a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack. Renewing the certificate promptly is essential to maintain security and user trust.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "TLS Configuration" and "Certificate Management."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "TLS Security," "Certificate Expiry Management," and "OWASP Transport Layer Protection Cheat Sheet" sections.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks occur when an attacker injects malicious scripts (e.g., JavaScript) into a web application, which are then executed in a victim’s browser. Effective input validation is a key defense against XSS by ensuring that user input does not contain malicious content.

Option A ("Blacklisting HTML and other harmful characters"): Blacklisting involves blocking known harmful characters (e.g., <, >, &) or patterns. While this can mitigate some XSS attacks, it is not the most effective approach because blacklists can be bypassed (e.g., using alternate encodings, nested tags, or new attack vectors). Blacklisting is inherently reactive and prone to evasion.

Option B ("Whitelisting and allowing only trusted input"): Whitelisting involves defining a strict set of allowed characters or patterns (e.g., only alphanumeric characters for a username). This is the most effective method because it explicitly permits only safe input and rejects everything else, making it much harder for attackers to inject malicious scripts. For example, if a field expects a phone number, a whitelist might allow only digits, spaces, and dashes, rejecting any HTML or script tags outright.

Option C ("Using a Web Application Firewall (WAF)"): A WAF can help detect and block XSS attacks by filtering malicious requests, but it is not an input validation method. WAFs are a secondary defense and can be bypassed; they are not a substitute for proper validation at the application level.

Option D ("Marking Cookie as HttpOnly"): The HttpOnly flag prevents cookies from being accessed by JavaScript, mitigating the impact of XSS (e.g., stealing session cookies), but it does not prevent the XSS attack itself. It addresses the consequence, not the root cause, and is not an input validation technique.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)" and "Input Validation Best Practices."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "XSS Prevention," "Input Validation and Sanitization," and "OWASP XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet" sections.