CompTIA CAS-005 - CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam

The provided code snippet shows a script that captures the user's cookies and sends them to a remote server. This type of attack is characteristic of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), specifically stored XSS, where the malicious script is stored on the target server (e.g., in a database) and executed in the context of users who visit the infected web page.

A. XSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) attack: This involves tricking the user into performing actions on a different site without their knowledge but does not involve stealing cookies via script injection.

B. Command injection: This involves executing arbitrary commands on the host operating system, which is not relevant to the given JavaScript code.

C. Stored XSS: The provided code snippet matches the pattern of a stored XSS attack, where the script is injected into a web page, and when users visit the page, the script executes and sends theuser's cookies to the attacker's server.

D. SQL injection: This involves injecting malicious SQL queries into the database and is unrelated to the given JavaScript code.

The question focuses oninternet-facing hosts, implying external exposure. CVSS scores, remote executability, and exploitavailability guide prioritization. Server2 (205.1.3.5, CVSS 6.5, Bind Server) has a public IP, suggesting it’s internet-facing, unlike Server1 and Server4 (192.168.x.x, private IPs). Server3 (207.1.5.7, CVSS 5.5) is also public but has a lower score and risk compared to Server2’s proof-of-concept (POC) exploit. Server2’s Bind Server (DNS) role is critical and commonly targeted, making it the priority.

Option A:Server1 (CVSS 7.5) is private, not internet-facing.

Option B:Server2 (CVSS 6.5) is internet-facing with an exploit POC, warranting immediate patching.

Option C:Server3 (CVSS 5.5) is internet-facing but less severe.

Option D:Server4 (CVSS 9.8) is critical but private, not internet-facing.

To mitigate the identified vulnerabilities, the followingsolutions are most appropriate:

A. Implementing data loss prevention (DLP): DLP solutions help prevent the unauthorized transfer of data outside the organization. This directly addresses the exfiltration of intellectual property by monitoring, detecting, and blocking sensitive data transfers.

E. Enabling modern authentication that supports Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): This significantly enhances security by requiring additional verification methods beyond just passwords. It addresses the issue of weak user passwords by making it much harder for unauthorized users to gain access, even if they obtain the password.

Other options, while useful in specific contexts, do not address all the vulnerabilities mentioned:

B. Deploying file integrity monitoring helps detect changes to files but does not prevent data exfiltration or address weak passwords.

C. Restricting access to critical file services improves security but is not comprehensive enough to mitigate all identified vulnerabilities.

D. Deploying directory-based group policies can enforce security policies but might not directly prevent data exfiltration or ensure strong authentication.

F. Implementing a version control system helps manage changes to files but is not a security measure for preventing the identified vulnerabilities.

G. Implementing a CMDB platform (Configuration Management Database) helps manage IT assets but does not address the specific security issues mentioned.

OWIN23 is running Windows 7, which is a legacy operating system. Many EDR solutions no longer provide full support for outdated operating systems like Windows 7, which has reached its end of life and is no longer receiving security updates from Microsoft. This makes such systems more vulnerable to infections and attacks, including remote access Trojans (RATs).

A. OWIN23 uses a legacy version of Windows that is not supported by the EDR: This is the most probable cause because the lack of support means that the EDR solution may not fully protect or monitor this system, making it an easy target for infections.

B. LN002 was not supported by the EDR solution and propagates the RAT: While LN002 is unmanaged, it is less likely to propagate the RAT to OWIN23 directly without an established vector.

C. The EDR has an unknown vulnerability that was exploited by the attacker: This is possible but less likely than the lack of support for an outdated OS.

D. OWIN29 spreads the malware through other hosts in the network: While this could happen, the status indicates OWIN29 is in a bypass mode, which might limit its interactions but does not directly explain the infection on OWIN23.

Understanding the Security Event:

Administrator accounts are highly privilegedand require strict monitoring.

Server 4 shows failed login attempts for the administrator account.This could indicate abrute-force attack or unauthorized access attempt.

The fact thatnone of the admin login attempts were successfulsuggestssomeone was trying to guess the credentials.

Why Option D isCorrect:

Failed logins for administrator accounts are a critical security concern.

If an attacker gains access, they couldescalate privileges and compromise the network.

Investigatingunauthorized admin login attemptsshould be thetop priorityin a log audit.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Endpoint not submitting logs):While this is concerning, it does not indicate anactive attack.

B (Lateral movement):There's no evidence of a compromised account moving between servers yet.

C (Misconfigured syslog server):False negatives are a possibility, but thefailed admin loginsare real.

Incident response follows a standard process (e.g., NIST 800-61): Preparation, Identification, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, Lessons Learned. After identifying the attack (file and origin), the next step isContainment—limiting the spread or impact (e.g., isolating systems) before remediation or recovery.

Option A:Remediation (fixing the root cause) follows containment.

Option B:Correct—containment prevents further damage post-identification.

Option C:“Response” is too vague; it encompasses all steps.

Option D:Recovery (restoring systems) comes after containment and eradication.

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

Other options:

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

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

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

Homomorphic encryptionallows computations to be performed directly on encrypted data without decrypting it first. This technology is particularly useful for securely transmitting confidential data to a cloud service provider (CSP) and allowing the CSP to process the data without having any visibility into its content. This maintains data confidentiality even during processing. It is not about securing data at rest and in transit or simply storing data across nodes.

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

Why Unsecure Bundled Libraries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scenario involves replacing an on-premises VPN solution, which has a zero-day vulnerability, with cloud-hosted resources while ensuring trusted connectivity. Trusted connectivity in a cloud environment implies secure, scalable, and modern access control that goes beyond traditional VPNs. Let’s analyze the options:

A. Container orchestration: This refers to managing and automating containerized workloads (e.g., Kubernetes). While useful for application deployment, it doesn’t directly address secure connectivity to cloud resources.

B. Microsegmentation: This involves creating fine-grained security policies within a network to limit lateral movement. It’s valuable for internal security but isn’t a complete solution for trusted connectivity to cloud-hosted resources.

C. Conditional access: This ensures access based on conditions (e.g., user identity, device health). It’s relevant for identity management but lacks the broader networking and security scope needed here.