Pass the CompTIA CompTIA CASP CAS-005 Questions and answers with CertsForce

To secure the Operational Technology (OT) environment based on the given requirements, the best approach is to implement a bastion host inthe OT network. The bastion host serves as a secure entry point for remote access, allowing third-party vendors to connect while being monitored by security tools. Using a dedicated update server for workstations ensures that security updates are applied in a controlled manner without direct internet access.

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.

Excessive MFA push notifications can be a sign of an attempted push notification attack, where attackers repeatedly send MFA prompts hoping the user will eventually approve one by mistake. To mitigate this:

A. Provisioning FIDO2 devices: While FIDO2 devices offer strong authentication, they may not be practical for all users and do not directly address the issue of excessive push notifications.

B. Deploying a text message-based MFA: SMS-based MFA can still be vulnerable to similar spamming attacks and phishing.

C. Enabling OTP via email: Email-based OTPs add another layer of security but do not directly solve the issue of excessive notifications.

D. Configuring prompt-driven MFA: This option allows users to respond to prompts in a secure manner, often including features like time-limited approval windows, additional verification steps, or requiring specificactions to approve. This can help prevent users from accidentally approving malicious attempts.

Configuring prompt-driven MFA is the best solution to restrict unnecessary MFA notifications and improve security.

Multicloud provider solutionsinvolve using services from more than one cloud provider to ensure resiliency and redundancy. In the event of a failure or SLA breach by one CSP, another provider can maintain service continuity. An on-premises backup could help, but does not address CSP-specific SLA concerns directly. Round-robin load balancing and active-active within the same tenant still depend on a single provider, thus posing risks if the CSP fails.

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.

Theregulated lab environment (Yes)shares the same VLAN (10.2.0.0/22) withusers, creatingzone traversalrisk from unregulated zones to sensitive datanetworks.

This allows pivoting and lateral movement from non-regulated user devices into regulated lab environments — a classiczone boundary violation.

Zone traversal should be mitigated with segmentation and firewall enforcement.

FromCAS-005, Domain 2: Risk Management and Mitigation Strategies:

“Zone traversal occurs when segmentation boundaries are misconfigured or merged, leading to regulatory and risk compliance failures.”

Sinkholing, or DNS sinkholing, is a method used to redirect malicious traffic to a safe destination. This technique is often employed by security teams to prevent access to malicious domains by substituting a benign destination IP address.

In the given logs, users from the finance department are accessing www.bank.com and receiving HTTP status code 495. This status code is typically indicative of a client certificate error, which can occur if the DNS traffic is being manipulated or redirected incorrectly. The consistency in receiving the same HTTP status code across different users suggests a systematic issue rather than an isolated incident.

Recursive DNS resolution failure (A) would generally lead to inability to resolve DNS at all, not to a specific HTTP error.

DNS poisoning (B) could result in usersbeing directed to malicious sites, but again, would likely result in a different set of errors or unusual activity.

Incorrect DNS setup (D) would likely cause broader resolution issues rather than targeted errors like the one seen here.

By reviewing the provided data, it is evident that the DNS traffic for www.bank.com is being rerouted improperly, resulting in consistent HTTP 495 errors for the finance department users. Hence, the most likely cause is that the DNS traffic is being sinkholed.

The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) v3.1 uses three metric groups to calculate overall scores:Base,Temporal, andEnvironmental.

Base (E):Mandatory metrics assessing exploitability (e.g., attack vector) and impact (confidentiality, integrity, availability).

Temporal (A):Optional metrics reflecting the current state of the vulnerability (e.g., exploit availability, remediation level).

Environmental (F):Optional metrics tailoring the score to the organization’s context (e.g., security requirements).

B, C, D (Availability, Integrity, Confidentiality):These are subcomponents of the Base Impact metrics, not standalone groups.

G (Impact):A categorywithin Base, not a group.

H (Attack vector):A single Base metric, not a group.

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.

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.