Pass the CompTIA CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Data masking is a technique that replaces sensitive data with fictitious or anonymized data, while preserving the original format and structure of the data. This way, the data can be used for testing purposes without revealing the actual Pll information. Data masking is one of the best practices for data analysis of confidential data1. References: CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Certification Study Guide, page 343; Best Practices for Data Analysis of Confidential Data

An SLA (Service Level Agreement) is a contract or agreement between a service provider and a customer that defines the expected level of service, performance, quality, and availability of the service. An SLA also specifies the responsibilities, obligations, and penalties for both parties in case of non-compliance or breach of the agreement. An SLA can help organizations to ensure that their security services are delivered in a timely and effective manner, and that any security incidents or vulnerabilities are addressed and resolved within a specified time frame. An SLA can also help to establish clear communication, expectations, and accountability between the service provider and the customer12

An MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) is a document that expresses a mutual agreement or understanding between two or more parties on a common goal or objective. An MOU is not legally binding, but it can serve as a basis for future cooperation or collaboration. An MOU may not besuitable for requiring remediation of a known threat within a given time frame, as it does not have the same level of enforceability, specificity, or measurability as an SLA.

Best-effort patching is an informal and ad hoc approach to applying security patches or updates to systems or software. Best-effort patching does not follow any defined process, policy, or schedule, and relies on the availability and discretion of the system administrators or users. Best-effort patching may not be effective or efficient for requiring remediation of a known threat within a given time frame, as it does not guarantee that the patches are applied correctly, consistently, or promptly. Best-effort patching may also introduce new risks or vulnerabilities due to human error, compatibility issues, or lack of testing.

Organizational governance is the framework of rules, policies, procedures, and processes that guide and direct the activities and decisions of an organization. Organizational governance can help to establish the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of different stakeholders within the organization, as well as the goals, values, and principles that shape the organizational culture and behavior. Organizational governance can also help to ensure compliance with internal and external standards, regulations, and laws. Organizational governance may not be sufficient for requiring remediation of a known threat within a given time frame, as it does not specify the details or metrics of the service delivery or performance. Organizational governance may also vary depending on the size, structure, and nature of the organization.

1. Analyze the Log Evidence: The log displays a specific sequence of rapid-fire events (within 18 seconds) characteristic of automated reconnaissance tools used to map Active Directory environments.

20:06:05 (LDAP Reads): The attacker queries the directory for high-value groups (Domain Admins) and critical infrastructure (Domain Servers). They are not trying to log in; they are reading the membership lists to see who is important and where the servers are.

20:06:09 (EDR Enumeration): The attacker checks the local Administrators group. This is to see if the current compromised user has admin rights or who does.

20:06:23 (SMB Connections): The host PC021 attempts to connect to multiple other hosts. This indicates the attacker is testing where they can move laterally using the credentials or access they currently have.

2. Why this is "Finding the Shortest Path" (Option A): This behavior is the textbook signature of tools like BloodHound (or its data collector, SharpHound).

Concept: Adversaries use these tools to visualize relationships in Active Directory. They query LDAP to find out: "I am User A. Which computers can I access? Who is a Domain Admin? Is a Domain Admin logged into a computer I can access?"

Goal: The tool calculates the mathematical "shortest path" (graph theory) from the attacker's current low-level foothold to the ultimate target (Domain Admin).

The combination of LDAP querying (mapping the graph) and SMB connection attempts (verifying sessions/local admin rights) confirms the adversary is mapping out the network to find the most efficient route to total compromise.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. An adversary is performing a vulnerability scan: Vulnerability scanners (like Nessus or Qualys) typically probe ports and services to identify unpatched software (CVEs). They generally do not focus on querying LDAP for "Domain Admins" group membership as their primary action.

C. An adversary is escalating privileges: While the attacker intends to escalate privileges eventually, the logs show enumeration (Discovery phase). They are currently looking for the path to escalate, not actively exploiting a vulnerability (like a kernel exploit) to change their privilege level in this specific snapshot.

D. An adversary is performing a password stuffing attack: Password stuffing involves high volumes of failed authentication attempts against a login service. The logs here show read operations and connection attempts, not the "Invalid Credential" errors associated with stuffing.

Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) is the most appropriate Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to monitor the effectiveness of an incident response reporting and communication program among the choices provided.

Why B is correct: The primary goal of an "incident reporting" program (whether automated by tools or reported by users/staff) is to alert the security team to an issue as quickly as possible. MTTD measures the average time it takes for an organization to identify (detect and report) an incident after it has occurred. A lower MTTD directly indicates that the reporting mechanisms and communication channels from the source to the analysts are operating effectively.

Why A is incorrect: Incident volume measures the quantity of incidents, which reflects the threat landscape or workload rather than the effectiveness of the response program itself. While an increase in user-reported volume can indicate better awareness, MTTD is the standard performance metric for the process.

Why C is incorrect: Average time to patch is a KPI for Vulnerability Management, not Incident Response reporting.

Why D is incorrect: Remediated incidents refers to the volume of resolved issues (Response/Recovery phase) and does not specifically measure the speed or quality of the reporting and communication (detection) phase.

In Domain 4 (Reporting and Communication) and Domain 1 (Security Operations), CompTIA emphasizes the use of time-based metrics to evaluate process maturity.

MTTD (Mean Time to Detect): Measures "dwell time" and the efficiency of the Detection & Reporting phase.

MTTR (Mean Time to Respond): Measures the efficiency of the Response & Recovery phase.

​

The exploit code maturity of a vulnerability is indicated by the E metric in the CVSS temporal score. The value of U means that no exploit code is available or unknown1. The other options are not related to the exploit code maturity, but to other aspects of the vulnerability, such as attack vector, scope, availability, and complexity1.

An incident manager should work with the legal and public relations entities to ensure correct processes are adhered to when communicating incident reporting to the general public, as a best practice. The legal entity can provide guidance on the legal implications and obligations of disclosing the incident, such as compliance with data protection laws, contractual obligations, and liability issues. The public relations entity can help craft the appropriate message and tone for the public communication, as well as manage the reputation and image of the organization in the aftermath of the incident. These two entities can help the incident manager balance the need for transparency and accountability with the need for confidentiality and security12. References: Incident Communication Templates, Incident Management: Processes, Best Practices & Tools - Atlassian

When documenting a physical incident in a network data closet, taking photos provides a clear and immediate record of the situation, which is essential for thorough incident documentation and subsequent investigation.

Proper documentation of an incident in a data closet should include taking photos of the impacted items. This provides visual evidence and helps in understanding the physical context of the incident, which is crucial for a thorough investigation. Backing up configuration files, recording connections, and creating network diagrams, while important, are not the primary means of documenting the physical aspects of an incident.

This scenario describes a strictgovernance policyrequiring multiple approvals for high-risk security group changes.Organizational governancerefers to policies that enforce security controls and approval workflows​.

Option B (MOU - Memorandum of Understanding)refers to agreements between parties, not internal security processes.

Option C (SLA - Service Level Agreement)refers to service guarantees, not security governance.

Option D (Business process interruption)might be a consequence, but it is not the primaryinhibitor to remediationin this case.

Thus,A is correct, as governance rules are restricting remediation speed.

In digital forensics, a write blocker is a critical tool used to prevent any modifications to the source drive during imaging. When a forensic image is created, it should be an exact bit-for-bit copy of the original evidence. If a write blocker is not used, system processes or other unintended changes can alter the contents of the drive, leading to a hash mismatch between the original and the image copy​.

Chain of custody (Option A)ensures proper documentation of who accessed the evidence, but it does not directly affect the hash values.

Legal authorization (Option B)is necessary but unrelated to the technical integrity of the image.

Data integrity verification (Option C)is part of the process, but in this scenario, the failure to maintain integrity stems from the lack of a write blocker​.

Thus, the correct answer isD, as using a write blocker would have prevented any unintended changes to the data​.