Pass the ISC ISC 2 Credentials SSCP Questions and answers with CertsForce

Tripwire is an integrity checking product, triggering alarms when important files (e.g. system or configuration files) are modified.

This is a tool that is not likely to be used by hackers, other than for studying its workings in order to circumvent it.

Other programs are password-cracking programs and are likely to be used by security administrators as well as by hackers. More info regarding Tripwire available on the Tripwire, Inc. Web Site.

NOTE:

The biggest competitor to the commercial version of Tripwire is the freeware version of Tripwire. You can get the Open Source version of Tripwire at the following URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tripwire/

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 49.

The primary purpose of a honeypot is to study the attack methods of an attacker for the purposes of understanding their methods and improving defenses.

"To lure hackers into attacking unused systems" is incorrect. Honeypots can serve as decoys but their primary purpose is to study the behaviors of attackers.

"To entrap and track down possible hackers" is incorrect. There are a host of legal issues around enticement vs entrapment but a good general rule is that entrapment is generally prohibited and evidence gathered in a scenario that could be considered as "entrapping" an attacker would not be admissible in a court of law.

"To set up a sacrificial lamb on the network" is incorrect. While a honeypot is a sort of sacrificial lamb and may attract attacks that might have been directed against production systems, its real purpose is to study the methods of attackers with the goals of better understanding and improving network defenses.

References

AIO3, p. 213

Because a network-based IDS reviews packets and headers, denial of service attacks can also be detected.

This question is an easy question if you go through the process of elimination. When you see an answer containing the keyword: ALL It is something a give away that it is not the proper answer. On the real exam you may encounter a few question where the use of the work ALL renders the choice invalid. Pay close attention to such keyword.

The following are incorrect answers:

Even though most IDSs can detect some viruses and some password guessing attacks, they cannot detect ALL viruses or ALL password guessing attacks. Therefore these two answers are only detractors.

Unless the IDS knows the valid values for a certain dataset, it can NOT detect data corruption.

Reference used for this question:

KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 48.

Officers and directors of a company are expected to act carefully in fulfilling their tasks. A director shall act in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances and in a manner he reasonably believes is in the best interest of the enterprise. The notion of profit would tend to go against the due care principle.

Source: ANDRESS, Mandy, Exam Cram CISSP, Coriolis, 2001, Chapter 10: Law, Investigation, and Ethics (page 186).

Is a means of being able to track user actions. Through the use of audit logs and other tools the user actions are recorded and can be used at a later date to verify what actions were performed.

Accountability is the ability to identify users and to be able to track user actions.

The following answers are incorrect:

Documented design as laid out in the Common Criteria. Is incorrect because the Common Criteria is an international standard to evaluate trust and would not be a factor in System Accountability.

Authorization. Is incorrect because Authorization is granting access to subjects, just because you have authorization does not hold the subject accountable for their actions.

Formal verification of system design. Is incorrect because all you have done is to verify the system design and have not taken any steps toward system accountability.

References:

OIG CBK Glossary (page 778)

Statistical Anomaly-Based ID - With this method, an IDS acquires data and defines a "normal" usage profile for the network or host that is being monitored.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 49.

It is a data integrity assurance software aimed at detecting and reporting accidental or malicious changes to data.

The following answers are incorrect :

Nessus is incorrect as it is a vulnerability scanner used by hackers in discovering vulnerabilities in a system.

Saint is also incorrect as it is also a network vulnerability scanner likely to be used by hackers.

Nmap is also incorrect as it is a port scanner for network exploration and likely to be used by hackers.

Reference :

Tripwire : http://www.tripwire.com

Nessus : http://www.nessus.org

Saint : http://www.saintcorporation.com/saint

Nmap : http://insecure.org/nmap

Two points are important to consider when it comes to ethical hacking: integrity and independence.

By not using an ethical hacking firm that hires or subcontracts to ex-hackers of others who have criminal records, an entire subset of risks can be avoided by an organization. Also, it is not cost-effective for a single firm to fund the effort of the ongoing research and development, systems development, and maintenance that is needed to operate state-of-the-art proprietary and open source testing tools and techniques.

External penetration firms are more effective than internal penetration testers because they are not influenced by any previous system security decisions, knowledge of the current system environment, or future system security plans. Moreover, an employee performing penetration testing might be reluctant to fully report security gaps.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Appendix F: The Case for Ethical Hacking (page 517).

Conducting security awareness and technical training to ensure that end users and system users are aware of the rules of behaviour and their responsibilities in protecting the organization's mission is an example of a preventive management control, therefore not an operational control.

Source: STONEBURNER, Gary et al., NIST Special publication 800-30, Risk management Guide for Information Technology Systems, 2001 (page 37).

The two most common implementations of Intrusion Detection are Network-based and Host-based.

IDS can be implemented as a network device, such as a router, switch, firewall, or dedicated device monitoring traffic, typically referred to as network IDS (NIDS).

The" (IDS) "technology can also be incorporated into a host system (HIDS) to monitor a single system for undesirable activities. "

A network intrusion detection system (NIDS) is a network device .... that monitors traffic traversing the network segment for which it is integrated." Remember that NIDS are usually passive in nature.

HIDS is the implementation of IDS capabilities at the host level. Its most significant difference from NIDS is that related processes are limited to the boundaries of a single-host system. However, this presents advantages in effectively detecting objectionable activities because the IDS process is running directly on the host system, not just observing it from the network.

Reference(s) used for this question:

Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 3649-3652). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Misuse detectors compare system activity, looking for events or sets of events that match a predefined pattern of events that describe a known attack. As the patterns corresponding to known attacks are called signatures, misuse detection is sometimes called "signature-based detection."

The most common form of misuse detection used in commercial products specifies each pattern of events corresponding to an attack as a separate signature. However, there are more sophisticated approaches to doing misuse detection (called "state-based" analysis techniques) that can leverage a single signature to detect groups of attacks.

An issue with signature-based ID is that only attack signatures that are stored in their database are detected.

New attacks without a signature would not be reported. They do require constant updates in order to maintain their effectiveness.

Reference used for this question:

KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Page 49.

Response is the correct choice. A response would essentially be the action that is taken once an alarm has been produced by an IDS, but is not a fundamental component of the alarm.

The following are incorrect answers:

Communications is the component of an alarm that delivers alerts through a variety of channels such as email, pagers, instant messages and so on.

An Enunciator is the component of an alarm that uses business logic to compose the content and format of an alert and determine the recipients of that alert.

A sensor is a fundamental component of IDS alarms. A sensor detects an event and produces an appropriate notification.

Domain: Access Control

The security controls and mechanisms that are in place must have a degree of transparency.

This enables the user to perform tasks and duties without having to go through extra steps because of the presence of the security controls. Transparency also does not let the user know too much about the controls, which helps prevent him from figuring out how to circumvent them. If the controls are too obvious, an attacker can figure out how to compromise them more easily.

Security (more specifically, the implementation of most security controls) has long been a sore point with users who are subject to security controls. Historically, security controls have been very intrusive to users, forcing them to interrupt their work flow and remember arcane codes or processes (like long passwords or access codes), and have generally been seen as an obstacle to getting work done. In recent years, much work has been done to remove that stigma of security controls as a detractor from the work process adding nothing but time and money. When developing access control, the system must be as transparent as possible to the end user. The users should be required to interact with the system as little as possible, and the process around using the control should be engineered so as to involve little effort on the part of the user.

For example, requiring a user to swipe an access card through a reader is an effective way to ensure a person is authorized to enter a room. However, implementing a technology (such as RFID) that will automatically scan the badge as the user approaches the door is more transparent to the user and will do less to impede the movement of personnel in a busy area.

In another example, asking a user to understand what applications and data sets will be required when requesting a system ID and then specifically requesting access to those resources may allow for a great deal of granularity when provisioning access, but it can hardly be seen as transparent. A more transparent process would be for the access provisioning system to have a role-based structure, where the user would simply specify the role he or she has in the organization and the system would know the specific resources that user needs to access based on that role. This requires less work and interaction on the part of the user and will lead to more accurate and secure access control decisions because access will be based on predefined need, not user preference.

When developing and implementing an access control system special care should be taken to ensure that the control is as transparent to the end user as possible and interrupts his work flow as little as possible.

The following answers were incorrect:

All of the other detractors were incorrect.

Reference(s) used for this question:

HARRIS, Shon, All-In-One CISSP Certification Exam Guide, 6th edition. Operations Security, Page 1239-1240

Harris, Shon (2012-10-25). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide, 6th Edition (Kindle Locations 25278-25281). McGraw-Hill. Kindle Edition.

Schneiter, Andrew (2013-04-15). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition : Access Control ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 713-729). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Several analysis methods can be employed by an IDS, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, and their applicability to any given situation should be carefully considered.

There are two basic IDS analysis methods:

1. Pattern Matching (also called signature analysis), and

2. Anomaly detection

PATTERN MATCHING

Some of the first IDS products used signature analysis as their detection method and simply looked for known characteristics of an attack (such as specific packet sequences or text in the data stream) to produce an alert if that pattern was detected. If a new or different attack vector is used, it will not match a known signature and, thus, slip past the IDS.

ANOMALY DETECTION

Alternately, anomaly detection uses behavioral characteristics of a system’s operation or network traffic to draw conclusions on whether the traffic represents a risk to the network or host. Anomalies may include but are not limited to:

Multiple failed log-on attempts

Users logging in at strange hours

Unexplained changes to system clocks

Unusual error messages

Unexplained system shutdowns or restarts

Attempts to access restricted files

An anomaly-based IDS tends to produce more data because anything outside of the expected behavior is reported. Thus, they tend to report more false positives as expected behavior patterns change. An advantage to anomaly-based IDS is that, because they are based on behavior identification and not specific patterns of traffic, they are often able to detect new attacks that may be overlooked by a signature-based system. Often information from an anomaly-based IDS may be used to create a pattern for a signature-based IDS.

Host Based Intrusion Detection (HIDS)

HIDS is the implementation of IDS capabilities at the host level. Its most significant difference from NIDS is that related processes are limited to the boundaries of a single-host system. However, this presents advantages in effectively detecting objectionable activities because the IDS process is running directly on the host system, not just observing it from the network. This offers unfettered access to system logs, processes, system information, and device information, and virtually eliminates limits associated with encryption. The level of integration represented by HIDS increases the level of visibility and control at the disposal of the HIDS application.

Network Based Intrustion Detection (NIDS)

NIDS are usually incorporated into the network in a passive architecture, taking advantage of promiscuous mode access to the network. This means that it has visibility into every packet traversing the network segment. This allows the system to inspect packets and monitor sessions without impacting the network or the systems and applications utilizing the network.

Below you have other ways that instrusion detection can be performed:

Stateful Matching Intrusion Detection

Stateful matching takes pattern matching to the next level. It scans for attack signatures in the context of a stream of traffic or overall system behavior rather than the individual packets or discrete system activities. For example, an attacker may use a tool that sends a volley of valid packets to a targeted system. Because all the packets are valid, pattern matching is nearly useless. However, the fact that a large volume of the packets was seen may, itself, represent a known or potential attack pattern. To evade attack, then, the attacker may send the packets from multiple locations with long wait periods between each transmission to either confuse the signature detection system or exhaust its session timing window. If the IDS service is tuned to record and analyze traffic over a long period of time it may detect such an attack. Because stateful matching also uses signatures, it too must be updated regularly and, thus, has some of the same limitations as pattern matching.

Statistical Anomaly-Based Intrusion Detection

The statistical anomaly-based IDS analyzes event data by comparing it to typical, known, or predicted traffic profiles in an effort to find potential security breaches. It attempts to identify suspicious behavior by analyzing event data and identifying patterns of entries that deviate from a predicted norm. This type of detection method can be very effective and, at a very high level, begins to take on characteristics seen in IPS by establishing an expected baseline of behavior and acting on divergence from that baseline. However, there are some potential issues that may surface with a statistical IDS. Tuning the IDS can be challenging and, if not performed regularly, the system will be prone to false positives. Also, the definition of normal traffic can be open to interpretation and does not preclude an attacker from using normal activities to penetrate systems. Additionally, in a large, complex, dynamic corporate environment, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define “normal” traffic. The value of statistical analysis is that the system has the potential to detect previously unknown attacks. This is a huge departure from the limitation of matching previously known signatures. Therefore, when combined with signature matching technology, the statistical anomaly-based IDS can be very effective.

Protocol Anomaly-Based Intrusion Detection

A protocol anomaly-based IDS identifies any unacceptable deviation from expected behavior based on known network protocols. For example, if the IDS is monitoring an HTTP session and the traffic contains attributes that deviate from established HTTP session protocol standards, the IDS may view that as a malicious attempt to manipulate the protocol, penetrate a firewall, or exploit a vulnerability. The value of this method is directly related to the use of well-known or well-defined protocols within an environment. If an organization primarily uses well-known protocols (such as HTTP, FTP, or telnet) this can be an effective method of performing intrusion detection. In the face of custom or nonstandard protocols, however, the system will have more difficulty or be completely unable to determine the proper packet format. Interestingly, this type of method is prone to the same challenges faced by signature-based IDSs. For example, specific protocol analysis modules may have to be added or customized to deal with unique or new protocols or unusual use of standard protocols. Nevertheless, having an IDS that is intimately aware of valid protocol use can be very powerful when an organization employs standard implementations of common protocols.

Traffic Anomaly-Based Intrusion

Detection A traffic anomaly-based IDS identifies any unacceptable deviation from expected behavior based on actual traffic structure. When a session is established between systems, there is typically an expected pattern and behavior to the traffic transmitted in that session. That traffic can be compared to expected traffic conduct based on the understandings of traditional system interaction for that type of connection. Like the other types of anomaly-based IDS, traffic anomaly-based IDS relies on the ability to establish “normal” patterns of traffic and expected modes of behavior in systems, networks, and applications. In a highly dynamic environment it may be difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define these parameters.

Reference(s) used for this question:

Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 3664-3686). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

and

Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 3711-3734). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

and

Hernandez CISSP, Steven (2012-12-21). Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK, Third Edition ((ISC)2 Press) (Kindle Locations 3694-3711). Auerbach Publications. Kindle Edition.

Accountability can actually be seen in two different ways:

1) Although audit trails are also needed for accountability, no user can be accountable for their actions unless properly authenticated.

2) Accountability is another facet of access control. Individuals on a system are responsible for their actions. This accountability property enables system activities to be traced to the proper individuals. Accountability is supported by audit trails that record events on the system and network. Audit trails can be used for intrusion detection and for the reconstruction of past events. Monitoring individual activities, such as keystroke monitoring, should be accomplished in accordance with the company policy and appropriate laws. Banners at the log-on time should notify the user of any monitoring that is being conducted.

The point is that unless you employ an appropriate auditing mechanism, you don't have accountability. Authorization only gives a user certain permissions on the network. Accountability is far more complex because it also includes intrusion detection, unauthorized actions by both unauthorized users and authorized users, and system faults. The audit trail provides the proof that unauthorized modifications by both authorized and unauthorized users took place. No proof, No accountability.

Source: KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Page 50.

The Shon Harris AIO book, 4th Edition, on Page 243 also states:

Auditing Capabilities ensures users are accountable for their actions, verify that the secutiy policies are enforced,

and can be used as investigation tools. Accountability is tracked by recording user, system, and application activities.

This recording is done through auditing functions and mechanisms within an operating sytem or application.

Audit trail contain information about operating System activities, application events, and user actions.

Organizations should have a process for (1) requesting, establishing, issuing, and closing user accounts; (2) tracking users and their respective access authorizations; and (3) managing these functions.

Reviews should examine the levels of access each individual has, conformity with the concept of least privilege, whether all accounts are still active, whether management authorizations are up-to-date, whether required training has been completed, and so forth. These reviews can be conducted on at least two levels: (1) on an application-by-application basis, or (2) on a system wide basis.

The strength of user passwords is beyond the scope of a simple user account management review, since it requires specific tools to try and crack the password file/database through either a dictionary or brute-force attack in order to check the strength of passwords.

Reference(s) used for this question:

SWANSON, Marianne & GUTTMAN, Barbara, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NIST Special Publication 800-14, Generally Accepted Principles and Practices for Securing Information Technology Systems, September 1996 (page 28).

The reporting process should be centralized else employees won't bother.

The other answers are incorrect because :

They are afraid of being pulled into something they don't want to be involved with is incorrect as most of the employees fear of this and this would prevent them to report an incident.

They are afraid of being accused of something they didn't do is also incorrect as this also prevents them to report an incident.

They are unaware of the company's security policies and procedures is also incorrect as mentioned above.

Reference : Shon Harris AIO v3 , Ch-10 : Laws , Investigatio & Ethics , Page : 675.

This means that many of the tools used for ethical hacking have the potential of exploiting vulnerabilities and causing disruption to IT system. It is up to the individuals performing the tests to be familiar with their use and to make sure that no such disruption can happen or at least shoudl be avoided.

The first step before sending even one single packet to the target would be to have a signed agreement with clear rules of engagement and a signed contract. The signed contract explains to the client the associated risks and the client must agree to them before you even send one packet to the target range. This way the client understand that some of the test could lead to interruption of service or even crash a server. The client signs that he is aware of such risks and willing to accept them.

The following are incorrect answers:

An organization should use ethical hackers who do not sell auditing, hardware, software, firewall, hosting, and/or networking services. An ethical hacking firm's independence can be questioned if they sell security solutions at the same time as doing testing for the same client. There has to be independance between the judge (the tester) and the accuse (the client).

Testing should be done remotely to simulate external threats Testing simulating a cracker from the Internet is often time one of the first test being done, this is to validate perimeter security. By performing tests remotely, the ethical hacking firm emulates the hacker's approach more realistically.

Ethical hacking should not involve writing to or modifying the target systems negatively. Even though ethical hacking should not involve negligence in writing to or modifying the target systems or reducing its response time, comprehensive penetration testing has to be performed using the most complete tools available just like a real cracker would.

Reference(s) used for this question:

KRUTZ, Ronald L. & VINES, Russel D., The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the Ten Domains of Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, Appendix F: The Case for Ethical Hacking (page 520).