CAS-005 Exam Dumps - CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam

Forward secrecy (also known as perfect forward secrecy, PFS) ensures that session keys used in a VPN tunnel are ephemeral, meaning that even if an attacker compromises a long-term private key, past sessions cannot be decrypted. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study guide (Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, 3.1), enabling forward secrecy on VPN tunnels reduces the risk of cryptanalysis by ensuring that each session’s encryption key is unique and not derived from a single compromised key. This directly mitigates the impact of attacks like key theft or future decryption attempts.

Option A:Forward secrecy is not required for hardware-accelerated cryptography, which depends on processor capabilities, not key management.

Option C:While confidentiality is important, this is too vague and does not specifically explain why forward secrecy is chosen.

Option D:Modern protocols (e.g., TLS 1.3, IPsec with ECDHE) support forward secrecy but donot mandate it as a prerequisite for use.

Option B:This is the most precise, as forward secrecy directly reduces the success of cryptanalysis by limiting the scope of key compromise.

The best way to mitigate the ability of attackers or penetration testers to execute arbitrary payloads is to enforce application controls with allow lists (B). Application allow listing ensures that only pre-approved, trusted software and scripts can be executed on the system. This prevents attackers from dropping or running malicious binaries, even if they exploit vulnerabilities to gain access. CAS-005 emphasizes allow listing as a preventive control against post-exploitation persistence and lateral movement.

Option A (ASLR) randomizes memory addresses and helps mitigate buffer overflow exploits but does not directly prevent execution of unauthorized programs. Option C (OS restrictions of globally writable folders) improves security hygiene but still does not stop attackers from executing already placed payloads in non-restricted locations. Option D (EDR signatures) are reactive and limited, since attackers often use novel or obfuscated payloads not yet captured by signature databases.

Therefore, implementing application controls with allow lists provides the strongest defense against unauthorized payload execution in this context.

The first action is to implement continuous and context-based authentication and authorization (A). Traditional authentication validates users only at login, which creates gaps during active sessions. Continuous authentication ensures validation throughout the data access workflow, incorporating contextual factors like device state, geolocation, and behavioral analysis. This directly aligns with audit findings requiring protection by role, identity validation, and action tracking.

Option B improves onboarding and monitoring but does not enforce continuous access control. Option C improves identity federation but does not provide session-by-session validation. Option D secures APIs but is too narrow for organization-wide identity workflows.

CAS-005 stresses Zero Trust and context-aware IAM, making continuous authentication and authorization the top priority.

The best way to automate reporting from disparate security appliances that do not currently communicate is to configure an API Integration to aggregate the different data sets. Here's why:

Interoperability: APIs allow different systems to communicate and share data, even if they were not originally designed to work together. This enables the integration of various security appliances into a unified reporting system.

Automation: API integrations can automate the process of data collection, aggregation, and reporting, reducing manual effort and increasing efficiency.

Scalability: APIs provide a scalable solution that can easily be extended to include additional security appliances or data sources as needed.

Proper parsing of data is crucial for the SIEM to accurately interpret and analyze the logs being forwarded by the log collector. If the data is not parsed correctly, the SIEM may misinterpret the logs, leading to false positives and inaccurate alerts. Ensuring that the log data is correctly parsed allows the SIEM to correlate and analyze the logs effectively, which is essential for accurate alerting and monitoring.

When differentiating between valid and invalid findings from vulnerability scans, the systemsadministrator should verify that the scanning credentials are properly configured. Valid credentials ensure that the scanner can authenticate and access the systems being evaluated, providing accurate and comprehensive results. Without proper credentials, scans may miss vulnerabilities or generate false positives, making it difficult to prioritize and address the findings effectively.

To create a collection of use cases for detecting known threats and include them in a centralized library for use across multiple companies withdifferent vendors, Sigma rules are the best option. Here’s why:

Vendor-Agnostic Format: Sigma rules are a generic and open standard for writing SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) rules. They can be translated to specific query languages of different SIEM systems, making them highly versatile and applicable across various platforms.

Centralized Rule Management: By using Sigma rules, the cybersecurity architect can create a centralized library of detection rules that can be easily shared and implemented across different detection and monitoring systems used by the acquired companies. This ensures consistency in threat detection capabilities.

Ease of Use and Flexibility: Sigma provides a structured and straightforward format for defining detection logic. It allows for the easy creation, modification, and sharing of rules, facilitating collaboration and standardization across the organization.

In the context of establishing a Security Operations Center (SOC) with a threat-modeling function, it's crucial to understand how data flows within the organization's systems. Network and data flow diagrams provide a visual representation of the system's architecture, illustrating how data moves between components, which is essential for identifying potential security weaknesses and antipatterns. Antipatterns are common responses to recurring problems that are ineffective and risk-inducing. By analyzing these diagrams, the consultant can pinpoint areas where security controls may be lacking or misconfigured, thereby facilitating the development of effective threat models.​

While other options like unpatchable IoT devices (Option B) and inventories of cloud resources (Option E) are important for comprehensive security assessments, they are more pertinent during later stages, such as vulnerability management and asset inventory. The initial phase of threat modeling focuses on understanding the system's structure and data flows to identify potential threats, making network and data flow diagrams the most critical information at this stage.​