CAS-005 Exam Dumps - CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam

In reviewing email headers and determining actions to mitigate phishing attempts, the security analyst should focus on patterns of suspicious behavior and the reputation of the sending domains. Here’s the analysis of the options provided:

A. Block messages from hr-saas.com because it is not a recognized domain: Blocking a domain solely because it is not recognized can lead to legitimate emails being missed. Recognition alone should not be the criterion for blocking.

B. Reroute all messages with unusual security warning notices to the IT administrator: While rerouting suspicious messages can be a good practice, it is not specific to the domain sending repeated suspicious messages.

C. Quarantine all messages with sales-mail.com in the email header: Quarantining messages based on the presence of a specific domain in the email header can be too broad and may capture legitimate emails.

D. Block vendor com for repeated attempts to send suspicious messages: This option is the most appropriate because it targets a domain that has shown a pattern of sending suspicious messages. Blocking a domain that repeatedly sends phishing attempts without previous communications helps in preventing future attempts from the same source and aligns with the goal of mitigating phishing risks.

The best solution is to implement an interactive honeypot (A). Honeypots are decoy systems designed to attract and observe adversary behavior in real time. When security tools cannot categorize suspicious inbound traffic, a honeypot provides an isolated environment where the suspicious activity can be redirected and monitored without risking production systems. By deploying an interactive honeypot, analysts can study attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), extract Indicators of Compromise (IoCs), and improve defensive controls.

Option B (mapping to known IoCs) fails because the activity cannot be categorized, implying it is novel or not yet identified in threat intelligence feeds. Option C (monitoring the dark web) provides intelligence about potential threats but does not address real-time inbound suspicious activity. Option D (UEBA) focuses on analyzing user and entity behaviors but is less effective for categorizing inbound external traffic.

By using honeypots, organizations gain visibility into new, unknown, or advanced attack techniques, which helps improve detection capabilities, enrich threat intelligence, and strengthen incident response.

The correct snippet is Option A, which shows an Ansible YAML playbook designed to deploy and maintain security software on Linux servers. Ansible is a configuration management tool widely used in enterprise environments, and the ansible.builtin.apt module specifically manages package installation on Debian/Ubuntu-based Linux distributions. This ensures consistent security software deployment across multiple servers.

Option B is XML-based and does not represent a valid configuration management script. Option C incorrectly uses JSON format and references Microsoft’s store (com.microsoft.store.latest), which is irrelevant for Linux. Option D also uses JSON syntax with “AppX,” which applies to Windows applications, not Linux.

CAS-005 emphasizes infrastructure as code (IaC) and automation as best practices for secure system configuration. YAML-based playbooks in Ansible provide repeatability, auditability, and scalability, making Option A the most secure and appropriate solution.

Regression testing is a software testingpractice that ensures that recent code changes have not adversely affected existing functionalities. In this scenario, the reintroduction of a previously fixed bug indicates that changes or integrations brought back the old issue. Implementing comprehensive regression testing would help detect such reintroductions by systematically retesting the existing functionalities whenever changes are made to the codebase. This practice is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the application, especially in complexsystems where multiple components interact.​

A. Implementing allow lists: Allow lists (whitelisting) restrict network communication to only authorized devices and applications, significantly reducing the attack surface by ensuring that only pre-approved traffic is permitted.

F. Implementing a site-to-site IPSec VPN: A site-to-site VPN provides a secure, encrypted tunnel for data transmission between the OT systems and the vendor, protecting the data from interception and tampering during transit.

Other options:

B. Monitoring network behavior: While useful for detecting anomalies, it does not proactively reduce the risk of compromise or sabotage.

C. Encrypting data at rest: Important for protecting data stored on devices, but does not address network communication risks.

D. Performing boot integrity checks: Ensures the integrity of the system at startup but does not protect ongoing network communications.

E. Executing daily health checks: Useful for maintaining system health but does not directly reduce the risk of network-based compromise or sabotage.

For SSDs,incinerationis considered the most secure method of physical destruction, ensuring no data remanence. SSDs store data differently compared to traditional spinning disks, making degaussing ineffective. Overwriting and formatting may not reliably erase all storage cells due to wear-leveling technologies. Shredding may work if the granularity is extremely fine, but incineration guarantees complete destruction beyond recovery.

The most secure way to prevent inadvertent data disclosure when encrypted SSDs are reused is to securely delete the encryption keys used by the SSD. Without the encryption keys, the data on the SSD remains encrypted and is effectively unreadable, rendering any residual data useless. This method is more reliable and efficient than overwriting data multiple times or using other physical destruction methods.