CAS-005 Exam Dumps - CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam

Useruser-cis showinganomalous behavior across multiple machines, attempting to run administrative tools such as cmd.exe and appwiz.CPL, which are commonly used by attackers for system modification. The activity pattern suggests a lateral movement attempt, potentially indicating a compromised account.

user-a (A)anduser-b (B)attempted to run applications but only on one machine, suggesting less likelihood of compromise.

user-d (D)was blocked running cmd.com, but user-c’s pattern is more consistent with an attack technique.

The table shows that the user "SALES1" is consistently blocked despite having met the MFA requirements. The common factor in these blocked attempts is the source IP address (8.11.4.16) being identified as from Germany while the user is assigned to France. This discrepancy suggests that the network geolocation is being misidentified by the authentication server, causing legitimate access attempts to be blocked.

Why Network Geolocation Misidentification?

Geolocation Accuracy: Authentication systems often use IP geolocation to verify the location of access attempts. Incorrect geolocation data can lead to legitimate requests being denied if they appear to come from unexpected locations.

Security Policies: Company security policies might block access attempts from certain locations to prevent unauthorized access. If the geolocation is wrong, legitimate users can be inadvertently blocked.

Consistent Pattern: The user "SALES1" from the IP address 8.11.4.16 is always blocked, indicating a consistent issue with geolocation.

Other options do not align with the pattern observed:

A. Bypass MFA requirements: MFA is satisfied, so bypassing MFA is not the issue.

C. Administrator access policy: This is about user access, not specific administrator access.

D. OTP codes: The user has satisfied MFA, so OTP code configuration is not the issue.

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.

When the cost to mitigate certain risks is higher than the asset values, the best approach is to purchase insurance. Thismethod allows the company to transfer the risk to an insurance provider, ensuring that financial losses are covered in the event of an incident. This approach is cost-effective and ensures that risks are prioritized appropriately without overspending on mitigation efforts.

The best solution to harden a three-tier environment (web, database, and application servers) is to implement microsegmentation on the server VLANs. Here’s why:

Enhanced Security: Microsegmentation creates granular security zones within the data center, allowing for more precise control over east-west traffic between servers. This helps prevent lateral movement by attackers who may gain access to one part of the network.

Isolation of Tiers: By segmenting the web, database, and application servers, the organization can apply specific security policies and controls to each segment, reducing the risk of cross-tier attacks.

Compliance and Best Practices: Microsegmentation aligns with best practices for network security and helps meet compliance requirements by ensuring that sensitive data and systems are properly isolated and protected.

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.

Encrypting patient data at rest is a critical requirement for healthcare providers to ensure compliance with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The primary business requirement fulfilled by this practice is the protection of patient privacy while supporting the portability of medical information. By encrypting data at rest, healthcare providers safeguard sensitive patient information from unauthorized access, ensuring that privacy is maintained even if the storage media are compromised. Additionally, encryption supports the portability of patient records, allowing for secure transfer and access across different systems and locations while ensuring that privacy controls are in place.

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 querylanguages 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.