Free Practice Questions for CompTIA CAS-005 Exam

Encrypting patient data at rest ensures that sensitive information is protected from unauthorized access, thereby maintaining patient privacy. Additionally, encryption supports data portability by allowing secure transfer and storage of data across different systems and devices without compromising confidentiality. This practice is crucial for healthcare providers to comply with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which mandates the protection of patient information.​

To meet the requirements of centrally managing configurations, pushing policies, remotely wiping devices, and maintaining an asset inventory, the best solution is to implement a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution.

MDM Capabilities:

Central Management: MDM allows administrators to manage the configurations of all devices from a central console.

Policy Enforcement: MDM solutions enable the push of security policies and updates to ensure compliance across all managed devices.

Remote Wipe: In case a device is lost or stolen, MDM provides the capability to remotely wipe the device to protect sensitive data.

Asset Inventory: MDM maintains an up-to-date inventory of all managed devices, including their configurations and installed applications.

Other options do not provide the same comprehensive capabilities required for managing specialized endpoints.

To prevent emails from being marked as spam, several DNS records related to email authentication need to be properly configured and updated when there are changes to the email server'scertificates:

A. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance): DMARC records help email servers determine how to handle messages that fail SPF or DKIM checks, improving email deliverability and reducing the likelihood of emails being marked as spam.

B. SPF (Sender Policy Framework): SPF records specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of your domain. Updating the SPF record ensures that the new email server is recognized as an authorized sender.

C. DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail): DKIM adds a digital signature to email headers, allowing the receiving server to verify that the email has not been tampered with and is from an authorized sender. Updating DKIM records ensures that emails are properly signed and authenticated.

D. DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions): DNSSEC adds security to DNS by enabling DNS responses to be verified. While important for DNS security, it does not directly address the issue of emails being marked as spam.

E. SASC: This is not a relevant standard for this scenario.

F. SAN (Subject Alternative Name): SAN is used in SSL/TLS certificates for securing multiple domain names, not for email delivery issues.

G. SOA (Start of Authority): SOA records are used for DNS zone administration and do not directly impact email deliverability.

H. MX (Mail Exchange): MX records specify the mail servers responsible for receiving email on behalf of a domain. While important, the primary issue here is the authentication of outgoing emails, which is handled by SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

The best way to address these requirements is to apply Role-Based Access Controls (RBAC) combined with geolocation policies. RBAC ensures that customers are authenticated and authorized to access only the data they are entitled to, thereby minimizing data exposure risks. At the same time, geolocation policies enforce restrictions on which regions customers can access data from, helping with compliance requirements such as GDPR or regional sovereignty laws.

Option B (replicating data in each customer environment) is inefficient, expensive, and introduces additional risks related to data sprawl. Option C (regional hosting with unique links) complicates access management and does not inherently prevent exposure or enforce strong authentication. Option D (restricting to a single region provider) removes flexibility and may conflict with customer needs for global access.

Therefore, implementing RBAC along with geolocation controls provides fine-grained access management, ensures compliance, prevents unnecessary data exposure, and is scalable for a global cloud environment.

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.

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.

Input sanitation is a critical process in cybersecurity that involvesvalidating and cleaning data provided by users to prevent malicious inputs from causing harm. In the context of AI concerns:

A. Model inversion involves an attacker inferring sensitive data from model outputs, typically requiring sophisticated methods beyond just manipulating input data.

B. Prompt Injection is a form of attack where an adversary provides malicious input to manipulate the behavior of AI models, particularly those dealing with natural language processing (NLP). Input sanitation directly addresses this by ensuring that inputs are cleaned and validated to remove potentially harmful commands or instructions that could alter the AI's behavior.

C. Data poisoning involves injecting malicious data into the training set to compromise the model. While input sanitation can help by filtering out bad data, data poisoning is typically addressed through robust data validation and monitoring during the model training phase, rather than real-time input sanitation.

D. Non-explainable model refers to the lack of transparency in how AI models make decisions. This concern is not addressed by input sanitation, as it relates more to model design and interpretability techniques.

Input sanitation is most relevant and effective for preventing Prompt Injection attacks, where the integrity of user inputs directly impacts the performance and security of AI models.

The output shows that multiple systems have outdated or vulnerable software versions (OpenSSL 1.01 and Java 11 runtime). This suggests that the systems are not being patched regularly or effectively.

A. Automating the patching system to update base images: Automating the patching process ensures that the latest security updates and patches are applied to all systems, including newly deployed ones. This addresses the root cause by ensuring that base images used for deployment are always up-to-date with the latest security patches.

B. Recompiling the affected programs with the most current patches: While this can fix the immediate vulnerabilities, it does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of regular updates.

C. Disabling unused/unneeded ports on all servers: This improves security but does not address the specific issue of outdated software.

D. Deploying a WAF with virtual patching upstream of the affected systems: This can provide a temporary shield but does not resolve the underlying issue of outdated software.

Automating the patching system to update base images ensures that all deployed systems are using the latest, most secure versions of software, addressing the root cause of the vulnerability trend.

In the given scenario, the security engineer is likely examining login activities and their associated geolocations. This type of analysis is aimed at identifying unusual login patterns that might indicate an impossible travel scenario. An impossible travel scenario is when a single user account logs in from geographically distant locations in a short time, which is physically impossible. By assessing login activities using geolocation, the engineer can tune alerts to identify and respond to potential security breaches more effectively.

The best solution to address reported vulnerabilities in third-party libraries is integrating a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool as part of the development pipeline. Here’s why:

Early Detection: SAST tools analyze source code for vulnerabilities before the code is compiled. This allows developers to identify and fix security issues early in the development process.

Continuous Security: By integrating SAST tools into the CI/CD pipeline, the organization ensures continuous security assessment of the codebase, including third-party libraries, with each code commit and build.

Comprehensive Analysis: SAST tools provide a detailed analysis of the code, identifying potential vulnerabilities in both proprietary code and third-party dependencies, ensuring that known issues in libraries are addressed promptly.