Free Practice Questions for CompTIA CAS-005 Exam

The log shows an AXFR (zone transfer) query, which exposed internal DNS records, aiding lateral movement. Let’s evaluate:

A. Disabling DNS zone transfers:AXFR allows full DNS zone data to be transferred. Disabling it externally prevents attackers from mapping internal networks, directly mitigating this issue per CAS-005’s security operations focus.

B. Restricting to UDP/53:AXFR uses TCP/53, so this wouldn’t stop it.

C. DNSmasking:Obscures records but isn’t a standard term for this fix.

Vendor lock-in occurs when a client is overly dependent on a vendor, limiting flexibility. Risks include:

Option B:Vendors changing offerings (e.g., features, pricing) can disrupt the client, a key lock-in risk.

Option D:Decreased quality of service may result from reliance on a single vendor without alternatives.

Option A:Seamless data movement is a benefit, not a risk.

Option C:Sufficient service is neutral or positive, not a risk.

Option E:Multicloud is hindered by lock-in, not a risk of it.

Option F:Increased interoperability contradicts lock-in’s limitations.

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.

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.

Risk mitigation involves taking actions to reduce either the likelihood or impact of a threat. By implementing a firewall between the two environments, Company A is minimizing the risk of threats from Company B impacting its own systems. Accepting the risk would involve taking no action, avoiding it would mean terminating activities with Company B, and transferring would involve outsourcing the risk, none of which occurred here.

To prevent unauthorized applications from running, the company needs a mechanism to explicitly define and enforce which applications are allowed to execute. "Permit listing" (often referred to as "whitelisting" in security contexts) is the most effective solution here. It involves creating a list of approved applications, and only those on the list are permitted to run, blocking all others by default. This directly addresses the root cause—users installing unapproved software—by restricting execution to only authorized programs.

Option A (Signing):Code signing ensures the authenticity and integrity of software by verifying it comes from a trusted source and hasn’t been tampered with. While useful, it doesn’t inherently prevent unauthorized applications from running unless combined with a policy like whitelisting.

Option B (Access control):Access control governs who can access systems or resources but doesn’t specifically restrict which applications can execute. It’s too broad for this scenario.

Option C (HIPS):A Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) can detect and block malicious behavior, but it’s reactive and relies on signatures or heuristics, not a proactive allow-only approach.

Option D (Permit listing):This is the best fit, as it proactively enforces a policy where only explicitly authorized applications can run, preventing malware introduced by unauthorized software.

Qualitative risk assessment is used when quantitative data (monetary loss, exact downtime cost, RTO) is unavailable or unreliable. The SecurityX CAS-005 GRC objectives note that qualitative methods rely on expert judgment, likelihood scales, and impact ratings rather than financial calculations. In this case, insufficient metrics rule out quantitative analysis.

Option A (work experience) is irrelevant to the choice of assessment type.

Option C (risk register) supports tracking, not selecting the assessment method.

Option D describes a quantitative goal, which is not possible with the given lack of metrics.

Enabling dashboards for service status monitoring is the best action to support rapid incident response. The table shows various services with different risk, criticality, and alert severity ratings. To ensure timely and effective incident response, real-time visibility into the status of these services is crucial.

Why Dashboards for Service Status Monitoring?

Real-time Visibility: Dashboards provide an at-a-glance view of the current status of all critical services, enabling rapid detection of issues.

CentralizedMonitoring: A single platform to monitor the status of multiple services helps streamline incident response efforts.

Proactive Alerting: Dashboards can be configured to show alerts and anomalies immediately, ensuring that incidents are addressed as soon as they arise.

Improved Decision Making: Real-time data helps incident response teams make informed decisions quickly, reducing downtime and mitigating impact.

Other options, while useful, do not offer the same level of comprehensive, real-time visibility and proactive alerting:

A. Automate alerting to IT support for phone system outages: This addresses one service but does not provide a holistic view.

C. Send emails for failed log-in attempts on the public website: This is a specific alert for one type of issue and does not cover all services.

D. Configure automated isolation of human resources systems: This is a reactive measure for a specific service and does not provide real-time status monitoring.

The best way for a SOC to rapidly identify whether deployed applications contain specific libraries is through the use of a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of all components, including third-party and open-source libraries, used in a software product. When a new vulnerability is disclosed (such as Log4Shell in Log4j), organizations with a comprehensive SBOM can immediately search across their application landscape to determine which systems are impacted.

Other options are less effective. Maintaining SAST/DAST reports (A) only provides snapshots of vulnerabilities at the time of scanning, but does not dynamically track components across all software in production. Vendor attestations (B) improve supply chain governance but do not provide immediate visibility into internal or custom software. A GRC tool (D) helps track vendors and policies but does not show technical dependencies inside applications.

Requiring suppliers and internal developers to provide and maintain SBOMs ensures continuous visibility into dependencies. This allows the SOC to quickly query and respond to emerging vulnerabilities, reducing risk exposure and accelerating remediation timelines.