Free Practice Questions for CompTIA PT0-003 Exam

Lock picking techniques are used in physical security assessments to test access control mechanisms.

Raking (Option D):

Raking is a lock-picking technique where a rake pick is inserted and rapidly moved in and out to manipulate multiple pins simultaneously.

It is faster but less precise than single-pin picking.

Used when speed is prioritized over precision.

The correct answer is A. Target 1: EPSS Score = 0.6 and CVSS Score = 4

EPSS, the Exploit Prediction Scoring System, estimates the likelihood that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild. CVSS, the Common Vulnerability Scoring System, measures the severity or technical impact of a vulnerability.

The question asks which target is most likely to get attacked, so the EPSS score is the most important factor. The highest EPSS score shown is 0.6, which appears in both Target 1 and Target 3.

Between those two, Target 1 has the higher CVSS score:

Target 1: EPSS 0.6, CVSS 4

Target 3: EPSS 0.6, CVSS 1

Since both have the same exploitation likelihood, the vulnerability with the higher impact/severity is the better choice. Therefore, Target 1 is the most likely and more meaningful attack target.

B is incorrect because its EPSS score is lower at 0.3.

C is incorrect because although its EPSS score is tied for highest, its CVSS score is much lower than Target 1.

D is incorrect because it has the highest CVSS score, but its EPSS score is lower than Target 1 and Target 3. A higher CVSS score means greater severity, not necessarily a higher likelihood of exploitation.

In PenTest+ terms, this falls under Information Gathering and Vulnerability Scanning, specifically vulnerability prioritization using exploit likelihood and severity metrics.

The GetUserSPNs.py script (part of Impacket) is used in Kerberoasting attacks. It requests Service Principal Names (SPNs) for users with associated services, retrieves TGS tickets, and then allows offline cracking of those tickets.

From the CompTIA PenTest+ PT0-003 Study Guide (Chapter 8 – Post-Exploitation):

“Kerberoasting involves requesting service tickets for SPNs, which can then be cracked offline to retrieve service account passwords.”

When a penetration tester obtains an NTLM hash from a legacy Windows machine, they need to use a tool that can leverage this hash for further attacks, such as pass-the-hash attacks, or for cracking the hash. Here’s a breakdown of the options:

Option A: Responder

Responder is primarily used for poisoning LLMNR, NBT-NS, and MDNS to capture hashes, but not for leveraging NTLM hashes obtained post-exploitation.

Option B: Hydra

Hydra is a password-cracking tool but not specifically designed for NTLM hashes or pass-the-hash attacks.

Option C: BloodHound

BloodHound is used for mapping out Active Directory relationships and identifying potential attack paths but not for using NTLM hashes directly.

Option D: CrackMapExec

CrackMapExec is a versatile tool that can perform pass-the-hash attacks, execute commands, and more using NTLM hashes. It is designed for post-exploitation scenarios involving NTLM hashes.

References from Pentest:

Forge HTB: Demonstrates the use of CrackMapExec for leveraging NTLM hashes to gain further access within a network​​.

Horizontall HTB: Shows how CrackMapExec can be used for various post-exploitation activities, including using NTLM hashes to authenticate and execute commands​​.

Conclusion:

Option D, CrackMapExec, is the most suitable tool for continuing the attack using an NTLM hash. It supports pass-the-hash techniques and other operations that can leverage NTLM hashes effectively.

======

Burp Suite Community Edition imposes limitations that can slow high-volume Intruder activities, particularly when performing repetitive request mutation such as parameter fuzzing, directory/file discovery, or input testing with wordlists. In PenTest+ tooling guidance, testers are expected to select alternative tools when a platform constraint reduces efficiency while still keeping the testing objective the same. Wfuzz is designed specifically for fast web fuzzing: it can rapidly send large volumes of HTTP requests while varying parameters, headers, paths, or payload positions using wordlists, and it supports filtering/matching responses (status codes, response size, strings) to identify interesting results—functionally similar to many Intruder use cases.

TruffleHog focuses on discovering exposed secrets in repositories and artifacts, not accelerating web request fuzzing. Postman is primarily an API client for building and replaying requests, but it is not optimized as a high-speed fuzzing engine. WPScan targets WordPress-specific enumeration and vulnerability checks and won’t provide general-purpose Intruder-like fuzzing across arbitrary web applications. Therefore, Wfuzz is the best option to speed up and achieve comparable fuzzing outcomes.