Visit here for our full CompTIA CS0-003 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 161
Which method is most effective for identifying anomalies in cloud-based applications that could indicate compromised credentials or privilege escalation?
A) Cloud access security broker (CASB) monitoring, UEBA, and API activity logging
B) Quarterly firewall audits
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Cloud-based applications introduce unique security challenges, particularly with user access, credential management, and privilege escalation. Traditional security measures like firewall audits or antivirus updates are insufficient for dynamic cloud environments. Option B, quarterly firewall audits, focus on static network boundaries and cannot detect cloud-specific anomalies. Option C, routine antivirus updates, protect against malware but do not provide visibility into application-level credential misuse. Option D, annual penetration testing, is useful for vulnerability identification at a point in time but cannot continuously monitor ongoing user activity or privilege abuse.
The most effective approach combines a cloud access security broker (CASB), user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA), and API activity logging. CASBs act as intermediaries between users and cloud services, providing visibility, policy enforcement, and threat detection for cloud workloads. They can detect unauthorized application access, abnormal downloads, or unusual permission changes. UEBA analyzes user behavior patterns across cloud services, establishing baselines and flagging deviations such as sudden privilege escalation, unexpected file access, or anomalous login times. API activity logging captures interactions between applications, scripts, and services, providing granular visibility into potential misuse, automated attacks, or malicious automation.
Integrating these technologies enables security teams to correlate anomalies, detect potential insider threats, and identify compromised accounts before significant damage occurs. Alerts can trigger automatic account suspension, multi-factor authentication challenges, or workflow interventions to prevent exfiltration or unauthorized changes. Organizations that implement these strategies align with frameworks like NIST CSF, Zero Trust, and CIS Controls, which emphasize continuous monitoring, least privilege, and detailed activity visibility. By adopting this layered, cloud-focused approach, enterprises can effectively detect early indicators of compromise, mitigate privilege abuse, and maintain operational resilience in complex cloud environments. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 162
Which combination of tools provides the most comprehensive approach to detecting lateral movement within an enterprise network?
A) Network segmentation, EDR, SIEM correlation, and honeypots
B) Routine antivirus updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual vulnerability scanning
Answer: A
Explanation:
Lateral movement refers to the techniques attackers use to move within a network after gaining initial access, often seeking higher privileges or sensitive data. Detecting lateral movement requires continuous monitoring, correlation, and deception strategies. Option B, routine antivirus updates, detect known malware but cannot track movement across multiple systems. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, review access rules but are static assessments, incapable of detecting live lateral movement. Option D, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies potential weaknesses but does not provide ongoing monitoring or visibility into active attacks.
A comprehensive approach combines network segmentation, endpoint detection and response (EDR), SIEM correlation, and honeypots. Network segmentation limits lateral movement by isolating critical systems and enforcing strict access control, making it more difficult for attackers to navigate the network undetected. EDR continuously monitors endpoints for suspicious activity, including abnormal logins, privilege escalation attempts, and unusual process execution. SIEM platforms aggregate and correlate logs from multiple sources, providing insights into suspicious patterns indicative of lateral movement. Honeypots are decoy systems designed to lure attackers, capturing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) while generating alerts for security teams.
By combining these strategies, organizations gain early detection capabilities, reduce dwell time, and improve incident response. Correlating endpoint and network data ensures that anomalies like repeated authentication attempts, abnormal inter-system communication, or unexpected administrative actions are detected and investigated. Integrating threat intelligence allows teams to understand attacker tactics and anticipate potential targets. Automated responses may include isolating affected endpoints, blocking suspicious network paths, or alerting administrators for investigation. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, defense in depth, and proactive threat detection. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 163
Which technique is most effective for detecting encrypted malware command and control (C2) traffic on a corporate network?
A) TLS/SSL traffic analysis, flow-based anomaly detection, and threat intelligence integration
B) Quarterly firewall reviews
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Encrypted command and control (C2) traffic enables attackers to remotely control compromised systems without detection by traditional security tools. Detecting this traffic requires specialized techniques beyond standard antivirus or firewall monitoring. Option B, quarterly firewall reviews, focus on access rules and do not inspect live traffic patterns. Option C, routine antivirus updates, rely on known signatures and cannot detect novel or encrypted communications. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities but cannot continuously monitor for active malicious channels.
The most effective detection method combines TLS/SSL traffic analysis, flow-based anomaly detection, and threat intelligence integration. TLS/SSL traffic analysis inspects metadata such as certificate attributes, session duration, and handshake anomalies to identify suspicious encrypted connections. Flow-based anomaly detection uses NetFlow, sFlow, or IPFIX data to analyze network patterns including unusual bandwidth usage, unexpected destinations, or inconsistent communication intervals. Threat intelligence integration provides real-time indicators of compromise (IoCs), allowing correlation between observed traffic and known malicious IPs, domains, or malware behavior.
Implementing these strategies in a SIEM or network monitoring platform enhances visibility across the organization. Alerts generated from correlated data can trigger automated responses such as blocking IPs, isolating endpoints, or initiating deeper investigation. Machine learning can further identify subtle anomalies, including beaconing patterns or intermittent C2 communication attempts. Aligning this strategy with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles ensures continuous detection, real-time response, and comprehensive protection against sophisticated encrypted malware attacks. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 164
Which approach is most effective for identifying anomalous user behavior indicative of compromised accounts in hybrid environments?
A) UEBA, multi-cloud monitoring, and cross-platform audit log correlation
B) Routine antivirus updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual vulnerability scanning
Answer: A
Explanation:
Hybrid environments, combining on-premises and cloud systems, introduce complex monitoring challenges. Compromised accounts often exhibit subtle anomalies across multiple platforms that standard security tools cannot detect. Option B, routine antivirus updates, protect against known malware but do not track user activity. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, review static access rules without ongoing behavior monitoring. Option D, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies potential weaknesses but does not detect compromised accounts in real time.
The most effective approach combines user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA), multi-cloud monitoring, and cross-platform audit log correlation. UEBA analyzes behavioral baselines for users and entities, identifying deviations such as unusual login times, large data transfers, or access to unexpected systems. Multi-cloud monitoring provides visibility into SaaS, IaaS, and hybrid workloads, tracking activity across multiple environments. Correlating audit logs from on-premises and cloud systems enables detection of patterns such as simultaneous logins from geographically distant locations, failed authentication sequences, or unusual administrative actions.
Integrating these methods into a SIEM platform enables real-time alerts and context-rich investigations. Security teams can respond with account suspensions, multifactor authentication enforcement, or workflow-based interventions to prevent further compromise. Advanced analytics, including machine learning, enhances detection of subtle anomalies that may indicate stealthy attacks. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture by emphasizing continuous monitoring, behavioral baselines, and proactive detection of compromised accounts. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 165
Which combination of tools is most effective for detecting zero-day attacks and unknown malware within enterprise networks?
A) EDR, sandboxing, threat intelligence feeds, and machine learning analytics
B) Quarterly firewall audits
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Zero-day attacks exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities, and traditional signature-based antivirus solutions are largely ineffective against such threats. Option B, quarterly firewall audits, provide static review of access rules but cannot detect new or unknown attacks. Option C, routine antivirus signature updates, detect only known malware and are insufficient against polymorphic or zero-day threats. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities at a fixed point in time but does not provide ongoing detection for live attacks.
The most effective solution combines endpoint detection and response (EDR), sandboxing, threat intelligence feeds, and machine learning analytics. EDR monitors system processes, memory, and network activity in real time to detect suspicious or malicious behavior. Sandboxing allows potentially malicious files or code to execute in isolated environments, analyzing behavior without risking production systems. Threat intelligence feeds provide up-to-date IoCs and attacker TTPs, allowing correlation with observed anomalies. Machine learning analytics identifies patterns of unusual activity or behavior indicative of previously unknown threats.
When integrated into a SIEM, these tools provide a layered defense that detects, analyzes, and responds to zero-day attacks efficiently. Alerts can trigger automated containment, endpoint isolation, or incident response workflows, reducing dwell time and preventing lateral movement. Organizations adopting this approach align with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust frameworks, ensuring proactive threat detection, continuous monitoring, and enhanced resilience against advanced and unknown malware attacks. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 166
Which approach is most effective for identifying insider threats within a hybrid enterprise environment that spans on-premises and cloud systems?
A) UEBA, cross-platform log aggregation, and anomaly detection dashboards
B) Quarterly firewall audits
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Insider threats represent a significant risk to hybrid enterprise environments, where sensitive data and applications exist across both on-premises and cloud systems. Traditional security tools like Option B, quarterly firewall audits, focus on static network configurations and cannot detect nuanced internal behavior deviations. Option C, routine antivirus signature updates, defend against known malware but do not monitor insider activities. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities periodically but offers no real-time detection of insider abuse.
The most effective approach combines user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA), cross-platform log aggregation, and anomaly detection dashboards. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for employees and systems, identifying deviations such as unusual file access, large data transfers, irregular login patterns, or unauthorized privilege escalations. Cross-platform log aggregation collects and normalizes logs from cloud applications, on-premises servers, and endpoints, ensuring a unified view of activities across diverse environments. Anomaly detection dashboards present visual insights and alerts for suspicious activity patterns, enabling security teams to investigate potential insider threats quickly.
By correlating UEBA findings with aggregated logs, organizations can detect early indicators of malicious intent, negligent behavior, or compromised accounts. For instance, an employee downloading an unusually high volume of sensitive files from a cloud storage service at odd hours may trigger a behavioral alert. Integrating machine learning enhances detection by identifying subtle trends and outliers that might escape manual review. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture, emphasizing continuous monitoring, proactive detection, and risk mitigation. Real-time alerts, automated workflows, and role-based access controls further strengthen defenses against insider threats, minimizing potential data loss, operational disruption, or regulatory non-compliance. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 167
Which combination of tools is best suited for detecting data exfiltration attempts in an enterprise environment using both cloud and on-premises resources?
A) DLP, CASB, SIEM correlation, and UEBA monitoring
B) Quarterly firewall audits
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Data exfiltration occurs when sensitive information is transferred outside an organization without authorization. Detecting such activity in hybrid environments is challenging because data may reside in cloud platforms, on-premises storage, or endpoints. Option B, quarterly firewall audits, only assess network rules and cannot detect active data exfiltration. Option C, routine antivirus updates, protect endpoints against malware but provide no insight into unauthorized data movement. Option D, annual penetration testing, is a static assessment and does not offer real-time monitoring.
The optimal approach combines data loss prevention (DLP), cloud access security broker (CASB), SIEM correlation, and UEBA monitoring. DLP solutions monitor sensitive data movement, enforcing policies and generating alerts when data is copied, transferred, or shared improperly. CASB extends visibility into cloud services, detecting suspicious access, unusual downloads, or unsanctioned file sharing. SIEM platforms aggregate logs from multiple sources and correlate events to identify patterns indicative of exfiltration, such as repeated downloads from privileged accounts or large transfers to external IPs. UEBA adds behavioral context, detecting anomalies like sudden access to rarely used data repositories or irregular file access patterns.
Combining these tools creates a multi-layered defense capable of detecting exfiltration across multiple environments. Alerts from SIEM or DLP can trigger automated actions, such as blocking data transfers, requiring multifactor authentication, or alerting security teams for investigation. Machine learning enhances detection by identifying subtle anomalies or evolving exfiltration tactics, such as the use of steganography, encryption, or covert channels. This proactive, layered strategy aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, risk assessment, and real-time response. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 168
Which method is most effective for detecting anomalous privilege escalation attempts across multiple cloud platforms?
A) Cross-platform IAM auditing, UEBA, and API activity analysis
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual vulnerability scanning
Answer: A
Explanation:
Privilege escalation, where attackers gain higher permissions than authorized, is particularly dangerous in multi-cloud environments. Standard security controls are often insufficient to detect sophisticated privilege abuse. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, only detect malware and do not monitor access permissions. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, review access rules but cannot detect misuse of cloud privileges in real-time. Option D, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies system weaknesses but does not monitor ongoing privilege escalation attempts.
The most effective strategy integrates cross-platform identity and access management (IAM) auditing, UEBA, and API activity analysis. IAM auditing reviews user roles, permissions, and policy enforcement across cloud platforms, detecting inconsistencies or excessive privileges. UEBA analyzes deviations from established behavioral baselines, such as unusual administrative activity, repeated failed attempts to access sensitive resources, or atypical logins from foreign locations. API activity analysis monitors automated processes and scripts for unauthorized actions, including role modification or mass data access, providing detailed insights into potentially malicious operations.
By correlating IAM, behavioral, and API data in a SIEM or security monitoring system, security teams can detect early indicators of compromise and respond proactively. Alerts can trigger account suspension, access revocation, or workflow-based investigation before attackers can exploit elevated privileges. Machine learning further enhances detection by identifying subtle anomalies across diverse cloud platforms, including lateral privilege movements or chained escalation attempts. This comprehensive approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture, ensuring continuous monitoring, least-privilege enforcement, and proactive mitigation of privilege escalation risks. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 169
Which combination of tools is best suited to detect advanced persistent threats (APTs) targeting enterprise endpoints and cloud workloads?
A) EDR, UEBA, threat intelligence feeds, and sandbox analysis
B) Quarterly firewall audits
C) Routine antivirus signature updates
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Advanced persistent threats (APTs) are sophisticated, stealthy attacks designed to maintain long-term access to networks and systems. Detecting them requires advanced monitoring beyond traditional security tools. Option B, quarterly firewall audits, assess network rules but cannot detect ongoing malicious activity. Option C, routine antivirus updates, only identify known malware, leaving zero-day or polymorphic threats undetected. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities at a single point in time but does not provide continuous threat monitoring.
A layered detection approach is required, combining endpoint detection and response (EDR), UEBA, threat intelligence feeds, and sandbox analysis. EDR monitors endpoints in real-time for suspicious processes, memory injections, unusual network communications, and file anomalies. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for users and entities, identifying deviations indicative of APT activity, such as unusual access patterns, lateral movement attempts, or privilege abuse. Threat intelligence feeds provide real-time IoCs, including known attacker infrastructure, malware hashes, and TTPs, enabling correlation with observed activity. Sandboxing allows suspected malicious files or scripts to be executed safely in an isolated environment, revealing hidden behaviors such as command-and-control attempts or data exfiltration tactics.
Integrating these tools ensures early detection and response to APTs. Alerts can trigger automated containment, endpoint isolation, or detailed investigations, significantly reducing dwell time. Machine learning analytics can detect subtle or novel attack patterns, including multi-stage exploits and lateral propagation. This strategy aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, multi-layered defense, and proactive mitigation of sophisticated threats targeting both endpoints and cloud workloads. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 170
Which approach is most effective for identifying command-and-control (C2) communication in encrypted network traffic across enterprise endpoints?
A) TLS/SSL inspection, flow-based anomaly detection, UEBA, and threat intelligence correlation
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Attackers increasingly rely on encrypted communication channels to maintain command-and-control (C2) over compromised endpoints. Traditional security controls are often ineffective at detecting these threats. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, detect known malware but cannot inspect encrypted traffic. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, assess access rules but do not analyze live traffic patterns. Option D, annual penetration testing, is a point-in-time assessment and cannot provide continuous monitoring for C2 communication.
The most effective detection strategy combines TLS/SSL inspection, flow-based anomaly detection, UEBA, and threat intelligence correlation. TLS/SSL inspection analyzes encrypted traffic metadata, such as certificate details, handshake anomalies, and unusual session patterns, without decrypting sensitive data. Flow-based anomaly detection uses network flow metrics to identify irregular communication patterns, such as repeated short-duration connections, unusual destinations, or unexpected bandwidth usage. UEBA contextualizes activity based on user and entity behavior, detecting deviations such as endpoints communicating with suspicious external hosts. Threat intelligence correlation maps observed activity to known malicious IPs, domains, or malware behaviors, improving detection accuracy and reducing false positives.
By integrating these tools into a SIEM or security operations platform, organizations can achieve real-time detection of encrypted C2 channels. Alerts can trigger automated containment, endpoint isolation, or in-depth forensic investigation, reducing potential damage. Machine learning can enhance detection by identifying subtle or novel attack patterns that evade signature-based detection. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture, providing continuous visibility, proactive threat detection, and robust defenses against sophisticated, encrypted attacks targeting enterprise endpoints and networks. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 171
Which security strategy is most effective for detecting lateral movement across multiple segments in a hybrid enterprise network?
A) Network segmentation monitoring with EDR, UEBA, and SIEM correlation
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Annual vulnerability scanning
D) Quarterly firewall audits
Answer: A
Explanation:
Lateral movement occurs when attackers compromise an initial system and move across a network to access sensitive assets. Detecting this activity is particularly challenging in hybrid environments where systems span cloud services, on-premises infrastructure, and remote endpoints. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, only detect known malware on endpoints and do not provide visibility into movement patterns between network segments. Option C, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies weaknesses periodically but does not detect real-time intrusions or lateral movement. Option D, quarterly firewall audits, are static reviews of network rules and cannot monitor ongoing traffic flows or unusual activity patterns.
The most effective approach combines network segmentation monitoring, endpoint detection and response (EDR), user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA), and SIEM correlation. Network segmentation monitoring ensures that traffic flows between segments are continuously observed, and deviations from expected communication paths are flagged. EDR provides detailed visibility into endpoint activities, including process creation, credential use, and abnormal file access. UEBA detects anomalies in user and system behavior, identifying unusual login locations, repeated failed access attempts, or unexpected privilege use. SIEM platforms aggregate logs from these tools and correlate events to reveal multi-stage lateral movement, connecting seemingly benign actions into actionable security alerts.
By integrating these tools, security teams can detect early indicators of compromise, such as unauthorized credential use or lateral movement through weakly segmented systems, before attackers reach critical assets. Machine learning can enhance detection by identifying patterns not explicitly defined in rulesets, such as low-and-slow attacks that evade threshold-based alerts. Proactive containment strategies may include isolating affected endpoints, blocking unauthorized accounts, or redirecting suspicious network traffic for deeper inspection. This layered approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and adaptive response strategies. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 172
Which approach provides the most reliable detection of data integrity attacks on enterprise databases?
A) Database activity monitoring (DAM), checksums, and UEBA anomaly detection
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Data integrity attacks involve unauthorized modification, deletion, or corruption of critical data in enterprise databases. Traditional defenses like Option B, routine antivirus updates, protect endpoints but cannot detect unauthorized changes to database records. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, focus on network rules rather than data activity. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities at a fixed point but does not continuously monitor data integrity or detect malicious changes in real-time.
The most effective detection strategy uses database activity monitoring (DAM), checksums, and user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA). DAM continuously tracks all database operations, including SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE queries, providing alerts for suspicious actions such as mass deletions, unauthorized schema modifications, or access by non-privileged users. Checksums are cryptographic hashes that verify the integrity of critical database files and detect unauthorized modifications. UEBA contextualizes database access behavior by establishing baselines for each user and system, identifying anomalies such as unusual query patterns, access times, or volume of data accessed.
Combining DAM, checksums, and UEBA enables organizations to detect both overt and subtle data integrity attacks, including insider threats or compromised accounts executing unauthorized queries. Security teams can correlate database logs with endpoint and network activity in a SIEM platform to identify multi-stage attacks, such as those combining privilege escalation with malicious database manipulation. Alerts can trigger automated containment measures, such as revoking access, freezing database tables, or initiating forensic investigations. Machine learning models enhance detection by identifying patterns not explicitly defined, such as gradual corruption attempts over time. This proactive and layered approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust frameworks, emphasizing continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and rapid response to ensure database reliability and organizational resilience. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 173
Which method is most effective for detecting attempts to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA) in cloud applications?
A) UEBA monitoring, conditional access policies, and SIEM alert correlation
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual vulnerability scanning
Answer: A
Explanation:
Bypassing multi-factor authentication (MFA) is a common tactic used by attackers to gain unauthorized access to cloud applications and sensitive enterprise resources. Traditional security measures are insufficient for detecting these sophisticated attacks. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, focus on malware and do not provide insight into authentication anomalies. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, assess network access policies but cannot detect compromised credentials or MFA bypass attempts. Option D, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies vulnerabilities at a single point but offers no real-time detection of authentication circumvention.
The most effective strategy combines UEBA monitoring, conditional access policies, and SIEM alert correlation. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for each user, detecting anomalies such as login attempts from unusual geographic locations, unusual device types, abnormal access times, or sudden changes in access patterns. Conditional access policies enforce MFA requirements based on contextual signals, such as location, device compliance, or risk scores, reducing the likelihood of successful bypass. SIEM platforms aggregate authentication logs across cloud services and correlate suspicious activity, such as repeated failed login attempts followed by successful access, alerting security teams to potential attacks.
By combining these tools, organizations can detect both automated attacks, like credential stuffing, and targeted attacks involving stolen tokens or session hijacking. Alerts from SIEM or UEBA can trigger immediate remediation measures, such as forcing MFA re-enrollment, revoking sessions, or requiring additional authentication steps. Machine learning enhances detection by identifying subtle anomalies in user behavior that indicate MFA bypass attempts, even when attackers mimic legitimate user behavior. This layered and proactive approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and adaptive security measures to protect cloud applications and enterprise accounts. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 174
Which combination of strategies is most effective for detecting rogue devices on a corporate network?
A) Network access control (NAC), endpoint discovery, and UEBA anomaly analysis
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Annual vulnerability scanning
D) Quarterly firewall audits
Answer: A
Explanation:
Rogue devices pose a serious security risk by connecting unauthorized endpoints to corporate networks, potentially enabling malware delivery, lateral movement, or data exfiltration. Traditional controls are insufficient to detect these threats. Option B, routine antivirus updates, only protect endpoints with installed agents and do not identify unknown devices. Option C, annual vulnerability scanning, focuses on periodic network or host assessments and cannot detect devices as they appear in real time. Option D, quarterly firewall audits, review access rules but cannot identify unauthorized devices connected to the network.
The most effective strategy combines network access control (NAC), endpoint discovery, and UEBA anomaly analysis. NAC enforces policies that control which devices can connect to the network, including checks for compliant operating systems, patches, and agent installation. Endpoint discovery tools scan the network for active devices, identifying unauthorized or unknown devices by MAC address, IP, or network behavior. UEBA contextualizes network activity by establishing behavioral baselines for endpoints and users, flagging devices exhibiting unusual communication patterns, high bandwidth usage, or access to restricted segments.
Integrating these strategies into a security monitoring framework ensures real-time visibility of network endpoints, enabling rapid detection of rogue devices before they can cause damage. Alerts can trigger automated containment measures, such as network quarantine, access denial, or incident escalation. Machine learning further enhances detection by identifying subtle patterns indicative of rogue devices, such as anomalous traffic, repeated access attempts, or hidden services. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust frameworks, emphasizing continuous monitoring, strict access controls, and proactive security posture management to prevent unauthorized device activity. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 175
Which approach is most effective for detecting supply chain attacks targeting software updates?
A) Code integrity verification, software bill of materials (SBOM) auditing, and threat intelligence correlation
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Supply chain attacks on software updates involve compromising legitimate software to introduce malicious code that is distributed to end-users. Traditional security tools are inadequate for detecting such attacks. Option B, routine antivirus updates, only identify known malware after delivery. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, focus on network rules but cannot verify software authenticity. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies system weaknesses but provides no real-time detection of malicious updates.
The most effective detection strategy combines code integrity verification, software bill of materials (SBOM) auditing, and threat intelligence correlation. Code integrity verification ensures that software binaries and updates match cryptographic signatures or hashes published by trusted vendors. SBOM auditing provides detailed visibility into all components and dependencies in software packages, enabling organizations to identify and assess vulnerable or compromised components introduced through supply chains. Threat intelligence feeds provide real-time information about known malicious software, compromised repositories, or attack campaigns, enabling proactive correlation with observed updates or downloads.
By integrating these tools into software deployment pipelines and monitoring processes, organizations can detect and block malicious updates before they are installed. Alerts can trigger rollback actions, blocklists, or vendor reporting. Machine learning enhances detection by identifying patterns indicative of tampering, such as unexpected file changes, unusual dependency additions, or behavior inconsistent with prior versions. This multi-layered, proactive approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture, emphasizing continuous monitoring, verification, and secure software supply chain management. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 176
Which combination of strategies provides the most effective detection of advanced persistent threats (APTs) targeting critical infrastructure?
A) Endpoint detection and response (EDR), threat intelligence integration, and UEBA behavior monitoring
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Advanced persistent threats (APTs) are highly sophisticated, targeted attacks aimed at stealing sensitive information, disrupting operations, or gaining long-term footholds within critical infrastructure systems. These attacks are characterized by stealth, persistence, and multi-stage tactics that evade traditional security measures. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, only detect known malware and cannot identify complex attack chains. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, provide visibility into network configuration rules but cannot detect ongoing lateral movement or suspicious activities. Option D, annual penetration testing, assesses vulnerabilities at a fixed point in time but does not provide continuous monitoring or detection of ongoing APT activity.
The most effective strategy involves EDR, threat intelligence integration, and UEBA behavior monitoring. EDR solutions provide continuous monitoring and analysis of endpoint activity, capturing detailed process, file, and network behaviors to detect suspicious patterns indicative of APT operations. Threat intelligence feeds enable organizations to recognize known attack tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), including newly observed malware signatures, command-and-control infrastructure, and exploit methods. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for users, systems, and endpoints, allowing detection of anomalies such as unusual logins, excessive file transfers, or deviations from normal communication patterns.
By combining these approaches, security teams can detect multi-stage attack campaigns that may span months, identify compromised accounts, and uncover lateral movement through internal networks. Alerts from EDR and UEBA can trigger automated containment measures such as isolating endpoints, forcing credential resets, or blocking anomalous network traffic. Integration with SIEM platforms allows correlation of data from endpoints, network traffic, and external threat intelligence to create actionable incident reports. Machine learning enhances detection capabilities by identifying subtle, previously unseen behaviors associated with APT activity, such as low-and-slow data exfiltration or stealthy privilege escalation. This layered, proactive approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust frameworks, ensuring continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and rapid response to protect critical infrastructure from advanced persistent threats. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 177
Which strategy is most effective for detecting credential stuffing attacks in real-time across enterprise cloud applications?
A) Multi-factor authentication (MFA) enforcement, UEBA monitoring, and SIEM log correlation
B) Annual vulnerability scanning
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Routine antivirus signature updates
Answer: A
Explanation:
Credential stuffing attacks occur when attackers use stolen username-password combinations from one breach to attempt unauthorized logins on multiple platforms. Detecting such attacks requires real-time monitoring of authentication activity and behavioral analysis. Option B, annual vulnerability scanning, identifies system weaknesses at a single point and cannot detect active login abuse. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, focus on network rules rather than user authentication patterns. Option D, routine antivirus signature updates, protect endpoints against known malware but do not provide visibility into authentication attacks.
The most effective approach integrates MFA enforcement, UEBA monitoring, and SIEM log correlation. MFA adds a layer of verification beyond passwords, preventing attackers from gaining access even if credentials are valid. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for login patterns, enabling detection of anomalies such as logins from unusual locations, devices, or times. SIEM platforms aggregate authentication logs from multiple cloud services and correlate repeated failed login attempts or suspicious access sequences, providing actionable alerts in real time.
By implementing these tools, organizations can identify credential stuffing attacks quickly and respond proactively. Alerts can trigger automated account lockouts, forced password resets, or additional verification challenges. Machine learning further enhances detection by identifying subtle patterns, such as low-rate, distributed login attempts designed to evade traditional threshold-based detection. This approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous authentication monitoring, anomaly detection, and adaptive response to prevent account compromise in cloud applications. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 178
Which combination of tools and processes provides the most effective detection of insider threats in a hybrid enterprise environment?
A) UEBA, DLP (Data Loss Prevention), and continuous endpoint monitoring
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Insider threats involve authorized users misusing their access to steal, alter, or leak sensitive data. These threats are difficult to detect because insiders operate within legitimate privileges and often blend into normal network activity. Option B, routine antivirus signature updates, only detect malware and cannot monitor authorized user behavior. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, review network access rules but cannot identify malicious internal activities. Option D, annual penetration testing, focuses on external vulnerabilities rather than continuous monitoring of user behavior.
The most effective strategy combines UEBA, DLP, and continuous endpoint monitoring. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for each user, detecting anomalies such as unusual file access, abnormal communication patterns, or unauthorized privilege escalation. DLP monitors sensitive data usage, preventing or alerting on attempts to exfiltrate or misuse critical information. Continuous endpoint monitoring tracks process execution, file access, and network activity in real time, providing early detection of malicious actions.
Integrating these tools allows security teams to detect subtle signs of insider threats, such as downloading excessive confidential files, accessing data outside normal hours, or using unsanctioned applications. Alerts can trigger automated containment, including restricting access, alerting management, or initiating forensic investigations. Machine learning further enhances detection by recognizing low-and-slow behaviors that might otherwise appear normal. This multi-layered, proactive approach aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and rapid response to protect enterprise resources from insider threats. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 179
Which detection method is most effective for identifying ransomware attacks targeting cloud-hosted file storage systems?
A) File behavior monitoring, versioning, and anomaly detection via UEBA and SIEM
B) Routine antivirus signature updates
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Annual penetration testing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Ransomware targeting cloud-hosted storage can rapidly encrypt files, disrupting business operations and causing data loss. Traditional security measures are insufficient to detect or respond to such attacks in real time. Option B, routine antivirus updates, may detect known ransomware variants but often fail against zero-day or obfuscated attacks. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, only review access rules and cannot detect ransomware activity. Option D, annual penetration testing, identifies vulnerabilities but does not provide real-time detection of malicious file activity.
The most effective detection strategy integrates file behavior monitoring, versioning, and anomaly detection via UEBA and SIEM. File behavior monitoring tracks creation, modification, deletion, and encryption activity to identify unusual patterns indicative of ransomware. Versioning allows recovery of previous file versions if encryption occurs, limiting operational impact. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for user and system file access patterns, detecting deviations such as mass encryption events or unauthorized file transfers. SIEM correlates these events across cloud services, endpoints, and network traffic, providing actionable alerts to security teams.
This combined approach enables rapid detection and response to ransomware attacks, including automated containment, access revocation, and triggering backup restoration. Machine learning enhances detection by identifying subtle encryption activity or abnormal access behaviors that might bypass signature-based detection. Proactively monitoring cloud-hosted files aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust architecture, emphasizing continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and recovery readiness to minimize the impact of ransomware attacks on critical cloud infrastructure. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Question 180
Which integrated strategy is most effective for detecting and mitigating phishing attacks targeting corporate email systems?
A) Email security gateway, UEBA monitoring, threat intelligence integration, and security awareness training
B) Annual vulnerability scanning
C) Quarterly firewall audits
D) Routine antivirus signature updates
Answer: A
Explanation:
Phishing attacks exploit human behavior to gain access to sensitive corporate data, credentials, or financial resources. Detecting these attacks requires a combination of technical and human-focused strategies. Option B, annual vulnerability scanning, assesses system weaknesses but cannot detect phishing emails. Option C, quarterly firewall audits, focus on network access rules rather than email content or user behavior. Option D, routine antivirus updates, may detect malicious attachments but often fail to detect sophisticated or socially engineered phishing attempts.
The most effective detection and mitigation approach combines email security gateways, UEBA monitoring, threat intelligence integration, and security awareness training. Email security gateways filter incoming messages to detect known malicious URLs, attachments, or sender patterns. UEBA establishes behavioral baselines for user interactions, identifying anomalies such as unusual click patterns, login attempts, or credential submission behavior. Threat intelligence integration provides real-time information on emerging phishing campaigns, malicious domains, and email indicators of compromise. Security awareness training equips employees with knowledge to recognize and report suspicious messages, complementing technical controls.
By combining these methods, organizations can reduce the likelihood of successful phishing attacks and respond promptly when incidents occur. Alerts can trigger automated message quarantine, account investigation, and SIEM correlation for broader threat analysis. Machine learning further enhances detection by identifying patterns in email content, links, and user behavior indicative of phishing attempts. This integrated, multi-layered strategy aligns with NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and Zero Trust principles, emphasizing continuous monitoring, user education, and proactive threat mitigation to protect corporate email systems. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
