CompTIA CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 2 Q16-30
Visit here for our full CompTIA CAS-005 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 16:
A security architect is designing a secure remote administration solution for critical servers. Which method provides the strongest protection against credential theft while maintaining administrative flexibility?
A) Using password-only SSH authentication
B) Employing multifactor authentication with hardware tokens and privileged access workstations
C) Allowing VPN-based access from personal devices
D) Using shared administrator accounts across all servers
Answer: B)
Explanation:
A robust remote administration design must address credential theft, unauthorized access, privilege misuse, and administrative workflow challenges. Each listed method offers different levels of protection, flexibility, and risk exposure. Understanding these differences is essential when architecting secure access to critical systems.
A) Password-only SSH authentication is easy to implement but provides minimal protection from credential theft. Attack vectors such as phishing, keylogging, man-in-the-middle attacks, and brute-force attempts can easily compromise password-based authentication. Even when long and complex passwords are enforced, a single factor remains susceptible to disclosure. Attackers who compromise an endpoint with malware can harvest credentials and reuse them to gain privileged access. Password-only authentication also does not provide strong assurance of the administrator’s identity, nor does it integrate risk-based access or hardened endpoints.
C) Allowing VPN-based access from personal devices increases the attack surface significantly. Personal devices cannot be guaranteed to meet corporate hardening standards, patch requirements, endpoint protection controls, or security baselines. Malware present on such devices could capture credentials, intercept administrative traffic, or perform lateral movement once connected through the VPN tunnel. Even if the VPN uses strong authentication, allowing unmanaged devices introduces substantial risk. Administrative tasks require high assurance that endpoints are trustworthy, and personal devices rarely meet that threshold.
D) Using shared administrator accounts across all servers undermines accountability, least privilege, and incident investigation capabilities. Shared accounts prevent accurate attribution of actions to specific individuals, complicate logs, and create an environment where malicious or accidental misuse cannot be traced. Additionally, if the shared credential is compromised, an attacker receives broad access immediately. Shared accounts also reduce flexibility because password rotation, revocation, and access changes affect every user simultaneously.
B) The strongest approach combines multifactor authentication with hardware tokens and privileged access workstations. Hardware tokens resist phishing and credential replay because authentication requires possession of the physical token. Multifactor authentication ensures attackers cannot authenticate even if they steal a password. Privileged access workstations provide a hardened, dedicated environment for administrative activity and enforce strict policies such as restricted software installation, strong endpoint protection, secure boot, and network isolation. This setup dramatically reduces the attack surface by preventing administrators from performing privileged actions on compromised or general-use devices. It also supports fine-grained privilege elevation, secure logging, and conditional access policies. Together, these measures offer high resilience against credential theft, malware-based attacks, and misuse of administrative privileges.
Selecting the strongest method for protecting remote administrative access to critical servers requires combining secure identity, secure endpoints, and secure communication channels into a unified strategy. Hardware-backed authentication significantly strengthens identity security because credentials cannot be easily phished, duplicated, or extracted. By binding authentication to a physical device, attackers lose one of their most common avenues for compromising administrative accounts. Privileged access workstations contribute an equally important layer by ensuring that administrators perform sensitive tasks only from hardened, isolated, and tightly controlled devices. These workstations are designed to resist malware, keyloggers, and other compromises that could otherwise manipulate administrator actions or steal credentials. Multifactor authentication adds further protection by requiring multiple independent factors, ensuring that a stolen password alone is not enough to gain access. When these components work together, they create a high-assurance security posture where identity is strongly verified, the device used for access is trustworthy, and the communication channel remains protected. This layered, defense-in-depth approach is far more effective than relying on single controls and is essential for safeguarding critical servers against sophisticated attacks targeting remote administrative pathways.
Question 17:
A threat analyst is reviewing logs and identifies unusual outbound traffic from an internal host to an unknown IP using uncommon ports. Which process should be performed first to determine if the host is compromised?
A) Immediately shut down the host to stop all activity
B) Begin full malware eradication procedures
C) Conduct initial containment and isolate the host from the network while preserving volatile data
D) Notify all users to change their passwords immediately
Answer: C)
Explanation:
Incident response must be structured to determine whether anomalous activity indicates compromise, while preserving evidence and preventing attacker advancement. Each of the listed actions has different impacts on investigation quality, system integrity, and containment effectiveness.
A) Immediately shutting down the host stops activity but destroys volatile memory, including running processes, active network connections, malware artifacts, and other ephemeral evidence. This results in loss of critical forensic data needed to understand the attack, attacker techniques, and scope of compromise. Abrupt shutdown should be avoided unless necessary to prevent catastrophic damage.
B) Beginning full malware eradication procedures too early risks tampering with evidence and may overlook root causes or additional compromised systems. Without proper validation and containment, premature eradication may alert attackers, causing them to pivot, escalate, or destroy evidence. A comprehensive response requires understanding the nature of compromise before remediation.
D) Notifying all users to change passwords prematurely may create unnecessary alarm if the event is benign, and it does not address the immediate potential threat on the suspicious host. Password changes are appropriate when credential theft is confirmed, but not as a first step in host triage.
C) The correct first step is to conduct initial containment by isolating the host from the network—but keeping it powered on—to preserve volatile data. Isolation prevents further outbound communication, data exfiltration, and lateral movement while maintaining the system state. Investigators can then capture memory images, analyze running processes, inspect network connections, and collect logs. This approach balances the need for containment and the preservation of evidence. After gathering evidence, analysts can determine whether a compromise occurred and proceed with eradication, recovery, and user notification as appropriate.
The reasoning supports a structured approach: early isolation prevents further harm, while preserving volatile memory enables accurate root cause analysis. Premature shutdown or cleanup removes evidence and may worsen the attack. Therefore, isolating the host while conducting initial forensic data collection is the correct first step.
Question 18:
A company is implementing microsegmentation in its data center. What is the primary security benefit of this approach?
A) Simplifies all firewall rules by placing all systems in one large security zone
B) Prevents all external attacks by blocking all inbound connections
C) Restricts lateral movement within the network by creating granular security boundaries
D) Eliminates the need for network monitoring tools
Answer: C)
Explanation:
Microsegmentation is an advanced network security approach focused on fine-grained isolation. Understanding each choice’s implications helps identify the true benefit of this model.
A) Placing all systems in one large security zone contradicts microsegmentation. It expands the attack surface, removes isolation, and allows unrestricted internal movement. Microsegmentation instead increases the number of zones, not reduces them.
B) Blocking all inbound connections prevents many external attacks, but this is not the purpose of microsegmentation. It primarily governs internal communication between systems, users, and workloads. External protections remain the task of perimeter firewalls, zero-trust gateways, and access control policies.
D) Eliminating the need for network monitoring tools is unrealistic. Even with microsegmentation, monitoring remains essential to detect anomalies, enforce policies, identify misconfigurations, and observe lateral movement attempts. Microsegmentation enhances monitoring but does not replace it.
C) Restricting lateral movement is the core benefit. Attackers who breach one system often rely on lateral movement to escalate privileges, find valuable data, or compromise additional workloads. Microsegmentation minimizes this by enforcing least-privilege communication paths between workloads. Each application or service only communicates with authorized peers, reducing attack paths and enabling rapid detection when unauthorized communication occurs. This significantly enhances the internal security posture.
The reasoning highlights that microsegmentation improves internal containment, limits breach spread, and enforces granular policies to drastically reduce internal attack surface.
Question 19:
A security team must select a secure hashing algorithm to store password verification data. Which option provides the strongest resistance to brute-force attacks?
A) MD5
B) SHA-1
C) bcrypt
D) CRC32
Answer: C)
Explanation:
Password hashing must resist brute-force attempts, hardware acceleration, rainbow tables, and offline cracking using GPUs or ASICs. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each algorithm is crucial.
A) MD5 is outdated and fast, making it extremely vulnerable to brute-force attacks. Attackers can compute billions of MD5 hashes per second. Collisions and preimages can be found efficiently, so MD5 should never be used for password storage.
B) SHA-1 is stronger than MD5 but remains a fast hash function and is susceptible to collision attacks. Like MD5, its speed makes it unsuitable for password hashing because attackers can compute large numbers of SHA-1 hashes quickly on modern hardware.
D) CRC32 is not a cryptographic hash at all. It is designed for error checking in transmission and storage, not for security. It is extremely weak and completely unsuitable for password protection.
C) bcrypt is intentionally slow and includes salting automatically. It is designed specifically for password hashing. The cost factor increases computational difficulty, making brute-force attempts significantly harder. bcrypt resists GPU-based attacks more effectively than fast hashes. It prevents rainbow table usage because each password hash includes a unique salt. The tunable cost parameter allows organizations to increase security over time.
The reasoning shows that modern password security requires slow, salted, adaptive hashing. bcrypt provides these properties, unlike fast, outdated, or non-cryptographic alternatives.
Question 20:
A company wants to detect insider threats by analyzing user behavior patterns. Which solution is most appropriate?
A) Static firewall rules
B) User and entity behavior analytics (UEB A)
C) Network address translation
D) Simple file access logging
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Insider threat detection requires identifying abnormal behavior, not just basic access events.
A) Static firewall rules enforce network boundaries but cannot detect subtle behavioral anomalies like unusual login times, atypical file access patterns, or abnormal data transfers.
C) Network address translation is a networking function for IP conservation, not a security analytics tool. It offers no behavior-based detection.
D) File access logs are useful but only capture limited events. They do not analyze behavioral baselines or detect multi-dimensional anomalies.
B) UEBA systems analyze user behaviors over time, build baselines, and detect deviations indicative of insider threats or compromised accounts. These solutions correlate multiple data sources—logins, data access, network movement, email usage—and identify suspicious activity patterns.
The reasoning is rooted in behavioral analysis: insider threats require advanced analytics beyond simple logs. UEBA provides such capabilities, making it the most suitable solution.
Question 21:
A security engineer must ensure that an application cannot be tampered with after deployment. Which control best supports this requirement?
A) Code obfuscation during development
B) Application signing with certificate-based integrity validation
C) Using open-source libraries without verification
D) Relying solely on network firewalls
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Integrity assurance requires detecting unauthorized modification and establishing trust in application binaries.
A) Code obfuscation hides logic but does not prevent modification. Attackers can still alter code or repackage applications.
C) Using unverified libraries increases tampering and supply-chain risks rather than preventing them.
D) Firewalls protect at the network layer; they do not validate application integrity.
B) Application signing uses cryptographic certificates to verify that code has not been modified since publication. Operating systems enforce signature checks to ensure trustworthiness. This control provides tamper detection that other methods cannot offer.
The reasoning ties integrity to cryptographic signing—ensuring software authenticity and preventing unauthorized modification.
Question 22:
A cloud architect is designing a multi-region deployment for high availability. Which factor is most important for resilience?
A) Using a single database instance in one region
B) Deploying redundant services and synchronized data across regions
C) Using static DNS entries
D) Consolidating workloads in one availability zone
Answer: B)
Explanation:
High availability in cloud environments requires redundancy, distribution, and resiliency.
A) A single database instance creates a single point of failure.
C) Static DNS provides no failover capability.
D) One availability zone lacks redundancy for zone-level outages.
B) Redundant services across regions with synchronized data ensure continuity even if one region experiences failure. Multi-region replication and failover orchestration maximize resilience.
The reasoning emphasizes geographic redundancy and data consistency as keys to availability.
Question 23
A security team is evaluating ways to strengthen the protection of secrets used by automated services in a hybrid cloud environment. Which method provides the highest level of assurance that secrets remain secure even if an attacker gains access to the application host?
A) Storing secrets in environment variables
B) Embedding secrets within the application codebase
C) Using a hardware-backed secrets vault with dynamic credential issuance
D) Saving secrets in encrypted local configuration files
Answer: C)
Explanation:
A security design for automated services must ensure secrets remain protected even when adversaries compromise an application host. Understanding how each method handles exposure, rotation, leakage resistance, and runtime resilience is essential. Storing sensitive values in environment variables is a common practice due to convenience, but it offers minimal resistance once an attacker gains host access. Attackers with local privilege can dump the environment variables, inspect running processes, or capture memory snapshots. These disclosures occur easily, making this method suitable only for low-risk deployments. It lacks dynamic rotation and provides no binding between the secret and a trusted execution context.
Embedding sensitive values inside the application codebase creates even greater problems. This approach forces secret distribution through source code repositories, build pipelines, and developer workstations. An attacker gaining access anywhere in the code lifecycle obtains persistent access to the secret. Once the secret is embedded, rotating it becomes difficult, often requiring code changes and redeployment. Attackers do not need runtime access; they only need the repository, image, or binary. This approach exposes secrets broadly and violates secure development principles by mixing configuration with code.
Saving secrets in encrypted local configuration files adds some protection in the form of encryption, but it still requires a decryption key accessible to the application at runtime. If an attacker compromises the host, they can extract the decryption key from memory, process space, or local keystores. While encryption protects secrets at rest, it does not meaningfully protect them during execution. Local encrypted storage provides moderate resistance to casual inspection but insufficient defense against targeted compromise. It also lacks dynamic rotation or centralized governance.
Using a hardware-backed secrets vault with dynamic credential issuance provides the highest level of assurance. These systems rely on strong cryptographic hardware such as HSMs, TPMs, or cloud-native secure enclaves to protect keys and secrets. Secrets are never stored in plaintext on the host. Applications authenticate to the vault using hardware-protected identity mechanisms. The vault issues short-lived credentials on demand, meaning even if an attacker steals a credential, it expires quickly. Additionally, secret retrieval often requires attestation, proving that the application is running in a trusted execution environment. Hardware enforcement ensures that secrets cannot be extracted even with elevated host privileges. These vaults offer centralized rotation, auditing, policy enforcement, and fine-grained access control. Dynamic issuance reduces the value of stolen secrets because they are limited in duration and scope.
The reasoning behind this selection centers on runtime resilience, exposure minimization, and cryptographic isolation. Secrets stored locally—whether in variables, files, or code—can be extracted when the host is compromised. A hardware-backed vault prevents extraction, limits exposure windows, and maintains centralized lifecycle control. Therefore, a hardware-supported vault with dynamic credential issuance provides the strongest protection.
Question 24
An enterprise is implementing a zero-trust model and wants to prevent unauthorized east-west traffic inside its network. Which technique most effectively enforces granular control based on identity and context?
A) Traditional VLAN segmentation
B) Static IP-based firewall rules
C) Software-defined perimeter with continuous authentication
D) Using a single, centralized ACL for all internal subnets
Answer: C)
Explanation:
Zero-trust architectures rely on verifying identity and context for each request, rather than trusting internal network locations. Evaluating the ability of each technique to support dynamic authorization and fine-grained control determines which best aligns with zero-trust principles. VLAN segmentation separates network devices but does not apply identity-driven control. Each VLAN provides boundary separation but still assumes trust within the zone. Attackers who gain access to a VLAN can move laterally because security is tied to network location rather than verifying user or workload identity. VLANs lack adaptive policies, real-time risk evaluation, and contextual enforcement.
Static IP-based firewall rules also cannot support dynamic conditions. IP addresses frequently change in cloud or virtual environments. Static rules become outdated quickly, creating operational overhead and security gaps. IP-based enforcement does not differentiate between legitimate and compromised hosts; it only checks addresses, not identity. In zero-trust architectures, identity is paramount, and IP controls alone cannot provide adaptive trust decisions.
Using a single centralized ACL for all internal subnets provides the least granularity. One ACL cannot account for diverse applications, user contexts, or dynamic identity attributes. A centralized ACL becomes an operational bottleneck and often over-permissive to avoid outages. It reinforces perimeter-based assumptions and offers limited visibility into lateral movement attempts. This method conflicts with the fundamental requirement of verifying each request individually.
A software-defined perimeter with continuous authentication provides the necessary identity-centric and context-aware controls. These systems authenticate users and workloads before establishing any communication path and continuously re-validate trust based on context—such as device health, location, time, and risk signals. Access decisions adapt dynamically to changing conditions. Communication is allowed only after explicit authorization, not based on network placement. Each connection is microtunneled, reducing exposure and preventing broad lateral movement. Continuous authentication ensures that trust is evaluated at every stage, supporting real zero-trust enforcement by verifying identity and context granularly and repeatedly.
The reasoning shows that zero-trust requires identity-based, adaptive, context-aware control, which only a software-defined perimeter with continuous authentication provides.
Question 25
A security engineer is designing controls to ensure that a containerized application cannot access sensitive host resources. Which approach is most effective?
A) Running containers in privileged mode
B) Using Linux namespaces and cgroups for isolation
C) Sharing the host filesystem with read-write permissions
D) Allowing direct kernel module loading from containers
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Containers rely on kernel-level mechanisms for isolation, and proper configuration is essential for preventing host compromise. Running containers in privileged mode effectively disables most isolation boundaries. Privileged mode grants nearly full access to host devices, kernel interfaces, and system operations. If an attacker compromises a privileged container, they can escape to the host, manipulate system settings, or access sensitive data. This contradicts container security principles.
Sharing the host filesystem with read-write permissions grants containers direct access to host data structures. This approach introduces significant risk because any flaw or malicious process inside the container can alter host files, escalate privileges, or inject malicious code. This configuration removes the barrier between container and host.
Allowing containers to load kernel modules is extremely dangerous. Kernel modules operate with the highest level of privilege within the system. If a container can load modules, an attacker controlling the container can execute arbitrary kernel-level code, compromising the entire host. Container security requires preventing kernel manipulation entirely.
Linux namespaces and cgroups provide strong isolation between containers and hosts. Namespaces separate process IDs, users, networks, filesystems, and inter-process communication channels so that each container sees its own environment. cgroups control resource usage, preventing one container from consuming excessive CPU, memory, or I/O. These mechanisms form the foundation of secure containerization. They restrict access to host resources and ensure containers operate within tightly bounded environments. Combined with security enhancements such as seccomp, AppArmor, or SELinux, namespaces and cgroups significantly reduce the attack surface.
The reasoning highlights that containers require strict host isolation. Privileged execution, shared filesystems, or kernel module access violate this requirement. Namespaces and cgroups fulfill it effectively.
Question 26
A company wants to ensure that digital evidence collected from an incident remains admissible in court. Which principle must be followed to maintain evidentiary integrity?
A) Storing evidence only in compressed formats
B) Maintaining a documented chain of custody
C) Allowing multiple analysts to alter evidence for analysis
D) Encrypting evidence with personal employee passwords
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Digital evidence must follow strict legal and procedural standards to be considered valid in court. Storing evidence only in compressed formats has no bearing on legal admissibility. Compression may even corrupt metadata or cause questions regarding modification. Courts require authenticity, integrity, and traceability, none of which depend on compression.
Allowing multiple analysts to alter evidence for analysis undermines integrity. Evidence must remain unchanged, with forensic copies created for examination. Alteration introduces doubt about authenticity, making evidence inadmissible.
Encrypting evidence with personal employee passwords introduces risks. If the password holder leaves the company or refuses to cooperate, evidence becomes inaccessible. Personal passwords also violate the requirement that evidence protection must be organizationally controlled and auditable.
Maintaining a documented chain of custody is essential. Chain of custody records every individual who handled the evidence, the times they accessed it, the reason for access, and how it was stored and transferred. This documentation proves to courts that the evidence remained unaltered and securely controlled. It establishes reliability and prevents tampering allegations. Without a proper chain of custody, even technically sound evidence may be rejected.
The reasoning is clear: legal admissibility depends on demonstrating handling integrity. Chain of custody provides that assurance.
Question 27
A security analyst needs to reduce the risk of unauthorized firmware modification on corporate laptops. What is the best solution?
A) Disabling all BIOS passwords
B) Implementing secure boot with firmware integrity validation
C) Allowing users local administrator rights
D) Using outdated firmware that attackers already know
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Unauthorized firmware modification represents a severe threat, allowing attackers persistent and stealthy control. Disabling BIOS passwords removes an essential layer of protection. Without the password, anyone can alter boot settings or firmware configurations, enabling malicious bootkits or unauthorized OS installations.
Allowing users local administrator rights increases exposure. Administrator privileges give users the ability to run firmware update tools or execute malicious payloads capable of altering low-level components. This significantly raises risks rather than reducing them.
Using outdated firmware is extremely dangerous. Older firmware often contains known vulnerabilities. Attackers develop exploits targeting these weaknesses, enabling firmware compromise, persistent implants, or hardware-level manipulation.
Secure boot with firmware integrity validation provides the strongest protection. Secure boot ensures that only trusted, signed boot components execute. Firmware integrity checks prevent unauthorized modifications. Combining hardware-rooted trust anchors with signed firmware ensures that compromised or altered components do not load. Integrity validation mechanisms such as TPM-based measurements further strengthen protections by ensuring tampering is detectable.
The reasoning shows that firmware security requires cryptographically enforced trust. Secure boot and integrity validation provide this level of defense, unlike the alternatives.
Question 28
A DevSecOps team wants to ensure vulnerabilities are identified before code reaches production. Which practice is most effective?
A) Running annual penetration tests
B) Integrating automated static code analysis into the CI/CD pipeline
C) Relying on developers to manually check code
D) Delaying security scans until after deployment
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Identifying security vulnerabilities early in the development lifecycle is one of the core principles of modern secure software engineering, and among the given options, integrating automated static code analysis into the CI/CD pipeline stands out as the most effective and scalable method. Running annual penetration tests, as described in option A, can provide valuable insights but only at a single point in time. Modern development environments involve continuous updates, rapid code changes, frequent deployments, and iterative feature releases. Vulnerabilities can be introduced at any stage, sometimes even through small modifications that appear harmless. Conducting penetration tests once a year fails to offer the consistency and immediacy needed to catch such issues, and by the time testing occurs, many exploitable flaws may have existed unnoticed in the codebase for months. Furthermore, annual penetration tests typically assess the system from an external attacker’s point of view rather than examining the internal source code, which means deeper, logic-level vulnerabilities may remain hidden. While penetration tests remain important for overall security assurance, they cannot serve as a primary mechanism for continuous vulnerability detection in a fast-paced development environment.
Option C, relying solely on developers to manually check code for security issues, introduces an entirely different set of limitations. Developers often focus on functionality, performance, feature delivery, and user experience, and although many are knowledgeable about secure coding practices, expecting every developer to be a security expert is unrealistic. Manual review is subjective and prone to human error. Even highly skilled developers can overlook subtle issues such as insecure cryptographic usage, race conditions, injection vulnerabilities, insecure deserialization, or improper input validation. Additionally, with modern agile methodologies, development cycles move quickly, making thorough manual review time-consuming and difficult to sustain consistently. As teams grow, codebases expand, and the number of daily commits increases, manual checking becomes less feasible. The lack of scalability, inconsistency in review quality, and dependency on individual expertise make this option insufficient as a comprehensive security strategy.
Delaying security scans until after deployment, as suggested in option D, presents serious operational risks. Once an application is deployed into production, any vulnerabilities that exist within it become potential entry points for attackers. The cost and complexity of remediation increase dramatically once vulnerabilities are discovered in a live environment. Fixing issues post-deployment often requires emergency patches, service interruptions, or rollback procedures, all of which can affect users, damage trust, and disrupt business continuity. Moreover, this approach contradicts the core DevSecOps principle of shift-left security, which emphasizes identifying and resolving security issues as early as possible in the development process. Waiting until after deployment to run security scans essentially means allowing potentially dangerous flaws to reach real users, creating exposure windows where attackers can exploit weaknesses before they are discovered. This reactive posture places the organization in a constant state of catching up rather than preventing security failures before they occur.
Integrating automated static code analysis into the CI/CD pipeline, as described in option B, aligns perfectly with modern DevSecOps practices. Static application security testing tools are designed to analyze source code, configuration files, and dependencies for insecure patterns, common coding mistakes, data handling errors, and vulnerabilities before the code is executed or deployed. When these tools are built directly into the CI/CD pipeline, they run automatically each time developers commit new code, open a pull request, or initiate a build. This creates continuous security visibility and ensures that vulnerabilities are detected at the earliest possible moment. Developers receive immediate feedback, often directly within their development environment or code repository interface, allowing them to fix issues before merging code into main branches. Catching vulnerabilities early not only reduces remediation cost but also prevents flawed code from propagating deeper into the system, thereby avoiding downstream issues.
Automated static analysis also provides scalability that manual methods cannot match. As development teams grow and codebases expand into millions of lines, automation ensures consistent and thorough scanning without slowing down delivery. These tools can enforce secure coding standards, detect vulnerable third-party libraries, identify unsafe functions, and highlight logic errors that manual reviewers may overlook. They operate continuously, making them ideal for maintaining strong security postures in environments where software is updated frequently. They also support repeatability and auditability, which are important for regulatory compliance and security governance. By building security checks into the development pipeline, organizations embed security directly into their workflow rather than adding it as an afterthought.
Overall, integrating automated static code analysis into the CI/CD pipeline provides early detection, actionable insights, scalability, and alignment with DevSecOps principles, making it the most effective method among the provided options.
Question 29
A financial institution needs to ensure that sensitive data remains protected during processing in cloud environments. Which technology best supports this requirement?
A) Full-disk encryption at rest
B) Transport Layer Security for data in transit
C) Confidential computing using secure enclaves
D) Disabling encryption entirely to reduce overhead
Answer: C)
Explanation:
Protecting sensitive information throughout its entire lifecycle requires understanding the distinction between data at rest, data in transit, and data in use, and among the given options, confidential computing using secure enclaves is the only approach that protects data during active processing. Full-disk encryption at rest, as mentioned in option A, is designed to safeguard information stored on physical media such as hard drives or solid-state drives. While this is an essential security measure, it only ensures protection when the data is not actively being used. The moment the system boots and the user or application accesses the data, it is decrypted into memory for processing. If an attacker gains access to the running system, whether through exploitation, privilege escalation, physical access, or memory scraping attacks, the sensitive information becomes visible in plaintext. This limitation means that full-disk encryption alone cannot provide comprehensive protection when the data is being manipulated or computed on, which is often when it is most vulnerable.
Transport Layer Security, as referenced in option B, plays an equally important but distinct role by protecting data in transit. TLS ensures that information traveling between systems, services, or users over networks is encrypted, preventing interception, eavesdropping, or tampering during communication. However, just like full-disk encryption, TLS only protects data during a specific phase: the moment it enters the secure connection, it is encrypted, and once it reaches the endpoint, it is decrypted for further processing. After that, the data exists in memory in a form readable by the application performing the computation. Any compromise of the host system at that moment leaves the information exposed. Attackers who can access the runtime environment, cloud infrastructure, or operating system can potentially view or manipulate the decrypted data. T, L, and S, therefore, cannot protect information once the computation process begins, making it insufficient for scenarios where data must remain confidential even during execution.
Option D, disabling encryption to reduce overhead, compromises security entirely and is never an acceptable choice for handling sensitive information, especially in environments dealing with financial, medical, personal, or proprietary data. Performance considerations should never outweigh the fundamental need to protect data. Without encryption, information is exposed at all stages, creating an unacceptable level of risk and violating regulatory, ethical, and operational requirements. Removing encryption not only increases the likelihood of breaches but also eliminates any assurances of confidentiality or integrity. In modern security architectures, abandoning encryption is an irresponsible and unsafe approach that can have catastrophic consequences for organizations and individuals alike.
The only method capable of protecting data while it is actively being processed is confidential computing, presented in option C. Confidential computing leverages secure enclaves or trusted execution environments, which isolate sensitive data and the code processing it within a hardware-protected environment. These enclaves ensure that data remains encrypted even during computation, meaning it stays protected not just at rest or in transit but also in use. Cryptographic protections and hardware-enforced boundaries prevent unauthorized entities, including system administrators, hypervisors, cloud providers, or malicious software, from accessing the enclave’s contents. Even if the underlying operating system is compromised or the cloud infrastructure is controlled by an untrusted party, the data processed within the enclave remains confidential. This hardware-level isolation eliminates opportunities for attackers to inspect plaintext data in memory, making confidential computing a critical advancement for secure processing.
In cloud environments, this approach is especially valuable because it ensures that sensitive data can be processed securely even on infrastructure outside the organization’s physical control. It enables secure multi-party computation, privacy-preserving analytics, and regulatory compliance while maintaining strong confidentiality guarantees. Confidential computing completes the security lifecycle by covering the previously unprotected stage of data in use, addressing a longstanding gap in conventional encryption methods. While full-disk encryption and TLS play vital roles in protecting data at rest and in transit, only confidential computing using secure enclaves offers protection throughout all stages of the data’s lifecycle, making it the only effective choice among the options provided for securing data during processing.
Question 30
A cybersecurity manager wants to ensure that employees cannot exfiltrate sensitive files using USB storage devices. What is the most effective solution?
A) Allowing unrestricted USB access for convenience
B) Using data loss prevention with device control policies
C) Instructing employees not to use USB devices
D) Relying on antivirus software to block data copying
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Preventing data exfiltration is a critical concern for any organization that handles sensitive or confidential information, and evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches highlights why using data loss prevention with device control policies is the most reliable method among the given options. Allowing unrestricted USB access for convenience, as in option A, may seem beneficial for workflow efficiency, but it presents significant security risks. When users can freely connect personal or unmanaged removable drives, an organization loses visibility and control over what data leaves its environment, making it easy for confidential files to be copied—intentionally or unintentionally. Convenience cannot outweigh the potential exposure of proprietary information, customer data, intellectual property, or regulated content. Even well-meaning employees can mishandle data when there are no enforced limitations, and malicious insiders can easily exploit the lack of controls. On the other hand, simply instructing employees not to use USB devices, as described in option C, offers no real protection because it relies solely on trust and voluntary compliance. Security policies that depend on human behavior without technical reinforcement are inherently weak. Users may forget the rule, ignore it, or misunderstand the risks involved. Furthermore, if someone intends to steal information, a written or verbal instruction will not serve as a deterrent. Without mechanisms to detect or block prohibited behavior, there is no assurance that the guidance will be followed, and the organization remains vulnerable to data leaks.
Similarly, relying on antivirus software to block data copying, as suggested in option D, demonstrates a misunderstanding of what antivirus tools are designed to do. Antivirus solutions focus on detecting and mitigating malicious software such as viruses, trojans, and ransomware. They do not monitor or regulate legitimate user actions like copying files to removable media. Even if the antivirus suite includes some behavioral monitoring features, these are aimed at spotting malicious activity patterns, not distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized data transfers. Antivirus tools cannot identify whether a file contains sensitive information, nor can they enforce rules about which users are allowed to transfer particular data types. This limitation means that depending on antivirus software for data loss prevention is ineffective and leaves critical gaps in an organization’s security defenses.
By contrast, data loss prevention solutions with device control policies, as shown in option B, address the problem directly and comprehensively. These tools provide granular control over how removable devices can be used within the organization. Administrators can configure systems to allow only approved USB drives that meet security standards, such as being encrypted or belonging to specific employees. They can also restrict USB usage entirely or allow it only for particular job functions. Device control policies enable monitoring and logging of all attempts to transfer data to external media, giving security teams visibility into user behavior and potential misuse. More importantly, modern DLP solutions incorporate content-aware inspection, meaning they evaluate not just the action of copying but also the nature of the data being transferred. If a user attempts to move files containing sensitive customer records, intellectual property, financial documents, or other regulated information, the DLP system can automatically block the action, alert administrators, or require managerial approval, depending on the configuration. This level of intelligence and enforcement is essential in preventing both accidental and intentional data exfiltration.
In addition, DLP solutions help organizations comply with legal and regulatory requirements by demonstrating that technical safeguards are in place to protect sensitive information. They reduce insider threats, improve audit capabilities, and create a controlled environment where data movement can be monitored, restricted, and analyzed. While no single security control can eliminate all risk, DLP with device control offers the layered and enforceable protection that the other approaches lack. It combines policy enforcement, technical restrictions, real-time monitoring, and automated intervention to secure removable media usage effectively. In an age where data breaches carry severe financial, legal, and reputational consequences, organizations cannot rely on convenience, trust, or inappropriate tools to keep information safe. Instead, implementing robust DLP policies ensures a proactive, accountable, and technically sound approach to safeguarding valuable data assets.