CompTIA CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 11 Q151-165
Visit here for our full CompTIA CAS-005 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 151
A company wants to prevent unauthorized use of administrative credentials on critical servers. Which solution provides the strongest protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing administrators to use the same credentials across all systems
B) Implementing Privileged Access Management (PAM) with session recording, time-limited credentials, and least privilege enforcement
C) Trusting administrators to secure credentials individually
D) Disabling administrative accounts entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Administrative credentials provide elevated access to critical servers, making them highly attractive targets for attackers. Allowing administrators to use the same credentials across all systems is extremely risky. If these credentials are compromised, attackers gain access to multiple servers simultaneously, potentially allowing data exfiltration, configuration changes, or ransomware deployment. Credential reuse increases the likelihood of attacks succeeding and reduces accountability because all actions may appear to come from a single identity.
Trusting administrators to secure credentials individually is insufficient. Human behavior is inconsistent, and even experienced administrators can make mistakes, forget passwords, or be targeted by social engineering attacks. Manual oversight cannot enforce strong security practices or provide continuous auditing, leaving critical servers vulnerable.
Disabling administrative accounts entirely prevents legitimate maintenance and operational functions, which is impractical. System administrators must perform tasks such as software updates, configuration changes, and troubleshooting. Blocking all administrative access disrupts operational efficiency and may encourage unauthorized methods to gain access, introducing new risks.
Implementing Privileged Access Management with session recording, time-limited credentials, and least privilege enforcement provides the strongest protection. PAM ensures that administrators are granted access only to the systems required for their tasks and only for a limited duration. Session recording captures all actions performed during elevated access, providing accountability, forensic evidence, and auditing capability. Least privilege enforcement restricts permissions to only those necessary for specific tasks, reducing the risk of misuse or accidental damage. PAM solutions can integrate with multi-factor authentication to further secure access, ensuring that compromised credentials cannot be misused without additional verification. Centralized management enables automated policy enforcement, alerts for suspicious activity, and rapid revocation of credentials when necessary. This layered approach balances operational efficiency with security, ensuring that administrators can perform their duties while minimizing the risk of credential misuse or compromise. PAM with session recording and least privilege is proactive, enforceable, and scalable across large environments, providing a controlled and secure administrative framework.
The reasoning demonstrates that PAM with session recording, time-limited credentials, and least privilege enforcement is the most effective solution. Credential reuse, reliance on individual diligence, or disabling accounts either exposes critical servers to misuse or disrupts operations.
Question 152
A company wants to protect sensitive internal documents shared via cloud storage. Which solution provides the most effective protection without hindering collaboration?
A) Allowing unrestricted access to all cloud storage
B) Implementing data classification, encryption, and access controls for shared files
C) Trusting employees to manage sharing responsibly
D) Disabling cloud storage to prevent leaks
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Cloud storage enables collaboration but introduces risks of unauthorized access, data leakage, and regulatory non-compliance. Allowing unrestricted access is highly risky. Any employee or external collaborator could access sensitive files without verification, leading to accidental exposure, malicious exfiltration, or compliance violations. This approach undermines accountability and makes incident response difficult because unauthorized access is unchecked.
Trusting employees to manage sharing responsibly is insufficient. Even trained personnel may misconfigure access permissions, accidentally share files externally, or overlook sensitive content. Human behavior is inconsistent, and relying solely on user diligence cannot enforce data protection or compliance.
Disabling cloud storage prevents leaks but severely hinders productivity and collaboration. Employees rely on cloud services for file sharing, project collaboration, and remote access. Blocking storage disrupts workflows, forces the use of unsanctioned solutions, and reduces operational efficiency.
Implementing data classification, encryption, and access controls for shared files provides the most effective protection. Data classification labels files according to sensitivity, enabling policy enforcement based on content type. Encryption ensures that files are unreadable without proper credentials, protecting confidentiality even if files are intercepted. Access controls enforce least privilege, allowing only authorized users to view or modify files. Integration with cloud management platforms enables monitoring of sharing activity, alerts for policy violations, and reporting for compliance. Logging provides audit trails, allowing administrators to track file access, changes, and sharing history. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing employees to collaborate efficiently while protecting sensitive information. Data classification, encryption, and access controls are proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring secure cloud collaboration without disrupting workflow.
The reasoning demonstrates that data classification, encryption, and access controls provide comprehensive protection. Unrestricted access, reliance on employee behavior, or disabling cloud storage either exposes sensitive data or hinders collaboration.
Question 153
A company wants to detect insider threats in real time. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining user privacy?
A) Ignoring unusual user activity
B) Implementing User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with anomaly detection and alerting
C) Trusting managers to monitor employee behavior manually
D) Disabling monitoring to avoid privacy concerns
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Insider threats, whether malicious or accidental, pose significant risk to organizations by exploiting legitimate access to compromise sensitive data. Ignoring unusual user activity is extremely risky. Without monitoring, anomalous behavior, such as unauthorized access, data exfiltration, or policy violations, may go undetected, leaving organizations vulnerable to data loss, compliance violations, and operational disruption.
Trusting managers to monitor employee behavior manually is insufficient. Managers may lack the time, visibility, or technical expertise to detect subtle anomalies. Human observation is inconsistent and cannot scale across large organizations, leaving significant gaps in threat detection.
Disabling monitoring to avoid privacy concerns reduces organizational risk mitigation capability. While this may protect privacy, it also allows malicious or negligent insider actions to occur unchecked, potentially causing significant operational, financial, or reputational harm.
Implementing User and Entity Behavior Analytics with anomaly detection and alerting provides the most effective protection. UEBA leverages machine learning to establish baselines for normal user and system behavior, detecting deviations indicative of insider threats. Examples include unusual login times, abnormal data access patterns, or atypical file transfers. Alerts notify security teams of potential threats for immediate investigation. UEBA solutions can be configured to balance monitoring with privacy considerations, anonymizing or limiting sensitive data collection while still identifying risky behavior. Integration with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms enhances correlation with other security events, improving incident response. This layered approach allows proactive detection, risk-based prioritization, and scalable protection without unnecessary intrusion into legitimate user activity. UEBA provides proactive, enforceable, and scalable threat detection, improving organizational resilience against insider threats.
The reasoning demonstrates that UEBA with anomaly detection and alerting is proactive, enforceable, and scalable. Ignoring activity, relying on manual observation, or disabling monitoring either exposes the organization to insider threats or prevents timely detection.
Question 154
A company wants to enforce endpoint security policies for mobile devices without disrupting usability. Which solution provides the most effective protection?
A) Allowing unrestricted mobile device use
B) Implementing Mobile Device Management (MDM) with compliance enforcement and remote wipe
C) Trusting users to follow security policies
D) Disabling mobile device connectivity entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Mobile devices are widely used for business functions, but they introduce risks such as data leakage, malware, and unauthorized access. Allowing unrestricted use is highly risky. Devices without security enforcement can access sensitive applications, store confidential data, and be compromised by malicious apps or networks. Unrestricted access increases the likelihood of security incidents and reduces visibility into device activity.
Trusting users to follow security policies is insufficient. Human behavior is inconsistent; employees may neglect updates, ignore security guidelines, or inadvertently expose data. Reliance on manual compliance enforcement leaves endpoints vulnerable and unenforceable.
Disabling mobile device connectivity prevents security risks but also disrupts productivity. Many business processes depend on mobile access to email, cloud services, collaboration tools, and applications. Blocking connectivity hinders workflow, reduces efficiency, and may encourage employees to use unsanctioned personal devices, increasing security risk.
Implementing Mobile Device Management with compliance enforcement and remote wipe provides the most effective protection. MDM allows administrators to enforce security policies such as password requirements, encryption, application control, and device health checks. Compliance enforcement ensures that non-compliant devices cannot access sensitive resources. Remote wipe capabilities allow administrators to remove data from lost, stolen, or compromised devices, reducing exposure. Integration with monitoring and reporting tools provides visibility, alerts, and audit trails. This layered approach balances security, usability, and operational efficiency, ensuring mobile devices are secure while supporting productivity. MDM solutions are proactive, enforceable, and scalable across a wide range of devices, allowing organizations to maintain control without impeding legitimate device usage.
The reasoning demonstrates that MDM with compliance enforcement and remote wipe is proactive, enforceable, and scalable. Unrestricted device use, reliance on user behavior, or disabled connectivity either exposes data or hinders workflow.
Question 155
A company wants to prevent malware infection through email attachments. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing all email attachments without inspection
B) Implementing secure email gateways with attachment scanning, sandboxing, and policy enforcement
C) Trusting employees to identify malicious attachments
D) Disabling email attachments entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Email attachments are a primary vector for malware, ransomware, and phishing attacks. Allowing all attachments without inspection is extremely risky. Malicious attachments can bypass perimeter defenses, compromise endpoints, and enable unauthorized access or data exfiltration. Unrestricted attachments increase organizational exposure and reduce visibility and control.
Trusting employees to identify malicious attachments is insufficient. Human error, lack of technical knowledge, or social engineering attacks can result in malware execution despite training. Manual vigilance cannot provide consistent or scalable protection.
Disabling attachments prevents infection but disrupts operational efficiency. Many business processes rely on email attachments for reports, contracts, collaboration, and technical documentation. Blocking attachments completely impedes productivity and may encourage use of alternative, less secure methods of file transfer.
Implementing secure email gateways with attachment scanning, sandboxing, and policy enforcement provides the most effective protection. Email gateways scan attachments for known malware signatures, suspicious behavior, and malicious patterns. Sandboxing allows suspicious files to be executed in a secure, isolated environment, identifying threats before delivery to users. Policy enforcement ensures that attachments comply with organizational rules, such as blocking certain file types or enforcing encryption. Centralized management provides monitoring, alerts, logging, and reporting for compliance and incident response. This layered approach balances security, usability, and operational efficiency, preventing malware infection while maintaining workflow. Secure email gateways are proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring that email remains a reliable and safe communication channel.
The reasoning demonstrates that secure email gateways with scanning, sandboxing, and policy enforcement are proactive, enforceable, and scalable. Unrestricted attachments, reliance on employee vigilance, or disabling attachments either exposes systems or hinders productivity.
Question 156
A company wants to prevent unauthorized access to network devices and switches. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing all employees unrestricted access to network devices
B) Implementing role-based access control (RBAC) with centralized authentication and logging
C) Trusting network administrators to manage access individually
D) Disabling access to all network devices
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Network devices such as routers, switches, and firewalls are critical for connectivity, security, and business continuity. Allowing all employees unrestricted access is extremely risky. Unauthorized personnel could misconfigure devices, disrupt connectivity, or introduce vulnerabilities. Unrestricted access increases the attack surface and reduces accountability because actions cannot be traced to a specific user.
Trusting network administrators to manage access individually is insufficient. Even experienced personnel may make errors, share credentials, or fail to enforce consistent security practices. Manual management is not scalable, and human oversight alone cannot provide reliable protection across multiple devices or locations.
Disabling access to all network devices entirely prevents risk but is impractical. Network administrators require access to perform configuration changes, updates, troubleshooting, and monitoring. Blocking all access disrupts operations, delays response to issues, and may encourage unauthorized access methods.
Implementing role-based access control with centralized authentication and logging provides the most effective protection. RBAC ensures users have access only to the functions necessary for their roles, enforcing the principle of least privilege. Centralized authentication, using solutions such as RADIUS, TACACS+, or LDAP, provides consistent identity verification across all devices. Logging records all access attempts, configuration changes, and administrative actions, supporting auditing, incident response, and regulatory compliance. Integration with network monitoring tools enables alerts for suspicious activity, failed login attempts, or policy violations. This layered approach balances security and operational efficiency, allowing administrators to perform necessary tasks while minimizing the risk of unauthorized access or configuration errors. RBAC with centralized authentication and logging is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, providing controlled access to critical network infrastructure without disrupting business operations.
The reasoning demonstrates that RBAC with centralized authentication and logging provides comprehensive protection. Unrestricted access, reliance on individual vigilance, or disabling access either exposes the network to risk or hinders operational efficiency.
Question 157
A company wants to prevent data exfiltration through removable storage devices. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining workflow efficiency?
A) Allowing all USB drives without restriction
B) Implementing endpoint DLP with removable media control, encryption, and monitoring
C) Trusting employees to manage removable storage securely
D) Disabling all removable media
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Removable storage devices, including USB drives and external hard drives, are common vectors for data exfiltration. Allowing all USB drives without restriction is highly risky. Malicious insiders or compromised employees can copy sensitive files, intellectual property, or personal data, potentially bypassing security controls. Unrestricted devices increase attack surfaces, reduce auditability, and complicate compliance efforts.
Trusting employees to manage removable storage securely is insufficient. Human behavior is inconsistent, and even well-trained personnel may accidentally expose data or fail to follow security policies. Relying solely on employee diligence leaves endpoints vulnerable to intentional or accidental exfiltration.
Disabling all removable media prevents risk but disrupts workflow. Many legitimate business processes rely on removable storage for offline work, backups, or secure data transfer. Blocking all devices hinders productivity and may encourage unsanctioned alternatives, increasing overall security risk.
Implementing endpoint Data Loss Prevention with removable media control, encryption, and monitoring provides the most effective protection. DLP solutions enforce policies that control which devices can connect, what files can be copied, and under what conditions. Encryption ensures that any data transferred to removable devices is unreadable without proper credentials. Monitoring tracks usage, providing alerts, logs, and reporting for compliance and incident response. Integration with endpoint management enables automated enforcement and remediation. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing employees to use removable storage safely while preventing unauthorized data exfiltration. DLP with encryption and monitoring is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, providing a controlled, auditable environment for managing sensitive data.
The reasoning demonstrates that endpoint DLP with removable media control, encryption, and monitoring provides comprehensive protection. Unrestricted devices, reliance on employee vigilance, or disabling media either exposes data or disrupts workflow.
Question 158
A company wants to ensure that sensitive data transmitted over the internet is protected against interception. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability?
A) Allowing unencrypted transmission
B) Implementing TLS/SSL encryption with certificate validation and secure protocols
C) Trusting employees not to transmit sensitive data insecurely
D) Disabling internet access to prevent interception
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Internet communications are susceptible to interception, eavesdropping, and man-in-the-middle attacks. Allowing unencrypted transmission is highly risky. Sensitive data, including credentials, financial information, and personal data, could be captured by attackers, leading to data breaches, regulatory violations, and reputational harm.
Trusting employees not to transmit sensitive data insecurely is insufficient. Human error, negligence, or lack of awareness may result in accidental exposure. Reliance on user vigilance cannot provide consistent protection or enforce organizational security policies.
Disabling internet access prevents interception but is impractical. Internet connectivity is essential for business operations, communication, cloud services, and remote work. Blocking access reduces productivity and forces alternative, less secure workarounds.
Implementing TLS/SSL encryption with certificate validation and secure protocols provides the most effective protection. TLS encrypts data in transit, preventing unauthorized interception and ensuring confidentiality. Certificate validation verifies the authenticity of the endpoints, protecting against impersonation attacks. Secure protocols, such as HTTPS, FTPS, or secure APIs, provide additional safeguards for specific applications. Integration with network monitoring, firewall rules, and automated certificate management ensures consistent enforcement and minimizes operational overhead. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing secure communications while maintaining business functionality. TLS/SSL encryption with proper validation and secure protocols is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring that sensitive data remains protected during internet transmission without disrupting workflow.
The reasoning demonstrates that TLS/SSL encryption with certificate validation and secure protocols provides comprehensive protection. Unencrypted transmission, reliance on employee vigilance, or disabling internet access either exposes data or hinders productivity.
Question 159
A company wants to ensure the integrity of critical system files to detect tampering. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing unrestricted modification of system files
B) Implementing file integrity monitoring (FIM) with alerts, logging, and access controls
C) Trusting administrators to manually verify file integrity
D) Disabling system changes entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Critical system files are foundational to operating systems, applications, and security controls. Allowing unrestricted modification is highly risky. Malicious actors or accidental changes could compromise system integrity, disrupt services, or introduce vulnerabilities. Lack of control reduces accountability and complicates forensic investigation.
Trusting administrators to manually verify file integrity is insufficient. Manual verification is error-prone, time-consuming, and inconsistent. Human oversight cannot provide real-time detection or continuous monitoring across multiple systems, leaving gaps in protection.
Disabling system changes prevents tampering but is impractical. Updates, patches, and maintenance require modification of system files. Blocking all changes disrupts operations and may lead to outdated, vulnerable systems.
Implementing file integrity monitoring with alerts, logging, and access controls provides the most effective protection. FIM continuously monitors critical files for unauthorized changes, generating alerts for immediate investigation. Access controls restrict who can modify files, enforcing the principle of least privilege. Logging captures changes and user actions, supporting auditing, forensic analysis, and compliance reporting. Integration with SIEM and endpoint management enables centralized monitoring and automated response. This layered approach balances protection and operational efficiency, allowing necessary modifications while detecting unauthorized tampering. FIM with alerts, logging, and access controls is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, providing a reliable mechanism for maintaining system integrity across large environments.
The reasoning demonstrates that file integrity monitoring with alerts, logging, and access controls provides comprehensive protection. Unrestricted modification, reliance on manual verification, or disabling changes either exposes systems or disrupts operations.
Question 160
A company wants to secure wireless networks against unauthorized access. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability?
A) Allowing open, unsecured Wi-Fi
B) Implementing WPA3 encryption, strong authentication, and network segmentation
C) Trusting employees not to share network credentials
D) Disabling wireless networks entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Wireless networks are vulnerable to unauthorized access, eavesdropping, and man-in-the-middle attacks. Allowing open, unsecured Wi-Fi is highly risky. Unauthorized users can access internal resources, intercept traffic, or launch attacks from within the network. Open networks provide no accountability and expose sensitive data.
Trusting employees not to share network credentials is insufficient. Credentials may be shared intentionally or inadvertently, enabling unauthorized access. Human behavior is unpredictable, and reliance on employee compliance alone cannot enforce consistent security.
Disabling wireless networks prevents access but significantly reduces usability. Many business operations rely on Wi-Fi for mobility, collaboration, and remote device access. Blocking wireless access disrupts workflows, reduces productivity, and may encourage unsafe alternatives.
Implementing WPA3 encryption, strong authentication, and network segmentation provides the most effective protection. WPA3 ensures strong encryption and improved protection against brute-force attacks. Strong authentication, such as enterprise-level 802.1X with RADIUS, verifies user identities before granting access. Network segmentation separates sensitive systems from general traffic, limiting exposure if unauthorized access occurs. Integration with wireless monitoring, logging, and policy enforcement enables detection of rogue devices and unusual activity. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing secure wireless access while protecting sensitive resources. WPA3 with strong authentication and segmentation is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, maintaining mobility without compromising network security.
The reasoning demonstrates that WPA3 encryption, strong authentication, and network segmentation provide comprehensive protection. Open Wi-Fi, reliance on employee compliance, or disabling wireless access either exposes the network or hinders usability.
Question 161
A company wants to prevent phishing attacks that target employee credentials. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability?
A) Allowing employees to click any email link
B) Implementing email security with phishing detection, URL scanning, and user awareness training
C) Trusting employees to identify phishing attempts on their own
D) Disabling email to prevent phishing
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Phishing attacks are a leading cause of credential compromise, malware infections, and data breaches. Allowing employees to click any email link is highly risky. Attackers can craft convincing messages that lead users to fake login pages, trick them into downloading malware, or encourage them to share sensitive information. Without technical defenses, organizations cannot prevent these attacks, and a single mistake can compromise multiple systems, exposing sensitive data and undermining trust.
Trusting employees to identify phishing attempts on their own is insufficient. Even trained employees can be deceived by sophisticated phishing campaigns, social engineering techniques, or messages that appear to come from trusted sources. Human error is inevitable, and reliance on employee vigilance alone leaves the organization vulnerable.
Disabling email prevents phishing, but is impractical. Email is essential for communication, collaboration, and business operations. Blocking email would significantly disrupt workflow, reduce productivity, and likely prompt employees to seek alternative, less secure communication channels, increasing risk in other areas.
Implementing email security with phishing detection, URL scanning, and user awareness training provides the most effective protection. Email security solutions analyze incoming messages for suspicious links, attachments, and known malicious patterns. URL scanning validates web links in real time, redirecting users to safe sites and preventing access to phishing domains. User awareness training educates employees on recognizing phishing indicators, reporting suspicious emails, and following safe practices. Integration with monitoring and incident response enables rapid action against identified threats, supporting compliance and risk management. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing employees to use email safely while reducing the likelihood of successful phishing attacks. Email security with phishing detection, URL scanning, and training is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, providing comprehensive protection without disrupting normal business operations.
The reasoning demonstrates that email security with phishing detection, URL scanning, and user awareness training provides comprehensive, proactive protection. Allowing all links, relying solely on employee vigilance, or disabling email either exposes systems to attacks or disrupts operations.
Question 162
A company wants to enforce secure printing to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive documents. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability?
A) Allowing anyone to collect print jobs from shared printers
B) Implementing secure print release with user authentication and auditing
C) Trusting employees not to access others’ print jobs
D) Disabling printing entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Sensitive documents printed to shared printers are susceptible to unauthorized access, misplacement, and data leakage. Allowing anyone to collect print jobs is highly risky. Documents containing confidential information could be viewed or taken by unauthorized personnel, compromising intellectual property, personal data, or strategic information. Lack of accountability and visibility increases risk and makes it difficult to trace incidents.
Trusting employees not to access others’ print jobs is insufficient. Even well-trained personnel may make mistakes or intentionally access sensitive printouts. Human behavior is inconsistent, and reliance on employee diligence alone cannot enforce security or accountability.
Disabling printing entirely can prevent unauthorized access to sensitive documents, but it creates significant operational challenges. Many employees rely on printers for essential tasks, including producing contracts, reports, regulatory forms, and other business-critical documents. Blocking printing disrupts workflows, reduces productivity, and complicates routine processes. Employees may seek alternative solutions, such as printing on personal devices or at home, which can introduce additional security risks and bypass organizational controls. A balanced approach, such as secure print management, access controls, and logging, allows organizations to protect sensitive information while maintaining necessary printing capabilities and minimizing operational disruption.
Implementing secure print release with user authentication and auditing provides the most effective protection. Secure print release requires users to authenticate at the printer before their document is released, ensuring that only authorized individuals can access sensitive print jobs. Auditing captures who printed each document, when, and from which device, supporting accountability, incident response, and compliance. Integration with print management and endpoint systems allows administrators to enforce policies, track usage, and detect anomalies. This layered approach balances security and usability, allowing employees to print securely while protecting sensitive information. Secure print release with authentication and auditing is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, reducing the risk of unauthorized access without disrupting normal business operations.
The reasoning demonstrates that secure print release with authentication and auditing provides comprehensive protection. Allowing unrestricted printing, relying on employee vigilance, or disabling printing either exposes documents or disrupts productivity.
Question 163
A company wants to enforce strong authentication for critical systems without compromising usability. Which solution provides the most effective protection?
A) Using passwords only
B) Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) with adaptive risk policies
C) Trusting employees to create strong passwords
D) Disabling access to critical systems
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Critical systems require strong authentication to prevent unauthorized access and protect sensitive data. Using passwords only is risky. Passwords can be guessed, stolen, or reused, leaving systems vulnerable to credential theft, brute-force attacks, and phishing. Reliance on single-factor authentication is insufficient for protecting high-value systems.
Trusting employees to create strong passwords is insufficient. Even well-intentioned users may choose weak passwords, reuse them across systems, or store them insecurely. Human behavior is inconsistent, and relying solely on employees cannot enforce strong authentication or prevent compromise.
Disabling access to critical systems can prevent misuse but comes at a significant operational cost. Users need access to perform essential tasks such as system maintenance, monitoring, and processing business-critical data. Completely blocking access halts workflows, delays operations, and reduces overall productivity. Employees may attempt to circumvent restrictions, potentially using unapproved or insecure methods to complete their work, which introduces additional security risks. While restricting access mitigates direct misuse, it must be balanced with operational needs. Implementing controlled, monitored, and role-based access ensures security without unnecessarily disrupting essential business functions.
Implementing multi-factor authentication with adaptive risk policies provides the most effective protection. MFA requires users to provide multiple forms of verification, typically something they know (password), something they have (token or mobile app), or something they are (biometric factor). Adaptive risk policies evaluate contextual factors such as device health, location, time, and behavioral anomalies to adjust authentication requirements dynamically. For example, low-risk logins may require only standard MFA, while high-risk situations may trigger additional verification. Integration with centralized identity and access management enables monitoring, alerts, and automated responses to suspicious activity. This layered approach balances security and usability, providing strong authentication without disrupting workflow. MFA with adaptive policies is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring robust protection for critical systems while maintaining operational efficiency.
The reasoning demonstrates that MFA with adaptive risk policies provides comprehensive, proactive protection. Password-only systems, reliance on employee diligence, or disabling access either expose critical systems or hinder productivity.
Question 164
A company wants to secure its internal DNS servers against cache poisoning and spoofing attacks. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing open recursive DNS resolution without validation
B) Implementing DNSSEC, access controls, and logging
C) Trusting administrators to manually monitor DNS responses
D) Disabling DNS services entirely
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Internal DNS servers resolve domain names for applications, services, and users. Allowing open recursive DNS resolution without validation is highly risky. Attackers can exploit this to perform cache poisoning, redirecting users to malicious sites, or spoofing, sending false responses that compromise data integrity. Lack of validation and control exposes the organization to credential theft, malware, and man-in-the-middle attacks.
Relying solely on administrators to manually monitor DNS responses is an insufficient approach to securing an organization’s DNS infrastructure. While experienced administrators may attempt to identify anomalies or suspicious activity, human oversight is inherently error-prone and inconsistent. DNS traffic can be extremely high-volume and complex, particularly in large organizations with numerous users, applications, and interconnected systems. Attempting to manually inspect and analyze every DNS query and response is impractical and quickly becomes unmanageable. Even vigilant administrators may miss subtle indicators of malicious activity, such as exfiltration attempts using DNS tunneling, cache poisoning, or responses from compromised authoritative servers. Human monitoring cannot operate continuously with the same precision, speed, and scalability as automated systems, leaving critical gaps that attackers can exploit. Sophisticated adversaries specifically target weaknesses in DNS infrastructure because it often goes under-monitored, allowing attackers to redirect traffic, intercept data, or propagate malware without immediate detection. Relying solely on manual oversight places too much dependence on human attention and memory, which are inherently limited, and does not provide the proactive defenses needed to mitigate modern threats.
On the other hand, disabling DNS services entirely to prevent potential misuse is also not a feasible solution. DNS is a fundamental component of network operations and business functionality. It translates human-readable domain names into IP addresses, enabling users and applications to access websites, internal resources, cloud services, and other critical infrastructure. Completely blocking DNS would halt normal business operations, making internal applications unreachable, disrupting email delivery, preventing access to external services, and undermining productivity across the organization. Employees would likely attempt to circumvent DNS restrictions, potentially turning to unsecured public DNS servers or other alternative mechanisms, which could introduce additional security risks. The operational disruption caused by disabling DNS far outweighs any theoretical security benefit and could lead to cascading problems across IT systems, business workflows, and customer-facing services.
The effective solution lies in implementing automated, policy-driven monitoring and protective mechanisms for DNS traffic. Modern security tools, such as DNS firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and threat intelligence integration, provide continuous oversight of DNS queries and responses. These systems can identify suspicious patterns, such as unusually high query volumes, requests to malicious domains, or anomalous resolution paths, and can respond in real time to block or alert on potential threats. Automated monitoring allows organizations to enforce security policies consistently, detect attacks early, and scale protection across large networks without placing undue reliance on human attention. Additionally, logging and auditing of DNS activity enable post-event analysis, compliance verification, and forensic investigation, providing visibility that manual monitoring alone cannot achieve.
Combining automated monitoring with properly configured DNS services ensures both security and operational continuity. Administrators can focus on analyzing alerts, tuning detection rules, and responding to incidents rather than attempting to inspect every query manually. This approach allows organizations to protect DNS infrastructure from sophisticated attacks while maintaining the critical functionality necessary for business operations. By avoiding the extremes of relying solely on human monitoring or disabling DNS, organizations can implement a balanced, scalable, and effective defense that addresses both security and operational requirements.
Trusting administrators to manually monitor DNS responses is insufficient because it is error-prone, inconsistent, and cannot scale to detect modern, subtle threats in real time. Disabling DNS services, while reducing some risk, is impractical and would severely disrupt business operations. The most effective approach combines automated DNS monitoring, policy enforcement, and threat intelligence integration to ensure both security and continuity, providing a scalable and reliable defense against DNS-based attacks.
Implementing DNSSEC, access controls, and logging provides the most effective protection. DNSSEC digitally signs DNS records, allowing clients to verify the authenticity and integrity of responses, preventing spoofing and cache poisoning. Access controls restrict who can query or update DNS records, limiting exposure to unauthorized parties. Logging provides an audit trail of queries and changes, supporting incident response, monitoring, and compliance reporting. Integration with monitoring systems enables alerts for anomalies or suspicious activity. This layered approach balances security and operational efficiency, protecting DNS infrastructure while maintaining service availability. DNSSEC with access controls and logging is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of internal DNS services without disrupting operations.
The reasoning demonstrates that DNSSEC, access controls, and logging provide comprehensive, proactive protection. Open DNS, reliance on manual monitoring, or disabling services either exposes the network or hinders functionality.
Question 165
A company wants to ensure endpoint devices remain up-to-date with security patches. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining operational efficiency?
A) Allowing employees to install updates manually at their discretion
B) Implementing automated patch management with testing, deployment, and reporting
C) Trusting employees to maintain patch compliance
D) Disabling updates to avoid disruptions
Answer: B)
Explanation:
Endpoint security relies heavily on timely patching to prevent exploitation of known vulnerabilities. Allowing employees to install updates manually at their discretion is highly risky. Users may forget, delay, or ignore updates, leaving devices exposed to malware, ransomware, and other exploits. Lack of enforcement reduces visibility, accountability, and operational security.
Relying solely on employees to maintain patch compliance is an insufficient and risky approach to endpoint and system security. While employees may be knowledgeable and generally conscientious about keeping systems up to date, human behavior is inherently inconsistent. Even experienced personnel may delay applying updates due to workflow interruptions, perceived inconvenience, or the need for system restarts that temporarily disrupt productivity. This inconsistency creates gaps in patch coverage across an organization, leaving systems exposed to known vulnerabilities for extended periods. Attackers often exploit these vulnerabilities quickly after they are disclosed, making even short delays potentially critical. Human error, oversight, and competing priorities mean that relying entirely on employees to ensure patch compliance cannot guarantee comprehensive protection, and gaps in coverage increase the likelihood of successful attacks.
Disabling updates entirely to avoid disruption may improve convenience and prevent temporary workflow interruptions, but it dramatically increases organizational risk. Software updates often include critical security patches that address known vulnerabilities, and failing to apply these updates leaves systems exposed to exploitation. Unpatched software can be targeted by attackers to gain unauthorized access, deploy malware, or compromise sensitive data. In addition, unpatched systems may violate regulatory or compliance requirements, exposing the organization to legal penalties and reputational damage. By prioritizing convenience over security, disabling updates undermines the foundational principle of proactive vulnerability management and creates an environment in which attackers can operate with relative ease.
The combination of relying on employees for patch compliance and disabling updates entirely amplifies organizational risk. Human behavior alone cannot enforce timely updates, and turning off automated updates removes a critical safeguard, leaving systems highly vulnerable to attacks. Cybersecurity best practices recommend automated, centrally managed patching solutions that enforce compliance across all endpoints, regardless of individual employee actions. Automated patch management ensures that all systems receive verified updates promptly, reduces the potential for human error, and maintains consistent security across large deployments. Centralized management also allows IT teams to schedule updates in a controlled manner, test compatibility with critical applications, and monitor compliance in real time. This approach ensures that security patches are applied consistently and that vulnerabilities are addressed before attackers can exploit them.
Trusting employees to maintain patch compliance is unreliable because human behavior is inconsistent, and updates may be delayed due to workflow concerns. Disabling updates to avoid disruption further increases risk by leaving software vulnerable to exploitation. The most effective approach is automated, centrally managed patching, which provides consistent protection, reduces the likelihood of errors, and maintains organizational security while minimizing operational impact. By combining automation with oversight, organizations can ensure timely and reliable vulnerability remediation, protecting systems, data, and regulatory compliance.
Implementing automated patch management with testing, deployment, and reporting provides the most effective protection. Automated solutions regularly check for available updates, test them in controlled environments to ensure compatibility, and deploy them consistently across all endpoints. Reporting and dashboards provide visibility into compliance, alerting administrators to failures or exceptions. Integration with endpoint management and security monitoring ensures centralized control, proactive risk mitigation, and auditability. This layered approach balances security and usability, keeping devices current without disrupting operations. Automated patch management is proactive, enforceable, and scalable, ensuring endpoints remain secure while maintaining operational efficiency.
The reasoning demonstrates that automated patch management with testing, deployment, and reporting provides comprehensive protection. Manual updates, reliance on employee compliance, or disabling updates either expose endpoints or hinder security and functionality.