CompTIA CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 4 Q46-60

Visit here for our full CompTIA CAS-005 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 46

A company is moving sensitive workloads to a public cloud and wants to ensure that data is protected even if the cloud provider is compromised. Which approach provides the strongest protection?

A) Encrypting data at rest using provider-managed keys only
B) Implementing client-side encryption with keys managed by the organization
C) Relying on standard cloud backups without additional encryption
D) Trusting the cloud provider to maintain security without further controls

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Protecting sensitive workloads in a public cloud requires ensuring data confidentiality, integrity, and availability even in cases where the cloud provider may be compromised or malicious insiders may have access. Encrypting data at rest using provider-managed keys offers protection against casual or external attacks but provides limited control over key access. In this scenario, the cloud provider can access the keys, which means they can technically decrypt the data. If the provider’s internal security is compromised or an insider abuses their privileges, sensitive workloads may be exposed. This method relies on trust in the provider, and regulatory requirements may demand independent key management, making this approach insufficient for high-assurance protection.

Relying on standard cloud backups without additional encryption is similarly weak. Backups may be unencrypted or encrypted with provider-controlled keys, exposing sensitive data if storage is misconfigured or accessed maliciously. Backups are also vulnerable to accidental deletion or ransomware attacks, and they provide no real-time protection for active workloads. This approach offers convenience but fails to meet strong security or regulatory standards for protecting sensitive cloud data. The organization lacks visibility and control over the actual protection mechanisms, creating significant risk.

Trusting the cloud provider to maintain security without further controls is inherently risky. While major providers implement strong security measures, no provider can guarantee immunity to insider threats, misconfiguration, or advanced persistent threats. Blind trust violates the principle of defense-in-depth and is not considered a best practice for sensitive workloads, particularly in regulated industries. Depending solely on provider assurances exposes the organization to compliance violations and potential data breaches.

Implementing client-side encryption with keys managed by the organization provides the strongest protection. With client-side encryption, data is encrypted before leaving the organization’s environment, and only encrypted data is sent to the cloud. The organization retains full control over cryptographic keys, ensuring that the cloud provider cannot decrypt sensitive workloads under any circumstances. This mitigates the risk of insider threats, misconfiguration, or provider compromise. Keys can be rotated, revoked, and stored in hardware security modules (HSMs) or other secure vaults under organizational control. Combined with strong encryption algorithms, strict access policies, and monitoring, this approach ensures that even if the provider or infrastructure is compromised, the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive workloads remain intact. Client-side encryption also aligns with regulatory requirements in many industries, supporting compliance for sensitive data such as personally identifiable information (PII), financial records, or intellectual property.

The reasoning behind selecting client-side encryption is based on control, assurance, and regulatory compliance. While provider-managed keys reduce operational complexity, they require trust in the provider and fail to guarantee confidentiality in case of provider compromise. Standard backups or reliance on provider assurances offer minimal protection. Client-side encryption shifts control of sensitive data fully to the organization, ensuring strong, independent security even in multi-tenant cloud environments. By encrypting data before it enters the cloud and maintaining exclusive control over keys, the organization mitigates risks associated with cloud migration, aligns with compliance frameworks, and establishes a robust defense-in-depth posture for sensitive workloads.

Question 47

A company wants to prevent credential theft and misuse in its hybrid environment. Which control provides the most effective protection?

A) Requiring strong passwords only
B) Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA combined with single sign-on (SSO)
C) Relying solely on password expiration policies
D) Storing credentials in shared spreadsheets for convenience

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Credential theft remains a primary attack vector, and mitigating it requires more than strong passwords. Requiring strong passwords only addresses part of the risk, but users often reuse passwords across multiple accounts, choose predictable patterns, or write them down. If credentials are stolen through phishing, malware, or brute-force attacks, strong passwords alone cannot prevent compromise. Password complexity alone is insufficient because attackers increasingly rely on credential dumping, keylogging, and social engineering rather than brute force.

Relying solely on password expiration policies provides marginal benefit. Frequent password changes without MFA do not prevent the theft of credentials and can lead to weaker passwords due to user frustration. Expired passwords do not stop real-time attacks, and the administrative burden often outweighs the security benefits. Attackers can act before password rotation, rendering expiration policies reactive rather than preventive.

Storing credentials in shared spreadsheets is a highly insecure practice. Spreadsheets can be accessed by multiple users, transferred via email, or inadvertently exposed through cloud sharing. This approach provides convenience at the cost of significant risk, as any unauthorized access grants immediate compromise of multiple accounts. Shared spreadsheets are not auditable, cannot enforce access controls effectively, and are a well-known vector for breaches.

Implementing multi-factor authentication combined with single sign-on provides the strongest protection. MFA adds a verification factor—such as a hardware token, mobile authenticator, or biometric verification—beyond username and password. Even if credentials are stolen, attackers cannot authenticate without the second factor, drastically reducing the risk of compromise. SSO enhances usability while enabling centralized access control and monitoring. SSO allows administrators to enforce policies across multiple applications, revoke access quickly when needed, and log authentication attempts for anomaly detection. Combining MFA with SSO ensures both strong defense against credential theft and operational efficiency, reducing password fatigue and improving user compliance. This approach mitigates phishing, credential reuse, and unauthorized access risks while providing a framework for secure hybrid environment management.

The reasoning emphasizes that proactive, layered authentication is necessary. Strong passwords or rotation policies alone cannot protect against modern attacks, and shared spreadsheets introduce excessive risk. MFA combined with SSO enforces multiple layers of verification, reduces human error, and supports centralized visibility and control, providing the most effective protection against credential theft and misuse.

Question 48

A security team wants to ensure the integrity of software deployed across production servers. Which control provides the strongest assurance that software has not been tampered with?

A) Installing software from any source and relying on user verification
B) Using code signing and cryptographic verification before deployment
C) Allowing users to modify binaries as needed for convenience
D) Disabling software integrity checks to improve deployment speed

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Software integrity is critical to prevent malware, tampering, and supply chain attacks. Installing software from any source without verification exposes servers to malicious or unauthorized modifications. Users may inadvertently download compromised binaries or scripts. Relying on human verification introduces error and inconsistency, leaving production servers vulnerable. Unverified software may contain backdoors, ransomware, or other malicious functionality, compromising both integrity and availability.

Allowing users to modify binaries as needed significantly increases risk. Arbitrary modifications bypass controls, creating opportunities for malware insertion, accidental misconfiguration, or the introduction of vulnerabilities. Server integrity depends on consistent and predictable software configurations. Uncontrolled modification undermines trust in the environment, disrupts configuration management, and complicates incident response.

Disabling integrity checks to speed deployment removes a critical security control. Without verification, there is no assurance that the software has not been tampered with during development, transfer, or installation. This accelerates operations but at the cost of potentially introducing malicious or corrupted binaries into production environments. Integrity verification ensures that deployment is trustworthy and auditable.

Using code signing and cryptographic verification provides the strongest assurance. Code signing applies cryptographic signatures to software binaries, enabling verification of authenticity and integrity before execution. Systems check the signature against trusted certificates, ensuring that only approved and untampered software is deployed. This prevents malicious modifications, supply chain attacks, and accidental corruption. Signed code can be integrated into automated deployment pipelines, allowing consistent, repeatable, and auditable verification across all servers. Cryptographic verification guarantees that any alteration in the software is detectable, providing confidence in the integrity and trustworthiness of production systems. This approach aligns with best practices for DevSecOps, continuous integration, and secure deployment strategies, ensuring operational resilience and compliance.

The reasoning demonstrates that code signing and cryptographic verification are proactive, reliable, and auditable, unlike manual checks, user modifications, or disabled controls, which introduce significant risk.

Question 49

An organization wants to minimize the risk of lateral movement after a workstation compromise. Which approach provides the most effective mitigation?

A) Allowing unrestricted access between all internal systems
B) Implementing network segmentation and strict access control policies
C) Relying on users to avoid connecting to unauthorized systems
D) Disabling endpoint monitoring to improve performance

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Lateral movement occurs when attackers leverage a compromised system to gain access to additional hosts or resources. Allowing unrestricted access between all internal systems maximizes exposure. Once an attacker compromises one workstation, they can move freely, escalate privileges, and exfiltrate data. This lack of segmentation amplifies damage and reduces detection opportunities.

Relying on users to avoid connecting to unauthorized systems is insufficient. Users are not reliable defenders, and attackers exploit legitimate connections or human error to pivot across networks. Human-dependent controls cannot enforce isolation or detect abnormal traffic reliably, leaving the environment vulnerable.

Disabling endpoint monitoring reduces visibility into ongoing attacks. Monitoring tools detect suspicious activity, identify lateral movement attempts, and provide crucial forensic data. Removing these controls blinds security teams, increasing the likelihood of undetected attacks and delaying incident response.

Implementing network segmentation with strict access control policies provides the most effective mitigation. Segmentation isolates critical systems, production environments, and sensitive data from general-purpose workstations. Firewalls, VLANs, and microsegmentation enforce least privilege communication between zones. If a workstation is compromised, lateral movement is restricted to specific, authorized paths, limiting potential damage. Segmentation works in tandem with monitoring, endpoint protection, and identity-based access control, providing layered defenses. This architecture reduces the impact of breaches, slows attacker progression, and improves containment, detection, and remediation capabilities.

The reasoning emphasizes that architectural controls, such as segmentation combined with access policies, provide proactive mitigation, whereas reliance on user behavior, unrestricted connectivity, or disabled monitoring exposes the organization to widespread compromise.

Question 50

A company wants to prevent exfiltration of sensitive information via removable media. Which solution provides the strongest protection without impeding business operations?

A) Allowing all USB devices without restrictions
B) Implementing data loss prevention (DLP) with device control policies
C) Instructing employees verbally not to use removable storage
D) Disabling antivirus scanning on workstations

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Preventing data exfiltration via removable media requires technical enforcement rather than relying solely on policy or user behavior. Allowing all USB devices without restrictions exposes sensitive data to theft, malware propagation, or accidental leaks. Users can easily copy files to unapproved media, and attackers can exploit unrestricted ports to extract critical information.

Instructing employees verbally not to use removable storage provides minimal deterrence. Employees may ignore policies, forget instructions, or act maliciously. Human compliance is insufficient without technical controls, as accidental or intentional exfiltration remains likely.

Disabling antivirus scanning does not address removable media exfiltration. Antivirus detects malware but does not enforce policies preventing file copying or transfer to external devices. Disabling scanning further reduces endpoint security and increases the risk of malware infection through removable media.

Implementing data loss prevention with device control policies provides the strongest protection. DLP monitors and enforces rules for removable storage, allowing administrators to restrict, log, or block file transfers based on content, classification, or user identity. Policies can permit only authorized devices or file types while blocking unauthorized media, providing operational control without unnecessarily hindering productivity. DLP integrates with reporting and auditing, ensuring accountability and supporting compliance. Combined with endpoint protection and encryption, DLP enforces least privilege and prevents unauthorized exfiltration, ensuring sensitive data remains secure while maintaining usability.

The reasoning demonstrates that technical enforcement via DLP and device control provides proactive, auditable, and granular protection against removable media risks, unlike verbal instructions, unrestricted access, or disabled controls.

Question 51

A company wants to reduce the risk of phishing attacks that bypass traditional email filters. Which solution provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability for employees?

A) Relying solely on user awareness training
B) Implementing advanced email filtering with sandboxing, URL analysis, and threat intelligence integration
C) Blocking all emails with attachments entirely
D) Disabling antivirus scanning on email gateways

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Phishing attacks remain one of the most common methods attackers use to gain initial access, steal credentials, or deploy malware. Relying solely on user awareness training is important but insufficient. While training can improve employee recognition of suspicious emails, it cannot reliably prevent attacks because humans are inherently error-prone. Sophisticated phishing campaigns can bypass awareness by appearing legitimate, leveraging social engineering, or including malicious attachments or links that look authentic. Training alone is reactive and cannot scale to mitigate threats in large, distributed organizations.

Blocking all emails with attachments may reduce the risk of malware delivery, but it significantly disrupts business operations. Many legitimate workflows rely on attachments for reporting, collaboration, or document sharing. Blanket blocking of attachments encourages users to use insecure workarounds such as personal email, cloud services, or removable media, introducing additional security risks. This approach sacrifices usability for security and can reduce compliance with organizational and regulatory requirements for communication and documentation.

Disabling antivirus scanning on email gateways removes critical threat detection capabilities. Gateways often scan inbound and outbound messages to identify malware, malicious scripts, and suspicious content. Removing this layer reduces visibility and allows known and emerging threats to reach users unimpeded. Disabling scanning does not address phishing links, spoofed domains, or social engineering, leaving the organization exposed to account compromise and malware distribution.

Implementing advanced email filtering with sandboxing, URL analysis, and threat intelligence integration provides the most effective protection while maintaining usability. Advanced filtering inspects inbound messages for malicious attachments, links, or indicators of compromise. Sandboxing executes unknown attachments in isolated environments to detect malicious behavior before delivery. URL analysis evaluates links for suspicious redirection, domain impersonation, or hosting of malicious payloads. Threat intelligence integration allows the system to update defenses in real time against emerging phishing campaigns, zero-day attacks, and newly identified malicious infrastructure. The solution is proactive, reducing the risk of compromise without hindering normal email usage. Logging and reporting enable incident response teams to monitor trends, identify targeted campaigns, and provide feedback for continuous improvement. This layered, automated approach reduces reliance on human error while maintaining efficient communication workflows. By combining detection, analysis, and real-time intelligence, the organization establishes a robust defense against phishing while preserving usability and operational efficiency.

The reasoning highlights that a multi-layered, intelligence-driven email security strategy is necessary to mitigate phishing threats effectively. Training alone is reactive, blanket blocking disrupts business, and removing scanning exposes endpoints to malware. Advanced filtering, sandboxing, and threat intelligence deliver comprehensive protection while balancing security with operational needs.

Question 52

A company wants to enforce secure configuration baselines on thousands of servers. Which approach provides the most scalable and reliable method?

A) Manually auditing each server periodically
B) Using automated configuration management tools with policy enforcement
C) Allowing administrators to configure servers individually
D) Ignoring baselines to accelerate deployment

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Maintaining secure configurations across large server infrastructures is critical to preventing misconfigurations, privilege escalation, and exploitation. Manually auditing each server periodically is labor-intensive, error-prone, and difficult to scale. Human auditors can miss deviations, and by the time issues are identified, they may have persisted for days, weeks, or months, exposing the organization to risk. Manual auditing is reactive and cannot keep pace with dynamic environments where frequent updates, patches, or deployments occur.

Allowing administrators to configure servers individually creates inconsistency and increases risk. Without enforced standards, servers may lack critical security settings, patches, or hardening measures. Individual discretion introduces the possibility of human error, security gaps, and reduced accountability. Discrepancies across environments complicate incident response, auditing, and regulatory compliance, making this approach inadequate for enterprise-scale security.

Ignoring baselines to accelerate deployment prioritizes speed over security. Servers deployed without standardized configurations are vulnerable to misconfigurations, malware, unauthorized access, and compliance violations. This approach sacrifices operational security, exposing critical systems to threats that could easily have been mitigated through baseline enforcement.

Using automated configuration management tools with policy enforcement is the most scalable and reliable solution. Tools such as Ansible, Chef, Puppet, or SaltStack allow administrators to define desired state configurations and automate the deployment and enforcement of these policies across all servers. Automated tools can monitor for configuration drift, remediate deviations automatically, and generate detailed reports for auditing and compliance purposes. Policies can include patch management, access control, file permissions, service configurations, and security hardening standards. Automation reduces human error, ensures consistency across environments, and enables rapid scaling to thousands of servers. Integration with CI/CD pipelines further allows secure configurations to be applied during deployment, preventing misconfigurations from reaching production. Regular monitoring, alerting, and remediation support proactive security management and ensure that servers remain compliant with organizational and regulatory requirements. This method provides both operational efficiency and robust security, making it the optimal choice for large-scale environments.

The reasoning demonstrates that automation ensures consistency, reliability, and scalability while reducing human error. Manual auditing, individual configuration, or ignoring baselines are reactive, inconsistent, or insecure approaches that fail to meet enterprise security needs.

Question 53

An organization wants to detect unauthorized changes to critical files and system configurations. Which control provides the most effective protection?

A) Using file integrity monitoring (FIM) with alerts and automated response
B) Trusting users to follow policies without technical controls
C) Periodically reviewing system configurations manually
D) Disabling auditing to improve system performance

Answer:  A)

Explanation:

Unauthorized changes to critical files and configurations are a common attack vector for attackers seeking persistence, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration. Trusting users to follow policies without technical controls is unreliable. Human error, malicious intent, or compromised credentials can easily bypass policies, leaving critical assets vulnerable. Policies alone cannot detect or prevent unauthorized changes.

Periodically reviewing system configurations manually provides some oversight but is reactive, slow, and prone to error. Changes may go undetected for extended periods, during which attackers can exploit vulnerabilities, install malware, or alter system behavior. Manual reviews are difficult to scale and cannot provide real-time detection, making them inadequate for active protection.

Disabling auditing removes visibility into system activities, preventing the detection of unauthorized changes. While it may improve system performance, it eliminates accountability and prevents proactive response. Without auditing, security teams cannot monitor, investigate, or remediate suspicious activity, leaving systems unprotected.

Using file integrity monitoring with alerts and automated response provides the most effective protection. FIM continuously monitors critical files, directories, and system configurations for unauthorized modifications, additions, or deletions. Any deviations from the established baseline trigger alerts, allowing security teams to investigate in real time. Advanced FIM solutions can automate remediation, reverting changes to the approved baseline, and preventing persistent exploitation. Integration with security information and event management (SIEM) systems enables correlation with other events, enhancing detection capabilities and supporting compliance requirements. By continuously monitoring and enforcing integrity, organizations can detect both insider threats and external attacks while maintaining operational stability. FIM also supports auditing and regulatory compliance, providing detailed records of changes, responsible users, and timestamps.

The reasoning emphasizes that proactive, automated monitoring and response through FIM is essential for detecting and mitigating unauthorized changes. Reliance on trust, periodic review, or disabled auditing is insufficient to protect critical files and configurations.

Question 54

A company wants to prevent malware infection on endpoint devices while allowing employees to work efficiently. Which approach provides the best balance?

A) Installing traditional antivirus only
B) Implementing endpoint detection and response (EDR) with behavioral analysis and threat intelligence
C) Disabling security software to avoid performance issues
D) Relying solely on employee caution

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Endpoints are a primary target for malware, ransomware, and advanced persistent threats. Installing traditional antivirus alone provides signature-based protection against known malware but struggles to detect new, unknown, or polymorphic threats. It is reactive rather than proactive and may not detect sophisticated attacks. While helpful, it does not provide comprehensive defense for modern threats.

Disabling security software to avoid performance issues removes protection entirely. Endpoints become vulnerable to malware, data loss, and unauthorized access. This approach prioritizes convenience over security and exposes the organization to significant risk.

Relying solely on employee caution is unreliable. Employees are susceptible to phishing, social engineering, and accidental execution of malicious code. Human behavior alone cannot prevent malware infection or detect subtle threats, making it insufficient as a primary security measure.

Implementing endpoint detection and response with behavioral analysis and threat intelligence provides the best balance. EDR solutions monitor endpoint activity continuously, detecting anomalies, suspicious behavior, and malware execution attempts. Behavioral analysis identifies malicious activity even if the malware is previously unknown, while threat intelligence updates provide context on emerging threats. EDR enables rapid investigation, containment, and remediation of incidents, reducing dwell time and potential damage. Integration with centralized management allows administrators to enforce policies, deploy updates, and respond to threats efficiently without significantly disrupting workflow. This approach combines proactive detection, automated response, and operational efficiency, ensuring endpoints remain secure while employees can perform tasks effectively.

The reasoning demonstrates that EDR provides proactive, intelligent, and responsive endpoint protection, whereas traditional antivirus, disabled software, or reliance on user caution alone fails to offer comprehensive security for modern endpoint threats.

Question 55

An organization wants to ensure secure authentication for cloud applications accessed from personal devices. Which approach provides the strongest protection?

A) Requiring strong passwords only
B) Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) combined with device posture assessment
C) Trusting users to follow security best practices without enforcement
D) Allowing access from any device without verification

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Secure authentication is crucial for cloud applications, especially when accessed from personal or unmanaged devices. Requiring strong passwords alone provides limited protection. Passwords can be stolen via phishing, credential stuffing, or malware, and human behavior often results in reuse, weak patterns, or insecure storage. Passwords alone cannot defend against sophisticated attacks targeting cloud services.

Trusting users to follow security best practices without enforcement is inadequate. Users may neglect security policies, use unsecured networks, or fail to maintain updated devices. Human compliance alone is unreliable and cannot be enforced across a diverse set of devices and environments.

Allowing access from any device without verification exposes cloud applications to compromised endpoints, malware, and stolen credentials. Attackers can gain access using stolen credentials from untrusted devices, creating a significant security risk and violating the principle of least privilege.

Implementing multi-factor authentication combined with device posture assessment provides the strongest protection. MFA requires additional verification factors beyond the password, such as OTPs, hardware tokens, or biometrics, significantly reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access even if credentials are compromised. Device posture assessment evaluates device compliance, including operating system updates, security settings, antivirus status, and configuration policies, before granting access. This ensures that only secure, trusted devices can connect to cloud applications. Integration with conditional access policies allows administrators to enforce rules dynamically, restrict access from high-risk devices or locations, and provide granular control over sessions. This layered approach enforces strong authentication, validates device security, and minimizes the risk of account compromise or data leakage.

The reasoning emphasizes that combining MFA with device posture assessment ensures robust authentication, aligns with zero-trust principles, and protects cloud applications even when accessed from personal devices, while passwords alone or unrestricted access are insufficient for modern threats.

Question 56

A company wants to ensure that sensitive data stored in cloud applications is protected even if user credentials are compromised. Which approach provides the strongest security?

A) Relying solely on strong passwords
B) Implementing encryption of data at rest and in transit with organization-controlled keys
C) Trusting the cloud provider’s default security settings
D) Allowing users to download and store sensitive data on personal devices without restrictions

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Protecting sensitive data in cloud applications requires a layered approach that addresses risks associated with credential compromise, insider threats, and misconfiguration. Relying solely on strong passwords provides minimal protection. Even complex passwords can be stolen through phishing, keylogging, or credential stuffing. Passwords alone cannot prevent unauthorized access if credentials are compromised, making them insufficient for protecting sensitive data in cloud environments.

Trusting the cloud provider’s default security settings is convenient but risky. Default configurations often prioritize ease of use over security. Publicly accessible storage, misconfigured permissions, and insufficient access controls are common causes of data breaches in cloud applications. While major providers implement strong security measures, relying on defaults without additional controls leaves sensitive data vulnerable to unauthorized access, insider threats, or misconfiguration errors.

Allowing users to download and store sensitive data on personal devices without restrictions significantly increases exposure. Unmanaged devices may lack encryption, antivirus, or secure authentication, making sensitive information susceptible to theft, malware infection, or loss. Users may inadvertently share data via unsecured channels, further increasing risk. This approach undermines confidentiality, regulatory compliance, and overall data security.

Implementing encryption of data at rest and in transit with organization-controlled keys provides the strongest protection. Encryption ensures that even if credentials are compromised or data is intercepted, the information remains unreadable to unauthorized parties. By controlling the cryptographic keys, the organization retains full control over access, revocation, and rotation, eliminating reliance on the cloud provider for security. Key management policies, including secure storage in hardware security modules (HSMs), automated rotation, and strict access controls, further enhance protection. Combined with strong authentication, role-based access, and monitoring, this approach ensures data confidentiality, integrity, and compliance with regulatory standards. It mitigates risks associated with compromised credentials, insider threats, and misconfigurations by rendering unauthorized access useless without the encryption keys. Additionally, encryption supports secure collaboration and data sharing, allowing business operations to continue without exposing sensitive information.

The reasoning demonstrates that encryption with organization-controlled keys provides proactive, enforceable, and auditable protection for cloud-stored data. Passwords, default settings, or unmanaged storage alone cannot guarantee confidentiality or compliance, whereas encryption ensures that sensitive data remains secure even in adverse scenarios.

Question 57

An organization wants to detect advanced persistent threats (APTs) that evade traditional defenses. Which solution provides the most comprehensive detection capability?

A) Relying solely on signature-based antivirus
B) Implementing an endpoint detection and response (EDR) solution with behavioral analytics and threat intelligence
C) Disabling monitoring tools to reduce false positives
D) Trusting users to report suspicious activity

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Advanced persistent threats are sophisticated, stealthy attacks designed to evade traditional security measures. Relying solely on signature-based antivirus software is inadequate. Signature-based solutions detect known threats but cannot identify novel malware, zero-day exploits, or subtle attacker behaviors. APTs often use fileless techniques, lateral movement, and legitimate tools to avoid detection. Signature-based antivirus provides minimal protection against these advanced threats and is reactive rather than proactive.

Disabling monitoring tools to reduce false positives removes visibility into potential attacks. APTs are designed to operate undetected over long periods. Without monitoring, organizations cannot detect suspicious activity, lateral movement, or anomalous behavior. Eliminating monitoring sacrifices security and leaves systems vulnerable to prolonged compromise.

Trusting users to report suspicious activity is unreliable. Users may fail to notice subtle indicators, ignore warning signs, or misinterpret events. Relying solely on human observation is inconsistent, delayed, and insufficient for detecting sophisticated attacks that bypass user awareness.

Implementing endpoint detection and response with behavioral analytics and threat intelligence provides comprehensive detection. EDR continuously monitors endpoints for anomalies, unusual behavior, and patterns indicative of compromise. Behavioral analytics identify deviations from normal activity, such as unexpected network connections, privilege escalations, or lateral movement. Threat intelligence integration updates the system with indicators of compromise, emerging attack techniques, and known malicious infrastructure. EDR solutions enable proactive detection, investigation, containment, and remediation. Centralized logging and correlation support visibility across the environment, making it possible to detect multi-stage attacks that evade traditional defenses. Automated responses, such as isolating compromised systems or terminating malicious processes, further limit the impact of APTs. Combining continuous monitoring, behavioral analytics, and threat intelligence ensures that sophisticated threats are detected early and mitigated efficiently while maintaining operational continuity.

The reasoning emphasizes that comprehensive endpoint monitoring and behavior-based detection are essential for addressing APTs. Signature-based antivirus, disabled monitoring, or user reports alone fail to provide timely, actionable, and scalable protection against advanced attacks. EDR with analytics ensures proactive, robust, and continuous threat detection.

Question 58

A company wants to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive databases from compromised endpoints. Which control provides the strongest mitigation?

A) Allowing unrestricted database connections
B) Implementing network segmentation, role-based access controls, and strong authentication
C) Trusting users to follow security policies
D) Disabling logging and monitoring for performance improvement

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Sensitive databases contain critical information, and compromised endpoints can be leveraged by attackers to exfiltrate, modify, or destroy data. Allowing unrestricted database connections creates a high-risk environment. If an endpoint is compromised, attackers can directly access databases without restriction. This approach exposes data, increases the attack surface, and enables lateral movement, creating significant operational and regulatory risk.

Trusting users to follow security policies is unreliable. Users may inadvertently or intentionally bypass controls, connect insecure devices, or use weak credentials. Human behavior is inconsistent and cannot guarantee protection against threats originating from compromised endpoints.

Disabling logging and monitoring removes visibility into access and activity. Without monitoring, security teams cannot detect unauthorized attempts, investigate incidents, or enforce accountability. While it may improve system performance, it severely weakens security posture and delays response to potential breaches.

Implementing network segmentation, role-based access controls, and strong authentication provides the strongest mitigation. Segmentation isolates databases from general endpoints, restricting communication to authorized network zones. Role-based access ensures that users and applications can only access databases and data necessary for their responsibilities, adhering to least privilege principles. Strong authentication, including multifactor authentication, prevents unauthorized access even if endpoint credentials are compromised. Logging and monitoring allow security teams to track access, detect anomalies, and respond promptly. Together, these measures create a layered defense that minimizes the risk posed by compromised endpoints, limits potential lateral movement, and ensures compliance with security standards and regulatory requirements. By enforcing both identity and network-based controls, the organization reduces the attack surface and protects sensitive database resources effectively.

The reasoning demonstrates that a combination of network, identity, and access controls provides proactive, reliable protection. Unrestricted access, reliance on user behavior, or disabled monitoring exposes critical databases to high risk, whereas segmentation and strong authentication enforce robust security.

Question 59

A company wants to prevent malware infection from removable media without hindering employee productivity. Which solution provides the most effective protection?

A) Allowing all USB devices without restrictions
B) Implementing data loss prevention (DLP) with device control and content inspection
C) Trusting employees not to use removable media for sensitive data
D) Disabling antivirus scanning on endpoints

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Removable media is a common attack vector for malware introduction and data exfiltration. Allowing all USB devices without restrictions exposes the organization to malware infections, ransomware, and accidental data leakage. Users may connect infected drives, download malicious files, or copy sensitive information to unapproved media. This approach prioritizes convenience at the expense of security, making it unsuitable for protecting critical data.

Trusting employees not to use removable media is unreliable. Human error, negligence, or intentional misuse cannot be controlled consistently. Policy enforcement alone cannot prevent malware introduction or data leakage, leaving endpoints and sensitive information vulnerable.

Disabling antivirus scanning removes a critical layer of protection. Malware residing on removable media can execute undetected, compromising systems, spreading laterally, or exfiltrating data. Eliminating scanning increases risk and contradicts security best practices.

Implementing data loss prevention with device control and content inspection provides the most effective protection. DLP can enforce policies restricting which devices are allowed, controlling write access, and monitoring data movement. Content inspection ensures that sensitive data cannot be transferred to unapproved devices. The system can log events, alert administrators, and enforce encryption or automatic blocking when violations occur. Integration with endpoint protection ensures that malware present on removable media is detected and neutralized before execution. This approach allows employees to use approved devices safely while maintaining security, balancing productivity with robust protection. DLP provides granular, auditable control over data transfers and helps meet regulatory compliance for sensitive information.

The reasoning highlights that DLP with device control is proactive, enforceable, and scalable. Unrestricted access, reliance on user behavior, or disabled antivirus software cannot reliably prevent malware or data leakage via removable media, whereas DLP enforces security while maintaining usability.

Question 60

An organization wants to ensure that only authorized applications run on employee workstations to reduce malware risk. Which solution provides the strongest enforcement?

A) Allowing users to install any application they choose
B) Implementing application whitelisting with least privilege enforcement
C) Relying solely on an antivirus for detection
D) Disabling endpoint controls for convenience

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Controlling application execution is essential to preventing malware, ransomware, and unauthorized software installation. Allowing users to install any application exposes endpoints to high risk. Users may inadvertently or intentionally install malicious software, introducing vulnerabilities, malware, or backdoors. This approach prioritizes convenience over security and significantly increases the attack surface.

Relying solely on antivirus software as the primary endpoint protection mechanism is inherently reactive and insufficient to defend modern computing environments against sophisticated threats. Traditional antivirus programs function by detecting malware signatures, scanning files for known malicious code, and identifying behaviors associated with previously observed threats. While this approach provides a basic level of protection against common malware, it fails to address advanced attack techniques that are increasingly prevalent today. Fileless malware, for example, executes entirely in memory, leaving little or no footprint on the disk for signature-based antivirus software to detect. Similarly, zero-day malware exploits previously unknown vulnerabilities, which by definition have no signatures or definitions for antivirus solutions to identify. Attackers also frequently leverage unmonitored or unsigned applications to gain persistence on systems, bypassing traditional detection mechanisms and allowing malicious operations to run undetected. This reactive nature means that antivirus alone cannot provide proactive, comprehensive security, leaving endpoints vulnerable to new and sophisticated attack methods.

Disabling endpoint controls entirely exacerbates the risk by removing the layers of protection that enforce security policies and prevent unauthorized activity. Endpoint controls, such as application whitelisting, behavior monitoring, firewall enforcement, device control, and privilege management, provide proactive mechanisms to restrict what software can execute, monitor suspicious behavior, and limit potential damage if an attack occurs. Without these controls, users can run any application, whether trusted or malicious, and malware can execute unchecked, spreading through the system or network. The removal of endpoint protections also undermines the enforcement of organizational security policies, such as preventing the use of removable media, ensuring encrypted storage, or restricting administrative privileges. While disabling endpoint controls may seem convenient—allowing unrestricted software use and eliminating potential performance overhead—it introduces severe security risks. Endpoints become easy targets for attackers, networks are exposed to lateral movement, and sensitive corporate data can be exfiltrated or corrupted without detection.

The combination of relying solely on antivirus software and disabling endpoint controls leaves organizations defenseless against many modern attack vectors. Cyber threats have evolved to bypass traditional signature-based detection and exploit gaps in endpoint policy enforcement. Fileless attacks, zero-day exploits, ransomware, and insider threats often take advantage of these weaknesses. Without layered defenses that include both proactive endpoint controls and reactive antivirus detection, organizations are forced into a reactive posture, responding to incidents after they have already occurred rather than preventing compromise in the first place.

Antivirus software alone is insufficient because it is reactive, capable only of detecting known threats, and cannot address advanced or unknown attack techniques. Disabling endpoint controls removes essential protection layers, leaving systems, networks, and sensitive data vulnerable to compromise. A robust endpoint security strategy requires a combination of proactive controls, behavioral monitoring, policy enforcement, and complementary antivirus solutions to provide comprehensive defense against both known and emerging threats.

Implementing application whitelisting with least privilege enforcement provides the strongest protection. Whitelisting defines approved applications and prevents the execution of any unapproved software. Combined with least privilege, users cannot install, modify, or run applications beyond their required permissions. This prevents malware, unauthorized scripts, and rogue software from executing, while maintaining functionality for approved business processes. Administrators can update whitelists as needed, providing operational flexibility and security. Logging and alerting provide accountability and visibility, supporting incident response and compliance. By proactively enforcing allowed applications and limiting user privileges, this approach minimizes malware risk, reduces the attack surface, and ensures a controlled, secure computing environment.

The reasoning emphasizes that whitelisting combined with least privilege is proactive, enforceable, and effective. Allowing unrestricted installations, relying on antivirus alone, or disabling controls leaves endpoints vulnerable to compromise and significantly increases security risk.