CompTIA CS0-003 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 16

The correct answer is A. XML.

STIX and OpenloC are two standards for representing and exchanging cyber threat intelligence (CTI) information. STIX stands for Structured Threat Information Expression and OpenloC stands for Open Location and Identity Coordinates. Both standards use XML as the underlying data format to encode the information in a structured and machine-readable way. XML stands for Extensible Markup Language and it is a widely used standard for defining and exchanging data on the web. XML uses tags, attributes, and elements to describe the structure and meaning of the data. XML is also humanreadable, as it uses plain text and follows a hierarchical and nested structure.

XML is not the only format that can be used to make STIX and OpenloC information readable by both humans and machines, but it is the most common and widely supported one. Other formats that can be used include JSON, CSV, or PDF, depending on the use case and the preferences of the information producers and consumers. However, XML has some advantages over other formats, such as:

XML is more expressive and flexible than JSON or CSV, as it can define complex data types, schemas, namespaces, and validation rules.

XML is more standardized and interoperable than PDF, as it can be easily parsed, transformed, validated, and queried by various tools and languages.

XML is more compatible with existing CTI standards and tools than other formats, as it is the basis for STIX 1.x, TAXII 1.x, MAEC, CybOX, OVAL, and others.

Reference:

1 Introduction to STIX - GitHub Pages

2 5 Best Threat Intelligence Feeds in 2023 (Free & Paid Tools) - Comparitech

3 What Are STIX/TAXII Standards? - Anomali Resources

4 What is STIX/TAXII? | Cloudflare

5 Sample Use | TAXII Project Documentation - GitHub Pages

6 Trying to retrieve xml data with taxii - Stack Overflow

7 CISA AIS TAXII Server Connection Guide

8 CISA AIS TAXII Server Connection Guide v2.0 | CISA

The correct answer is B. Metrics.

The Metrics section of the vulnerability report provides information about the level of impact on data confidentiality if a successful exploitation occurs. The Metrics section contains the CVE dictionary entry and the CVSS base score of the vulnerability. CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures and it is a standardized system for identifying and naming vulnerabilities. CVSS stands for Common Vulnerability Scoring System and it is a standardized system for measuring and rating the severity of vulnerabilities.

The CVSS base score is a numerical value between 0 and 10 that reflects the intrinsic characteristics of a vulnerability, such as its exploitability, impact, and scope. The CVSS base score is composed of three metric groups: Base, Temporal, and Environmental. The Base metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that are constant over time and across user environments. The Base metric group consists of six metrics: Attack Vector, Attack Complexity, Privileges Required, User Interaction, Scope, and Impact. The Impact metric measures the effect of a vulnerability on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected resources.

In this case, the CVSS base score of the vulnerability is 9.8, which indicates a critical severity level.

The Impact metric of the CVSS base score is 6.0, which indicates a high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Therefore, the Metrics section provides information about the level of

impact on data confidentiality if a successful exploitation occurs.

The other sections of the vulnerability report do not provide information about the level of impact on data confidentiality if a successful exploitation occurs. The Payloads section contains links to request and response payloads that demonstrate how the vulnerability can be exploited. The Payloads section can help an analyst to understand how the attack works, but it does not provide a quantitative measure of the impact. The Vulnerability section contains information about the type, group, and description of the vulnerability. The Vulnerability section can help an analyst to identify and classify the vulnerability, but it does not provide a numerical value of the impact. The Profile

section contains information about the authentication, times viewed, and aggressiveness of the vulnerability. The Profile section can help an analyst to assess the risk and priority of the vulnerability, but it does not provide a specific measure of the impact on data confidentiality.

Reference:

[1] CVE - Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)

[2] Common Vulnerability Scoring System SIG

[3] CVSS v3.1 Specification Document

[4] CVSS v3.1 User Guide

[5] How to Read a Vulnerability Report - Security Boulevard

The correct answer is B. It proactively facilitates real-time information sharing between the public and private sectors.

TAXII, or Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information, is a standard protocol for sharing cyber threat intelligence in a standardized, automated, and secure manner. TAXII defines how cyber threat information can be shared via services and message exchanges, such as discovery, collection management, inbox, and poll. TAXII is designed to support STIX, or Structured Threat Information eXpression, which is a standardized language for describing cyber threat information in a readable and consistent format. Together, STIX and TAXII form a framework for sharing and using threat intelligence, creating an open-source platform that allows users to search through records containing

attack vectors details such as malicious IP addresses, malware signatures, and threat actors123.

The importance of implementing TAXII as part of a threat intelligence program is that it proactively facilitates real-time information sharing between the public and private sectors. By using TAXII, organizations can exchange cyber threat information with various entities, such as security vendors, government agencies, industry associations, or trusted groups. TAXII enables different sharing models, such as hub and spoke, source/subscriber, or peer-to-peer, depending on the needs and preferences of the information producers and consumers. TAXII also supports different levels of access control, encryption, and authentication to ensure the security and privacy of the shared

information123.

By implementing TAXII as part of a threat intelligence program, organizations can benefit from the following advantages:

They can receive timely and relevant information about the latest threats and vulnerabilities that may affect their systems or networks.

They can leverage the collective knowledge and experience of other organizations that have faced similar or related threats.

They can improve their situational awareness and threat detection capabilities by correlating and analyzing the shared information.

They can enhance their incident response and mitigation strategies by applying the best practices and recommendations from the shared information.

They can contribute to the overall improvement of cyber security by sharing their own insights and feedback with other organizations123.

The other options are incorrect because they do not accurately describe the importance of implementing TAXII as part of a threat intelligence program.

Option A is incorrect because TAXII does not provide a structured way to gain information about insider threats. Insider threats are malicious activities conducted by authorized users within an organization, such as employees, contractors, or partners. Insider threats can be detected by using various methods, such as user behavior analysis, data loss prevention, or anomaly detection.

However, TAXII is not designed to collect or share information about insider threats specifically. TAXII is more focused on external threats that originate from outside sources, such as hackers, cybercriminals, or nation-states4.

Option C is incorrect because TAXII does not exchange messages in the most cost-effective way and requires little maintenance once implemented. TAXII is a protocol that defines how messages are exchanged, but it does not specify the cost or maintenance of the exchange. The cost and maintenance of implementing TAXII depend on various factors, such as the type and number of services used, the volume and frequency of data exchanged, the security and reliability requirements of the exchange, and the availability and compatibility of existing tools and platforms. Implementing TAXII may require significant resources and efforts from both the information producers and

consumers to ensure its functionality and performance5.

Option D is incorrect because TAXII is not a semi-automated solution to gather threat intelligence about competitors in the same sector. TAXII is a fully automated solution that enables the exchange of threat intelligence among various entities across different sectors. TAXII does not target or collect information about specific competitors in the same sector. Rather, it aims to foster collaboration and cooperation among organizations that share common interests or goals in cyber security. Moreover, gathering threat intelligence about competitors in the same sector may raise ethical and legal issues that are beyond the scope of TAXII.

Reference:

1 What is STIX/TAXII? | Cloudflare

2 What Are STIX/TAXII Standards? - Anomali Resources

3 What is STIX and TAXII? - EclecticIQ

4 What Is an Insider Threat? Definition & Examples | Varonis

5 Implementing STIX/TAXII - GitHub Pages

[6] Cyber Threat Intelligence: Ethical Hacking vs Unethical Hacking | Infosec

The correct answer is D. Disconnect the access point from the network.

A rogue access point is a wireless access point that has been installed on a network without the authorization or knowledge of the network administrator. A rogue access point can pose a serious security risk, as it can allow unauthorized users to access the network, intercept network traffic, or launch attacks against the network or its devices1234.

The first action that should be taken to protect the network while preserving evidence is to disconnect the rogue access point from the network. This will prevent any further damage or compromise of the network by blocking the access point from communicating with other devices or users. Disconnecting the rogue access point will also preserve its state and configuration, which can be useful for forensic analysis and investigation. Disconnecting the rogue access point can be done physically by unplugging it from the network port or wirelessly by disabling its radio frequency5.

The other options are not the best actions to take first, as they may not protect the network or preserve evidence effectively.

Option A is not the best action to take first, as running a packet sniffer to monitor traffic to and from the access point may not stop the rogue access point from causing harm to the network. A packet sniffer is a tool that captures and analyzes network packets, which are units of data that travel across a network. A packet sniffer can be useful for identifying and troubleshooting network problems, but it may not be able to prevent or block malicious traffic from a rogue access point. Moreover, running a packet sniffer may require additional time and resources, which could delay the response and mitigation of the incident5.

Option B is not the best action to take first, as connecting to the access point and examining its log files may not protect the network or preserve evidence. Connecting to the access point may expose the analyst’s device or credentials to potential attacks or compromise by the rogue access point.

Examining its log files may provide some information about the origin and activity of the rogue access point, but it may also alter or delete some evidence that could be useful for forensic analysis and investigation. Furthermore, connecting to the access point and examining its log files may not prevent or stop the rogue access point from continuing to harm the network5.

Option C is not the best action to take first, as identifying who is connected to the access point and attempting to find the attacker may not protect the network or preserve evidence. Identifying who is connected to the access point may require additional tools or techniques, such as scanning for wireless devices or analyzing network traffic, which could take time and resources away from responding and mitigating the incident. Attempting to find the attacker may also be difficult or impossible, as the attacker may use various methods to hide their identity or location, such as encryption, spoofing, or proxy servers. Moreover, identifying who is connected to the access point and attempting to find the attacker may not prevent or stop the rogue access point from causing further damage or compromise to the network5.

Reference:

1 CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+) Certification Exam Objectives

2 Cybersecurity Analyst+ - CompTIA

3 CompTIA CySA+ CS0-002 Certification Study Guide

4 CertMaster Learn for CySA+ Training - CompTIA

5 How to Protect Against Rogue Access Points on Wi-Fi - Byos

6 Wireless Access Point Protection: 5 Steps to Find Rogue Wi-Fi Networks …

7 Rogue Access Point - Techopedia

8 Rogue access point - Wikipedia

9 What is a Rogue Access Point (Rogue AP)? - Contextual Security

The correct answer is

A. Configure the server to prefer TLS 1.3 and B. Remove cipher suites that use CBC.

A padding oracle attack is a type of attack that exploits the padding validation of a cryptographic message to decrypt the ciphertext without knowing the key. A padding oracle is a system that responds to queries about whether a message has a valid padding or not, such as a web server that returns different error messages for invalid padding or invalid MAC. A padding oracle attack can be applied to the CBC mode of operation, where the attacker can manipulate the ciphertext blocks and use the oracle’s responses to recover the plaintext12.

To remediate this issue, the organization should make the following configuration changes:

Configure the server to prefer TLS 1.3. TLS 1.3 is the latest version of the Transport Layer Security protocol, which provides secure communication between clients and servers. TLS 1.3 has several security improvements over previous versions, such as:

It deprecates weak and obsolete cryptographic algorithms, such as RC4, MD5, SHA-1, DES, 3DES, and CBC mode.

It supports only strong and modern cryptographic algorithms, such as AES-GCM, ChaCha20Poly1305, and SHA-256/384.

It reduces the number of round trips required for the handshake protocol, which improves performance and latency.

It encrypts more parts of the handshake protocol, which enhances privacy and confidentiality.

It introduces a zero round-trip time (0-RTT) mode, which allows resuming previous sessions without additional round trips.

It supports forward secrecy by default, which means that compromising the long-term keys does not affect the security of past sessions3456.

Remove cipher suites that use CBC. Cipher suites are combinations of cryptographic algorithms that specify how TLS connections are secured. Cipher suites that use CBC mode are vulnerable to padding oracle attacks, as well as other attacks such as BEAST and Lucky 13. Therefore, they should be removed from the server’s configuration and replaced with cipher suites that use more secure modes of operation, such as GCM or CCM78.

The other options are not effective or necessary to remediate this issue.

Option C is not effective because configuring the server to prefer ephemeral modes for key exchange does not prevent padding oracle attacks. Ephemeral modes for key exchange are methods that generate temporary and random keys for each session, such as Diffie-Hellman or Elliptic Curve DiffieHellman.

Ephemeral modes provide forward secrecy, which means that compromising the long-term keys does not affect the security of past sessions. However, ephemeral modes do not protect against padding oracle attacks, which exploit the padding validation of the ciphertext rather than the key exchange9.

Option D is not necessary because requiring client browsers to present a user certificate for mutual authentication does not prevent padding oracle attacks. Mutual authentication is a process that verifies the identity of both parties in a communication, such as using certificates or passwords.

Mutual authentication enhances security by preventing impersonation or spoofing attacks. However, mutual authentication does not protect against padding oracle attacks, which exploit the padding validation of the ciphertext rather than the authentication.

Option E is not necessary because configuring the server to require HSTS does not prevent padding oracle attacks. HSTS stands for HTTP Strict Transport Security and it is a mechanism that forces browsers to use HTTPS connections instead of HTTP connections when communicating with a web server. HSTS enhances security by preventing downgrade or man-in-the-middle attacks that try to intercept or modify HTTP traffic. However, HSTS does not protect against padding oracle attacks, which exploit the padding validation of HTTPS traffic rather than the protocol.

Option F is not effective because removing cipher suites that use GCM does not prevent padding oracle attacks. GCM stands for Galois/Counter Mode and it is a mode of operation that provides both encryption and authentication for block ciphers, such as AES. GCM is more secure and efficient than CBC mode, as it prevents various types of attacks, such as padding oracle, BEAST, Lucky 13, and IV reuse attacks. Therefore, removing cipher suites that use GCM would reduce security rather than enhance it .

Reference:

1 Padding oracle attack - Wikipedia

2 flast101/padding-oracle-attack-explained - GitHub

3 A Cryptographic Analysis of the TLS 1.3 Handshake Protocol | Journal of Cryptology

4 Which block cipher mode of operation does TLS 1.3 use? - Cryptography Stack Exchange

5 The Essentials of Using an Ephemeral Key Under TLS 1.3

6 Guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of … - NIST

7 CBC decryption vulnerability - .NET | Microsoft Learn

8 The Padding Oracle Attack | Robert Heaton

9 What is Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman? | Cloudflare

[10] What is Mutual TLS? How mTLS Authentication Works | Cloudflare

[11] What is HSTS? HTTP Strict Transport Security Explained | Cloudflare

[12] Galois/Counter Mode - Wikipedia

[13] AES-GCM and its IV/nonce value - Cryptography Stack Exchange

The correct answer is A. 121.19.30.221.

Based on the log files and the organization’s priorities, the host that warrants additional investigation is 121.19.30.221, because it is the only host that accessed a file containing sensitive data and is not from the partner vendor’s range.

The log files show the following information:

The IP addresses of the hosts that accessed the web server The date and time of the access.

The file path of the requested resource.

The number of bytes transferred.

The organization’s priorities are:

Unauthorized data disclosure is more critical than denial of service attempts.

Denial of service attempts are more important than ensuring vendor data access.

According to these priorities, the most serious threat to the organization is unauthorized data disclosure, which occurs when sensitive, protected, or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen, altered, or used by an individual unauthorized to do so123. Therefore, the host that accessed a file containing sensitive data and is not from the partner vendor’s range poses the highest risk to the organization.

The file that contains sensitive data is /reports/2023/financials.pdf, as indicated by its name and path. This file was accessed by two hosts: 121.19.30.221 and 216.122.5.5. However, only 121.19.30.221 is not from the partner vendor’s range, which is 216.122.5.x. Therefore, 121.19.30.221 is a potential unauthorized data disclosure threat and warrants additional investigation.

The other hosts do not warrant additional investigation based on the log files and the organization’s priorities.

Host 134.17.188.5 accessed /index.html multiple times in a short period of time, which could indicate a denial of service attempt by flooding the web server with requests45. However, denial of service attempts are less critical than unauthorized data disclosure according to the organization’s priorities, and there is no evidence that this host succeeded in disrupting the web server’s normal operations.

Host 202.180.1582 accessed /images/logo.png once, which does not indicate any malicious activity or threat to the organization.

Host 216.122.5.5 accessed /reports/2023/financials.pdf once, which could indicate unauthorized data disclosure if it was not authorized to do so. However, this host is from the partner vendor’s range, which is required to have access to monthly reports and is the only external vendor with authorized access according to the organization’s requirements.

Therefore, based on the log files and the organization’s priorities, host 121.19.30.221 warrants additional investigation as it poses the highest risk of unauthorized data disclosure to the

organization.

The most likely attack that was performed is CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery). This is an attack that forces a user to execute unwanted actions on a web application in which they are currently authenticated1. If the user has several tabs open in the browser, one of them might contain a malicious link or form that sends a request to the web application to change the user’s password, email address, or other account settings. The web application will not be able to distinguish between the legitimate requests made by the user and the forged requests made by the attacker. As a result, the user will lose access to their account.

To prevent CSRF attacks, web applications should implement some form of anti-CSRF tokens or other mechanisms that validate the origin and integrity of the requests2. These tokens are unique and unpredictable values that are generated by the server and embedded in the forms or URLs that perform state-changing actions. The server will then verify that the token received from the client matches the token stored on the server before processing the request. This way, an attacker cannot forge a valid request without knowing the token value.

Some other possible attacks that are not relevant to this scenario are:

RFI (Remote File Inclusion) is an attack that allows an attacker to execute malicious code on a web server by including a remote file in a script. This attack does not affect the user’s browser or account settings.

LFI (Local File Inclusion) is an attack that allows an attacker to read or execute local files on a web server by manipulating the input parameters of a script. This attack does not affect the user’s browser or account settings.

XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) is an attack that injects malicious code into a web page that is then executed by the user’s browser. This attack can affect the user’s browser or account settings, but it requires the user to visit a compromised web page or click on a malicious link. It does not depend on having several tabs open in the browser.

The CEO should initiate an alert to department managers to speak privately with affected staff. This is because the trade secret is confidential and should not be disclosed to the public. Additionally, the CEO should verify legal notification requirements of PII and SPII in the legal and human resource departments to ensure compliance with data protection laws.

Reference: CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-002, 2nd Edition, Chapter 4, “Data Protection and Privacy Practices”, page 194; CompTIA CySA+ Certification Exam Objectives Version 4.0, Domain 4.0

“Compliance and Assessment”, Objective 4.1 “Given a scenario, analyze data as part of a security incident”, Sub-objective “Data classification levels”, page 23