CompTIA PT0-002 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 29

The first step that a tester should perform to determine if the new containers are configured correctly against a DDoS attack is to scan the containers for open ports. Open ports are entry points for network communication and can expose services or applications that may be vulnerable to DDoS attacks. Scanning the containers for open ports can help the tester identify which services or applications are running on the containers, and which ones may need to be secured or disabled to prevent DDoS attacks. Scanning the containers for open ports can also help the tester discover any unauthorized or malicious services or applications that may have been installed on the containers by previous attackers or compromised containers. Scanning the containers for open ports can be done by using tools such as Nmap, which can perform network scanning and enumeration by sending packets to hosts and analyzing their responses1. The other options are not the first steps that a tester should perform to determine if the new containers are configured correctly against a DDoS attack.

Testing the strength of the encryption settings is not relevant to DDoS attacks, as encryption does not prevent or mitigate DDoS attacks, but rather protects data confidentiality and integrity. Determining if security tokens are easily available is not relevant to DDoS attacks, as security tokens are used for authentication and authorization, not for preventing or mitigating DDoS attacks. Performing a vulnerability check against the hypervisor is not relevant to DDoS attacks, as the hypervisor is not directly exposed to network traffic, but rather manages the virtual machines or containers that run on it.

Code repositories are online platforms that store and manage source code and other files related to software development projects. Code repositories can contain useful information for additional testing, such as application names, versions, features, functions, vulnerabilities, dependencies, credentials, comments, or documentation. Searching for code repositories associated with the target company's organization would most likely produce useful information for additional testing, as it would reveal the software projects that the target company is working on or using, and potentially expose some weaknesses or flaws that can be exploited. Code repositories can be searched by using tools such as GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, or SourceForge1. The other options are not as likely to produce useful information for additional testing, as they are not directly related to the target company's software development activities. Searching for code repositories associated with a developer who previously worked for the target company may not yield any relevant or current information, as the developer may have deleted, moved, or updated their code repositories after leaving the company. Searching for code repositories associated with the target company's competitors or customers may not yield any useful or accessible information, as they may have different or unrelated software projects, or they may have restricted or protected their code repositories from public view.

The most probable cause for this output is insufficient error handling, which is a coding flaw that occurs when a program does not handle errors or exceptions properly or gracefully. Insufficient error handling can result in unwanted or unexpected behavior, such as crashes, hangs, or leaks. In this case, the output shows that the program is displaying warning messages that indicate undefined indexes in the user.php file. These messages reveal the names of the variables and the file path that are used by the program, which can expose sensitive information or clues to an attacker. The program should have implemented error handling mechanisms, such as try-catch blocks, error logging, or sanitizing output, to prevent these messages from being displayed or to handle them appropriately. The other options are not plausible causes for this output. Lack of code signing is a security flaw that occurs when a program does not have a digital signature that verifies its authenticity and integrity. Incorrect command syntax is a user error that occurs when a command is entered with wrong or missing parameters or options. Insecure data transmission is a security flaw that occurs when data is sent over a network without encryption or protection.

The penetration tester is using a password brute force attack, which is a type of password guessing attack that involves trying many possible combinations of passwords against a single username or account. A password brute force attack can be effective when the password is known to be weak, simple, or predictable, such as a default or temporary password. In this case, the penetration tester knows that the help desk analysts change users' passwords to 123change when they request password resets, and decides to brute force the webmail with this password and a list of usernames. A password brute force attack can be done by using tools such as Hydra, which can perform parallelized login attacks against various protocols and services1. The other options are not techniques that the penetration tester is using. SQL injection is a type of attack that exploits a vulnerability in a web application that allows an attacker to execute malicious SQL statements on a database server. Password spraying is a type of password guessing attack that involves trying one or a few common passwords against many usernames or accounts. Kerberoasting is a type of attack that exploits a vulnerability in the Kerberos authentication protocol that allows an attacker to request and crack service tickets for service accounts with weak passwords.

The penetration tester recommended the code be updated to use a random salt instead of a fixed salt for hashing passwords. A salt is a random value that is added to the plaintext password before hashing it, to prevent attacks such as rainbow tables or dictionary attacks that rely on precomputed hashes of common or weak passwords. A random salt ensures that each password hash is unique and unpredictable, even if two users have the same password. However, changing the salt does not affect the existing hashes that were created with the old salt, which may still be vulnerable to attacks. Therefore, the penetration tester should recommend changing passwords that were created before this code update, so that they can be hashed with the new salt and be more secure. The other options are not valid steps that the penetration tester should recommend. Keeping hashes created by both methods for compatibility would defeat the purpose of updating the code, as it would leave some hashes vulnerable to attacks. Rehashing all old passwords with the new code would not work, as it would require knowing the plaintext passwords, which are not stored in the database. Replacing the SHA-256 algorithm to something more secure is not necessary, as SHA-256 is a secure and widely used hashing algorithm that has no known vulnerabilities or collisions.

The penetration tester should notify the primary contact immediately, as this is a serious security issue that may compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the web server and its data. A web component with no authentication requirements and file upload capabilities can allow an attacker to upload malicious files, such as web shells, backdoors, or malware, to the web server and gain remote access or execute arbitrary commands on the web server. This can lead to further attacks, such as data theft, data corruption, privilege escalation, lateral movement, or denial of service. The penetration tester should inform the primary contact of the issue and its potential impact, and provide recommendations for remediation, such as implementing authentication mechanisms, restricting file upload types and sizes, or scanning uploaded files for malware. The other options are not appropriate actions for the penetration tester at this stage. Continuing the assessment and marking the finding as critical would delay the notification and remediation of the issue, which may increase the risk of exploitation by other attackers. Attempting to remediate the issue temporarily would interfere with the normal operation of the web server and may cause unintended consequences or damage. Shutting down the web server until the assessment is finished would disrupt the availability of the web server and its services, and may violate the scope or agreement of the assessment.

The penetration tester should try dumpster diving next, which is an attack that involves searching through trash bins or dumpsters for discarded documents or items that may contain sensitive or useful information. Dumpster diving can reveal information such as passwords, account numbers, credit card numbers, invoices, receipts, memos, contracts, or employee records. The penetration tester can use this information to gain access to systems or networks, impersonate users or employees, or perform social engineering attacks. The other options are not likely attacks that the penetration tester should try next based on the discovery that the company does not have a shredding service. Phishing is an attack that involves sending fraudulent emails that appear to be from legitimate sources to trick users into revealing their credentials or clicking on malicious links or attachments. Shoulder surfing is an attack that involves observing or spying on users while they enter their credentials or perform other tasks on their devices. Tailgating is an attack that involves following authorized personnel into a restricted area without proper authorization or identification.

The penetration tester should recommend implementing endpoint protection on the workstations, which is a security measure that involves installing software or hardware on devices that connect to a network to protect them from threats such as malware, ransomware, phishing, or unauthorized access. Endpoint protection can include antivirus software, firewalls, encryption tools, VPNs, or device management systems. Endpoint protection can help prevent user workstations from being compromised by attackers who have gained access to the web server or other devices on the network. The other options are not valid recommendations for remediation based on the discovery that many of the devices are user workstations. Changing passwords that were created before this code update is not relevant to this issue, as it refers to a different scenario involving password hashing and salting. Keeping hashes created by both methods for compatibility is not relevant to this issue, as it refers to a different scenario involving password hashing and salting. Moving the web server in a screened subnet is not relevant to this issue, as it refers to a different scenario involving network segmentation and isolation.

A downgrade attack is a type of attack that exploits a vulnerability in the protocol negotiation process between a client and a server to force them to use a less secure protocol than they originally intended. A downgrade attack can be used to identify whether a less secure protocol is being utilized on a wireless network by intercepting and modifying the messages exchanged during the protocol negotiation phase, such as the association request and response frames, and making the client and the server agree on a weaker protocol, such as WEP or WPA, instead of a stronger one, such as WPA2 or WPA3. A downgrade attack can also enable the attacker to perform other attacks, such as cracking the encryption keys or capturing the network traffic, more easily by taking advantage of the weaknesses of the less secure protocol. A downgrade attack can be performed by using tools such as Airgeddon, which is a multi-use bash script for Linux systems to audit wireless networks1.