CompTIA SecurityX Practice Test (CAS-005)

Using a process to address questions about personal data collection and responding in a reasonable timeframe provides ongoing transparency. The other choices delay essential notifications or limit regular updates, which can leave individuals unaware of how their information is handled and possibly shared.

Protecting logs that are combined in a single location demands stricter controls. Confidential data should be encrypted at rest so that unauthorized access does not reveal sensitive information. Limiting who can query the merged data further reduces exposure risk. Other methods either grant excessive permissions or omit key safeguards, meaning sensitive records could be disclosed to unauthorized parties. Segmenting logs without comprehensive encryption fails to enforce sufficient protection once data is combined. Manual file merges can lead to errors and are prone to mishandling details.

This practice is recommended by industry standards. Conducting an in-depth review confirms each partner’s adherence to relevant rules in every jurisdiction, decreasing exposure to fines or reputational harm. Skipping this phase increases the chance of unrecognized liabilities.

Aggregators that compile data from multiple channels, including threat information, can reveal patterns or suspicious details across numerous sources. Checking firewall logs, phone directories, or scanning a single source can be limiting, so a broader range of community-based records and historical postings helps verify or disprove harmful indicators more effectively.

A bridging gateway (e.g., SAML-to-OIDC or LDAP-to-OAuth) translates authentication tokens or credentials between legacy directories and modern services. This avoids the need for intrusive rewrites or account duplication and ensures seamless interoperability between different authentication systems, preserving backward compatibility and reducing integration complexity.

An option that converts possible service interruptions into real costs helps management understand the financial scale and allocate funds accordingly. Estimating lost revenue and other expenses provides precise monetary insight. Focusing on intangible issues or following external standards alone does not yield exact financial data. Using category-based labels offers limited precision and may direct resources away from the most critical hazards.

The statement is correct. A honeynet is a network of honeypots deployed to mimic real systems and attract attackers in a controlled, isolated environment. These setups help defenders study adversary tactics without putting production infrastructure at risk. They are often used to gather threat intelligence and improve intrusion detection systems.

Acquiring ephemeral session data from active logins grants unauthorized entry by reusing existing user credentials. Planting malicious instructions in a background service mostly focuses on hidden code execution. Injecting harmful content into a legitimate update process replaces trusted installations but does not capture user authentication data. Overriding a driver can expand privileges, yet it does not necessarily deliver stored credentials to the attacker.

Ephemeral encryption keys that renew help limit exposure if one key is taken. Relying on a single shared secret or blocking transmissions for an extended inspection can compromise efficiency and may not stop eavesdropping. Leaving connections open while depending on logging is reactive and does not prevent unauthorized viewing of data in transit.

A decoy server that appears to be a critical resource attracts scans or exploitation attempts from an insider. This provides clear evidence of unauthorized probes targeted at that environment. Reviewing internal logs can be valuable but might not reveal an insider's advanced tactics if commands merge with legitimate traffic. Monitoring external domain records concentrates on outside activity. Subscribing to a threat intelligence feed is useful for external threats but does not specifically detect unusual internal host probing

Adopting a consistent reference from an external control library provides uniform coverage and clear guidelines for an entire organization. Tailoring training for each division or creating separate policies introduces variability and complicates enforcement. Building a custom cryptosystem can lead to missed requirements and may not align with accepted methods, making the external reference approach more dependable for standardization.

Placing the device on an isolated network segment allows precise traffic management and prevents attacks from spreading. Trying to patch a device that cannot support updates is ineffective. Disabling monitoring forfeits critical oversight for detecting malicious behavior. Replacing the device after issues arise does not address underlying vulnerabilities.

Adding a digital signature ensures that a corresponding public key can validate the file. If the signature does not match, it indicates tampering or an unverified source. Other methods such as using a passphrase, a firewall, or encrypting the binaries do not confirm publisher authenticity or enable precise integrity checks.

Dedicated hardware that resists direct manipulation provides a specialized environment for protecting sensitive data. Software-based storage can be more accessible to adversaries when infrastructure is compromised, while spreading sensitive data across devices without a central protective layer may lead to a breach at individual endpoints. Storing them in a location that has a single passcode is also too easily bypassed.

The most effective approach bases alert handling on severity and risk. Alerts from systems containing sensitive information typically warrant higher concern. Approaches that rely on chronological order or random selection do not factor in an event’s potential harm. Concentrating on volume can overlook critical events that may be few but serious.