CompTIA SecurityX Practice Test (CAS-005)

Having a defined procedure with recurring opportunities for refinement ensures that everyone follows the same approach. Other options involve partial or fragmented updates, risking divergence in how different teams respond.

Consulting known contact records and speaking with the designated support channel verifies authenticity before any data is shared. Revealing even partial details places information at risk of misuse. Trusting that callers are genuine based solely on an IT label overlooks the possibility of impersonation. Sending a message to colleagues may raise awareness, but continuing the call allows more opportunities for deception.

Guidelines serve as recommended methods or practices to achieve policy goals but are not enforceable mandates. They are intended to offer direction or advice rather than define strict requirements. In contrast, policies, standards, and procedures are binding and dictate what staff must follow.

Providing regular education sessions strengthens employee vigilance and skills to detect unusual messages. The other options involve technical measures or selective oversight without improving overall staff awareness or response competency.

Using an internal channel shared by key personnel delivers consistently updated information, limits confusion, and helps groups coordinate effectively. Relegating updates until the end fails to keep parties informed, and splitting channels or relying on sporadic calls can introduce gaps in information or timing errors.

A structured announcement plan with regular updates and collaborative sessions promotes ongoing awareness of security measures. Employees receive consistent messages that clarify expectations, which helps them handle sensitive details including safe communication methods such as Secure Shell (SSH). Other choices focus on limited audiences, have incomplete coverage, or do not address the need for repeated engagement.

A policy acts as a high-level directive that sets overall rules and expectations to guide the workforce. It typically has leadership approval and addresses a broad range of organizational security areas. An informal set of recommendations lacks formality and recognition. A procedure provides detailed steps rather than broad governance. Department-based rules do not cover the organization as a whole.

This answer is correct because it establishes a process for sharing insights regarding exposure trends and weaknesses with those who need the information. Standardization helps unify how details are communicated, increasing awareness and collaboration. Other options focus on detection, credential protection, or backup strategies, which are different activities.

Regular workshops equip staff with the knowledge and confidence to spot unusual requests and follow escalation steps. Other approaches may offer benefits, but they do not address phone impersonation attempts directly or reinforce user preparedness in a sustained way.

Regular awareness sessions help employees recognize signs of deception such as spoofed addresses, urgent language, unexpected attachments, and mismatched URLs. These human-layer defenses are critical, as technical controls like filtering and blocking may not detect cleverly disguised phishing attempts. Password policy changes or content blocking are not effective against attacks that rely on user trust. Education remains the most direct and adaptive countermeasure to socially engineered infiltration.

A chart that defines who is assigned each task, who provides input, and who is kept informed ensures clarity across multiple teams. This structure reduces confusion by specifying which group makes final decisions, who contributes specialized knowledge, and who remains updated. Informal methods like mass emails or single announcements do not detail responsibilities. Placing all revision authority solely on one department can create gaps when non-technical teams need to be involved.

Guidelines are advisory in nature—they provide suggested best practices but are not mandatory. Unlike policies or standards, which must be followed, guidelines allow for flexibility and adaptation based on specific organizational needs or circumstances. Confusing guidelines with strict rules can lead to unnecessary enforcement or miscommunication in policy implementation.

Verifying the identity of the requester, compiling only the relevant records, and responding within the legally defined timeframe (e.g., under GDPR or CCPA) ensures compliance with data protection obligations. Failing to validate identity, oversharing information, or delaying the response can result in security breaches or regulatory violations.

Encryption standards such as FIPS 140-3 and NIST SP 800-53 define enforceable technical requirements for securing data at rest. These documents are mandatory in regulated environments and must be followed to ensure compliance and uniform security controls. Unlike optional guidelines, they are not suggestions—failure to comply can result in security gaps or regulatory violations.

A role chart that assigns who handles a task, who signs off on it, who provides input, and who remains informed promotes clear ownership and accountability. It eliminates confusion over responsibilities by ensuring all roles are documented. Monthly presentations and training sessions enhance knowledge but do not clarify who is responsible for each task. Mandating advanced encryption boosts data protection but does not address confusion around work duplication.