CS0-003 Exam Dumps - CompTIA CyberSecurity Analyst CySA+ Certification Exam

Webhooksenable automatic and event-driven interactions between applications. In the context of code repositories and vulnerability scanning, webhooksautomate the scanning processevery time new code is committed. Thisensures continuous security coveragewithout relying on manual triggers, thereby embedding security checks into the development lifecycle efficiently. This automation leads to improved coverage and faster identification of vulnerabilities at the earliest stage possible in the DevSecOps pipeline.

This is because scanning without admin privileges can limit the scope and accuracy of the vulnerability scan, and potentially miss some critical vulnerabilities that require higher privileges to detect. According to the OWASP Vulnerability Management Guide1, “scanning without administrative privileges will result in a large number of false negatives and an incomplete scan”. Therefore, the analyst should recommend addressing this issue to ensure potential vulnerabilities are identified.

The XML file containsJavaScript embedded within a <description> tagthat executes an alert message, which is a commonCross-Site Scripting (XSS)attack vector. The issue occurs becausethe XML schema does not restrict the input to safe characters, allowingarbitrary script executionwhen the XML file is processed by a vulnerable application.

Solution: Implement Input Validation Using an XML Schema Constraint

Option Benforces awhitelist approachby allowingonly alphanumeric characters and spaces([a-zA-Z 0-9]*).

This prevents the inclusion ofmalicious JavaScript or special characterssuch as <, >, or &, which are required for XSS injection​.

Why are the other options incorrect?

Option A: Restricts input to aSocial Security Number (SSN) format ([0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}). While it prevents JavaScript injection, it is too restrictive and would break legitimate text-based content in the XML.

Option C: Restricts input toonly numeric values ([0-9]*), preventing JavaScript injection but also breaking legitimate non-numeric content in the field.

Option D: Restricts input to asingle positive integer, which does not align with the expected text-based content.

Thus,Option Bis the correct answer, as it enforces proper input validation while still allowing expected text input​.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:To match the mitigation criteria, we analyze each machine’s CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) attributes:

Attack Vector (AV): N for network (matches the requirement of network-based attack).

Attack Complexity (AC): L for low (meets the requirement for low complexity).

Privileges Required (PR): N for none (indicating no privileges are needed).

User Interaction (UI): N for none (matches the requirement that no user action is needed).

Confidentiality (C), Integrity (I), and Availability (A): Requires high confidentiality and availability with low integrity.

From these criteria:

Computer1 requires user interaction (UI:R), which disqualifies it.

Computer2 has a local attack vector (AV:L), which disqualifies it for a network-based attack.

Computer3 has a high attack complexity (AC:H), which does not meet the low complexity requirement.

Computer4 meets all criteria: network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, and appropriate confidentiality, integrity, and availability levels.

Thus, Computer4 is the correct answer.

The first step for the security team when receiving a legal hold request is to notify the relevant departments to preserve all potentially relevant information. This ensures that no data is altered, deleted, or otherwise tampered with, which is critical for maintaining the integrity of the evidence. Preserving information includes emails, documents, and any other data that might be relevant to the legal matter. Establishing a chain of custody and backing up data are also important steps, but notifying the involved parties is the immediate priority to prevent data loss.

The correct answer is A. To ensure the report is legally acceptable in case it needs to be presented in court.

Proper handling and reporting of existing evidence are important for the investigation and reporting phases of an incident response because they ensure the integrity, authenticity, and admissibility of the evidence in case it needs to be presented in court. Evidence that is mishandled, tampered with, or poorly documented may not be accepted by the court or may be challenged by the opposing party. Therefore, incident responders should follow the best practices and standards for evidence collection, preservation, analysis, and reporting1.

The other options are not reasons why proper handling and reporting of existing evidence are important for the investigation and reporting phases of an incident response. They are rather outcomes or benefits of conducting a thorough and effective incident response process. A lessons-learned analysis (B) is a way to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the incident response team and improve their performance for future incidents. A postmortem analysis © is a way to determine the root cause, impact, and timeline of the incident and provide recommendations for remediation and prevention. A root cause analysis (D) is a way to identify the underlying factors that led to the incident and address them accordingly.

Improving employee training and awareness is the best option to address the issue of sensitive reports being disclosed via file sharing services. By educating employees about the risks of unapproved file sharing, the security protocols to follow, and the proper channels to use for sharing company information, an organization can significantly reduce the risk of sensitive data being accidentally or intentionally shared on insecure platforms. This human-centric approach addresses the root cause of the problem. Options A, C, and D are security controls that do not directly address the behavior of sharing sensitive files on unauthorized services.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)track the effectiveness of a security program, providing measurable insights intovulnerability detection, patching efficiency, and risk reduction. This makes KPIs ideal for executive dashboards​.

Option B (MOU - Memorandum of Understanding)refers toagreements between parties, not performance tracking.

Option C (SLO - Service Level Objective)defines operationaltargetsbut is nota tracking metric.

Option D (SLA - Service Level Agreement)defines expectations betweenservice providers and clients, not security metrics.

Thus,A (KPI) is the correct answer, asKPIs provide actionable insights into security effectiveness​.