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

Data masking is a technique that replaces sensitive data with fictitious or anonymized data, while preserving the original format and structure of the data. This way, the data can be used for testing purposes without revealing the actual Pll information. Data masking is one of the best practices for data analysis of confidential data1. References: CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Certification Study Guide, page 343; Best Practices for Data Analysis of Confidential Data

The command in question involves an encoded PowerShell command, which is typically used by attackers to obfuscate malicious scripts. To decode and understand the payload, one would need to decode the base64 encoded string. This is why option A is the correct answer, as 'base64 -d' is a command used to decode data encoded with base64. This process will reveal the plaintext of the encoded command, which can then be analyzed to understand the actions that the attacker was attempting to perform. Option B is risky and not advised without a controlled and isolated environment. Option C is not safe because executing unknown or suspicious code with administrator privileges could cause harm to the system or network. Option D also poses a risk of executing potentially harmful code on an analyst’s workstation.

Exploit code maturity in the CVSS v.3.1 temporal metrics refers to the reliability and availability of exploit code for a vulnerability. Public availability of exploit code increases the exploit code maturity score.

The availability of exploit code affects the 'Exploit Code Maturity' metric in CVSS v.3.1. This metric evaluates the level of maturity of the exploit that targets the vulnerability. When exploit code is readily available, it suggests a higher level of maturity, indicating that the exploit is more reliable and easier to use.

Thepost-incident review processhelps an organization identify gaps in its response and security posture. Assigning different departmental groups ensures that flaws inspecific work areas (such as IT, HR, or legal teams)are identified and addressed​.

Option Bis incorrect because not all staff need exposure; the review focuses on relevant stakeholders.

Option Cis a part of the process, but the main goal is improvement, not just playbook verification.

Option D(cross-training) is a benefit but not the main objective.

Thus,A is the best answerbecause it focuses on identifyingflaws in specific areas of incident management.

Audit settings provide visibility into user actions and system events. These are classified asdetective controlsbecause they enable the detection of anomalies, policy violations, or unauthorized access by generating logs or alerts. They do not prevent actions (Preventive) or reverse harm (Corrective), nor do they provide policy guidance (Directive).

📘Reference: CompTIA CySA+ All-in-One by Mya Heath, Chapter 13, “Vulnerability Handling and Response” – Control Types and Functions​.

📘Objective: 2.5 - Explain the importance of prioritization, remediation, and mitigation of vulnerabilities​.

SQL injection should be remediated first, as it is a high-severity vulnerability that can allow an attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the database server and access, modify, or delete sensitive data, including PII. According to the Arachni scan results, there are two instances of SQL injection and three instances of blind SQL injection (two timing attacks and one differential analysis) in the web application. These vulnerabilities indicate that the web application does not properly validate or sanitize the user input before passing it to the database server, and thus exposes the database to malicious queries12. SQL injection can have serious consequences for the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data and the system, and can also lead to further attacks, such as privilege escalation, data exfiltration, or remote code execution34. Therefore, SQL injection should be the highest priority for remediation, and the web application should implement input validation, parameterized queries, and least privilege principle to prevent SQL injection attacks5. References: Web application testing with Arachni | Infosec, How do I create a generated scan report for PDF in Arachni Web …, Command line user interface · Arachni/arachni Wiki · GitHub, SQL Injection - OWASP, Blind SQL Injection - OWASP, SQL Injection Attack: What is it, and how to prevent it., SQL Injection Cheat Sheet & Tutorial | Veracode

Part 1:

Part 2:

Based on the compliance report, I recommend the following changes for each server:

AppServ1: No changes are needed for this server.

AppServ2: Disable or upgrade TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 to TLS 1.2 on this server to ensure secure encryption and communication between clients and the server. Update Apache from version 2.4.17 to version 2.4.18 or greater on this server to fix any potential vulnerabilities or bugs.

AppServ3: Downgrade Apache from version 2.4.19 to version 2.4.18 or lower on this server to ensure compatibility and stability with the company’s applications and policies. Change the port number from 8080 to either port 80 (for HTTP) or port 443 (for HTTPS) on this server to follow the default port convention and avoid any confusion or conflicts with other services.

AppServ4: Update Apache from version 2.4.16 to version 2.4.18 or greater on this server to fix any potential vulnerabilities or bugs. Change the port number from 8443 to either port 80 (for HTTP) or port 443 (for HTTPS) on this server to follow the default port convention and avoid any confusion or conflicts with other services.

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.