SY0-701 Exam Dumps - CompTIA Security+ Exam 2025

Full packet capture is a technique that records all network traffic passing through a device, such as a router or firewall. It allows for detailed analysis and investigation of network events, such as SQLi attacks, by providing the complete content and context of the packets. Full packet capture can help identify the source, destination, payload, and timing of an SQLi attack, as well as the impact on the server and database. Logging NetFlow traffic, network traffic sensors, and endpoint and OS-specific security logs can provide some information about network activity, but they do not capture the full content of the packets, which may limit the scope and depth of the investigation. References: CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: Exam SY0-701, 9th Edition, page 372-373

This situation is an example of smishing, which is a type of phishing that uses text messages (SMS) to entice individuals into providing personal or sensitive information to cybercriminals. The best responses to this situation are to add a smishing exercise to the annual company training and to issue a general email warning to the company. A smishing exercise can help raise awareness and educate employees on how to recognize and avoid smishing attacks. An email warning can alert employees to the fraudulent text message and remind them to verify the identity and legitimacy of any requests for information or money. References = What Is Phishing | Cybersecurity | CompTIA, Phishing – SY0-601 CompTIA Security+ : 1.1 - Professor Messer IT Certification Training Courses

PCI DSS is the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, which is a set of security requirements for organizations that store, process, or transmit cardholder data. PCI DSS aims to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of cardholder data and prevent fraud, identity theft, and data breaches. PCI DSS is enforced by the payment card brands, such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and JCB, and applies to all entities involved in the payment card ecosystem, such as merchants, acquirers, issuers, processors, service providers, and payment applications.

If a large bank fails an internal PCI DSS compliance assessment, the most likely outcome is that the bank will face fines from the payment card brands. An internal PCI DSS compliance assessment is a self-assessment that the bank performs to evaluate its own compliance with the PCI DSS requirements. The bank must submit the results of the internal assessment to the payment card brands or their designated agents, such as acquirers or qualified security assessors (QSAs). If the internal assessment reveals that the bank is not compliant with the PCI DSS requirements, the payment card brands may impose fines on the bank as a penalty for violating the PCI DSS contract. The amount and frequency of the fines may vary depending on the severity and duration of the non-compliance, the number and type of cardholder data compromised, and the level of cooperation and remediation from the bank. The fines can range from thousands to millions of dollars per month, and can increase over time if the non-compliance is not resolved.

The other options are not correct because they are not the most likely outcomes if a large bank fails an internal PCI DSS compliance assessment. B. Audit findings. Audit findings are the results of an external PCI DSS compliance assessment that is performed by a QSA or an approved scanning vendor (ASV). An external assessment is required for certain entities that handle a large volume of cardholder data or have a history of non-compliance. An external assessment may also be triggered by a security incident or a request from the payment card brands. Audit findings may reveal the gaps and weaknesses in the bank’s security controls andrecommend corrective actions to achieve compliance. However, audit findings are not the outcome of an internal assessment, which is performed by the bank itself. C. Sanctions. Sanctions are the measures that the payment card brands may take against the bank if the bank fails to pay the fines or comply with the PCI DSS requirements. Sanctions may include increasing the fines, suspending or terminating the bank’s ability to accept or process payment cards, or revoking the bank’s PCI DSS certification. Sanctions are not the immediate outcome of an internal assessment, but rather the possible consequence of prolonged or repeated non-compliance. D. Reputation damage. Reputation damage is the loss of trust and credibility that the bank may suffer from its customers, partners, regulators, and the public if the bank fails an internal PCI DSS compliance assessment. Reputation damage may affect the bank’s brand image, customer loyalty, market share, and profitability. Reputation damage is not a direct outcome of an internal assessment, but rather a potential risk that the bank may face if the non-compliance is exposed or exploited by malicious actors. References = CompTIA Security+ Study Guide (SY0-701), Chapter 8: Governance, Risk, and Compliance, page 388. Professor Messer’s CompTIA SY0-701 Security+ Training Course, Section 8.2: Compliance and Controls, video: PCI DSS (5:12). PCI Security Standards Council, PCI DSS Quick Reference Guide, page 4. PCI Security Standards Council, PCI DSS FAQs, question 8. PCI Security Standards Council, PCI DSS FAQs, question 9. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 10. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 11. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 12. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 13. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 14. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 15. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 16. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 17. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 18. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 19. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 20. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 21. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 22. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 23. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 24. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 25. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 26. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 27. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 28. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 29. [PCI Security Standards Council], PCI DSS FAQs, question 30. [PCI Security Standards Council]

Input validation is a security technique that checks the user input for any malicious or unexpected data before processing it by the application. Input validation can prevent various types of attacks, such as injection, cross-site scripting, buffer overflow, and command execution, that exploit the vulnerabilities in the application code. Input validation can be performed on both the client-side and the server-side, using methods such as whitelisting, blacklisting, filtering, sanitizing, escaping, and encoding. By including regular expressions in the source code to remove special characters from the variables set by the forms in the web application, the organization adopted input validation as a security technique. Regular expressions are patterns that match a specific set of characters or strings, and can be used to filter out any unwanted or harmful input. Special characters, such as $, |, ;, &, `, and ?, can be used by attackers to injectcommands or scripts into the application, and cause damage or data theft. By removing these characters from the input, the organization can reduce the risk of such attacks.

Identify embedded keys, code debugging, and static code analysis are not the security techniques that the organization adopted by making this addition to the policy. Identify embedded keys is a process of finding and removing any hard-coded keys or credentials from the source code, as these can pose a security risk if exposed or compromised. Code debugging is a process of finding and fixing any errors or bugs in the source code, which can affect the functionality or performance of the application. Static code analysis is a process of analyzing the source code without executing it, to identify any vulnerabilities, flaws, or coding standards violations. These techniques are not related to the use of regular expressions to remove special characters from the input.

References = CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 375-376; Professor Messer’s CompTIA SY0-701 Security+ Training Course, video 4.1 - Vulnerability Scanning, 8:00 - 9:08; Application Security – SY0-601 CompTIA Security+ : 3.2, 0:00 - 2:00.

The scenario describes a large number of unsolicited emails sent to multiple users. This is characteristic of phishing, which SY0-701 defines as mass-distributed fraudulent messages designed to trick recipients into clicking malicious links, downloading malware, or divulging sensitive information.

Phishing campaigns typically involve:

High volume

Non-targeted messaging

Use of spoofed addresses or fake content

Delivery through email systems

A watering-hole attack (A) compromises a legitimate website frequented by targets—not email. Typosquatting (B) relies on malicious websites with deceptive URLs. Business Email Compromise (C) involves highly targeted spear-phishing or impersonation attacks, not bulk email blasts.

Because this incident involves “hundreds of messages” delivered to “multiple users,” it clearly matches the characteristics of a phishing attack, not a sophisticated targeted attack type.

Phishing is the most common form of social engineering and is emphasized heavily in the Security+ exam due to its frequency and effectiveness.

 A firewall rule is a set of criteria that determines whether to allow or deny a packet to pass through the firewall. A firewall rule consists of several elements, such as the action, the protocol, the source address, the destination address, and the port number. The syntax of a firewall rule may vary depending on the type and vendor of the firewall, but the basic logic is the same. In this question, the security analyst is creating an inbound firewall rule to block the IP address 10.1.4.9 from accessing the organization’s network. This means that the action should be deny, the protocol should be any (or ig for IP), the source address should be 10.1.4.9/32 (which means a single IP address), the destination address should be 0.0.0.0/0 (which means any IP address), and the port number should be any. Therefore, the correct firewall rule is:

access-list inbound deny ig source 10.1.4.9/32 destination 0.0.0.0/0

This rule will match any packet that has the source IP address of 10.1.4.9 and drop it. The other options are incorrect because they either have the wrong action, the wrong source address, or the wrong destination address. For example, option A has the source and destination addresses reversed, which means that it will block any packet that has the destination IP address of 10.1.4.9, which is not the intended goal. Option C has the wrong action, which is permit, which means that it will allow the packet to pass through the firewall, which is also not the intended goal. Option D has the same problem as option A, with the source and destination addresses reversed.

References = Firewall Rules – CompTIA Security+ SY0-401: 1.2, Firewalls – SY0-601 CompTIA Security+ : 3.3, Firewalls – CompTIA Security+ SY0-501, Understanding Firewall Rules – CompTIA Network+ N10-005: 5.5, Configuring Windows Firewall – CompTIA A+ 220-1102 – 1.6.