CAS-005 CompTIA SecurityX Certification Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

A computer screen shot of a diagram Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a computer error Description automatically generated

The CIO needs to clarify the organization’s risk appetite, which defines the level of residual risk the business is willing to accept after all mitigation measures are applied. Risk appetite reflects the balance between operational requirements, security controls, and cost constraints. In business continuity planning, risk appetite helps decision-makers determine which risks must be reduced through additional investments (e.g., redundant systems, faster recovery strategies) and which risks are tolerable based on business priorities.

Mitigation (A) refers to the strategies used to reduce risk but not the threshold of acceptable residual risk. Impact (B) and Likelihood (C) are components of risk assessment—measuring severity and probability—but they do not define acceptance criteria. Risk appetite is the guiding principle that aligns technical controls with executive tolerance for disruption or loss.

By clarifying appetite, the CIO provides the compliance team and IT leadership with a framework for designing remediation activities that ensure continuity of critical internal processes while aligning with the organization’s strategic objectives and regulatory requirements.

In the given scenario, the security engineer is likely examining login activities and their associated geolocations. This type of analysis is aimed at identifying unusual login patterns that might indicate an impossible travel scenario. An impossible travel scenario is when a single user account logs in from geographically distant locations in a short time, which is physically impossible. By assessing login activities using geolocation, the engineer can tune alerts to identify and respond to potential security breaches more effectively.

To enable code signing with an existing PKI, the first step is to configure the Certificate Authority (CA) to issue code signing certificates. Adding a new template with attributes specific to code signing (e.g., key usage for signing) allows the CA to support this requirement without disrupting existing operations.

Option A:Correct—templates define certificate types; this isthe foundational step.

Option B:Wildcard certificates are for domains, not code signing.

Option C:Recalculating root CA keys is unnecessary and risky unless compromised.

Option D:SAN (Subject Alternative Name) is for multi-domain certificates, irrelevant here.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) (A)monitors and protects applications in real time by detecting and blocking attacks as they occur. Unlike traditional security solutions, RASP is integrated into the application itself, meaning it works regardless of the programming language used. It effectively mitigates common vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, XSS, and buffer overflows.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (C) is a passive scanning approach that may not prevent attacks in real-time, while Network Intrusion PreventionSystems (NIPS) (D) focuses on network traffic, not application-layer security.

The log shows an AXFR (zone transfer) query, which exposed internal DNS records, aiding lateral movement. Let’s evaluate:

A. Disabling DNS zone transfers:AXFR allows full DNS zone data to be transferred. Disabling it externally prevents attackers from mapping internal networks, directly mitigating this issue per CAS-005’s security operations focus.

B. Restricting to UDP/53:AXFR uses TCP/53, so this wouldn’t stop it.

C. DNSmasking:Obscures records but isn’t a standard term for this fix.

Based on the provided logs, the user has accessed various applications from different geographic locations within a very short timeframe. This pattern is indicative of the "impossible travel" security rule, a common feature in Single Sign-On (SSO) systems designed to detect and prevent fraudulent access attempts.

Analysis of Logs:

At 8:47 p.m., the user accessed a VPN from Toronto.

At 8:48 p.m., the user accessed email from Los Angeles.

At 8:48 p.m., the user accessed the human resources system from Los Angeles.

At 8:49 p.m., the user accessed email again from Los Angeles.

At 8:52 p.m., the user attempted to access the human resources system from Toronto, which was denied.

These rapid changes in location are physically impossible and typically trigger security measures to prevent unauthorized access. The SSO system detected these inconsistencies and likely flagged the activity as suspicious, resulting in access denial.

The most appropriate technique to improve the cryptographic strength of a password-storage component in a web application without completely replacing the crypto-module is key stretching. Here's why:

Enhanced Security: Key stretching algorithms, such as PBKDF2, bcrypt, and scrypt, increase the computational effort required to derive the encryption key from the password, making brute-force attacks more difficult and time-consuming.

Compatibility: Key stretching can be implemented alongside existing cryptographic modules, enhancing their security without the need for a complete overhaul.

Industry Best Practices: Key stretching is a widely recommended practice for securely storing passwords, as it significantly improves resistance to password-cracking attacks.

The error message reveals sensitive details (hostnames, database names, table names), constitutinginformation disclosure. This aids attackers in reconnaissance. Mitigation involves modifying the application to display generic error messages (e.g., “An error occurred”) instead of specifics.

Option A:Unsecure references suggest coding flaws, but this is a configuration/output issue, not input sanitization.

Option B:Unsecure protocols and HttpOnly cookies relate to session security, not error handling.

Option C:Correct—information disclosure is the issue; generic errors mitigate it.

Option D:No evidence of SQL injection (e.g., manipulated input); upgrading the database doesn’t address disclosure.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Both samples share similar function names, variable naming styles, and logic flow, indicating that they were likely written by the same developer. This is a keyobservation in malware attribution, as cyber threat analysts often look for unique coding styles to link malware to specific threat actors.

The presence of C2 (Command and Control) communication in both samples supports this theory, as attackers often reuse parts of their own malware code across different attacks.

To keep the mail server up to date with indicators of compromise (IoCs) and block known-malicious emails, the security architect needs mechanisms to ingest new threat intelligence and apply it dynamically. The best solutions are:

Threat Feed API (B): This provides automated updates from external or commercial threat intelligence providers. By integrating a threat feed, the mail server can regularly fetch IoCs such as malicious domains, IPs, or attachment hashes.

Webhooks (D): These allow real-time or near real-time updates when new IoCs are published. Instead of waiting for scheduled pulls, the mail server can receive push notifications with updated indicators, ensuring rapid response to evolving threats.

Other options are less effective. Log analyzers (A) assist with monitoring but don’t actively update or block threats. A scheduled task (C) may automate local operations but lacks the external intelligence integration required. Inbox deletion code (E) is reactive and inefficient. A security runbook (F) defines processes but does not technically enable automated updates.

Thus, the combination of Threat Feed APIs and Webhooks provides continuous, automated IoC ingestion, reducing exposure to malicious email campaigns.

Vendor lock-in occurs when a client is overly dependent on a vendor, limiting flexibility. Risks include:

Option B:Vendors changing offerings (e.g., features, pricing) can disrupt the client, a key lock-in risk.

Option D:Decreased quality of service may result from reliance on a single vendor without alternatives.

Option A:Seamless data movement is a benefit, not a risk.

Option C:Sufficient service is neutral or positive, not a risk.

Option E:Multicloud is hindered by lock-in, not a risk of it.

Option F:Increased interoperability contradicts lock-in’s limitations.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

Regression testing ensures that new changes do not break existing functionality. It would have identified the memory leak before deployment, preventing downtime.

Understanding Business Impact Analysis (BIA):

ABIA assesses the effects of disruptionsto an organization's operations.

It helpsprioritize resourcesbased on the potential impact ofdowntime, compliance issues, and critical processes.

Why Options B, C, and F are Correct:

B (Applicable contract obligations)→ Many companies havelegal and compliance obligationsregarding downtime, availability, and SLAs. This information helps determine whatrisk levelsare acceptable.

C (Costs associated with downtime)→ BIA quantifies the financial impact of system failures. Knowinglost revenue, regulatory fines, and recovery costshelps in planning.

F (Critical processes)→ Identifyingcore business processesallows an organization toprioritize recoveryeffortsandmaintain operational continuity.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Inventory details)→ While useful for asset management, it doesnot directly impact business continuity planning.

D (Network diagrams)→ These help in security architecture but arenot directly related to the financial/business impact analysis.

E (Contingency plans)→ BIA isperformed before contingency planningto identifywhat needs protection.

Collecting a large pool of behavioral observations requires handling vast datasets, which is the domain ofBig Data. Big Data technologies enable the storage, processing, and analysis of large-scale data (e.g., user behavior logs) to inform decisions, a key capability in security analytics.

Option A:Linear regression is a statistical method for modeling relationships, not collecting data.

Option B:Distributed consensus relates to agreement in distributed systems (e.g., blockchain), not data collection.

Option C:Big Data directly supports collecting and analyzing large datasets for insights, fitting the question perfectly.

Option D:Machine learning uses data to train models but relies on data being collected first, often via Big Data.

The best option is to provide sanitized devices with remote connections to a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI). This ensures that no sensitive intellectual property is stored locally on the laptops carried across borders. Even if the devices are inspected, seized, or tampered with, attackers cannot access corporate data since all sensitive files remain within secure, centralized infrastructure.

Option A (Measured Boot) reports firmware tampering but does not prevent data theft if the device is compromised. Option C (self-encrypting drives) protect data at rest but can be bypassed if customs agents demand login credentials. Option D (tamper-evident stickers) provide only physical inspection indicators and are ineffective against sophisticated data theft attempts.

CAS-005 emphasizes secure remote access strategies and temporary “clean laptops” for high-risk travel scenarios. Sanitized laptops with VDI access minimize exposure while maintaining productivity, making this the strongest mitigation.

Malware that does not execute in a sandbox environment often contains anti-analysis techniques, such as anti-virtualization code. This code detects when the malware is running in a virtualized environment and alters its behavior to avoid detection. Checking for anti-virtualization code is a logical next step because:

It helps determine if the malware is designed to evade analysis tools.

Identifying such code can provide insights into themalware's behavior and intent.

This step can also inform further analysis methods, such as running the malware on physical hardware.