PT0-003 CompTIA PenTest+ Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

The script is retrieving base64-encoded commands hidden in DNS TXT records and executing them. This is a technique known as DNS tunneling, which allows covert data transmission using DNS queries/responses — often used to bypass firewalls or exfiltrate data without detection.

From the CompTIA PenTest+ PT0-003 Official Study Guide (Chapter 9 – Evading Detection and Exploitation Techniques):

“DNS tunneling is a covert communication technique where command-and-control instructions or exfiltrated data are encoded into DNS queries and responses, typically using TXT records.”

A kiosk escape involves breaking out of a restricted environment, such as a kiosk or a single application interface, to access the underlying operating system. Here’s why option A is correct:

Kiosk Escape: This attack targets environments where user access is intentionally limited, such as a kiosk or a dedicated application. The goal is to break out of these restrictions and gain access to the full operating system.

Arbitrary Code Execution: This involves running unauthorized code on the system, but the scenario described is more about escaping a restricted environment.

Process Hollowing: This technique involves injecting code into a legitimate process, making it appear benign while executing malicious activities.

Library Injection: This involves injecting malicious code into a running process by loading a malicious library, which is not the focus in this scenario.

References from Pentest:

Forge HTB: Demonstrates techniques to escape restricted environments and gain broader access to the system​​.

Horizontall HTB: Shows methods to break out of limited access environments, aligning with the concept of kiosk escape​​.

Conclusion:

Option A, Kiosk escape, accurately describes the type of attack where a tester breaks out of a restricted environment to access the underlying operating system.

=================

Based on the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) and EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) scores, Target 1 is the most likely to get attacked.

CVSS:

Definition: CVSS provides a numerical score to represent the severity of a vulnerability, helping to prioritize the response based on the potential impact.

Score Range: Scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe vulnerabilities.

EPSS:

Definition: EPSS estimates the likelihood that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days.

Score Range: EPSS scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating a higher likelihood of exploitation.

Analysis:

Target 1: CVSS = 4, EPSS = 0.6

Target 2: CVSS = 2, EPSS = 0.3

Target 3: CVSS = 1, EPSS = 0.6

Target 4: CVSS = 4.5, EPSS = 0.4

Target 1 has a moderate CVSS score and a high EPSS score, indicating it has a significant vulnerability that is quite likely to be exploited.

Pentest References:

Vulnerability Prioritization: Using CVSS and EPSS scores to prioritize vulnerabilities based on severity and likelihood of exploitation.

Risk Assessment: Understanding the balance between impact (CVSS) and exploit likelihood (EPSS) to identify the most critical targets for remediation or attack.

By focusing on Target 1, which has a balanced combination of severity and exploitability, the penetration tester can address the most likely target for attacks based on the given scores.

=================

Penetration test results are sensitive information and must be handled confidentially.

Privileged & Confidential Status Update (Option A):

Helps ensure compliance with legal and regulatory standards by labeling the report as confidential.

Encourages secure handling by recipients.

PowerView is a PowerShell tool used for Active Directory enumeration. It is part of the PowerSploit framework and allows penetration testers to gather detailed information about the AD environment, including user accounts, groups, computers, shares, and trust relationships.

PowerView is most commonly used to:

Enumerate domain users, groups, and memberships

Identify privileged users and group memberships

Discover domain trusts and permissions

According to the CompTIA PenTest+ PT0-003 Official Study Guide (Chapter 8 – Post-Exploitation and Lateral Movement):

“PowerView is a post-exploitation tool used primarily for Active Directory reconnaissance, including user and group enumeration, identifying domain trusts, and mapping out the AD structure.”

Rubeus is a post-exploitation tool used for Kerberos abuse, including ticket extraction, pass-the-ticket, ticket renewal, and Kerberoasting. It's ideal for lateral movement within Active Directory environments.

WinPEAS is mainly used for local privilege escalation and enumeration.

NTLMRelayX (from Impacket) is useful for relaying NTLM authentication but is not focused on Kerberos.

Impacket is a collection of tools; Rubeus is more targeted for Kerberos attacks.

Given that the penetration tester has already obtained an internal foothold on the target network, the next logical step to achieve the objective of collecting confidential information and potentially exfiltrating data or performing a ransomware attack is to perform credential dumping. Here's why:

Credential Dumping:

Purpose: Credential dumping involves extracting password hashes and plaintext passwords from compromised systems. These credentials can be used to gain further access to sensitive data and critical systems within the network.

Tools: Common tools used for credential dumping include Mimikatz, Windows Credential Editor, and ProcDump.

Impact: With these credentials, the tester can move laterally across the network, escalate privileges, and access confidential information.

Comparison with Other Options:

Initiate a Social Engineering Campaign (A): Social engineering is typically an initial access technique rather than a follow-up action after gaining internal access.

Compromise an Endpoint (C): The tester already has a foothold, so compromising another endpoint is less direct than credential dumping for accessing sensitive information.

Share Enumeration (D): While share enumeration can provide useful information, it is less impactful than credential dumping in terms of gaining further access and achieving the main objective.

Performing credential dumping is the most effective next step to escalate privileges and access sensitive data, making it the best choice.

=================

To enumerate password hashes using an SQL injection vulnerability, the penetration tester needs to extract specific columns from the database that typically contain password hashes. The --dump command in sqlmap is used to dump the contents of the specified database table. Here’s a breakdown of the options:

Option A: sqlmap -u www.example.com/?id=1 --search -T user

The --search option is used to search for columns and not to dump data. This would not enumerate password hashes.

Option B: sqlmap -u www.example.com/?id=1 --dump -D accounts -T users -C cred

This command uses --dump to extract data from the specified database accounts, table users, and column cred. This is the correct option to enumerate password hashes, assuming cred is the column containing the password hashes.

Option C: sqlmap -u www.example.com/?id=1 --tables -D accounts

The --tables option lists all tables in the specified database but does not extract data.

Option D: sqlmap -u www.example.com/?id=1 --schema --current-user --current-db

The --schema option provides the database schema information, and --current-user and --current-db provide information about the current user and database but do not dump data.

References from Pentest:

Writeup HTB: Demonstrates using sqlmap to dump data from specific tables to retrieve sensitive information, including password hashes​​.

Luke HTB: Shows the process of exploiting SQL injection to extract user credentials and hashes by dumping specific columns from the database​​.

=================

OS identification in tools like Nmap relies on fingerprinting techniques, which analyze response characteristics (e.g., TCP/IP stack behavior).

The scan cannot gather one or more fingerprints from the target (Option D):

If the system is configured to block ICMP responses, or if certain ports are closed, fingerprinting fails.

Some modern firewalls and intrusion prevention systems (IPS) interfere with OS fingerprinting by modifying packet responses.

Identified Weaknesses:

Weaker password settings than the company standard: Indicates inconsistency in password policies across systems.

Systems without the company's endpoint security software installed: Suggests lack of uniformity in security software deployment.

Operating systems not updated by the patch management system: Points to gaps in patch management processes.

Configuration Management System:

Definition: A configuration management system automates the deployment, maintenance, and enforcement of configurations across all systems in an organization.

Benefits: Ensures consistency in security settings, software installations, and patch management across the entire environment.

Examples: Tools like Ansible, Puppet, and Chef can help automate and manage configurations, ensuring compliance with organizational standards.

Other Recommendations:

Vulnerability Management System: While adding systems to this system helps track vulnerabilities, it does not address the root cause of configuration inconsistencies.

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR): Useful for detecting and responding to threats, but not for enforcing consistent configurations.

Patch Management: Patching systems addresses specific vulnerabilities but does not solve broader configuration management issues.

Pentest References:

System Hardening: Ensuring all systems adhere to security baselines and configurations to reduce attack surfaces.

Automation in Security: Using configuration management tools to automate security practices, ensuring compliance and reducing manual errors.

Implementing a configuration management system addresses the root issue by ensuring consistent security configurations, software deployments, and patch management across the entire environment.

=================

To further enumerate users on a Windows machine using native operating system commands, the tester should use net.exe commands. The net command is a versatile tool that provides various network functionalities, including user enumeration.

net.exe:

net user: This command displays a list of user accounts on the local machine.

net user

net localgroup: This command lists all local groups, and by specifying a group name, it can list the members of that group.

net localgroup administrators

Enumerating Users:

List All Users: The net user command provides a comprehensive list of all user accounts configured on the system.

Group Memberships: The net localgroup command can be used to see which users belong to specific groups, such as administrators.

Pentest References:

Post-Exploitation: After gaining initial access, enumerating user accounts helps understand the structure and potential targets for privilege escalation.

Windows Commands: Leveraging built-in commands like net for enumeration ensures that no additional tools need to be uploaded to the target system, reducing the risk of detection.

Using net.exe commands, the penetration tester can effectively enumerate user accounts and group memberships on the compromised Windows machine, aiding in further exploitation and privilege escalation.

=================

kube-hunter is a tool designed to perform security assessments on Kubernetes clusters. It identifies various vulnerabilities, focusing on weaknesses and misconfigurations. Here’s why option B is correct:

Kube-hunter: It scans Kubernetes clusters to identify security issues, such as misconfigurations, insecure settings, and potential attack vectors.

Network Configuration Errors: While kube-hunter might identify some network-related issues, its primary focus is on Kubernetes-specific vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.

Application Deployment Issues: These are more related to the applications running within the cluster, not the cluster configuration itself.

Security Vulnerabilities in Docker Containers: Kube-hunter focuses on the Kubernetes environment rather than Docker container-specific vulnerabilities.

References from Pentest:

Forge HTB: Highlights the use of specialized tools to identify misconfigurations in environments, similar to how kube-hunter operates within Kubernetes clusters​​.

Anubis HTB: Demonstrates the importance of identifying and fixing misconfigurations within complex environments like Kubernetes clusters​​.

Conclusion:

Option B, weaknesses and misconfigurations in the Kubernetes cluster, accurately describes the type of vulnerabilities that kube-hunter is designed to detect.

=================

Watering Hole Attack Explanation:

A watering hole attack involves compromising a website that the target frequently visits.

The attacker injects malicious code into the site, which then exploits users who access it.

Why Not Other Options?

B: DDoS attacks disrupt services but do not align with the watering hole strategy.

C: Social engineering may be effective but is not a watering hole attack.

D: Phishing is unrelated to compromising trusted websites.

CompTIA Pentest+ References:

Domain 3.0 (Attacks and Exploits)

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools monitor sensitive data and prevent unauthorized exfiltration. The two best options to bypass DLP are:

Compress and encrypt the data (Option B):

Compression reduces file size, making detection harder. Encryption further protects the data by making it unreadable without a key.

DLP tools often inspect content based on known patterns (e.g., credit card numbers, sensitive keywords). Encrypted files bypass content inspection since DLP cannot analyze encrypted data.

The question specifies wireless network security assessment with the goal of intercepting sensitive employee data.

WiFi-Pumpkin is specifically designed for Wi-Fi penetration testing. It can act as a rogue access point (evil twin attack) to trick users into connecting, then perform man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, traffic interception, credential harvesting, and phishing over Wi-Fi. This matches the goal of capturing sensitive employee data.

Why not the others?

A. Metasploit: General exploitation framework, not specialized for Wi-Fi traffic interception.

C. SET (Social-Engineer Toolkit): Used for phishing/social engineering, not wireless MITM.

D. theHarvester: Information gathering tool for enumerating emails, subdomains, etc.

E. WiGLE.net: Wireless network discovery database (maps SSIDs), not for active interception.

CompTIA PT0-003 Mapping:

Domain 3.0: Attacks and Exploits

3.1: Exploit wireless network vulnerabilities (evil twin, rogue AP, MITM).

When a penetration tester identifies an exposed corporate directory containing first and last names and phone numbers, the most effective attack technique to pursue would be smishing. Here's why:

Understanding Smishing:

Smishing (SMS phishing) involves sending fraudulent messages via SMS to trick individuals into revealing personal information or performing actions that compromise security. Since the tester has access to phone numbers, this method is directly applicable.

Why Smishing is Effective:

Personalization: Knowing the first and last names allows the attacker to personalize the messages, making them appear more legitimate and increasing the likelihood of the target responding.

Immediate Access: People tend to trust and respond quickly to SMS messages compared to emails, especially if the messages appear urgent or important.

Alternative Attack Techniques:

Impersonation: While effective, it generally requires real-time interaction and may not scale well across many targets.

Tailgating: This physical social engineering technique involves following someone into a restricted area and is not feasible with just names and phone numbers.

Whaling: This targets high-level executives with highly personalized phishing attacks. Although effective, it is more specific and may not be suitable for the broader set of employees in the directory.

=================

When performing a security assessment on a mobile application, especially one concerned with information disclosure, it is crucial to follow a structured approach to identify vulnerabilities comprehensively. Here’s why option B is correct:

Mobile Application Security Framework: This framework provides a structured methodology for assessing the security of mobile applications. It includes various tests such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, and reverse engineering, which are essential for identifying vulnerabilities related to information disclosure.

Initial Steps: Running the application through a security framework allows the tester to identify a broad range of potential issues systematically. This initial step ensures that all aspects of the application's security are covered before delving into more specific tools like Drozer or Frida.

References from Pentest:

Writeup HTB: Demonstrates the use of structured methodologies to ensure comprehensive coverage of security assessments​​.

Horizontall HTB: Emphasizes the importance of following a structured approach to identify and address security issues​​.

=================

This command gathers:

/etc/passwd – lists all local user accounts.

netstat -tuln – lists listening ports and associated services.

/etc/bash.bashrc – contains environment variables and configurations that could reveal system behaviors or hidden persistence mechanisms.

This provides a much broader and deeper enumeration compared to other options.

When traditional reconnaissance methods are blocked, scanning code repositories is an effective method to gather information. Here’s why:

Code Repository Scanning:

Leaked Information: Code repositories (e.g., GitHub, GitLab) often contain sensitive information, including API keys, configuration files, and even credentials that developers might inadvertently commit.

Accessible: These repositories can often be accessed publicly, bypassing traditional defenses like WAFs.

Comparison with Other Methods:

HTML Scraping: Limited to the data present on web pages and can still be blocked by WAF.

Directory Enumeration: Likely to be blocked by WAF as well and might not yield significant internal information.

Port Scanning: Also likely to be blocked or trigger alerts on WAF or IDS/IPS systems.

Scanning code repositories allows gathering a wide range of information that can be critical for further penetration testing effort

=================