CTAL-TTA ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Technical Test Analyst Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Including security testing in a test approach is valid when there are concerns about unauthorized access or activities, such as the threat of unauthorized copying of applications or data (option A). This type of testing aims to uncover vulnerabilities that could be exploited to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the system. The other options listed—availability measurements (option B), system's peak load handling (option C), and frequent software changes (option D)—relate to different aspects of testing, such as reliability, performance, and maintainability, which are not directly associated with security testing.

For Multiple Condition Coverage, each combination of conditions must be tested to ensure all possible outcomes are covered. Given the decision IF X < 5 OR Y > 10 THEN and the test inputs X=6 and Y=12 and X=5 and Y=10, we need to find additional test cases to achieve full coverage. The conditions are:

Condition 1: X < 5

Condition 2: Y > 10

Let's examine the options:

Option A:

X=4 and Y=7 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is false; overall decision true)

X=10 and Y=15 (X < 5 is false, Y > 10 is true; overall decision true)

X=8 and Y=8 (X < 5 is false, Y > 10 is false; overall decision false)

This set covers all possible outcomes but does not provide the minimal set for MC/DC.

Option B:

X=0 and Y=10 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is false; overall decision true)

X=4 and Y=4 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is false; overall decision true)

This set does not fully achieve multiple condition coverage as it misses the combination where X < 5 is false and Y > 10 is true.

Option C:

X=2 and Y=12 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is true; overall decision true)

X=6 and Y=4 (X < 5 is false, Y > 10 is false; overall decision false)

This set, combined with the initial inputs (X=6 and Y=12, X=5 and Y=10), ensures that all condition combinations are tested, achieving full multiple condition coverage.

Option D:

X=3 and Y=10 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is false; overall decision true)

X=0 and Y=15 (X < 5 is true, Y > 10 is true; overall decision true)

This set does not fully achieve multiple condition coverage as it does not test the combination where both conditions are false.

Therefore, the correct answer is C. X=2 and Y=12, X=6 and Y=4.

Table 3 provides the best test coverage for the described scenario, as it includes various key test conditions:

Attempting to add a non-existent member, resulting in an error.

Trying to add a member twice to the same group, leading to an error for duplicate entry.

Removing a member from the group.

Attempting to delete a group that is not empty, which correctly results in an error, and finally deleting a group when it is empty.

This table most comprehensively covers the functionalities and error handling specified in the enhancement details, effectively testing all scenarios including normal and exceptional behavior .

Analysis:

Understanding the roles and functionalities of component testing tools and build automation tools is crucial for effective software development and testing processes.

B. In a full continuous integration process, build automation tools are typically used to trigger the builds by every commit to a repository:

This is a fundamental function of build automation tools in continuous integration environments. They automatically trigger builds whenever code changes are committed to the repository, ensuring that the codebase is continuously tested and integrated.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

A. Build automation tools allow users to change variable values during execution and step through the code of each component line by line:

This describes a function of debugging tools, not build automation tools.

C. Build automation tools cannot be used to periodically schedule the builds, for example during the night:

This is incorrect as build automation tools can indeed schedule builds at specified times.

D. Component testing tools are not used for writing tests at component level but to automate the component testing:

Component testing tools are used for writing and automating tests at the component level.

References:

The ISTQB CTAL-TTA syllabus and standard practices in continuous integration and build automation highlight the role of build automation tools in triggering and scheduling builds.

Sources:

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus

General knowledge on continuous integration and build automation.

In software testing, especially within contexts like nuclear power plants, achieving a "highly recommended" level of coverage often requires strategic test case selection to verify all logical conditions are accurately assessed. For the condition "If ((A > B) or (C > D)) and (E = F) then print A", the critical tests involve evaluating the boolean logic.

Test Case Analysis: Test Set 1 is selected because it should ideally include scenarios where:

Both conditions (A > B) and (C > D) are true, and (E = F) is true to ensure the print statement executes.

One of the conditions (A > B) or (C > D) is false while the other is true, combined with (E = F) being true, to test the OR logic.

Both conditions (A > B) and (C > D) are false with (E = F) being true, which should not trigger the print statement, testing the AND logic.

Condition where (E != F), irrespective of other conditions, to confirm that the print statement does not execute.

For a Medium risk mission- or safety-critical system, the best testing approach includes a combination of automated tests, exploratory tests, and manual black-box tests. Option B is the most comprehensive, advocating for automated tests to ensure reliability and repeatability, highly recommending exploratory tests to cover unforeseen scenarios, and recommending manual black-box tests to cover standard use cases. This multifaceted approach ensures thorough testing coverage essential for medium risk, safety-critical systems​​.

A generic risk factor that a Technical Test Analyst must consider is the integration of new technology into a product. This is because new technologies can introduce complexities and unknowns in performance, compatibility, and security, which can impact the overall quality and reliability of the product. Evaluating such integration risks is crucial for preparing effective test strategies and ensuring that the product meets its intended functionality and quality standards​​.

The key context here is the challenge of managing limited resources, particularly ROM and RAM, due to severe restrictions on code size in consumer electronics. Lazy instantiation is a design pattern that defers the creation of an object until the first time it is needed. This approach can significantly reduce the application's memory footprint by avoiding unnecessary pre-allocation of memory, which is particularly valuable in systems where memory resources are constrained. In reviewing the architecture for such a system, it's crucial to ensure that objects are only created when necessary and that memory is optimally managed. Hence, the focus on lazy instantiation would be most important to ensure that the system uses resources efficiently and remains within the restricted code size.

Model-based testing tools support the creation and execution of tests based on models of the system under test. Finite state machines (FSMs) are often used in model-based testing to describe the expected behavior of a system during execution. FSMs help in defining the states of the system and the transitions between these states based on events, which can then be used to generate test cases that validate the system's behavior against the model.

Story Mapping is an effective requirements engineering technique used in Agile environments to provide a visual representation of the system. It helps in understanding the 'overall' story and functional flow by mapping user stories along a timeline or process steps, laying them out in a two-dimensional structure that represents the product backlog. This technique is particularly useful for visualizing the scope of large features or entire systems, making it easier to plan releases and improve understanding among the team .

In this scenario, the risk is related to the anticipated increase in concurrent website views and whether the additional servers will be sufficient to handle the increased load. This situation requires a specific type of non-functional testing to ensure that the system can effectively scale with the increased demand.

Analysis of Options:

Load Testing:

Load testing involves simulating a specified number of users to see how the system performs under expected loads. While this is useful, it is not the best fit for this scenario where the primary concern is future scaling capacity.

Adaptability Testing:

Adaptability testing assesses how well the system adapts to different environments or conditions. This is not directly related to the risk of handling increased concurrent users and is therefore not the best choice.

Scalability Testing (Option C):

Scalability testing specifically evaluates how well the system can scale up or down in response to an increase in load. This type of testing is designed to verify that the system can handle growth in users and data volume effectively, making it the best choice to mitigate the risk described.

Reliability Testing:

Reliability testing focuses on the system's ability to function correctly over time under certain conditions. While reliability is important, it does not directly address the issue of handling increased concurrent usage.

Mitigating the Risk:

Given the risk of the servers potentially not being adequate to handle the increased concurrent website views, scalability testing is the most appropriate type of non-functional testing. It will help determine if the two additional servers, along with the existing one, can support the anticipated growth in user traffic without performance degradation.

References:

The ISTQB CTAL-TTA syllabus and standard non-functional testing practices emphasize the importance of scalability testing when assessing the ability of a system to handle increased load and user concurrency.

Sources:

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus

General knowledge on non-functional testing types and their applications.

The most likely pair of requirements engineering techniques used to uncover the issues mentioned with the user story would be "Storyboards and Personas." This approach allows for a visual and persona-based exploration of how different users (such as drivers of different vehicle types and disabled drivers) would interact with the system. This technique helps in uncovering varied user needs and ensuring that all critical user interactions are considered during the development process​​.

Analyzing the given pseudocode for potential anomalies in data flow:

Declare C, F, Z Decimal Set Z = 32 Read F Set C = (F-Z) * 5/9 Free C, F, Z Print F

The potential anomaly is with variable F. It is used after being freed, which typically indicates an error in managing the variable's lifecycle within the code.

Explanation: Freeing a variable typically indicates that it is no longer available for use, but F is used after this operation, which could result in undefined behavior or errors.

Context of the Problem:

The software component handles sensor management.

It is used in manufacturing processes that work at SIL 2 and avionics systems.

Failure could lead to a "major" incident.

The code contains decisions with multiple conditions and no loops.

Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 2:

SIL 2 indicates that the software must adhere to stringent safety standards.

Avionics systems also require high safety standards due to the potential consequences of failure.

Testing Options:

MC/DC (Modified Condition/Decision Coverage):

MC/DC is essential for high-integrity and safety-critical systems like avionics.

Ensures each condition in a decision has been shown to independently affect the outcome.

Required by standards such as DO-178C for avionics software at certain levels.

API Coverage:

Focuses on testing the interfaces between components.

Important but not sufficient alone for high-integrity, safety-critical systems.

Decision Coverage:

Ensures that each decision point (i.e., if statements) is evaluated as both true and false.

Less comprehensive than MC/DC for safety-critical applications.

Statement Coverage:

Ensures that each statement in the code has been executed at least once.

Basic level of coverage, insufficient for safety-critical systems like those at SIL 2.

Best Option:

Given the high safety requirements (SIL 2, major incident potential), MC/DC coverage is the best option. It provides a thorough level of testing needed to meet safety standards.

A unit test being 'deterministic' means that whenever it is run under the same conditions, it should produce the same results. This characteristic is crucial for reliable, repeatable testing outcomes that are not influenced by external factors or previous test states .

Dynamic analysis involves evaluating a system or component based on its behavior during execution. This type of analysis is particularly useful for identifying issues related to memory usage and pointer management. The focus is on runtime behaviors that can't be detected through static analysis alone.

Identifiable Issues via Dynamic Analysis:

System Memory Not Released (Memory Leaks):

System memory not released when it is no longer needed (Option C) can be identified through dynamic analysis. Tools and techniques used in dynamic analysis can track memory allocation and deallocation during program execution, revealing instances where memory is allocated but not freed properly.

Pointers in a Program (Dangling Pointers):

Pointers in a program that are no longer accurate and must not be used (Option D) can also be identified through dynamic analysis. This includes issues like dangling pointers (pointers that refer to memory that has been freed) or wild pointers (uninitialized pointers). Dynamic analysis tools can detect when pointers are used incorrectly or point to invalid memory locations during runtime.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

A. Objects having too much or too little visibility into parent classes: This is more related to design and structure, typically identified via static analysis or code reviews rather than dynamic analysis.

B. Repetition of code within a single component or module: This is a code quality issue often detected through static code analysis or manual code review.

E. Code that cannot be reached and so will not be executed: This is typically identified through static analysis tools that perform code coverage analysis or by manual code inspection.

References:

Although specific references from the provided documents were not found directly related to dynamic analysis, the general understanding and standard practices of software testing support the answer given. For example, the ISTQB syllabus and various testing literature highlight memory management and pointer issues as typical concerns addressed through dynamic analysis.

Sources:

General knowledge on dynamic analysis in software testing.

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus and standard practices in software testing.

In the context of safety-critical systems, particularly in the medical domain, reliability is of utmost importance. For such systems, it is crucial to ensure that the software can handle unexpected input values and continue to operate without failure. This is essential to ensure patient safety and compliance with FDA requirements. Vulnerability scans (option A) are more related to security testing, whereas scalability (option C) and installation/de-installation (option D) are important but not specifically related to the reliability and safety criticality of the system in the medical domain.

For a project where the reuse of software components is a key objective, it is essential to ensure that all modules, data, and interfaces are uniquely identified. This facilitates the tracking, maintenance, and reuse of these components in different parts of the software or in other projects. Unique identification helps in preventing confusion and conflicts that may arise due to the reuse of components that have the same name but different functionalities or interfaces.

In the context of a software company in Spain developing mobile applications with an expectation of many small updates due to changing configurations and customer feedback, focusing on being able to change the software effectively and efficiently during initial development without introducing new defects is crucial. The maintainability sub-characteristic that should be covered by the test approach during the initial development is Modifiability.

Modifiability refers to the ease with which a software product can be modified to correct faults, improve performance or other attributes, or adapt to a changed environment. In a scenario where frequent and small updates are anticipated, ensuring that the software architecture and design support easy modification is vital. This not only aids in implementing changes more rapidly but also helps in maintaining the stability and integrity of the application, thereby preventing the introduction of new defects. The focus on modifiability ensures that the software remains responsive to customer feedback and evolving requirements without compromising on quality or performance.