CS0-003 Exam Dumps - CompTIA CySA+ Questions and Answers

Deduplication is a process that involves removing any duplicate or redundant data or information from a data set or source. Deduplication can help consolidate several threat intelligence feeds by eliminating any overlapping or repeated indicators of compromise (IoCs), alerts, reports, or recommendations. Deduplication can also help reduce the volume and complexity of threat intelligence data, as well as improve its quality, accuracy, or relevance.

Under the terms of PCI DSS, an organization that has experienced a breach of customer transactions should report the breach to the card issuer. The card issuer is the financial institution that issues the payment cards to the customers and that is responsible for authorizing and processing the transactions. The card issuer may have specific reporting requirements and procedures for the organization to follow in the event of a breach. The organization should also notify other parties that may be affected by the breach, such as customers, law enforcement, or regulators, depending on the nature and scope of the breach. Official References: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/

A security analyst’s concern is that any discovered vulnerabilities in the OS that is approaching the end-of-life date will not be remediated by the vendor, leaving the system exposed to potential attacks. The other options are not directly related to the security analyst’s role or responsibility. Verified References: CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+) Certification Exam Objectives, page 9, section 2.21

A Service-Level Agreement (SLA) is a document that establishes customer expectations regarding the performance and quality of services provided by the SOC (Security Operations Center). It defines thelevel of service expected, including aspects like response times, availability, and support after regular work hours. An SLA helps in setting clear expectations and improving customer satisfaction by outlining the standards and commitments of the service provider.

Before taking any action, the SOC analyst should first verify if the Indicators of Compromise (IoC) and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) reported are relevant to the organization’s environment. This involves checking if the vulnerable application or version is actually in use. As per CompTIA’s CySA+ guidelines, relevance verification helps in prioritizing resources and response actionseffectively, ensuring that time is not wasted on threats that do not impact the organization. Options A, B, and D are important subsequent steps if the threat is deemed relevant.

The best option to quickly find out whether the IP address in a SIEM alert is a known-malicious IP address is C. Add data enrichment for IPS in the ingestion pipeline.

Data enrichment is the process of adding more information and context to raw data, such as IP addresses, by using external sources. Data enrichment can help analysts to gain more insights into the nature and origin of the threats they face, and to prioritize and respond to them accordingly. Dataenrichment for IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) means that the IPS can use enriched data to block or alert on malicious traffic based on various criteria, such as geolocation, reputation, threat intelligence, or behavior. By adding data enrichment for IPS in the ingestion pipeline, analysts can leverage the IPS’s capabilities to filter out known-malicious IP addresses before they reach the SIEM, or to tag them with relevant information for further analysis. This can save time and resources for the analysts, and improve the accuracy and efficiency of the SIEM.

The other options are not as effective or efficient as data enrichment for IPS in the ingestion pipeline. Joining an information sharing and analysis center (ISAC) specific to the company’s industry (A) can provide valuable threat intelligence and best practices, but it may not be timely or comprehensive enough to cover all possible malicious IP addresses. Uploading threat intelligence to the IPS in STIX/TAXII format (B) can help the IPS to identify and block malicious IP addresses based on standardized indicators of compromise, but it may require manual or periodic updates and integration with the SIEM. Reviewing threat feeds after viewing the SIEM alert (D) can help analysts to verify and contextualize the malicious IP addresses, but it may be too late or too slow to prevent or mitigate the damage. Therefore, C is the best option among the choices given.

The correct answer is D. Disconnect the access point from the network.

A rogue access point is a wireless access point that has been installed on a network without the authorization or knowledge of the network administrator. A rogue access point can pose a serious security risk, as it can allow unauthorized users to access the network, intercept network traffic, or launch attacks against the network or its devices1234.

The first action that should be taken to protect the network while preserving evidence is to disconnect the rogue access point from the network. This will prevent any further damage or compromise of the network by blocking the access point from communicating with other devices or users. Disconnecting the rogue access point will also preserve its state and configuration, which can be useful for forensic analysis and investigation. Disconnecting the rogue access point can be done physically by unplugging it from the network port or wirelessly by disabling its radio frequency5.

The other options are not the best actions to take first, as they may not protect the network or preserve evidence effectively.

Option A is not the best action to take first, as running a packet sniffer to monitor traffic to and from the access point may not stop the rogue access point from causing harm to the network. A packet sniffer is a tool that captures and analyzes network packets, which are units of data that travel across a network. A packet sniffer can be useful for identifying and troubleshooting network problems, but it may not be able to prevent or block malicious traffic from a rogue access point. Moreover, running a packet sniffer may require additional time and resources, which could delay the response and mitigation of the incident5.

Option B is not the best action to take first, as connecting to the access point and examining its log files may not protect the network or preserve evidence. Connecting to the access point may expose the analyst’s device or credentials to potential attacks or compromise by the rogue access point. Examining its log files may provide some information about the origin and activity of the rogue access point, but it may also alter or delete some evidence that could be useful for forensic analysis and investigation. Furthermore, connecting to the access point and examining its log files may not prevent or stop the rogue access point from continuing to harm the network5.

Option C is not the best action to take first, as identifying who is connected to the access point and attempting to find the attacker may not protect the network or preserve evidence. Identifying who is connected to the access point may require additional tools or techniques, such as scanning for wireless devices or analyzing network traffic, which could take time and resources away from responding and mitigating the incident. Attempting to find the attacker may also be difficult or impossible, as the attacker may use various methods to hide their identity or location, such as encryption, spoofing, or proxy servers. Moreover, identifying who is connected to the access point and attempting to find the attacker may not prevent or stop the rogue access point from causing further damage or compromise to the network5.

The MTTR (Mean Time to Resolution) decreases by 20% is the best possible outcome that this effort hopes to achieve, as it reflects the improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the incident response process by reducing analyst alert fatigue. Analyst alert fatigue is a term that refers to the phenomenon of security analysts becoming overwhelmed, desensitized, or exhausted by the large number of alerts they receive from various security tools or systems, such as DLP (Data Loss Prevention) or CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker). DLP is a security solution that helps to prevent unauthorized access, use, or transfer of sensitive data, such as personal information, intellectual property, or financial records. CASB is a security solution that helps to monitor and control the use of cloud-based applications and services, such as SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), or IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service). Both DLP and CASB can generate alerts when they detect potential data breaches, policy violations, or malicious activities, but they can also produce false positives, irrelevant information, or duplicate notifications that can overwhelm or distract the security analysts. Analyst alert fatigue can have negative consequences for the security posture and performance of an organization, such as missing or ignoring critical alerts, delaying or skipping investigations or remediations, making errors or mistakes, or losing motivation or morale. Therefore, it is important to reduce analyst alert fatigue and optimize the alert management process by using various strategies, such as tuning the alert thresholds and rules, prioritizing and triaging the alerts based on severity and context, enriching and correlating the alerts with additional data sources, automating or orchestrating repetitive or low-level tasks or actions, or integrating and consolidating different security tools or systems into a unified platform. By reducing analyst alert fatigue and optimizing the alert management process, the effort hopes to achieve a decrease in the MTTR, which is a metric that measures the average time it takes to resolve an incident from the moment it is reported to the moment it is closed. Alower MTTR indicates a faster and more effective incident response process, which can help to minimize the impact and damage of security incidents, improve customer satisfaction and trust, and enhance security operations and outcomes. The other options are not as relevant or realistic as the MTTR decreases by 20%, as they do not reflect the best possible outcome that this effort hopes to achieve. SIEM ingestion logs are reduced by 20% is not a relevant outcome, as it does not indicate any improvement in the incident response process or any reduction in analyst alert fatigue. SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) is a security solution that collects and analyzes data from various sources, such as logs, events, or alerts, and provides security monitoring, threat detection, and incident response capabilities. SIEM ingestion logs are records of the data that is ingested by the SIEM system from different sources. Reducing SIEM ingestion logs may imply less data volume or less data sources for the SIEM system, which may not necessarily improve its performance or accuracy. Phishing alerts drop by 20% is not a realistic outcome, as it does not depend on the integration of DLP and CASB or any reduction in analyst alert fatigue. Phishing alerts are notifications that indicate potential phishing attempts or attacks, such as fraudulent emails, websites, or messages that try to trick users into revealing sensitive information or installing malware. Phishing alerts can be generated by various security tools or systems, such as email security solutions, web security solutions, endpoint security solutions, or user awareness training programs. Reducing phishing alerts may imply less phishing attempts or attacks on the organization, which may not necessarily be influenced by the integration of DLP and CASB or any reduction in analyst alert fatigue. False positive rates drop to 20% is not a realistic outcome

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In digital forensics, a write blocker is a critical tool used to prevent any modifications to the source drive during imaging. When a forensic image is created, it should be an exact bit-for-bit copy of the original evidence. If a write blocker is not used, system processes or other unintended changes can alter the contents of the drive, leading to a hash mismatch between the original and the image copy​.

Chain of custody (Option A)ensures proper documentation of who accessed the evidence, but it does not directly affect the hash values.

Legal authorization (Option B)is necessary but unrelated to the technical integrity of the image.

Data integrity verification (Option C)is part of the process, but in this scenario, the failure to maintain integrity stems from the lack of a write blocker​.

Thus, the correct answer isD, as using a write blocker would have prevented any unintended changes to the data​.

Incident response playbooksprovide a structuredstep-by-step guidefor handling security incidents. Theydefine actions to takewhen specificthreat indicators or eventsoccur, ensuring acoordinated and consistent response​.

Option A (Prioritizing business-critical assets)relates more todisaster recovery (DR)than incident response.

Option C (Documenting asset management)is part ofIT governance, not incident response.

Option D (Defining DR sites)falls underbusiness continuity planning, not real-time incident handling.

Thus,B is the best answer, asplaybooks are designed to trigger appropriate responses to incidents​.