CompTIA CS0-003 Practice Test

Explanation :

The question is part of the Vulnerability Management domain (30% weighting) of the CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) exam, aligning with Objective 2.2 (Given a scenario, analyze output from vulnerability assessment tools) and Objective 2.3 (Given a scenario, prioritize vulnerabilities). The scenario describes a vulnerability scan revealing numerous critical and high findings that must be patched within a Service Level Agreement (SLA) timeframe. The goal is to identify the best approach to ensure timely remediation. The correct answer must focus on efficient, scalable, and trackable patch management, per CS0-003’s emphasis on vulnerability prioritization and NIST SP 800-53 (RA-5) guidelines.

Correct Answer:

Integrate an IT service delivery ticketing system to track remediation and closure.
Integrating an IT service delivery ticketing system is the best approach to ensure all vulnerabilities are patched within the SLA timeframe. A ticketing system (e.g., ServiceNow, Jira) assigns, tracks, and prioritizes remediation tasks, ensuring accountability and visibility. For example, critical and high findings can be assigned to IT teams with deadlines, and the system logs completion status, providing auditable evidence of compliance. This scalable solution handles large volumes of findings efficiently, automates workflows, and monitors progress, aligning with CS0-003 Objective 2.3 for prioritizing and remediating vulnerabilities. NIST SP 800-53 (RA-5) emphasizes structured processes for vulnerability management, making ticketing systems ideal for meeting SLA requirements while ensuring no patches are missed.

Incorrect Answers:

1)Create a compensating control item until the system can be fully patched.
Creating compensating controls, such as firewall rules or network segmentation, mitigates risk temporarily when immediate patching isn’t feasible. However, this does not ensure vulnerabilities are patched within the SLA, as it delays remediation rather than addressing it directly. For example, a compensating control might block exploit attempts but leaves systems vulnerable until patched. For CS0-003 Objective 2.3, compensating controls are a secondary measure when patching is delayed, not a primary solution for SLA compliance. NIST SP 800-53 (RA-5) prioritizes timely patching over temporary mitigations, making a ticketing system more effective for ensuring SLA adherence.

2)Accept the risk and decommission current assets as end of life.
Accepting the risk and decommissioning assets as end-of-life avoids patching by retiring vulnerable systems. However, this is impractical for a large number of critical and high findings, as decommissioning functional assets disrupts operations and may not be feasible within the SLA timeframe. It also fails to address vulnerabilities on active systems. For CS0-003 Objective 2.3, risk acceptance is a last resort, not a proactive remediation strategy. NIST SP 800-53 (RA-5) emphasizes patching to reduce risk, making a ticketing system the better choice for tracking and ensuring timely remediation across all affected systems.

3)Request an exception and manually patch each system.
Requesting an exception defers SLA compliance, which doesn’t ensure timely patching and may violate organizational policies. Manually patching each system is inefficient for a large number of findings, risking missed deadlines and human error. For example, manual patching lacks centralized tracking, making it hard to verify completion within the SLA. For CS0-003 Objective 2.3, manual processes are error-prone and unscalable compared to automated tracking. NIST SP 800-53 (RA-5) recommends systematic approaches like ticketing systems to manage remediation, ensuring efficiency and accountability, unlike the slow and unreliable manual patching process.

References:

CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives: Domain 2 (Vulnerability Management), Objective 2.2 (Given a scenario, analyze output from vulnerability assessment tools) and Objective 2.3 (Given a scenario, prioritize vulnerabilities).

NIST SP 800-53: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, RA-5 (Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning).

Sybex CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Mike Chapple and David Seidl: Covers vulnerability management and ticketing systems.

Udemy: CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Complete Course by Jason Dion: Discusses patch management and SLA compliance.

SANS Institute: Resources on vulnerability remediation workflows and ticketing systems.

Additional Notes:

Patch Management: CS0-003 tests prioritizing and tracking remediation, often in PBQs involving vulnerability scan reports and SLA deadlines.

Ticketing Systems: Tools like ServiceNow automate task assignment and tracking, critical for managing large-scale remediation efforts.

SLA Compliance: Audits require evidence of timely patching, making systematic tracking via ticketing systems essential, as per NIST SP 800-53.

Explanation:

The code snippet provided is a classic example of a SQL injection attack, where an attacker manipulates a SQL query to bypass authentication or extract sensitive data. The use of OR 1=1 is a well-known technique to force the query to return all records, regardless of the intended logic. CompTIA’s CySA+ CS0-003 exam highlights input validation as a primary defense against such attacks.

Correct Answer:

Validate user input:
Validating user input is the most effective control to mitigate SQL injection attacks. This involves ensuring that all data entered by users is properly sanitized and conforms to expected formats before being processed by the application.

Techniques include:
Using parameterized queries or prepared statements to separate SQL logic from user input.

Escaping special characters that could alter SQL syntax.

Implementing whitelisting to allow only known-good input values.

Rejecting or sanitizing unexpected input types or patterns.

CompTIA emphasizes input validation as a foundational security control in secure coding practices. It prevents attackers from injecting malicious SQL code and helps maintain the integrity and confidentiality of the database.

Incorrect Answer:

Deploy a wireless application protocol
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) is unrelated to SQL injection mitigation. It’s a communication protocol used for mobile devices accessing internet services. Deploying WAP does not affect how web applications handle database queries or user input. CompTIA does not associate WAP with web application security controls.

Remove the end-of-life component:
While removing outdated or unsupported components is a good security practice, it does not directly address the SQL injection vulnerability shown in the code. The exploit is due to poor input handling, not obsolete software. CompTIA recommends removing end-of-life components to reduce exposure to unpatched vulnerabilities, but this is not the best control for this specific scenario.

Implement proper access control:
Access control governs who can access what resources, but it does not prevent SQL injection. Even with strict access permissions, a vulnerable query can be exploited if input is not validated. CompTIA distinguishes between authorization controls and input validation, and in this case, the latter is the appropriate defense.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Official Study Guide

CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Exam Objectives – Domain 2.1: Apply secure coding practices

CompTIA CertMaster Learn for CySA+ CS0-003

Explanation:

The question falls within the Reporting and Communication domain (17% weighting) of the CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) exam, aligning with Objective 4.1 (Given a scenario, produce a report to communicate security information to stakeholders) and touches on Security Operations (Objective 1.5: Recommend process improvements to security operations). The scenario describes a CISO using lessons learned from an after-action report, identifying that staff using legacy applications struggle to differentiate between non-malicious and phishing emails. The action plan must address this human-related vulnerability to improve security posture. The correct answer should focus on mitigating phishing risks through staff behavior, per CS0-003’s emphasis on post-incident remediation and NIST SP 800-53 guidelines.

Correct Answer:

Awareness training and education
Awareness training and education is the best action for the CISO to include in the action plan to remediate staff members’ inability to differentiate between non-malicious and phishing emails. Phishing exploits human vulnerabilities, often tricking users into clicking malicious links or sharing credentials. Training programs teach employees to recognize phishing indicators, such as suspicious sender addresses or urgent language, reducing the likelihood of successful attacks. For example, regular simulations and education on email security best practices can improve staff vigilance, even with legacy applications. This aligns with CS0-003 Objective 1.5, emphasizing process improvements, and NIST SP 800-53 (AT-2), which mandates security awareness training to address insider threats. Training directly targets the identified issue, enhancing user behavior and security posture.

Incorrect Answers:


1)Replacement of legacy applications: Replacing legacy applications addresses technical vulnerabilities, such as unsupported software or outdated security features, but does not directly resolve the issue of staff failing to recognize phishing emails. Legacy applications may lack modern security controls, but the after-action report specifically highlights a human knowledge gap, not a technical one. For example, upgrading systems won’t teach users to identify phishing attempts. For CS0-003 Objective 1.5, replacing applications is a secondary measure for system hardening, not user education. NIST SP 800-53 (SA-11) supports maintaining supported software, but training is more effective for addressing the human-related phishing issue identified in the report.

2)Organizational governance: Organizational governance involves establishing policies, procedures, and oversight to ensure security compliance. While valuable for setting email security standards, it does not directly address the staff’s lack of ability to distinguish phishing emails. Governance might mandate training or email filters, but it’s a high-level approach, not a direct remediation for the knowledge gap. For CS0-003 Objective 4.1, governance supports reporting and policy enforcement, but NIST SP 800-53 (PM-1) emphasizes it as a framework, not a specific fix. Awareness training directly improves staff skills, making it the better choice for addressing the phishing recognition issue identified in the after-action report.

3)Multifactor authentication on all systems: Multifactor authentication (MFA) enhances security by requiring additional verification, reducing the risk of compromised credentials from phishing. However, it does not address the root issue of staff failing to recognize phishing emails, as users may still click malicious links or download malware. For example, MFA protects account access but not other phishing outcomes like data leakage. For CS0-003 Objective 1.5, MFA (NIST SP 800-53 IA-2) is a complementary control but secondary to training, which directly improves phishing detection skills. Awareness training is more effective for remediating the specific human vulnerability identified in the report.

References:

CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives: Domain 1 (Security Operations), Objective 1.5 (Recommend process improvements to security operations) and Domain 4 (Reporting and Communication), Objective 4.1 (Given a scenario, produce a report to communicate security information to stakeholders).

NIST SP 800-53: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, AT-2 (Security Awareness Training) and related controls.

Sybex CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Mike Chapple and David Seidl: Covers phishing mitigation and awareness training.

Udemy: CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Complete Course by Jason Dion: Discusses security awareness for phishing prevention. SANS Institute: Resources on phishing awareness training and post-incident remediation.

Additional Notes:

Phishing Risks: Phishing is a common attack vector tested in CS0-003, often in PBQs requiring analysis of email headers or mitigation strategies.

After-Action Reports: CS0-003 emphasizes lessons learned to improve security processes, with training as a key remediation for human errors.

Security Awareness: NIST SP 800-53 (AT-2) highlights training as critical for reducing insider threats, a focus of CS0-003’s human-centric security approach.

Explanation:

When a CISO is concerned about a persistent threat actor targeting the organization, the goal is to simulate real-world attack scenarios to evaluate how well the organization can detect, respond to, and recover from such threats. CompTIA’s CySA+ CS0-003 exam emphasizes threat modeling and proactive testing to strengthen defenses against advanced adversaries.

Correct Answer:

Adversary emulation :
Adversary emulation is a technique that mimics the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) of known threat actors to test an organization’s security posture. It goes beyond traditional penetration testing by replicating the behavior of specific attackers, often using frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK. This allows security teams to:

Identify detection gaps

Validate incident response capabilities

Improve threat hunting strategies

Strengthen defenses against long-term intrusions

CompTIA highlights adversary emulation as a critical method for assessing resilience against targeted and persistent threats, especially those that aim to remain undetected within the network.

Incorrect Answer:

Vulnerability scanning:
Vulnerability scanning identifies known weaknesses in systems and software. While useful for patch management and risk reduction, it does not simulate attacker behavior or test detection and response capabilities. It’s a preventive measure, not a threat simulation.

Passive discovery:
Passive discovery involves monitoring network traffic to identify assets and services without actively probing them. It’s valuable for asset inventory and visibility but does not test how a threat actor might behave or how the organization would respond to an intrusion.

Bug bounty:
Bug bounty programs invite external researchers to find vulnerabilities in exchange for rewards. While they can uncover real issues, they are not tailored to specific threat actors and do not simulate persistent attacks. They also lack the structured approach of adversary emulation.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Official Study Guide
CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Exam Objectives – Domain 1.4: Use threat intelligence to support security operations
CompTIA CertMaster Learn for CySA+ CS0-003

Explanation:

Brute-force attacks against Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) are a common threat vector, especially when attackers target valid domain accounts. To reduce the rate of success, organizations must implement controls that limit access and disrupt repeated login attempts. According to CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 exam guidance, the most effective strategies involve account lockout policies and network-level restrictions.

Correct Answers:

Configure user account lockout after a limited number of failed attempts:
This control directly mitigates brute-force attacks by locking the account after a set number of failed login attempts. It prevents attackers from continuously guessing passwords and forces a manual unlock or delay, which slows down or halts the attack. CompTIA emphasizes account lockout policies as a critical defense against credential-based attacks, especially when valid usernames are targeted.

Block inbound to TCP port 3389 from untrusted remote IP addresses at the perimeter firewall:
RDP uses TCP port 3389. By blocking inbound traffic to this port from untrusted or unknown IP addresses, the organization can limit exposure to external threats. This control reduces the attack surface and ensures that only authorized sources can initiate RDP sessions. CompTIA recommends network segmentation and firewall rules as part of layered defense strategies to protect remote access services.

Incorrect Answers:

Increase the granularity of log-on event auditing on all devices
While useful for monitoring and investigation, this control does not actively prevent or reduce brute-force attempts. It enhances visibility but lacks enforcement capabilities.

Enable host firewall rules to block all outbound traffic to TCP port 3389
Outbound traffic on port 3389 is not typically relevant to RDP brute-force attacks, which involve inbound authentication attempts. Blocking outbound traffic may disrupt legitimate operations without addressing the core issue.

Implement a firewall block for the IP address of the remote system
Blocking a specific IP may stop the current attack, but it’s a reactive measure. Attackers can easily switch IPs. CompTIA favors policy-based controls over ad hoc blocks for sustained protection.

Install a third-party remote access tool and disable RDP on all devices
Replacing RDP might be a long-term strategy, but it’s not an immediate control to reduce brute-force success. It also introduces new risks and requires careful planning and testing.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Official Study Guide
CompTIA CySA+ CS0-003 Exam Objectives – Domain 2.3: Implement secure remote access methods
CompTIA CertMaster Learn for CySA+ CS0-003

Explanation:

Correct Answer:

Vulnerability 1 CVSS Vector:

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L

Interpretation:

AV:N – Attack Vector: Network (most dangerous, remotely exploitable)

AC:L – Attack Complexity: Low (easy to exploit)

PR:N – Privileges Required: None (attacker doesn’t need credentials)

UI:N – User Interaction: None (attack can happen automatically)

S:U – Scope: Unchanged

C:H/I:L/A:L – High Confidentiality impact, Low Integrity & Availability impact

➡ This means:

Remote exploitability

No user interaction or credentials needed

High data exposure

Easy to execute

This combination results in a high severity score, likely 8.6 or higher on the CVSS 3.0 scale, and poses the greatest risk among the four.

Explanation of Incorrect Answers:

Vulnerability 2:

AV:L – Requires local access to the system

AC:H – High complexity (harder to exploit)

Although it has high availability impact, its local scope and high complexity make it less urgent than Vulnerability 1.

Vulnerability 3:

AV:A – Adjacent network (e.g., same subnet or VPN)

AC:H & UI:R – High complexity & requires user interaction

PR:L – Requires limited privileges

➡ Lower risk due to limited reach and complexity. Not as urgent as Vulnerability 1.

Vulnerability 4

CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:L

AV:P – Physical access required

PR:H – High privileges required

Confidentiality impact is high, but since the attacker must be physically present with admin rights, it's very limited in scope.

Reference:

NIST SP 800-30 & SP 800-40 – Guidelines for prioritizing vulnerability remediation

Explanation:

The question asks for the best agent-based endpoint solution to help a corporation flag various threats, review vulnerability feeds, aggregate data, and provide real-time metrics using scripting languages. SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response) is the most suitable tool, as it integrates threat detection, vulnerability management, data aggregation, and automation capabilities, including support for scripting languages, to meet these goals. This aligns with the CS0-003 exam’s Security Operations (Domain 1) and Incident Response and Management (Domain 3) objectives, which emphasize automated threat detection, response, and data integration in a SOC environment.

Why C is Correct:

SOAR Capabilities:

Flag Various Threats: SOAR platforms (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR) integrate with endpoint agents (e.g., EDR tools like CrowdStrike, SentinelOne) to detect and flag threats such as malware, ransomware, or insider activity by analyzing endpoint data and correlating with threat intelligence.

Review Vulnerability Feeds: SOAR aggregates vulnerability data from feeds (e.g., Qualys, Tenable) and threat intelligence sources (e.g., STIX/TAXII), enabling automated review and prioritization of vulnerabilities based on risk.

Aggregate Data: SOAR centralizes data from endpoints, network devices, and security tools (e.g., SIEM, firewalls) into a unified platform, providing a holistic view of the security posture.

Provide Real-Time Metrics Using Scripting Languages: SOAR supports scripting (e.g., Python, PowerShell) for custom workflows, automating real-time metric generation (e.g., MTTD, MTTR, threat detection rates) displayed via dashboards or reports.

Agent-Based Endpoint Solution: SOAR integrates with agent-based EDR/XDR tools (e.g., SentinelOne Singularity, CrowdStrike Falcon) that deploy lightweight agents on endpoints to collect telemetry, detect threats, and enable automated responses. These agents feed data into the SOAR platform for orchestration and analysis.

Healthcare Context: In a healthcare organization (per prior questions), SOAR ensures rapid threat detection and response to protect PHI, automates compliance reporting (e.g., HIPAA), and aggregates endpoint data to monitor for vulnerabilities or attacks.

CS0-003 Alignment: Domain 1 emphasizes automating security operations and integrating tools for threat detection, while Domain 3 focuses on orchestrating incident response, both supported by SOAR’s capabilities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. DLP (Data Loss Prevention)
Reason: DLP focuses on preventing unauthorized data exfiltration (e.g., blocking PII in emails). While it can use endpoint agents to monitor data, it doesn’t primarily flag threats, review vulnerability feeds, or provide real-time metrics via scripting. Its scope is data protection, not broad threat detection or orchestration.

B. Heuristics
Reason: Heuristics refers to behavior-based analysis techniques (e.g., detecting anomalies in endpoint activity), not a standalone tool. While heuristics may be used within EDR or SOAR, it’s not an agent-based solution and doesn’t support data aggregation or scripting for metrics, making it unsuitable for the corporation’s goals.

D. NAC (Network Access Control)
Reason: NAC enforces policies to control network access (e.g., ensuring devices meet security standards before connecting). It doesn’t deploy endpoint agents for threat detection, vulnerability review, or data aggregation, nor does it provide real-time metrics via scripting. NAC focuses on access control, not incident response or orchestration.

Additional Context:

SOAR in Action:

Threat Flagging: Integrates with EDR (e.g., SentinelOne) to flag threats like ransomware via behavioral analytics. Vulnerability Feeds: Pulls data from tools like Qualys VMDR to prioritize vulnerabilities (e.g., CVEs with high TruRisk scores).

Data Aggregation: Correlates endpoint logs, network traffic, and threat intelligence in a centralized console (e.g., Splunk SOAR’s case management).

Real-Time Metrics: Uses Python scripts to automate metrics (e.g., calculate_incident_response_time() for MTTR) and display on dashboards.

Agent-Based Integration: SOAR leverages EDR agents (e.g., CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender) for endpoint telemetry, enabling real-time threat detection and response.crowdstrike.comsentinelone.com

Healthcare Relevance: SOAR automates incident response for PHI breaches, aggregates endpoint data for compliance, and provides metrics to leadership, aligning with HIPAA requirements.

CS0-003 Relevance: Domain 1 tests selecting tools for SOC automation, while Domain 3 emphasizes orchestrating responses and integrating threat intelligence, both core to SOAR.

Reference: CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives, Domains 1 (Security Operations) and 3 (Incident Response and Management),covering automation and threat detection tools.

CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Chapple and Seidl, discussing SOAR for incident response and data integration.

Web sources for SOAR and EDR integration

Explanation:

The question describes a scenario where a security manager finds unapproved accounts with access to a shared folder, and a user discovers data discrepancies in a file during an incident investigation. Unauthorized changes best describes this activity, as it involves unapproved accounts potentially modifying data, leading to the observed discrepancies. This aligns with the CS0-003 exam’s Incident Response and Management (Domain 3) and Security Operations (Domain 1) objectives, which emphasize identifying indicators of compromise (IOCs) and unauthorized access in a security incident.

Why C is Correct:

Unauthorized Changes Overview:Unauthorized changes occur when individuals or accounts access and modify data without permission, often resulting in data discrepancies (e.g., altered, deleted, or corrupted files). The presence of unapproved accounts in the shared folder’s permissions suggests unauthorized access, and the data discrepancies indicate these accounts may have modified the file.

Scenario Analysis:

Unapproved Accounts: Accounts not on the approved access list having permissions to the shared folder indicate a security misconfiguration or compromise, allowing unauthorized access.

Data Discrepancies: Inconsistencies in the file (e.g., altered values, missing records) suggest that an unauthorized account made changes, either maliciously (e.g., insider threat) or accidentally.

Healthcare Context: In a healthcare organization (per prior questions), unauthorized changes to files containing PHI could violate HIPAA, risking data integrity and patient safety (e.g., altered medical records).

CS0-003 Alignment: Domain 3 focuses on identifying IOCs like unauthorized access and data tampering during incident investigations, while Domain 1 emphasizes monitoring permissions and securing shared resources.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Filesystem anomaly
Reason: A filesystem anomaly refers to unusual patterns in filesystem activity (e.g., unexpected file creations, permission changes detected by monitoring tools). While unapproved accounts might trigger such anomalies, the question specifically highlights data discrepancies (content changes) caused by unauthorized access, making “unauthorized changes” more precise than the broader term “filesystem anomaly.”

B. Illegal software
Reason: Illegal software refers to unauthorized or pirated applications installed on a system (e.g., malware, unlicensed tools). The scenario describes unapproved accounts and data discrepancies, not software installation or execution, making this option irrelevant.

D. Data exfiltration
Reason: Data exfiltration involves stealing or transferring data outside the organization (e.g., emailing PHI to an external server). While unapproved accounts could potentially exfiltrate data, the question specifies data discrepancies (altered or corrupted data) rather than data being copied or removed, making unauthorized changes the better fit.

Additional Context:

Incident Details:

Unapproved accounts suggest a permissions misconfiguration (e.g., overly permissive ACLs) or compromise (e.g., attacker-added accounts).

Data discrepancies could result from malicious edits (e.g., altering financial or medical records) or accidental changes by unauthorized users.

Investigation Steps:

Review folder permissions (e.g., ls -l on Linux, icacls on Windows) to identify unapproved accounts.

Check audit logs (e.g., Windows Event ID 4663 for file access, Linux /var/log/audit/audit.log) for evidence of changes by these accounts.

Compare file versions or checksums (e.g., sha256sum) to confirm discrepancies.

Mitigation: Remove unapproved accounts, enforce least privilege, enable file integrity monitoring (e.g., Tripwire), and implement DLP to detect potential exfiltration attempts.

CS0-003 Relevance: Domain 3 tests analyzing IOCs like unauthorized access and data tampering, often through performance-based questions (PBQs), while Domain 1 emphasizes securing shared resources and monitoring permissions.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives, Domains 1 (Security Operations) and 3 (Incident Response and Management), covering unauthorized access and incident analysis.

CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Chapple and Seidl, discussing permissions management and data integrity issues.

Explanation:

The question asks which cybersecurity framework a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) of a large management firm most likely selected to demonstrate the organization’s investment in tools and systems to protect its data. ISO 27001 is the most appropriate framework, as it provides a comprehensive, internationally recognized standard for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an Information Security Management System (ISMS) to protect data, ideal for demonstrating investment to stakeholders. This aligns with the CS0-003 exam’s Security Operations (Domain 1) and Reporting and Communication (Domain 4) objectives, which emphasize governance, compliance, and showcasing security efforts.

Why C is Correct:

ISO 27001 Overview: ISO 27001 is a global standard for an ISMS, focusing on risk management, security controls, and continuous improvement. It covers tools, systems, and processes to protect data confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with 114 controls in Annex A (e.g., access control, encryption, incident response).

Demonstrating Investment: Certification to ISO 27001 requires documented evidence of security investments (e.g., deployed tools like SIEM, DLP; systems like firewalls; and processes like audits). It’s widely recognized by stakeholders, clients, and regulators, making it ideal for showcasing a firm’s commitment to data protection.

Management Firm Context: A large management firm (potentially handling sensitive financial or client data, similar to healthcare’s PHI per prior questions) benefits from ISO 27001’s flexibility to address diverse data protection needs, unlike industry-specific frameworks.

CS0-003 Alignment: Domain 4 emphasizes communicating security posture to leadership and stakeholders, while Domain 1 supports implementing frameworks for governance and compliance. ISO 27001 is a top choice for demonstrating robust security investments.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard)
Reason: PCI DSS is a mandatory standard for organizations handling credit card data, focusing on securing payment environments (e.g., encryption, access controls). It’s too narrow for a management firm’s broader data protection needs and less effective for demonstrating general security investments to stakeholders, as it’s specific to cardholder data. (Note: PCI DSS is listed twice, likely a question error.)

B. PCI DSS (Duplicate Option)
Reason: Same as above; the duplicate listing is likely a typo in the question. PCI DSS remains unsuitable for demonstrating comprehensive data protection investments beyond payment systems.

D. ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library)
Reason: ITIL is a framework for IT service management, focusing on processes like incident management, change management, and service delivery. It’s not a cybersecurity framework and doesn’t specifically address data protection tools or systems, making it inappropriate for demonstrating security investments

Additional Context:

ISO 27001 Benefits:

Provides a risk-based approach to select tools (e.g., EDR, WAF) and systems (e.g., secure servers, network segmentation). Requires audits and certification, proving to stakeholders (e.g., clients, investors) the firm’s security maturity. Aligns with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA (relevant to prior healthcare context), enhancing compliance.

Example Use: A management firm might implement ISO 27001 controls like A.12.4 (logging and monitoring) with a SIEM or A.14.2 (secure development) with SAST tools, showcasing investment in data protection.

CS0-003 Relevance: Domain 4 tests selecting frameworks for governance and reporting, while Domain 1 emphasizes implementing security controls, both favoring ISO 27001 for its comprehensive approach.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives, Domains 1 (Security Operations) and 4 (Reporting and Communication), covering cybersecurity frameworks and stakeholder communication.
CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Chapple and Seidl, discussing ISO 27001 for ISMS and compliance.

Explanation:

The question asks which type of control the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) implemented by deciding to maintain and review logs and audit trails to mitigate the risk of error and fraud in payroll management due to insufficient staff for segregation of duties in a small company. Compensating controls are the most accurate description, as they are alternative measures implemented to mitigate risks when primary controls, like segregation of duties, cannot be fully applied. This aligns with the CS0-003 exam’s Security Operations (Domain 1) and Vulnerability Management (Domain 2) objectives, which emphasize risk mitigation and control strategies in resource-constrained environments.

Why B is Correct:

Compensating Controls Overview: Compensating controls are alternative security measures used to address risks when primary controls (e.g., segregation of duties) are not feasible due to constraints like limited staff. They provide equivalent protection through other means, such as monitoring or auditing.

Scenario Analysis: Segregation of duties in payroll management ensures no single employee can control all aspects (e.g., entering, approving, and disbursing payroll) to prevent fraud or errors. With insufficient staff, the CISO implements logging and audit trail reviews to monitor payroll activities, detect anomalies (e.g., unauthorized changes), and deter fraud, compensating for the lack of segregation.

Context Relevance: In a small company (potentially handling sensitive data like employee PII, similar to healthcare’s PHI per prior questions), maintaining and reviewing logs ensures accountability and detects issues, aligning with compliance needs (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley for financial data).

CS0-003 Alignment: Domain 1 emphasizes implementing controls to secure operations, while Domain 2 includes mitigating risks through alternative measures like compensating controls when ideal controls are impractical.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Corrective controls
Reason: Operational controls (or technical controls) involve day-to-day security mechanisms like firewalls, antivirus, or access controls.While logging is technical, the CISO’s decision to use logs and audit reviews specifically compensates for missing segregation of duties, fitting the definition of a compensating control rather than a general operational one.

D. Administrative controls
Reason: Administrative controls involve policies, procedures, or training (e.g., security awareness programs, access policies). While reviewing logs could be part of an administrative process, the primary purpose here is to compensate for the lack of segregation of duties, not to establish a policy. Compensating controls better describe the specific risk mitigation strategy.

Additional Context:

Compensating Controls in Action:

Logging: Enable detailed logging of payroll system access and changes (e.g., Windows Event ID 4663 for file access, or application-specific audit logs).

Audit Trail Review: Regularly analyze logs for anomalies (e.g., unauthorized payroll edits) using tools like a SIEM (e.g., Splunk) or manual checks.

Example: Detect an employee modifying payroll amounts outside their role by reviewing logs showing access at unusual times.

Small Company Constraints: Limited staff makes segregation of duties (e.g., separating payroll entry and approval roles) difficult, so logging and auditing act as a detective control to monitor and deter misconduct.

CS0-003 Relevance: Domain 2 tests selecting controls to mitigate risks in constrained environments, while Domain 1 emphasizes monitoring and logging for security operations.

Reference:

CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-003) Exam Objectives, Domains 1 (Security Operations) and 2 (Vulnerability Management), www.comptia.org, covering control types and risk mitigation.

CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003 by Chapple and Seidl, discussing compensating controls for addressing segregation of duties issues.