CompTIA CS0-003 Exam - Topic 1 Question 18 Discussion

Actual exam question for CompTIA's CS0-003 exam

Question #: 18
Topic #: 1

An analyst is evaluating a vulnerability management dashboard. The analyst sees that a previously remediated vulnerability has reappeared on a database server. Which of the following is the most likely cause?

AThe finding is a false positive and should be ignored.

BA rollback had been executed on the instance.

CThe vulnerability scanner was configured without credentials.

DThe vulnerability management software needs to be updated.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

The security analyst is validating a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability, as indicated by the ''/.../.../.../'' in the GET request which is a common indicator of directory traversal attempts associated with LFI. The other options are not relevant for this purpose: SQL injection involves injecting malicious SQL statements into a database query; XSS involves injecting malicious scripts into a web page; CSRF involves tricking a user into performing an unwanted action on a web application.

According to the CompTIA CySA+ Study Guide: Exam CS0-003, 3rd Edition1, one of the objectives for the exam is to ''use appropriate tools and methods to manage, prioritize and respond to attacks and vulnerabilities''. The book also covers the usage and syntax of Burp Suite, a tool used for testing web application security, in chapter 6. Specifically, it explains the meaning and function of each component in Burp Suite, such as Repeater, which allows the security analyst to modify and resend individual requests1, page 239. Therefore, this is a reliable source to verify the answer to the question.

by Breana at Apr 29, 2024, 09:40 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CS0-003 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Mira

4 months ago

Wait, how can a remediated vuln just pop back up? Sounds sketchy!

upvoted 0 times

...

Gearldine

4 months ago

I agree, a rollback makes the most sense here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vallie

4 months ago

Definitely could be a scanner issue if no creds were used.

upvoted 0 times

...

Phil

5 months ago

I think it's more likely a false positive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carla

5 months ago

Probably a rollback happened, that's common.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephaine

5 months ago

Updating the software sounds important, but I don't recall it being a common reason for vulnerabilities to reappear.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gennie

5 months ago

I wonder if the scanner being configured without credentials could be the issue. I feel like we touched on that in our last review session.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dominga

5 months ago

I think a rollback could definitely cause a vulnerability to reappear. We practiced a similar question about that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jettie

6 months ago

I remember discussing false positives in class, but I'm not sure if that's the case here. It seems too specific.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashlyn

6 months ago

Alright, time to put on my detective hat. I'll need to consider all the options, but a rollback or scanner config issue seem like the best bets.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gilbert

6 months ago

I've seen this kind of thing happen before. My money's on a rollback - that's probably the most likely explanation here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wei

6 months ago

I'm a bit confused on this one. Could the vulnerability management software being out of date also cause the vulnerability to reappear?

upvoted 0 times

...

Alba

6 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to think through the possible causes carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leota

6 months ago

Okay, let's see. A false positive seems unlikely since it was previously remediated. I'm leaning towards a rollback or an issue with the scanner configuration.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kaitlyn

6 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. We want to replace all occurrences of 'bob' with 'Bob' and print the result to standard output. I believe the correct answer is B, sed's/bob/Bob/g' data.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jutta

6 months ago

Okay, I've got this. SGLT2 inhibitors work in the kidney to block glucose reabsorption, so that's an easy one. I'll also select that along with any other classes I'm confident about.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marcos

10 months ago

I heard the analyst was actually a cat in a lab coat. No wonder they're confused!

upvoted 0 times

...

Jennifer

10 months ago

I bet the database server is running Windows 95. No wonder the vulnerability keeps coming back!

upvoted 0 times

Tequila

9 months ago

D) The vulnerability management software needs to be updated.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dominque

9 months ago

C) The vulnerability scanner was configured without credentials.

upvoted 0 times

...

Reita

9 months ago

B) A rollback had been executed on the instance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ettie

10 months ago

A) The finding is a false positive and should be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lonny

11 months ago

The vulnerability management software needs an update? What is this, 1999? Clearly, it's a rollback situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Earlean

11 months ago

Hold up, a false positive? Really? That's just lazy analysis. B is the way to go here.

upvoted 0 times

Denny

10 months ago

A) The finding is a false positive and should be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Annelle

10 months ago

B) A rollback had been executed on the instance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Magdalene

10 months ago

C) The vulnerability scanner was configured without credentials.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hillary

10 months ago

A) The finding is a false positive and should be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Corazon

10 months ago

B) A rollback had been executed on the instance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aliza

11 months ago

Hmm, I was leaning towards C, but B makes a lot of sense too. A rollback would definitely explain the reappearance of the vulnerability.

upvoted 0 times

Edna

10 months ago

It's possible, but I still think B is the most likely cause in this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Serina

10 months ago

But what about C? Could the vulnerability scanner being configured without credentials also be a factor?

upvoted 0 times

...

Bobbye

10 months ago

I agree, a rollback seems like a plausible explanation for the reappearance of the vulnerability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sina

11 months ago

I think B is the most likely cause. A rollback could have brought back the vulnerability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Reita

11 months ago

I'm pretty sure it's B. A rollback can definitely undo the remediation efforts and bring back the vulnerability.

upvoted 0 times

Lelia

11 months ago

It's possible. But it could also be that the vulnerability scanner was not configured properly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Misty

11 months ago

I think you might be right. A rollback could have caused the vulnerability to reappear.

upvoted 0 times

...

Benedict

12 months ago

I think it could also be a false positive and should be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shannon

12 months ago

I disagree, I believe the vulnerability management software needs to be updated.

upvoted 0 times

...

Norah

12 months ago

I think the most likely cause is that the vulnerability scanner was configured without credentials.

upvoted 0 times

...