ISC CISSP Certified Information Systems Security Professional Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 2 Q21-40

Visit here for our full ISC CISSP exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 21:

A multinational enterprise decides to implement a unified access control system for all subsidiaries. Each subsidiary has its own directory service and uses different security policies. Which access control approach under Domain 5 (Identity & Access Management) best supports centralised authentication while allowing local authorisation policies?

A) Mandatory Access Control (MAC)
B) Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
C) Federated Identity Management (FIM)
D) Discretionary Access Control (DAC)

Answer: C) Federated Identity Management (FIM).

Explanation:

Federated Identity Management allows multiple organisations or domains to share identity information securely, so that authentication can be centralised and trust established between systems. In this scenario, subsidiaries keep local control but use shared authentication mechanisms (like SAML, OpenID Connect). RBAC and DAC are local access models, while MAC is centrally enforced by policy labels, not designed for federation. Thus, FIM (C) best supports this use case.

Question 22:

During a compliance audit, an assessor notes that some employees share their login credentials to meet urgent deadlines. Under Domain 1 (Security & Risk Management), which principle is being violated most directly?

A) Accountability
B) Availability
C) Non-repudiation
D) Efficiency

Answer: A) Accountability.

Explanation:

Accountability ensures actions of users can be uniquely traced to specific individuals. Credential sharing destroys this traceability, violating accountability and auditability. Availability (B) is about uptime, Non-repudiation (C) prevents denial of actions but relies on accountability. Efficiency (D) isn’t a CISSP governance principle. Therefore, A is correct.

Question 23:

A company’s disaster recovery plan defines Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) values. If RPO = 1 hour and RTO = 4 hours, what does that mean? A) Systems must be back online within 1 hour, and data loss cannot exceed 4 hours
B) Systems must be back online within 4 hours, and data loss cannot exceed 1 hour
C) Systems must be operational continuously with no data loss
D) Data can be lost indefinitely as long as systems restart

Answer: B) Systems must be back online within 4 hours, and data loss cannot exceed 1 hour.

Explanation: 

RPO refers to the maximum acceptable data loss measured in time before the incident (how far back you can recover). RTO is the maximum downtime acceptable. So if RPO = 1 hour, backups must ensure no more than 1 hour of lost data; if RTO = 4 hours, systems must be functional within 4 hours after disruption. Option B correctly describes this.

Question 24:

An organisation wants to limit its liability if sensitive data stored with a third-party vendor is breached. Under Domain 1, which contract element most directly helps achieve this goal?

A) Service Level Agreement (SLA)
B) Indemnification Clause
C) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
D) Security Awareness Policy
Answer: B) Indemnification Clause.

Explanation:

An indemnification clause defines liability and responsibility for damages between contracting parties. In the event of a vendor data breach, indemnification can transfer financial responsibility to the vendor. SLAs define performance metrics, MOUs are informal, and awareness policies apply internally. Therefore, B is correct.

Question 25:

Under Domain 2 (Asset Security), which control best ensures data is securely erased before equipment disposal?

A) Bit-level overwriting using DoD or NIST-approved sanitization methods
B) Deleting files through the OS interface
C) Formatting the drive once
D) Moving old data to another folder

Answer: A) Bit-level overwriting using DoD or NIST-approved sanitization methods.

Explanation:

Data remanence persists even after deletion or formatting. Secure sanitization requires overwriting, cryptographic erasure, or physical destruction per NIST 800-88 guidelines. Thus, A is the only valid option ensuring secure disposal.

Question 26:

A system designer chooses to apply the Clark–Wilson model in a banking system. Which security goal is primarily being enforced?

A) Confidentiality
B) Integrity
C) Availability
D) Non-repudiation

Answer: B) Integrity. 

Explanation:

The Clark–Wilson model focuses on enforcing integrity through well-formed transactions, separation of duties, and auditing. It ensures only authorised programs (TPs) can manipulate data (CDIs) in a valid, verifiable way. This is about integrity, not confidentiality or availability.

Question 27:

An employee receives an email from “HR” requesting immediate credential re-entry on a login portal. The link redirects to an unfamiliar domain. Under Domain 7 (Security Operations), which is the best immediate response?

A) Click the link to verify legitimacy
B) Report the email to the security team as a suspected phishing attempt
C) Forward it to colleagues for confirmation
D) Delete it without reporting

Answer: B) Report the email to the security team as a suspected phishing attempt.

Explanation:

Proper incident handling begins with reporting suspicious activity. The SOC can then investigate, block domains, and notify others. Clicking or forwarding could spread the threat. Deleting without reporting loses intelligence. So option B aligns with incident response best practice.

Question 28:

A cloud provider encrypts customer data but also retains the encryption keys. Under which security concern does this fall?

A) Data remanence
B) Key escrow risk
C) Data lineage
D) Virtualization sprawl

 Answer: B) Key escrow risk. 

Explanation:

When the provider holds the encryption keys, customers rely on the provider integrity and security. This is a key escrow situation where third-party access risk arises. Data lineage and remanence are data management issues; virtualization sprawl is operational. Thus, B is correct.

Question 29:

Under Domain 4 (Communication & Network Security), which protocol provides mutual authentication and encryption for secure remote access?

A) TELNET
B) SSH
C) HTTP
D) SNMPv1

Answer: B) SSH.Explanation:

Secure communication over networks is a critical aspect of maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and trust in modern IT environments. One of the most widely used protocols for secure remote access and secure data transfer is SSH, or Secure Shell. SSH provides both mutual authentication and encryption, making it a robust choice for administrators and users who need to manage systems or transmit sensitive information over potentially insecure networks. In the scenario provided, the correct answer is option B, SSH, because it uniquely combines these security features, whereas other protocols, such as TELNET, HTTP, and SNMPv,1 transmit data in plaintext or lack strong encryption.

SSH was developed as a replacement for older remote access protocols like TELNET, rlogin, and rsh, which transmitted usernames, passwords, and other sensitive data in plaintext. Because plaintext data can be easily intercepted by attackers using packet-sniffing tools, protocols that do not provide encryption are vulnerable to eavesdropping and credential theft. TELNET, for instance, allows users to log into remote systems over a network but sends all authentication credentials and session data in plaintext. This lack of encryption means that anyone with access to the network traffic can capture sensitive information, making TELNET unsuitable for secure environments.

Similarly, HTTP, the standard protocol used for web traffic, does not provide encryption by default. When web data is transmitted over HTTP, all requests, responses, and any data included in them are sent in plaintext. This can expose sensitive information such as login credentials, session tokens, and personally identifiable information to interception by malicious actors. The secure variant, HTTPS, addresses this issue by incorporating Transport Layer Security (TLS) to encrypt data in transit. However, in the context of secure remote system management or command execution, HTTP alone does not provide the authentication and encryption guarantees that SSH does.

SNMP, or Simple Network Management Protocol, is commonly used for network monitoring and device management. The original version, SNMPv1, has minimal security features and transmits management information in plaintext, including community strings that function similarly to passwords. This makes SNMPv1 highly vulnerable to interception and unauthorized access. Later versions, such as SNMPv3, added support for encryption and authentication, but SNMPv1 itself is inherently insecure for managing network devices over untrusted networks.

SSH addresses these vulnerabilities through several key mechanisms. First, it provides strong encryption for all data transmitted between the client and server. This encryption ensures that even if network traffic is intercepted, the data cannot be read without the corresponding decryption keys. The encryption algorithms used in SSH are robust and widely regarded as secure, typically including AES, ChaCha20, and other modern cryptographic ciphers. This protects not only passwords but also commands, configuration files, and other sensitive information transmitted during a session.

Second, SSH supports mutual authentication, meaning that both the client and server verify each other’s identities before establishing a connection. This is typically accomplished through the use of public and private key pairs. The server presents its public key, which the client verifies against known or trusted keys, while the client can also present its own key for authentication if configured. Mutual authentication protects against man-in-the-middle attacks, where an attacker could impersonate a server or client to intercept or manipulate communication.

SSH also supports additional security features such as secure file transfer using SCP or SFTP, secure tunneling for forwarding ports and network traffic, and robust configuration options for controlling authentication methods, cipher suites, and access policies. These capabilities make SSH a versatile tool for both system administration and secure communication across potentially untrusted networks, such as the public internet.

The practical impact of using SSH versus insecure alternatives is significant. Administrators who rely on TELNET or SNMPv1 expose critical systems to potential compromise, including stolen credentials, unauthorized access, and data breaches. By adopting SSH, organizations can enforce encrypted communication, validate identities, and significantly reduce the attack surface. The combination of encryption, authentication, and integrity protection in SSH aligns with core information security principles, including confidentiality, integrity, and availability, and provides a foundation for secure operations across IT environments.

In summary, SSH is a secure protocol designed to provide mutual authentication and encryption for remote logins and data transfer. Unlike TELNET and HTTP, which send data in plaintext, or SNMPv1, which lacks robust encryption, SSH ensures that sensitive information remains confidential and tamper-proof during transit. Its use of strong cryptography and public/private key authentication protects against eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, and unauthorized access. In the scenario presented, option B is the correct choice, reflecting SSH’s role as a secure replacement for legacy protocols and its alignment with best practices in secure system administration and network communications. Organizations that implement SSH benefit from enhanced security, operational trust, and compliance with industry standards, making it an essential tool in modern information security practices.

Question 30:

Which best describes the role of the Data Custodian in Domain 2?

A) Defines data classification levels
B) Ensures day-to-day data management, backups, and control enforcement as defined by the data owner
C) Approves who can access the data
D) Determines retention schedules

Answer: B) Ensures day-to-day data management, backups, and control enforcement as defined by the data owner.

Explanation:

The Data Owner defines classification and policy; the Custodian implements those policies operationally. Option B aligns with CISSP definitions. Other options represent owner responsibilities.

Question 31:

A system is designed with redundancy in its network paths, power supplies, and storage arrays. Which concept under Domain 7 is being applied?

A) Fail-safe defaults
B) Least privilege
C) Fault tolerance
D) Non-repudiation
Answer: C) Fault tolerance.

Explanation:

Fault tolerance allows systems to continue operating despite component failures by using redundancy. It’s part of operations continuity planning under Domain 7. Fail-safe defaults are about security configurations, not redundancy.

Question 32:

 

An attacker manipulates the sequence of transactions in a banking app to execute a  funds transfer multiple times. Which attack type under Domain 8 does this represent?

A) Cross-site scripting (XSS)
B) Race condition
C) SQL injection
D) Buffer overflow

Answer: B) Race condition.

Explanation:

A race condition occurs when concurrent processes are improperly synchronized, allowing manipulation of timing to achieve unintended results. Here, repeated fund transfer exploits race conditions. The others (XSS, SQLi, buffer overflow) are different vulnerability classes.

Question 33:

In Domain 3, which principle is described by designing systems that fail securely rather than exposing vulnerabilities when controls malfunction?

A) Complete mediation
B) Fail-safe defaults
C) Open design
D) Psychological acceptability

Answer: B) Fail-safe defaults. 

Explanation: 

In secure system design, several key principles guide the development of resilient, secure, and usable systems. One such principle is fail-safe design, also referred to as fail-secure design, which ensures that when a system experiences a failure, it does so in a manner that preserves security rather than compromising it. This principle is critical for minimizing the risk of unauthorized access or exploitation during unexpected outages, hardware malfunctions, or software errors. Understanding fail-safe design requires examining its purpose, implementation, and distinction from other core security principles such as complete mediation, open design, and psychological acceptability, all of which play important roles in secure system development.

A fail-safe design focuses on the behavior of systems when they encounter failures. The central idea is that the default state of the system, in case of a malfunction, should protect sensitive resources and prevent unauthorized access. For example, in physical security, a fail-safe lock on a door ensures that the door remains locked when the locking mechanism fails, thereby preventing unauthorized entry. In contrast, a fail-open design would result in the door unlocking during failure, which could allow intruders to gain access to protected areas. The fail-safe principle is widely applied not only in physical security but also in software, networking, and other technical domains. In software, for instance, if a security check or authentication service fails, the system should deny access rather than granting it. Similarly, in network firewalls or intrusion detection systems, a fail-safe configuration ensures that if the device encounters an error or loss of connectivity, traffic is blocked rather than left unrestricted.

Fail-safe design directly supports the security goal of protecting confidentiality, integrity, and availability by preventing unauthorized actions during system faults. It minimizes the risk associated with unexpected events, ensuring that even in adverse conditions, the system does not become a vector for compromise. This principle is especially important in high-security environments, including government facilities, financial institutions, healthcare systems, and critical infrastructure, where even temporary exposure can have severe consequences. By defaulting to a secure state, fail-safe design reduces the likelihood of human error or exploitation during failures, complementing other layers of defense in depth.

Other security principles address different aspects of secure system design, and it is important to distinguish fail-safe design from these related concepts. Complete mediation, for example, ensures that every access attempt to a resource is checked against the applicable security policy. Under complete mediation, each request is independently validated, preventing scenarios where an attacker might bypass security checks by reusing cached credentials or exploiting unchecked paths. While complete mediation is vital for ongoing security enforcement, it is not the same as a fail-safe design. Complete mediation ensures that access is properly evaluated, whereas a fail-safe design ensures that the system defaults to a secure state during failures.

Open design is another fundamental principle of secure system design. Open design emphasizes transparency and peer review of system architecture, algorithms, and security mechanisms rather than relying on obscurity as a primary defense. The idea is that security should not depend on secrecy of design, but rather on sound principles, rigorous testing, and community validation. Open design promotes robust security because flaws are more likely to be discovered and corrected when systems are subject to review. However, this principle deals primarily with the methodology of system design and evaluation, rather than the behavior of the system during failure conditions, which is the domain of fail-safe design.

Psychological acceptability, sometimes referred to as usability, is concerned with ensuring that security mechanisms do not hinder legitimate users or impede system adoption. A security control that is overly complex or inconvenient may lead users to bypass it, undermining security. Designing security with usability in mind ensures that controls are intuitive, efficient, and acceptable to end-users, balancing security with operational effectiveness. While psychological acceptability is critical for promoting compliance and reducing human error, it does not directly address how a system behaves under failure conditions, distinguishing it from fail-safe design.

Implementing a fail-safe design often requires careful consideration of both technical and operational factors. Designers must anticipate potential points of failure and determine the most secure default state. For physical systems, this might involve selecting locks, doors, or gates that default to a secure position upon power loss. For software systems, it could involve configuring authentication failures, error handling routines, or exception management to deny access until verification can occur. Fail-safe design is typically coupled with monitoring and alerting mechanisms so that administrators are aware of failures and can take corrective action while maintaining a secure posture. Redundancy and backup systems may also be incorporated to reduce the likelihood of total system failure, but a fail-safe design ensures that even in the absence of redundancy, security is preserved.

In summary, a fail-safe design ensures that when a system fails, it defaults to a state that denies access rather than granting it, protecting resources from unauthorized use during unforeseen failures. This principle is distinct from complete mediation, which ensures all access requests are checked; open design, which promotes transparency and peer review; and psychological acceptability, which ensures usability of security controls. Fail-safe design is a cornerstone of secure system development, applied in physical, software, and network domains to reduce risk during system malfunctions. By prioritizing security during failure conditions, organizations can maintain confidentiality, integrity, and availability while reducing the risk of compromise even in adverse scenarios. In this context, option B is the correct choice, as it directly reflects the principle of fail-safe design and its purpose within a secure system architecture.

Question 34:

A CISO implements centralized log retention with daily integrity verification using hashing. Which control objective is primarily supported?

A) Confidentiality
B) Integrity
C) Availability
D) Accountability
Answer: B) Integrity.

Explanation:
Hash-based integrity verification is a fundamental technique used to ensure the trustworthiness of digital information, particularly in the context of security operations and auditing. In the scenario presented, a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) implements centralized log retention with daily integrity verification using hashing. The primary security control objective supported by this measure is integrity, making option B the correct answer. Understanding why integrity is the focusand how it differs from other security objectives s,uch as confidentiality, availability, or accountability, requires a detailed examination of the principles and practical implementation of hashing and log management.

Integrity, in information security, refers to the assurance that data has not been altered, modified, or tampered with in an unauthorized manner. It ensures that the information stored, transmitted, or processed is accurate and trustworthy. When applied to log management, integrity is critical because logs serve as a historical record of system and user activity. These records are used for auditing, forensic investigations, compliance reporting, and incident response. If logs can be modified or tampered with, the organization loses confidence in the authenticity of the data, which can compromise investigations and weaken compliance with regulatory requirements.

Hashing is a cryptographic technique used to verify the integrity of data. A hash function takes input data, such as a log file, and produces a fixed-length string of characters, often referred to as a hash value or digest. This hash value is unique to the specific content of the input. If even a single bit in the input changes, the resulting hash value will be completely different, making it easy to detect alterations. By generating hash values for log files at the time of creation and then verifying these hashes regularly, security teams can ensure that the stored logs have not been altered. In the scenario described, daily integrity verification of centralized logs using hashing allows the CISO to detect unauthorized changes promptly, maintaining confidence in the logs’ reliability.

Centralized log retention enhances the effectiveness of integrity verification. By collecting logs from multiple systems, applications, and network devices into a single, secure repository, the organization reduces the risk of tampering at the source. Centralized logging also simplifies monitoring, auditing, and forensic investigation, as all relevant records are stored in one location. When combined with hash-based verification, this approach provides a strong assurance that the logs are accurate, unmodified, and complete.

While integrity is the primary control objective in this scenario, it is helpful to understand why other security objectives are not the main focus. Confidentiality, for example, refers to the protection of information from unauthorized disclosure. Confidentiality measures ensure that sensitive data, such as personally identifiable information or financial records, is only accessible to authorized individuals. While logs may contain sensitive information, the use of hashing does not directly enforce confidentiality. Hashing is designed to detect changes, not prevent unauthorized access. Confidentiality controls would involve encryption, access controls, or secure communication channels, which are not specifically addressed in this scenario.

Availability is another important security objective, focused on ensuring that information and systems are accessible when needed. Measures that support availability include system redundancy, backup procedures, disaster recovery planning, and load balancing. While centralized logging and integrity verification can indirectly support availability by protecting the logs from corruption, the primary function of hash-based verification is to ensure the integrity of the stored data, not to guarantee that it is always available for access.

Accountability, often associated with auditing and traceability, refers to the ability to track and attribute actions to specific users or processes. Logs themselves are a core mechanism to enforce accountability, as they provide a record of who performed what actions and when. However, the act of applying hash-based verification primarily ensures that the records have not been altered, rather than directly attributing actions or enforcing responsibility. Accountability is supported indirectly by ensuring that logs can be trusted, but the control objective emphasized in this scenario is the integrity of the logs themselves.

The practical implementation of hash-based log integrity verification involves several steps. First, when a log entry is generated, a hash value is computed and stored securely, often alongside the log or in a separate secure database. Regular verification checks are then performed, in this case daily, by recomputing the hash for each log entry and comparing it to the previously stored value. Any discrepancy indicates a potential alteration. Advanced implementations may also use digital signatures or blockchain-like mechanisms to further strengthen the assurance of integrity, providing additional tamper-evidence and non-repudiation.

The importance of integrity in log management cannot be overstated. Logs are often relied upon during security incident investigations, regulatory audits, and internal reviews. If log data can be altered undetected, organizations may miss critical indicators of compromise, incorrectly assess the root cause of incidents, or fail to meet compliance requirements. Hash-based integrity verification ensures that logs remain an accurate, reliable source of truth over time, supporting the overall security posture and enabling effective response and accountability.

In conclusion, hash-based integrity verification is a technique specifically designed to enforce data integrity. By implementing centralized log retention with daily hashing, the CISO ensures that logs are protected against unauthorized modifications, providing confidence in their accuracy and reliability. While confidentiality, availability, and accountability are important security objectives, they are not the primary focus of this control. The primary objective is integrity, as the hashing process directly ensures that stored logs have not been altered, supporting reliable auditing, forensic investigation, and compliance. Option B is therefore the correct answer, reflecting the central role of integrity in this scenario.

Question 35:

Under Domain 1, which of the following most directly violates the principle of due care?

A) The organization follows all security best practices and documents them
B) A manager ignores known security vulnerabilities to avoid downtime
C) Employees attend annual training
D) Audit logs are reviewed weekly
Answer: B) A manager ignores known security vulnerabilities to avoid downtime.

Explanation:
Due care means acting prudently and responsibly once risks are known. Ignoring known vulnerabilities demonstrates negligence and violates due care. The others (A, C, D) demonstrate compliance or diligence.

Question 36:

In Domain 5, Single Sign-On (SSO) implementation can improve which of the following?

A) Password complexity enforcement
B) Authentication redundancy
C) User convenience and centralised credential management
D) Application performance

Answer: C) User convenience and centralised credential management.

Explanation:

SSO reduces password fatigue and simplifies credential management by allowing a single authentication to access multiple systems. It improves usability and control,, but not redundancy or performance directly.

Question 37:A security operations analyst observes repeated failed logins followed by a successful one. What should be the immediate next step under Domain 7?
A) Reset all user passwords immediately
B) Escalate as a potential brute-force attack and initiate account lockout/investigation
C) Ignore since eventual success meanthe s the user remembered the password
D) Disable the SOC alert feature to avoid false positives
Answer: B) Escalate as a potential brute-force attack and initiate account lockout/investigation. 

Explanation:

In cybersecurity operations, monitoring authentication events is a critical component of maintaining system integrity and preventing unauthorized access. One specific pattern that security teams must pay close attention to is multiple failed login attempts followed by a successful login. This sequence of events often indicates a potential brute-force attack or credential-stuffing attempt, both of which are common methods attackers use to compromise accounts. Understanding the implications of such activity and responding appropriately is essential for the security operations center (SOC) to protect organizational assets, sensitive information, and overall business operations.

A brute-force attack occurs when an attacker attempts to gain access to an account by systematically trying numerous password combinations. These attempts can be automated using scripts or specialized tools, allowing attackers to test thousands or even millions of potential passwords in a short period. The goal of such attacks is to eventually guess the correct password and gain unauthorized access. Credential stuffing, on the other hand, leverages credentials obtained from other breaches, assuming that users may reuse passwords across multiple accounts or systems. Attackers use automated scripts to try these credentials against a target system, hoping for successful logins.

In both cases, multiple failed login attempts followed by a success can indicate that an attacker has gained access to a legitimate account. For example, if the SOC observes five failed attempts from the same IP address and then a successful login, this should trigger an alert for further investigation. Ignoring such events could allow an attacker to continue their activity undetected, potentially exfiltrating sensitive data, deploying malware, or using compromised accounts to pivot to other systems within the network. The potential impact on business operations, regulatory compliance, and organizational reputation is significant.

The role of the SOC in this scenario is multifaceted. First, the SOC should ensure that monitoring systems, such as Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) tools, are configured to detect and alert on suspicious authentication patterns. This includes defining rules for failed login thresholds, geographical anomalies, or login attempts outside of normal business hours. By establishing automated alerts, the SOC can respond quickly to potential threats without relying solely on manual log review.

Once an alert is triggered, the SOC must investigate the incident to determine whether the activity represents an actual compromise or a false positive. Investigation steps may include correlating the login activity with known threat intelligence, reviewing the source IP addresses, checking for concurrent anomalous activities, and evaluating whether multi-factor authentication (MFA) was successfully applied. The SOC may also consult with the account owner or system administrators to verify legitimate access patterns.

Preventive measures are equally important. One key control is implementing an account lockout policy, which temporarily disables an account after a specified number of failed login attempts. This policy can slow down brute-force attacks, making it more difficult for attackers to guess passwords. Additional measures include requiring multi-factor authentication, using strong and unique passwords, and monitoring for unusual access patterns. Educating users about password hygiene and encouraging the use of password managers can further reduce the risk of credential compromise.

Failing to address multiple failed login attempts followed by a successful login carries significant risks. Attackers may leverage the compromised account to escalate privileges, move laterally across systems, or exfiltrate confidential data. In environments subject to regulatory requirements, such as financial services or healthcare, such incidents could lead to compliance violations, fines, or reputational damage. A timely and structured SOC response ensures that threats are contained, mitigated, and documented for future reference, improving the organization’s overall security posture.

In addition to reactive measures, organizations should incorporate proactive monitoring and threat hunting. This includes analyzing historical login data to identify patterns indicative of credential-based attacks and applying machine learning or behavioral analytics to detect anomalies. By combining preventive controls, real-time monitoring, and thorough investigation, the SOC can significantly reduce the likelihood of successful attacks and minimize potential damage when incidents occur.

In summary, multiple failed logins followed by a successful login are a key indicator of potential brute-force or credential-stuffing attacks. The SOC must alert on such events, investigate them thoroughly, and enforce policies such as account lockouts to prevent further compromise. Ignoring these patterns exposes the organization to significant risk, including unauthorized access, data breaches, operational disruption, and regulatory penalties. Through a combination of monitoring, investigation, preventive controls, and user education, organizations can detect, respond to, and mitigate authentication-based attacks effectively, maintaining a strong security posture and protecting critical assets.

Question 38:

An organization adopts DevSecOps to integrate security early. Which practice best aligns with CISSP Domain 8 principles?

A) Security testing only after code is deployed
B) Continuous integration with automated static code analysis in the build pipeline
C) Manual penetration testing annually
D) Disabling security scanning to improve build speed

Answer: B) Continuous integration with automated static code analysis in the build pipeline.

Explanation:

DevSecOps is an evolution of the traditional DevOps methodology that emphasizes the integration of security practices directly into the software development lifecycle. The term itself, DevSecOps, reflects the incorporation of security as a shared responsibility among development, operations, and security teams. Unlike traditional approaches,, where security testing is often performed late in the development process, DevSecOps ensures that security is considered continuously from the earliest stages of development. This approach aligns closely with Domain 8 of the CISSP Common Body of Knowledge, which focuses on software development security and the principles of a secure software development lifecycle.

One of the primary ways DevSecOps achieves continuous security integration is through the use of automated static application security testing, or SAST, tools. These tools analyze source code, bytecode, or binaries for security vulnerabilities without executing the program. Static analysis can identify issues such as buffer overflows, SQL injection vulnerabilities, improper error handling, and insecure API usage. By embedding these tools into the continuous integration and continuous deployment pipeline, vulnerabilities are detected as soon as code is written and committed. This proactive approach ensures that developers receive immediate feedback and can remediate issues before code moves further down the deployment pipeline, reducing the likelihood of costly vulnerabilities reaching production environments.

Integrating security into CI/CD pipelines also encourages a cultural shift within development teams. Security becomes part of the development process rather than an afterthought or a separate phase. Developers learn to write more secure code from the outset, security teams guide design and coding, and operations teams ensure secure deployment practices. This collaboration not only improves security but also reduces friction in development and deployment cycles because security concerns are addressed continuously rather than as sudden blockers during release phases.

Traditional approaches to security often delay testing until after code is developed or deployed. In these models, security assessments might occur during quality assurance, pre-release testing, or post-deployment monitoring. While such practices can detect vulnerabilities, they do so after the code is largely complete, which increases the cost and effort required to remediate issues. Fixing a vulnerability late in the development cycle may involve rewriting significant portions of code, retesting, and redeploying, which can disrupt schedules and increase operational risk. DevSecOps addresses this challenge by shifting security left, meaning vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated as early as possible, leading to more efficient and effective risk management.

Another advantage of integrating security into CI/CD is that it supports continuous monitoring and compliance enforcement. Automated security checks can enforce coding standards, adherence to regulatory requirements, and alignment with organizational security policies. These checks can include license compliance scanning, detection of hard-coded credentials, cryptographic misconfigurations, and known vulnerability references in libraries and dependencies. By embedding these checks into the CI/CD pipeline, organizations maintain a consistent level of security without relying solely on manual review processes, which are time-consuming and prone to human error.

DevSecOps also promotes faster response to emerging threats. Because security testing is automated and continuous, new vulnerabilities discovered in libraries or frameworks can be detected quickly, and patches can be applied promptly. This adaptability ensures that software remains secure even as the threat landscape evolves, supporting ongoing risk management objectives.

In summary, DevSecOps integrates security directly into the software development and deployment process. Automated static analysis during CI/CD allows vulnerabilities to be identified and remediated early, aligning with Domain 8 principles of secure software development lifecycle. Unlike approaches that delay security testing until after development or deployment, DevSecOps promotes a culture of shared responsibility, continuous monitoring, and proactive risk mitigation. By shifting security left and embedding it into the pipeline, organizations can produce more secure software faster, reduce the cost of remediating vulnerabilities, and maintain ongoing compliance with internal and external security requirements. This makes DevSecOps the most effective approach for integrating security into modern software development practices.

Question 39:

Which of the following is the primary reason to use change management processes under Domain 7?

A) To increase staff workload
B) To ensure all modifications are documented, reviewed, and authorised to prevent unintended impacts
C) To allow developers to push changes without review
D) To focus only on cost reduction

Answer: B) To ensure all modifications are documented, reviewed, and authorised to prevent unintended impacts.

Explanation:

Change management ensures consistency, accountability, and controlled risk when modifying systems. It requires approval, documentation, and rollback options. This directly supports operational integrity and auditability.

Question 40:

During a risk assessment, a threat has a probability of 0.2 and a potential impact of $500,000. What is the Annualized Loss Expectancy (ALE)?
A) $100,000
B) $250,000
C) $500,000
D) $1,000,000
Answer: A) $100,000.

Explanation:

In risk management, one of the key metrics used to quantify potential financial losses from security incidents is Annualized Loss Expectancy, commonly abbreviated as ALE. This metric is particularly important in information security and broader business risk management because it allows organizations to estimate the expected annual financial impact of potential risks. The calculation of ALE involves two main components: Single Loss Expectancy (SLE) and Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO). Understanding these components and how they interact is crucial for performing cost-benefit analyses, prioritizing security controls, and making informed risk management decisions. In this example, the Single Loss Expectancy is $500,000, and the Annual Rate of Occurrence is 0.2, resulting in an ALE of $100,000.

Single Loss Expectancy represents the expected monetary loss from a single occurrence of a specific risk. This figure is determined by evaluating the potential impact of an event on the organization’s assets, systems, or operations. In the context of information security, an SLE might represent the financial loss from a data breach, system outage, or other security incident. Calculating the SLE requires understanding both the tangible and intangible impacts of an event. Tangible impacts might include direct financial costs, such as regulatory fines, lost revenue, or replacement of damaged equipment. Intangible impacts could include reputational damage, customer dissatisfaction, or loss of trust, which may indirectly translate into financial losses over time. In this scenario, the SLE is $500,000, meaning that each time the event occurs, the organization expects to lose half a million dollars.

The Annual Rate of Occurrence estimates how often a particular event is likely to happen within a year. This metric is typically derived from historical data, industry reports, threat intelligence, or expert judgment. ARO represents the probability of a specific risk occurring and can range from very low, such as 0.01 for extremely rare events, to high, such as 1.0 for events that are expected to occur once per year. In the given example, the ARO is 0.2, which indicates that the event is expected to occur once every five years on average. This frequency factor allows organizations to understand not just the impact of a single event, but the potential cumulative effect over time.

The calculation of ALE is straightforward: it is the product of SLE and ARO. Mathematically, ALE = SLE × ARO. Using the provided numbers, the calculation is $500,000 × 0.2, which equals $100,000. This means that, on an annualized basis, the organization can expect to lose $100,000 due to this particular risk. While the actual loss in any given year may be zero or more than this amount, ALE provides a useful average for planning purposes. By expressing potential losses in financial terms, ALE allows decision-makers to prioritize risks and allocate resources efficiently.

ALE is particularly valuable when conducting cost-benefit analyses of security controls. For example, if implementing a security control, such as an intrusion detection system, encryption solution, or improved access control, costs $50,000 per year but reduces the risk in question by half, the control would be justified financially because the expected loss reduction would exceed the cost. In this case, a reduction of 50 percent in the ALE would save $50,000 annually, which matches the cost of the control. This type of analysis helps organizations determine whether investing in preventive or mitigative measures is cost-effective and aligns with business objectives.

Additionally, ALE can be aggregated across multiple risks to estimate the total expected loss for the organization. This aggregation supports strategic risk management and budgeting decisions, enabling organizations to compare the financial impact of different threats and prioritize controls accordingly. By quantifying risk in monetary terms, ALE also facilitates communication with executives, board members, and other stakeholders who may not be familiar with technical security details but need to understand the potential business impact of security risks.

While ALE is a valuable tool, it is important to note its limitations. The accuracy of ALE depends on the reliability of the SLE and ARO estimates. If either is based on poor data or unrealistic assumptions, the resulting ALE may be misleading. Furthermore, ALE does not account for intangible factors that are difficult to quantify, such as reputational harm, customer loyalty, or strategic disruption. Despite these limitations, ALE remains a widely used and effective metric for providing a quantitative basis for security decisions.

In summary, Annualized Loss Expectancy is a key metric in Domain 1 of the CISSP framework, which covers security and risk management. It is calculated as the product of Single Loss Expectancy and Annual Rate of Occurrence. In this example, with an SLE of $500,000 and an ARO of 0.2, the ALE is $100,000. This financial metric enables organizations to evaluate potential risks in monetary terms, prioritize security controls, and perform cost-benefit analyses. By translating abstract risks into expected financial impact, ALE supports informed decision-making and contributes to a structured approach to risk management. It helps organizations allocate resources effectively, justify security investments, and communicate risk in a language that business stakeholders can understand. Proper use of ALE, combined with careful estimation of SLE and ARO, provides a practical and actionable method for managing security risks.