ISC CISSP Certified Information Systems Security Professional Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 4 Q61-80

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

Question 61:

Under Domain 1 (Security and Risk Management), a multinational corporation must comply with multiple privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA, and LGPD). Which strategy ensures consistent compliance management across jurisdictions?

A) Implement localized privacy programs independently per region
B) Create a global privacy framework based on the strictest applicable law
C) Delegate compliance to each country’s data protection officer
D) Only follow the law of the corporate headquarters

Answer: B) Create a global privacy framework based on the strictest applicable law.

Explanation:

Using the strictest standard ensures compliance in all regions and simplifies governance. It prevents gaps that might occur with fragmented local programs. GDPR often serves as a global benchmark due to its comprehensive requirements.

Question 62:

A risk manager defines the organization’s risk appetite. What does this term best represent?

A) The total amount of loss a company can financially survive
B) The level and type of risk an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives
C) The specific residual risks identified after mitigation
D) The difference between inherent and residual ris.

Answer: B) The level and type of risk an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives.

Explanation:

Risk appetite expresses management’s tolerance for risk before corrective actions are triggered. It’s strategic, unlike residual risk (operational) or total loss capability.

Question 63:

Under Domain 2 (Asset Security), what is the first step in the data classification process?

A) Assign data owners
B) Determine data value and sensitivity
C) Label all assets
D) Encrypt confidential information

Answer: B) Determine data value and sensitivity.

Explanation:

Classification begins by assessing the data’s sensitivity, value, and impact if disclosed or altered. Based on that, owners and labels are assigned. Labeling and encryption occur later.

Question 64:

In Domain 3 (Security Architecture & Engineering), which of the following principles reduces attack surfaces by minimizing system complexity?

A) Least privilege
B) Economy of mechanism
C) Defense in depth

D) Fail-safe defaults

Answer: B) Economy of mechanism.

Explanation:

Economy of mechanism advocates simplicity in design to reduce configuration errors and vulnerabilities. The simpler the mechanism, the easier it is to verify security.

Question 65:

A security architect is reviewing virtualization platforms. Which risk is most associated with hypervisor compromise?

A) Data remanence
B) VM escape
C) Downtime due to patching
D) Application incompatibility

Answer: B) VM escape.

Explanation:

If a hypervisor is compromised, an attacker can escape from a guest VM to control other VMs or the host — a “VM escape.” This undermines isolation, a core security benefit of virtualization.

Question 66:

Under Domain 4 (Communication and Network Security), which technology best protects confidentiality over an untrusted wireless network?

A) WEP
B) WPA2 with AES
C) MAC filtering
D) Open Wi-Fi with captive portal

Answer: B) WPA2 with AES.

Explanation:

AES-based WPA2 or WPA3 provides robust encryption and authentication. WEP is obsolete, MAC filtering is easily spoofed, and captive portals protect access but not confidentiality.

Question 67:

In Domain 5 (Identity and Access Management), what is the primary benefit of federated identity management (FIM)?

A) Reduced password reuse and streamlined single sign-on across multiple organizations
B) Increased independence from third-party trust
C) Simplified physical access controls
D) Support for biometric authentication only

Answer: A) Reduced password reuse and streamlined single sign-on across multiple organizations.

Explanation:

Federation allows identity information to be shared securely across domains, improving user experience and reducing password fatigue while maintaining centralized control.

Question 68:

Which of the following best represents a logical access control mechanism under Domain 5?

A) Biometric locks on data centers
B) File system permissions
C) Security guards
D) Power surge protectors

Answer: B) File system permissions.

Explanation:

Logical controls restrict access through software—permissions, ACLs, and passwords. Physical controls (locks, guards) and environmental controls (surge protectors) serve different layers.

Question 69:

Under Domain 6 (Security Assessment and Testing), which testing type examines processes and controls without actively exploiting vulnerabilities?

A) Black-box penetration test
B) Vulnerability assessment
C) Red team operation

D) Fuzz testing

 

Answer: B) Vulnerability assessment.

Explanation:

Vulnerability assessments are a key component of proactive security management. Their primary goal is to identify, classify, and prioritize security weaknesses in systems, applications, and networks. These assessments typically involve automated scanning tools, configuration reviews, patch level checks, and policy compliance audits. By highlighting areas of potential risk, vulnerability assessments provide organizations with actionable insights to remediate issues before they can be exploited by attackers. However, vulnerability assessments stop short of actively testing whether the identified weaknesses can be leveraged to gain unauthorized access or disrupt operations. They focus on detection and prioritization rather than exploitation.

Penetration testing, in contrast, simulates real-world attacks to validate whether vulnerabilities can be exploited. Ethical hackers attempt to breach systems using techniques similar to those employed by malicious actors, demonstrating the practical impact of identified weaknesses. This approach provides organizations with a clearer picture of potential damage, helping prioritize remediation based on real-world exploitability rather than theoretical risk alone. Pen tests can uncover chained exploits, misconfigurations, or business logic flaws that may not be evident in standard vulnerability assessments.

Red team exercises take this a step further by adopting an adversary-focused approach. Red teams conduct sustained, covert campaigns to mimic advanced threat actors, testing not only technical vulnerabilities but also human and procedural weaknesses. This holistic approach evaluates an organization’s detection, response, and resilience, offering insights into overall security posture. While vulnerability assessments identify where risks exist, penetration tests and red team exercises demonstrate the consequences of those risks in practice, enabling organizations to implement more targeted and effective defenses.

Question 70:

A security engineer plans to test web applications by submitting random and malformed inputs. What testing approach is being used?

A) Static code analysis
B) Fuzz testing
C) Regression testing
D) Stress testing

Answer: B) Fuzz testing.

Explanation:

Fuzzing automates random input generation to find unhandled exceptions or crashes that could reveal vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows or input validation issues.

Question 71:

Under Domain 7 (Security Operations), what is the most important consideration when designing an incident response plan?

A) Including only technical responders
B) Ensuring clear communication channels and predefined escalation paths
C) Limiting scope to cybersecurity incidents only
D) Keeping the plan secret from all employees

Answer: B) Ensuring clear communication channels and predefined escalation paths.

Explanation:

Incident response is a critical function in organizational cybersecurity and risk management, focusing on detecting, analyzing, containing, and recovering from security incidents. While technical tools and procedures are essential, effective incident response depends heavily on coordination and communication among various stakeholders. Without clearly defined roles, communication channels, and escalation processes, even the most advanced technical capabilities can fail to mitigate the impact of an incident. Coordination ensures that the right people are informed at the right time, decisions are made efficiently, and the organization can respond in a structured and effective manner.

A primary goal of incident response coordination is to minimize confusion during a crisis. Security incidents, such as malware infections, ransomware attacks, insider threats, or denial-of-service attacks, often occur under time pressure and can have cascading effects. If multiple teams respond independently without communication or agreed-upon procedures, actions may conflict, duplicate efforts, or overlook critical tasks. For example, one team may attempt to isolate a compromised server while another team continues to interact with it, unintentionally worsening the situation. Coordination ensures that everyone understands their responsibilities, follows the established incident response plan, and communicates updates in a structured manner.

Defined communication protocols are a fundamental aspect of coordinated incident response. These protocols specify who should be notified, what information must be shared, and how communication should occur. Effective communication channels include internal messaging systems, email alerts, phone trees, and secure collaboration platforms. For critical incidents, pre-established escalation paths ensure that senior management, technical teams, and external stakeholders, such as law enforcement or regulatory authorities, are informed promptly. Clear communication also helps in managing public relations, providing accurate information to customers or partners, and avoiding misinformation that could damage the organization’s reputation.

Escalation procedures are equally important. Not all incidents are equal in severity or impact, and having predefined thresholds for escalation ensures that incidents receive appropriate attention. Low-level incidents may be handled entirely within the IT security team, while high-impact incidents affecting critical systems may require involvement from executive management, legal counsel, and communications teams. By defining escalation triggers, organizations can prioritize response efforts, allocate resources efficiently, and avoid delays that could exacerbate the incident. Escalation processes also ensure accountability, as decision-making authority is clearly assigned to individuals or teams empowered to take necessary actions.

Coordination during incident response extends beyond internal communication. Effective response often involves multiple departments, including IT operations, security, legal, human resources, and finance. Collaboration between these groups ensures that all aspects of the incident are addressed, from technical remediation to regulatory compliance and employee management. For example, a data breach may require IT to contain the compromise, legal to notify regulators, HR to manage insider threat issues, and communications to inform stakeholders. Without coordinated efforts, important steps may be overlooked, leading to regulatory penalties, reputational damage, or operational disruption.

Secrecy or overly narrow focus during incident response can weaken efficiency and hinder effective containment. While sensitive information must be protected, withholding critical details from relevant teams can prevent timely decision-making and action. For instance, if only the IT security team is aware of a ransomware outbreak and does not communicate with operations or executive management, backup restoration or business continuity measures may be delayed. Coordination balances the need for confidentiality with the requirement to share actionable information with those responsible for mitigating the incident, ensuring both security and operational continuity.

Training and preparation are crucial for ensuring coordination is effective during an incident. Incident response plans should clearly define roles, responsibilities, communication channels, and escalation paths. Regular exercises, such as tabletop simulations and full-scale drills, allow teams to practice coordination, identify gaps, and improve response processes. These exercises help personnel understand their responsibilities under pressure, develop teamwork skills, and familiarize themselves with communication protocols. A well-practiced and coordinated incident response team can respond to crises with agility, reducing recovery time and minimizing the impact on operations.

Documentation is another key component of coordinated incident response. Detailed records of actions taken, communications, and decisions provide a clear trail for post-incident analysis, regulatory reporting, and continuous improvement. Coordinated documentation ensures that multiple teams are working from consistent information, avoids duplicated effort, and provides evidence of due care and compliance. Incident reports and post-mortem analyses can be used to update procedures, improve training, and refine escalation criteria, enhancing the organization’s readiness for future incidents.

Technology supports coordination by providing centralized platforms for incident tracking, ticketing, and communication. Security information and event management (SIEM) systems, incident management dashboards, and collaboration tools allow teams to share real-time updates, assign tasks, and monitor response progress. Automated alerts and notifications ensure that the appropriate personnel are informed immediately when an incident occurs. These tools reduce the risk of miscommunication and enable teams to respond quickly and effectively, reinforcing the importance of coordination in incident response.

In conclusion, incident response relies heavily on coordination to ensure effective, timely, and efficient action. Defined communication channels, structured escalation procedures, and collaboration across multiple teams prevent confusion, duplication, and delays during crises. Secrecy or narrow focus can impede response, while coordinated efforts ensure that all aspects of an incident, from containment to recovery and compliance, are addressed. Training, exercises, documentation, and technology further support coordination, enabling organizations to respond to incidents with agility and resilience. By prioritizing coordination, organizations strengthen their ability to mitigate risks, minimize operational impact, and maintain stakeholder confidence in the face of cybersecurity incidents.

Question 72:

In Domain 7, which backup strategy balances storage efficiency and restoration speed?

A) Full backup daily
B) Incremental backup daily
C) Differential backup daily with full backup weekly
D) RAID 0 mirroring

Answer: C) Differential backup daily with full backup weekly.

Explanation:

Differential backups capture all changes since the last full backup—simpler to restore than incremental, while saving space compared to daily fulls.

Question 73:

Under Domain 3, which hardware-based security feature prevents code execution from non-trusted memory areas?

A) BIOS password
B) Trusted Platform Module (TPM)
C) Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
D) Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)

Answer: C) Data Execution Prevention (DEP).

Explanation:

DEP enforces execution control, preventing malicious code from running in non-executable regions like stacks or heaps. TPM handles key storage, not memory protection.

Question 74:

A system’s mean time to repair (MTTR) is 4 hours, and mean time between failures (MTBF) is 100 hours. What is its availability?

A) 90%
B) 96%
C) 97%
D) 99%

Answer: C) 97%.

Explanation:

Availability is a critical metric in system reliability and performance, particularly in the context of IT systems, network infrastructure, and business operations. It measures the proportion of time a system is operational and able to perform its intended functions. In practical terms, availability answers the question of how often a system is accessible and usable when needed by users or dependent processes. High availability is essential for organizations that rely on continuous access to applications, data, and services, as downtime can result in financial loss, operational disruption, and reputational damage. Calculating availability allows organizations to quantify reliability, maintenance plans, and make informed decisions regarding redundancy and disaster recovery.

The formula for system availability is expressed as Availability = MTBF / (MTBF + MTTR), where MTBF stands for Mean Time Between Failures, and MTTR stands for Mean Time to Repair. MTBF represents the average operational time a system functions without failure. It provides insight into the system’s reliability over extended periods. MTTR, on the other hand, represents the average time required to restore a system after a failure occurs, reflecting the efficiency of repair procedures, incident response, and recovery processes. By combining these two metrics, availability provides a clear indication of the proportion of uptime relative to total operational time.

In the given example, MTBF is 100 hours, and MTTR is 4 hours. Plugging these values into the formula gives Availability = 100 / (100 + 4) = 100 / 104 ≈ 0.9615, which translates to approximately 96.15%. This value is commonly rounded to 96%, corresponding to the correct choice in the multiple-choice context. This calculation illustrates the relationship between system reliability and repair efficiency. Even if a system is highly reliable with a high MTBF, long repair times (high MTTR) can significantly reduce availability. Conversely, efficient repair and recovery processes can maintain high availability even for systems that fail more frequently.

Understanding availability is essential for designing systems that meet business and operational requirements. Organizations often define service-level agreements (SLAs) specifying expected availability for critical systems. For example, an SLA might require 99.9% uptime, which corresponds to approximately 8.76 hours of downtime per year. Availability metrics inform infrastructure design decisions, such as whether to implement redundant components, failover mechanisms, clustering, or hot standby systems. The goal is to minimize downtime and ensure that critical services remain operational, even when failures occur.

Availability is closely related to reliability, but the two concepts are distinct. Reliability focuses on the probability that a system will function without failure over a given period, emphasizing MTBF. Availability, on the other hand, considers both the frequency of failures and the effectiveness of recovery procedures. A highly reliable system with long repair times may still have lower availability than a moderately reliable system with rapid recovery capabilities. Therefore, both MTBF and MTTR must be analyzed to achieve the desired level of availability.

Several factors influence availability in real-world systems. Hardware quality, redundancy, fault-tolerant design, and preventive maintenance all contribute to higher MTBF, reducing the likelihood of failures. At the same time, effective incident response, trained personnel, well-documented procedures, and automated monitoring reduce MTTR by enabling faster detection, diagnosis, and repair. Environmental factors, such as temperature, humidity, power stability, and physical security, can also impact failure rates and repair times, further influencing availability.

Availability is a key consideration in various domains of security and operations. In IT security, high availability is a fundamental component of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) triad. Organizations invest in redundancy, load balancing, and disaster recovery plans to maintain the availability of critical systems. In operational contexts, availability affects productivity, customer satisfaction, and revenue generation. For example, e-commerce platforms, banking systems, and healthcare applications require near-continuous availability to serve customers and maintain trust.

Monitoring and reporting system availability is essential for ongoing improvement. Organizations often implement performance dashboards, logging, and alerting to track downtime, failure causes, and repair times. Analyzing trends in MTBF and MTTR helps identify recurring issues, bottlenecks, and opportunities for optimization. For instance, frequent hardware failures may indicate the need for higher-quality components, while extended repair times may suggest insufficient training or inefficient processes. By continuously monitoring availability, organizations can make data-driven decisions to enhance reliability and reduce service interruptions.

Availability also informs capacity planning and risk management. Knowing the expected uptime of critical systems allows organizations to plan for contingencies, allocate resources effectively, and prioritize maintenance activities. For example, systems with high availability requirements may require clustering, redundant power supplies, network failover, and geographically distributed backups. These measures ensure that even in the event of localized failures or disasters, services remain accessible to users.

In conclusion, system availability is calculated using the formula Availability = MTBF / (MTBF + MTTR). With an MTBF of 100 hours and an MTTR of 4 hours, availability is 100 / 104 ≈ 0.9615, or approximately 96%. Availability quantifies the proportion of operational time, reflecting both reliability and recovery efficiency. It is a critical metric for designing resilient systems, meeting service-level agreements, and ensuring business continuity. Understanding the factors that influence availability, monitoring performance, and implementing redundancy and rapid recovery mechanisms enables organizations to maintain high levels of uptime, protect critical services, and minimize the impact of system failures. By focusing on both MTBF and MTTR, organizations can achieve a balanced approach that maximizes operational effectiveness while mitigating risk.

Question 75:

Under Domain 8 (Software Development Security), which SDLC model emphasizes continuous integration, frequent delivery, and security built into every sprint?

A) Waterfall
B) Agile/DevSecOps
C) Spiral
D) V-Model

Answer: B) Agile/DevSecOps.

Explanation:

DevSecOps, short for Development, Security, and Operations, represents an evolution of traditional DevOps practices by integrating security into every stage of the software development lifecycle. While DevOps emphasizes continuous integration, continuous delivery, collaboration, and rapid deployment, DevSecOps extends these principles by embedding security directly into the CI/CD pipeline. This approach ensures that security is not an afterthought addressed only at the end of development, but a core aspect of the development process. By automating security testing, monitoring, and compliance, DevSecOps reduces vulnerabilities, accelerates delivery, and strengthens overall application resilience.

In traditional software development models, security was often introduced late in the lifecycle, typically during testing or prior to release. This approach frequently resulted in delays, increased costs, and the discovery of vulnerabilities only after significant development effort had been expended. Fixing security issues post-release is more resource-intensive than addressing them during development, as vulnerabilities may require substantial code refactoring, redeployment, or patching. DevSecOps addresses this challenge by shifting security left, meaning security considerations are incorporated from the earliest design and coding stages, continuing through testing, deployment, and operational monitoring.

One of the central features of DevSecOps is automation. Security tools are integrated into the CI/CD pipeline to automatically scan code for vulnerabilities, enforce compliance policies, and verify configuration standards. For example, static application security testing (SAST) tools analyze source code for security weaknesses as developers commit changes, identifying issues such as injection flaws, insecure API usage, and misconfigurations. Dynamic application security testing (DAST) evaluates running applications to detect runtime vulnerabilities, while software composition analysis (SCA) tools identify risks in third-party libraries and open-source components. By automating these processes, DevSecOps reduces human error, ensures consistent enforcement of security policies, and provides immediate feedback to developers, enabling rapid remediation of vulnerabilities before code reaches production.

Another important aspect of DevSecOps is continuous monitoring and feedback. Security metrics and logs are collected and analyzed throughout the pipeline, providing insight into code quality, compliance adherence, and operational risks. Automated alerts can notify teams of policy violations, vulnerable components, or anomalous activity, allowing them to address issues proactively. This continuous feedback loop reinforces a culture of shared responsibility, where developers, security professionals, and operations teams collaborate to maintain both speed and security. By embedding security checks into every stage of development, DevSecOps ensures that the release of software does not compromise the organization’s security posture.

DevSecOps also promotes the use of infrastructure as code (IaC), enabling security configurations to be managed programmatically. This approach ensures that environments are consistent, repeatable, and auditable. Security controls such as firewall rules, access permissions, and encryption settings can be embedded directly into the code that provisions and configures infrastructure. Automated testing can validate that these configurations comply with organizational security standards, reducing the risk of misconfigurations that might otherwise expose systems to attack. IaC, combined with automated security testing, allows organizations to maintain a high level of assurance across both application and infrastructure layers.

Compliance is another critical benefit of DevSecOps. Many industries are subject to regulatory standards that mandate secure software development practices, such as PCI DSS for payment systems, HIPAA for healthcare data, and GDPR for personal data protection. By incorporating compliance checks into the CI/CD pipeline, organizations can ensure that applications meet regulatory requirements from the outset. Automated enforcement of coding standards, logging of changes, and generation of audit trails simplify compliance reporting and reduce the risk of penalties for noncompliance. DevSecOps aligns security and compliance objectives with business goals, ensuring that fast delivery does not come at the expense of regulatory obligations.

Cultural transformation is a core component of DevSecOps. Security is no longer the sole responsibility of a specialized team but a shared responsibility across development and operations teams. Developers are encouraged to write secure code, operations teams ensure secure deployment and monitoring, and security professionals provide guidance, tools, and oversight. This collaborative approach fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement, breaking down silos that traditionally separated development, security, and operations. Training, awareness, and clear communication are essential to embedding security into the organizational mindset, ensuring that all team members understand their role in maintaining application security.

The benefits of DevSecOps are significant. By integrating security into every stage of the software lifecycle, organizations can reduce vulnerabilities, shorten remediation times, and release software with confidence. Automation ensures consistency and repeatability, reducing human error and increasing efficiency. Continuous monitoring and feedback enable proactive risk management, while compliance automation supports regulatory adherence. Overall, DevSecOps aligns security objectives with Agile principles, maintaining the speed and flexibility of modern development practices while embedding robust protections into the pipeline.

In conclusion, DevSecOps extends Agile and DevOps principles by embedding security directly into the CI/CD pipeline, ensuring that testing, monitoring, and compliance occur continuously throughout development. By automating security checks, integrating infrastructure as code, and fostering a culture of shared responsibility, DevSecOps enables organizations to deliver software rapidly without compromising security. Unlike traditional approaches where security is applied post-development, DevSecOps provides proactive, continuous, and integrated protection, reducing risk, improving resilience, and supporting compliance. Its focus on automation, collaboration, and continuous improvement makes DevSecOps a cornerstone of modern secure software development practices, ensuring that security is not an afterthought but an inherent part of the development lifecycle.

Question 76:

In Domain 3, what is the function of a reference monitor?

A) It logs system activity for audit
B) It enforces access control decisions between subjects and objects
C) It manages encryption keys
D) It monitors hardware performance

Answer: B) It enforces access control decisions between subjects and objects.

Explanation:

The reference monitor mediates all access attempts, ensuring they comply with the security policy. It must be tamper-proof, always invoked, and small enough to verify — forming the basis of the TCB.

Question 77:

Under Domain 2, which of the following best ensures that sensitive data remains protected when hardware is decommissioned?

A) Standard file deletion
B) Disk formatting
C) Cryptographic erasure or physical destruction
D) Logical disconnection

Answer: C) Cryptographic erasure or physical destruction.

Explanation:

File deletion and formatting leave recoverable traces. Cryptographic erasure destroys keys, rendering encrypted data unreadable; physical destruction guarantees non-recovery.

Question 78:

A company requires employees to scan smart cards and enter a PIN to access systems. Which authentication model is this?

A) Single-factor authentication
B) Dual-channel authorization
C) Multi-factor authentication
D) Context-aware access control

Answer: C) Multi-factor authentication.

Explanation:

Multi-factor authentication, or MFA, is a foundational security control designed to enhance the protection of systems, data, and resources by requiring users to present two or more independent forms of authentication before gaining access. The underlying principle of MFA is that it is significantly harder for an attacker to compromise multiple authentication factors than a single factor. Traditional single-factor authentication, such as a password or PIN, relies solely on something the user knows. While convenient, single-factor authentication is vulnerable to theft, guessing, phishing attacks, and other exploits. MFA addresses these vulnerabilities by combining two or more distinct categories of authentication factors, thereby significantly increasing the overall security posture.

Authentication factors are typically divided into three broad categories. The first is something you know, such as a password, personal identification number (PIN), or answers to security questions. This factor relies on the user’s ability to recall secret information. The second category is something you have, which includes physical or digital tokens like smart cards, key fobs, mobile authentication apps, or security keys. These factors rely on possession, meaning the user must physically have the device to authenticate. The third category is something you are, which is based on inherent traits such as fingerprints, retina scans, facial recognition, or voice patterns. Biometric factors rely on physiological or behavioral characteristics to verify identity.

For authentication to be considered multi-factor, the factors used must come from at least two different categories. Simply combining multiple elements from the same category, such as two passwords, does not constitute MFA and provides only incremental security over single-factor authentication. True MFA ensures that even if one factor is compromised, an attacker cannot gain access without the other independent factor. For example, if an attacker steals a user’s password (something they know), they still cannot authenticate without also possessing the smart card or security key (something they have). Similarly, if biometric data is compromised, access cannot be gained without the corresponding knowledge or possession factor.

A common and widely deployed MFA scenario combines something you have with something you know. For instance, a user may be required to insert a smart card into a reader and then enter a PIN associated with that card. The smart card serves as the possession factor, while the PIN serves as the knowledge factor. This combination is highly effective because an attacker would need both the physical card and knowledge of the PIN to successfully authenticate. If either factor is missing or incorrect, access is denied. This dual-layer approach drastically reduces the likelihood of unauthorized access compared to using either factor alone.

MFA is not limited to two factors; it can incorporate multiple factors for even greater security. For example, an organization may require a smart card (something you have), a PIN (something you know), and a fingerprint scan (something you are) for access to highly sensitive systems. This three-factor authentication further strengthens security by requiring an attacker to compromise multiple, independent factors, each of which presents its own challenges. In practice, the selection of factors is often balanced with usability, cost, and risk, ensuring that the security controls are both effective and practical for users.

The benefits of MFA extend beyond protecting credentials and user accounts. MFA mitigates a wide range of threats, including phishing attacks, keylogging, credential stuffing, and account takeover attempts. Even if a password is stolen or guessed, the additional factor prevents immediate compromise. MFA also supports compliance with regulatory frameworks and industry standards, such as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and various government cybersecurity mandates. Organizations that implement MFA demonstrate due care in protecting sensitive information, reducing both risk exposure and potential liability.

While MFA significantly enhances security, proper implementation is critical. Factors should be independent and resistant to duplication or spoofing. For example, SMS-based one-time passwords, while better than no additional factor, are susceptible to interception through SIM swapping attacks or malware. Stronger alternatives include hardware tokens, authenticator apps, and biometric factors that are more resistant to compromise. Additionally, organizations should integrate MFA seamlessly into workflows to minimize disruption and encourage user adoption. Poorly designed MFA processes may lead users to circumvent security measures, undermining their effectiveness.

MFA is particularly valuable in environments where sensitive information or high-value resources are involved. Examples include remote access to corporate networks, administrative access to servers, cloud service management portals, financial transaction systems, and healthcare information systems. In these contexts, the additional layers of authentication provided by MFA significantly reduce the risk of unauthorized access and protect against a wide range of attack vectors. MFA can also be combined with other security controls, such as role-based access control, logging, monitoring, and conditional access policies, to create a defense-in-depth approach that addresses both external and internal threats.

In conclusion, multi-factor authentication enhances security by requiring users to provide multiple, independent forms of authentication before granting access. Combining something you have, such as a smart card, with something you know, such as a PIN, exemplifies MFA because the factors come from different categories, making it significantly harder for attackers to compromise access. MFA mitigates risks associated with password theft, phishing, and other credential-based attacks, supports regulatory compliance, and contributes to a layered, defense-in-depth security strategy. Effective implementation of MFA balances strong security with usability, ensuring that users can access systems efficiently while maintaining robust protection for sensitive resources. By understanding and applying the principles of MFA, organizations can significantly reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access and protect their critical assets from evolving threats.

Question 79:

In Domain 4, what is the primary goal of a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in network design?

A) To increase bandwidth for external users
B) To isolate public-facing services from the internal network
C) To provide encryption between subnets

D) To replace firewalls

Answer: B) To isolate public-facing services from the internal network.

Explanation:

A DMZ hosts external-facing servers (e.g., web, mail) separated from the internal LAN by firewalls. It limits exposure if those services are compromised.

Question 80:

Under Domain 1, which policy statement most reflects due care in cybersecurity management?

A) “We will research all vendors before acquisition.”
B) “We continuously monitor system performance and apply patches promptly.”
C) “We accept all risks under $1,000.”
D) “We delegate all risk handling to the insurance provider.”

Answer: B) “We continuously monitor system performance and apply patches promptly.”

Explanation:

In information security and risk management, understanding the distinction between due care and due diligence is fundamental for effectively protecting organizational assets, complying with regulations, and demonstrating responsible governance. Both concepts are closely related and often discussed together, but they represent different stages and aspects of security management. Due care refers to the ongoing application and maintenance of security measures, ensuring that the organization actively protects its assets, whereas due diligence is the process of evaluation, assessment, and planning that occurs before implementing controls. Clarifying these concepts is critical for security professionals, executives, and auditors, as each plays a specific role in maintaining a robust security posture.

Due care can be understood as the practical implementation of security responsibilities. It involves the continuous and proactive application of measures designed to protect systems, data, and operations. Examples of due care include applying security patches to software and operating systems, monitoring network traffic for suspicious activity, updating antivirus definitions, conducting regular vulnerability scans, performing backup procedures, and ensuring that firewalls and access controls are properly configured and functioning. Due care is not a one-time effort; it is an ongoing, repetitive process that demonstrates that an organization is actively maintaining its security posture and fulfilling its legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to protect assets and sensitive information.

One of the key aspects of due care is operational consistency. Security measures must be applied uniformly and reliably across all relevant systems, departments, and personnel. For instance, it is not sufficient to patch only some servers or update antivirus software sporadically; these measures must be implemented systematically to ensure comprehensive protection. Additionally, due care involves actively monitoring and adjusting controls as threats evolve. Cybersecurity threats are dynamic, with new vulnerabilities, attack vectors, and malware appearing regularly. Organizations that exercise due care continually review and update their protective measures to address emerging risks, demonstrating a proactive rather than reactive approach to security.

Due care also includes user education and enforcement of policies. Employees must be trained on best practices such as password management, phishing awareness, data handling procedures, and safe use of devices and networks. While technology and systems provide the technical foundation for security, human behavior is often the weakest link. Due care ensures that personnel understand their roles and responsibilities in maintaining security, contributing to the overall resilience of the organization. Regular audits, compliance checks, and reporting mechanisms also fall under due care, as they confirm that security measures are functioning as intended and that gaps or lapses are promptly addressed.

Due diligence, by contrast, occurs before the implementation of security controls or processes. It involves identifying, evaluating, and assessing risks, as well as researching the most effective measures to mitigate those risks. Due diligence requires organizations to analyze potential threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts on business operations, assets, and stakeholders. For example, before deploying a new firewall, an organization conducts due diligence by comparing different firewall technologies, evaluating their effectiveness against likely threats, assessing cost and compatibility with existing systems, and ensuring that implementation aligns with regulatory requirements. Due diligence is therefore a preparatory, investigative process, whereas due care is the ongoing execution of protective actions.

The relationship between due diligence and due care is sequential and complementary. Due diligence lays the foundation for informed decision-making and effective security planning. It ensures that the organization selects the appropriate controls and strategies based on a thorough understanding of risk. Once the controls are implemented, due care ensures that they are applied correctly, maintained consistently, and updated as needed to respond to evolving threats. An organization that demonstrates due diligence without due care may fail to protect its assets in practice, while an organization that exercises due care without adequate due diligence may apply controls that are ineffective, misaligned with risk, or noncompliant with regulations.

Due care has both legal and regulatory significance. In many jurisdictions, organizations are expected to demonstrate that they have actively implemented reasonable security measures to protect sensitive information and critical systems. Failure to exercise due care can result in liability for negligence, data breaches, regulatory fines, and reputational damage. For example, if a company fails to apply security patches that are widely recognized as necessary, and a breach occurs exploiting that vulnerability, the organization may be deemed to have neglected its duty of care. Courts, regulators, and auditors often evaluate due care by reviewing documentation of ongoing security practices, monitoring logs, incident response records, and evidence of policy enforcement.

Implementing due care effectively requires integration into organizational processes, policies, and culture. Security responsibilities must be clearly assigned, procedures documented, and accountability mechanisms established. Automation tools, such as patch management systems, vulnerability scanners, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and monitoring platforms, can assist in consistently applying due care. However, human oversight remains essential for interpreting results, responding to incidents, and adjusting controls as threats evolve. Due care is therefore a combination of technical measures, administrative procedures, and personnel engagement, all sustained over time to ensure ongoing protection.

Another aspect of due care is the documentation of activities. Maintaining records of patches applied, system updates, security incidents, training sessions, audits, and compliance checks serves multiple purposes. It provides evidence of responsible security management, supports accountability, and enables continuous improvement by highlighting trends, weaknesses, and areas for enhancement. Documentation also facilitates regulatory reporting and helps organizations respond to inquiries from auditors, customers, and stakeholders, reinforcing trust in the organization’s commitment to security.

In conclusion, due care represents the ongoing implementation and maintenance of protective security measures, ensuring that systems, data, and processes remain secure over time. It includes activities such as patching, monitoring, user training, auditing, and policy enforcement. Due diligence, by contrast, is the investigative and evaluative process conducted before implementation, ensuring that selected controls are appropriate, effective, and aligned with organizational risk and compliance requirements. Both concepts are essential for a comprehensive information security strategy: due diligence ensures informed planning, and due care ensures operational effectiveness and continuous protection. Together, they form a framework for responsible and proactive security management, reducing risk exposure, supporting compliance, and demonstrating organizational accountability in the face of evolving cyber threats.