CISSP Exam Free Practice Questions

When GPOs are linked to the domain, they apply to all users and computers within that domain, making it a comprehensive solution for enforcing security policies. It is crucial to understand the concept of GPO precedence, as multiple GPOs can be applied to the same objects, and the order in which they are processed can affect the final outcome. By ensuring that the new GPO has a higher precedence, the organization can avoid conflicts and ensure compliance with its security policies. Modifying the existing default domain policy may seem convenient, but it can lead to complications in management and troubleshooting, especially if the default policy is already heavily customized. Applying the new GPO only to specific Organizational Units (OUs) would limit its effectiveness and could result in inconsistent security settings across the organization. Finally, relying on local security policies on each computer is not scalable and defeats the purpose of centralized management that GPOs provide. Therefore, creating a new GPO linked to the domain is the most effective and compliant approach to managing security settings across all computers in the domain.

Operational efficiency is also a concern; however, it should not come at the cost of security. Increasing the server’s processing power (option b) does not address the underlying security issues and may lead to complacency regarding security practices. Similarly, while implementing a more complex password policy (option c) is beneficial for user account security, it does not directly mitigate the risks posed by unnecessary services. Lastly, regularly updating software (option d) is crucial for maintaining security, but doing so without reviewing current configurations can lead to misconfigurations or the re-enabling of previously disabled services, which could inadvertently introduce new vulnerabilities. In summary, the most effective immediate action for the administrator is to disable unnecessary services, as this directly aligns with the principle of least privilege and significantly enhances the server’s security posture. This approach not only protects sensitive customer data but also establishes a foundation for ongoing security management practices.

In contrast, enforcing a strict password policy that mandates frequent changes can lead to user frustration, as employees may resort to insecure practices, such as writing down passwords or using easily guessable variations. This undermines the very security the policy aims to enhance. Similarly, while a single sign-on (SSO) system can improve usability by reducing the number of credentials users must remember, if it lacks robust security measures, it can expose the organization to significant risks, such as credential theft. Lastly, mandating the use of security tokens without adequate training can alienate users and lead to non-compliance, as employees may find the additional device cumbersome and may not understand its importance. Therefore, the best approach is to implement MFA, which combines security and usability by providing multiple authentication methods while ensuring that users receive the necessary support and guidance to navigate the system effectively. This balance is essential for fostering a security-conscious culture within the organization while maintaining productivity and user satisfaction.

$$ ALE = SLE \times ARO $$ where SLE (Single Loss Expectancy) represents the expected monetary loss each time a risk event occurs, and ARO (Annual Rate of Occurrence) indicates how often that risk is expected to occur within a year. This method allows the CISO to prioritize risks based on their potential financial impact, enabling informed decision-making regarding resource allocation for risk mitigation. In contrast, a qualitative risk assessment matrix primarily categorizes risks based on subjective criteria such as likelihood and impact, without providing a direct financial quantification. While this method is useful for initial assessments, it lacks the precision needed for financial decision-making. A risk avoidance strategy involves eliminating the risk entirely, which may not always be feasible or practical for all identified risks. This approach does not provide a quantifiable measure of risk impact but rather focuses on prevention. Lastly, a security control effectiveness analysis evaluates how well existing security measures mitigate risks but does not quantify the financial implications of those risks. This analysis is essential for understanding the performance of security controls but does not directly assist in quantifying potential losses. Thus, the ALE calculation is the most effective method for the CISO to quantify the financial impact of risks, allowing for a more structured and data-driven approach to risk management in the organization.

While conducting a full system scan is a necessary follow-up action, it does not address the immediate risk of the malware spreading to other systems. Similarly, informing employees about the incident is important for raising awareness and preventing future occurrences, but it does not provide a direct solution to the current threat. Restoring the system from a backup may be a viable recovery strategy, but it assumes that the backup is clean and does not contain the same malware, which could lead to further complications. In the context of risk management, the organization should also consider implementing additional measures such as updating antivirus definitions, applying security patches, and conducting a thorough investigation to understand how the malware was introduced. This incident highlights the importance of employee training on safe computing practices and the need for robust security controls to detect and respond to such threats effectively. Overall, the immediate isolation of the affected system is a critical step in the incident response process, ensuring that the organization can contain the threat and begin remediation efforts without exacerbating the situation.

Implementing a PowerShell execution policy that restricts script execution to signed scripts is a critical step in mitigating risks. This policy ensures that only scripts that have been verified and signed by a trusted publisher can be executed, significantly reducing the likelihood of executing malicious payloads. Coupling this with application whitelisting allows the organization to define a list of approved applications that can run on the system, further enhancing security by preventing unauthorized software from executing. Disabling PowerShell entirely (option b) may seem like a straightforward solution, but it can hinder legitimate administrative tasks and lead to operational inefficiencies. While monitoring execution through a centralized logging system (option c) can provide visibility into script activity, it does not prevent the execution of potentially harmful scripts. Lastly, while user education (option d) is important, it relies on human vigilance and does not provide a technical barrier against automated attacks. Thus, the most effective strategy combines technical controls that enforce security policies while allowing necessary administrative functions to continue, thereby balancing security with operational needs. This approach aligns with best practices in risk management and security governance, ensuring that the organization can defend against threats without compromising its operational capabilities.

Effective communication of this documentation to all stakeholders is crucial. It ensures that everyone involved, from IT staff to upper management, is aware of the changes and understands their implications. This is particularly important in a security context, where misunderstandings can lead to vulnerabilities or compliance issues. In contrast, relying on verbal communication (as suggested in option b) can lead to miscommunication and gaps in understanding, especially in larger organizations where information may not flow seamlessly. Updating network diagrams and configuration files without formal documentation (option c) neglects the need for a comprehensive record that can be referenced in the future, especially during audits or incident responses. Lastly, scheduling a meeting to discuss the change (option d) without formal documentation can result in a lack of accountability and clarity regarding the change’s specifics. In summary, the most critical step is to create a detailed change management report and ensure it is distributed to all relevant stakeholders, as this fosters transparency, accountability, and a shared understanding of the changes made. This practice aligns with best practices in change management frameworks, such as ITIL, which emphasize the importance of documentation in maintaining service quality and security.

Manual audits, while useful, can be time-consuming and may not catch deviations in real-time, leaving systems vulnerable for extended periods. Training users to report unauthorized services relies heavily on user diligence and may not be reliable, as not all users will have the technical knowledge to identify security issues. Lastly, while documentation is important for reference, it does not actively enforce compliance or address the issue of unauthorized services running on systems. Therefore, leveraging a configuration management tool not only enhances security but also streamlines the process of maintaining compliance with the established baseline, making it the most effective strategy in this scenario.

On the other hand, simply installing all available security patches and updates without assessing their relevance can lead to unnecessary complications or even system instability. Not all patches are applicable to every environment, and indiscriminate application can introduce new vulnerabilities or conflicts. Similarly, configuring the server to allow all incoming traffic undermines the very purpose of hardening, as it opens the server to potential attacks from any source. Lastly, while a complex password policy is important, it must be balanced with user experience; overly stringent policies can lead to poor compliance and increased risk if users resort to insecure practices, such as writing down passwords. In summary, effective hardening of a web server requires a strategic approach that considers the server’s role, minimizes unnecessary exposure, and implements security controls that are relevant and manageable. This ensures that the server remains secure while still being functional for its intended purpose.

The public cloud, while cost-effective for general workloads, may not provide the necessary security and compliance controls for sensitive data, which could lead to increased risks and potential costs associated with data breaches or regulatory fines. On the other hand, a private cloud offers enhanced security and control but often comes with higher maintenance costs due to the need for dedicated infrastructure and resources. The community cloud, while beneficial for organizations with shared concerns, may not provide the scalability and flexibility required for a multinational operation. By adopting a hybrid cloud model, the corporation can dynamically allocate resources based on demand, ensuring that they only pay for what they use while maintaining control over sensitive data. This approach not only reduces maintenance costs but also enhances the overall performance and reliability of the IT infrastructure, aligning with the organization’s strategic goals. Thus, the hybrid cloud model emerges as the optimal choice for balancing cost, security, and scalability in a complex global environment.

For the on-premises deployment: – Initial setup cost: $200,000 – Annual maintenance cost: $50,000 – Total maintenance cost over five years: $50,000 \times 5 = $250,000 – Total cost for on-premises deployment: $200,000 + $250,000 = $450,000 For the cloud-based deployment: – Initial setup cost: $100,000 – Annual maintenance cost: $30,000 – Total maintenance cost over five years: $30,000 \times 5 = $150,000 – Total cost for cloud-based deployment: $100,000 + $150,000 = $250,000 Now, comparing the two models: – On-premises total cost: $450,000 – Cloud-based total cost: $250,000 The cloud-based solution is significantly more cost-effective, with a total cost of $250,000 compared to the on-premises solution’s $450,000. This analysis highlights the importance of evaluating both initial and ongoing costs when selecting a deployment model, as well as considering factors such as scalability and future maintenance needs. The cloud-based model not only offers lower costs but also provides flexibility and scalability, which can further reduce maintenance efforts and costs in the long run. This scenario emphasizes the need for organizations to conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses when deploying new systems to ensure optimal resource allocation and financial efficiency.

\[ \text{Incidents resolved on first contact} = 200 \times 0.70 = 140 \] This means that out of 200 incidents, 140 are expected to be resolved immediately by the service desk. The remaining incidents can be categorized as follows: 20% require escalation to a second-level support team, which can be calculated as: \[ \text{Incidents requiring escalation} = 200 \times 0.20 = 40 \] And the 10% categorized as complex incidents can be calculated as: \[ \text{Complex incidents} = 200 \times 0.10 = 20 \] Understanding these metrics is crucial for resource allocation and service improvement initiatives. The high first-contact resolution rate (FCR) indicates that the service desk is effectively handling a significant portion of incidents, which can lead to increased customer satisfaction and reduced operational costs. However, the 40 incidents requiring escalation suggest that there may be areas for improvement in training or knowledge management to further enhance the FCR. Additionally, the 20 complex incidents highlight the need for specialized resources and possibly a review of the processes in place for handling such cases. This analysis can guide management in making informed decisions about staffing, training, and process improvements to optimize service delivery in alignment with ITIL best practices.

Opening TCP ports 80 and 443 on the firewall enables the web server to handle both unencrypted and encrypted traffic. This is crucial for providing a secure browsing experience, especially for sensitive transactions, as HTTPS encrypts the data exchanged between the client and the server, protecting it from eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks. On the other hand, the incorrect options present various misconceptions. UDP ports 80 and 443 are not applicable because HTTP and HTTPS are TCP-based protocols, which means they rely on the connection-oriented nature of TCP to ensure reliable data transmission. TCP ports 21 and 22 are associated with FTP (File Transfer Protocol) and SSH (Secure Shell), respectively, which are not relevant for web traffic. Similarly, TCP ports 25 and 110 are used for email protocols (SMTP and POP3), which do not pertain to web server access. In summary, the correct configuration for allowing internet traffic to a web server while maintaining security involves opening TCP ports 80 and 443. This setup not only facilitates standard web access but also ensures that secure communications are possible, aligning with best practices in network security and risk management.

Increasing the budget for incident response tools without addressing the identified training and procedural gaps would not resolve the underlying issues. Tools are only as effective as the people using them; if staff are not trained or aware of their responsibilities, the tools may not be utilized effectively during an incident. Limiting training to only the IT security team neglects the fact that incidents can involve various departments, and all personnel should be aware of the incident response plan to ensure a coordinated effort. Finally, developing a new incident response plan from scratch without reviewing the existing plan or incorporating lessons learned from the tabletop exercise would likely lead to repeating past mistakes. Continuous improvement is a key principle in incident response, and leveraging insights from exercises is essential for refining the plan. Therefore, the most effective action is to focus on comprehensive training and simulations that engage all relevant personnel, thereby fostering a culture of preparedness and compliance with established standards.

In contrast, installing all available security patches and updates without assessing their relevance can lead to unnecessary complications or even system instability. Not all patches are relevant to every system configuration, and indiscriminate application can introduce new vulnerabilities or conflicts. Similarly, allowing remote access for all users undermines security by increasing the risk of unauthorized access. Default configurations for applications often prioritize ease of use over security, making them susceptible to exploitation. The hardening process should also include regular security assessments, monitoring, and the implementation of additional security measures such as firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and encryption for sensitive data. By focusing on a minimal installation and enabling only essential services, the administrator can create a more secure environment that is tailored to the specific needs and threats associated with hosting sensitive customer data. This approach not only enhances security but also improves system performance and reliability.

While the total cost of the upgrade and its impact on the budget is important, it does not directly affect the operational success of the upgrade itself. Similarly, understanding historical performance during peak hours can provide insights into system behavior but does not address the immediate concerns of support availability during the upgrade. Customer feedback regarding previous upgrades can inform future decisions but is less relevant to the immediate operational considerations of the current upgrade. In summary, the decision to schedule changes during off-duty hours must prioritize the availability of support staff to ensure that any unforeseen issues can be promptly addressed, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the transaction processing system and maintaining customer trust. This aligns with best practices in change management, which emphasize risk assessment and mitigation strategies to ensure successful implementation.

While conducting a full system scan with antivirus software is a necessary follow-up action, it should not be the first step taken. Scanning may not be effective if the malware is already executing commands, and it could potentially alert the malware to its detection, prompting it to take evasive actions. Similarly, informing the employee and advising them to delete the image file is important for awareness and future prevention, but it does not address the immediate threat posed by the malware already present on the system. Restoring the system from a backup is also a valid recovery strategy; however, it should be executed after containment measures are in place. If the system is not isolated first, the backup restoration could inadvertently reintroduce the malware if the backup itself was compromised. In summary, the most effective initial response to this incident is to isolate the infected system to prevent further damage and protect the integrity of the network. This approach aligns with best practices in incident response and risk management, emphasizing the importance of containment in the face of potential cybersecurity threats.

By assessing the impact, the change management team can determine whether the changes might introduce vulnerabilities, disrupt current operations, or necessitate additional training for staff. This proactive approach aligns with best practices outlined in frameworks such as ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) and COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies), which emphasize the importance of risk assessment and management in change processes. In contrast, immediately implementing changes without adequate testing or analysis can lead to significant operational disruptions, security breaches, or compliance issues. Informing employees without detailed training may result in confusion and errors during the transition. Additionally, limiting testing to only new features neglects the potential interactions between new and existing components, which could lead to unforeseen issues. Therefore, a comprehensive impact analysis is the cornerstone of effective change management, ensuring that all potential risks are identified and mitigated before proceeding with system upgrades.

By performing an impact assessment, the change management team can document the expected outcomes, track the progress of the change, and audit the process to ensure compliance with internal policies and external regulations. This proactive approach minimizes the risk of service disruption and security breaches, which are particularly crucial in the financial sector where customer trust and regulatory compliance are vital. In contrast, implementing changes immediately without assessment can lead to unforeseen issues, such as system outages or vulnerabilities. Relying solely on user feedback after the change is made does not provide a structured way to evaluate the change’s impact and can result in reactive rather than proactive management. Finally, documenting changes only after deployment fails to capture the rationale and considerations that went into the decision-making process, which is essential for future audits and reviews. Therefore, conducting a thorough impact assessment is the cornerstone of effective change management, ensuring that all aspects of the change are controlled, documented, tracked, and audited appropriately.

While conducting annual audits (option b) can help identify unauthorized changes, it does not provide the timely response necessary to mitigate risks as they occur. Training employees (option c) is important for fostering a culture of security awareness, but it does not directly prevent unauthorized changes. Establishing a policy for documentation and approval of changes (option d) is a good practice, but without active monitoring, it may not be sufficient to prevent unauthorized modifications. In the context of configuration management, continuous monitoring aligns with best practices outlined in frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and ISO/IEC 27001, which emphasize the importance of ongoing assessment and management of security controls. By integrating continuous monitoring into their configuration management process, the IT security team can ensure that their baseline remains intact and that any deviations are promptly addressed, thereby enhancing the overall security posture of the organization.

Without a well-defined plan, the organization risks inconsistent practices, miscommunication among team members, and potential security gaps. The plan should also include guidelines for documenting configurations, change management processes, and compliance with relevant regulations such as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) or the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), depending on the organization’s context. While conducting a risk assessment (option c) is important, it should be part of the planning process rather than the first step. Automated tools (option b) and training (option d) are also essential components of a successful CM process, but they should be implemented after the foundational plan is established. A comprehensive plan ensures that all aspects of configuration management are addressed systematically, leading to improved security and compliance over time. This structured approach is crucial for organizations, especially in highly regulated industries, to maintain the integrity and security of their IT assets effectively.

In contrast, conducting regular security awareness training for employees is a proactive measure that enhances the overall security culture within the organization. It empowers employees to recognize phishing attempts, social engineering tactics, and other security threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of successful attacks. Utilizing encryption for data at rest and in transit is a fundamental security practice that protects sensitive information from unauthorized access and ensures data integrity. Encryption acts as a safeguard, making it significantly more challenging for attackers to exploit data even if they manage to gain access to the storage systems. Establishing a robust incident response plan is crucial for minimizing the impact of security incidents. It ensures that the organization is prepared to respond effectively to breaches, thereby reducing recovery time and potential damage. In summary, while SSO can enhance user convenience, neglecting to implement MFA alongside it creates a critical security gap. The other options listed contribute positively to the organization’s security framework, emphasizing the importance of layered security measures and employee education in mitigating risks.

Upgrading hardware, while potentially beneficial in the long run, may not address the root cause of the problem. If the application is poorly optimized, simply adding more resources could lead to diminishing returns, as the underlying inefficiencies would still exist. Similarly, implementing load balancing could help distribute the workload, but without addressing the application’s performance issues, it may only serve as a temporary fix. Increasing the frequency of system backups is not relevant to resolving performance issues and does not contribute to troubleshooting the current outages. Instead, it is essential to focus on understanding the application’s performance characteristics and resource usage patterns. This analysis can lead to targeted optimizations that improve efficiency and reduce CPU load, ultimately enhancing the system’s reliability and performance during peak hours. In summary, a thorough performance analysis is crucial for identifying the specific causes of high resource utilization, enabling the team to make informed decisions about whether to optimize the application, upgrade hardware, or implement other solutions. This methodical approach aligns with best practices in system troubleshooting and performance management, ensuring that any changes made will effectively address the underlying issues.

Manually editing the registry on each individual workstation is not only time-consuming but also prone to inconsistencies and errors, making it an inefficient solution. Furthermore, it complicates compliance tracking, as changes would need to be documented for each machine separately. Deploying a third-party software solution may introduce additional risks, such as compatibility issues or vulnerabilities, and could lead to a lack of control over the security settings being enforced. Additionally, it may not integrate well with existing organizational policies. Creating a script that modifies registry settings at user login could work, but it introduces complexity and potential security risks, such as the script being tampered with or not executing properly. This method also lacks the centralized management and reporting capabilities that GPOs provide. In summary, using GPOs through GPMC is the most effective and compliant method for managing registry settings in a corporate environment, ensuring that security policies are enforced uniformly and efficiently.

Automated alerts for unauthorized changes are also critical in this context. They provide real-time notifications to the IT team when configurations deviate from the approved baseline, allowing for immediate investigation and remediation. This proactive approach is aligned with best practices in configuration management, as outlined in frameworks such as ITIL and NIST SP 800-128, which emphasize the importance of maintaining a secure and stable IT environment through effective change management. In contrast, conducting regular audits without a formal change management process (option b) may identify issues after they have occurred but does not prevent unauthorized changes from happening in the first place. Relying on manual tracking (option c) is prone to human error and can lead to inconsistencies in configuration records. Lastly, focusing solely on documentation without monitoring (option d) neglects the dynamic nature of IT environments, where configurations can change frequently and without notice. Thus, a comprehensive change control process that incorporates both approval mechanisms and monitoring is vital for safeguarding the organization’s IT assets against unauthorized changes and ensuring compliance with security policies and standards.

For instance, default settings may enable unnecessary services or features that increase the attack surface, making systems more vulnerable to exploitation. Additionally, default passwords and user accounts can be easily targeted by attackers, leading to unauthorized access. Moreover, organizations often operate in diverse environments with varying levels of sensitivity and regulatory requirements. A one-size-fits-all approach, as implied by the reliance on default settings, fails to address these nuances. Security frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework emphasize the importance of tailoring security controls to the specific context of the organization, which includes customizing configurations to mitigate identified risks effectively. In summary, while default settings may provide a baseline for functionality, they do not adequately address the specific security needs of an organization. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough risk assessment and customize configurations to align with the organization’s security policies and operational requirements. This proactive approach helps to minimize vulnerabilities and enhance the overall security posture of the deployed systems.

$$ ALE = SLE \times ARO $$ Where: – **Single Loss Expectancy (SLE)** is the expected monetary loss every time a risk occurs, which can be calculated based on the value of the asset and the potential loss from a breach. – **Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO)** is the estimated frequency with which a risk is expected to occur within a year. By calculating the ALE, the CISO can quantify the potential financial impact of data breaches, allowing for informed decision-making regarding resource allocation and risk mitigation strategies. This quantitative approach provides a clear financial perspective on the risks, enabling the organization to prioritize its security investments effectively. In contrast, focusing solely on qualitative assessments (option b) may lead to subjective evaluations that lack the rigor of numerical analysis. While stakeholder opinions are valuable, they do not provide a concrete financial basis for prioritizing risks. Similarly, using a risk matrix without quantifying financial implications (option c) may overlook the actual cost of risks, leading to misinformed decisions. Lastly, relying solely on historical incident reports (option d) fails to account for current security controls and evolving threat landscapes, which can significantly alter the risk profile. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation through quantitative analysis is crucial for effective risk management in protecting sensitive customer data.

Periodic manual audits, while useful, are often insufficient in fast-paced environments where changes can occur frequently. They may lead to delays in identifying non-compliance issues, allowing unauthorized software to remain on servers for extended periods. Restricting user permissions is a proactive measure but does not address the need for ongoing monitoring and remediation. An incident response plan is essential for managing specific incidents but does not provide a comprehensive solution for maintaining compliance over time. By adopting a continuous monitoring approach, the organization can ensure that any deviations from the baseline are promptly identified and corrected, thereby enhancing the overall security posture and reducing the risk of vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers. This proactive strategy is crucial in today’s threat landscape, where organizations must be agile and responsive to emerging risks.

Reverting to the previous encryption protocol may seem like a quick fix, but it does not address the underlying issues and could expose the organization to security vulnerabilities that the new protocol was intended to mitigate. Implementing a temporary workaround might provide immediate relief but does not solve the root cause of the problem and could lead to further complications down the line. Communicating the issue to employees is important, but without a clear understanding of the impact and a plan to address it, this action may lead to confusion and frustration. In summary, the most effective approach is to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment. This will provide the necessary insights to make informed decisions about how to proceed, whether that involves adjusting the new protocol, developing a more compatible solution for legacy systems, or implementing additional training for employees on the new system. This methodical approach not only addresses the immediate issues but also aligns with the principles of effective risk management and change management, ensuring that future changes are implemented with a clearer understanding of their potential impacts.

Linking the GPO to the finance OU allows for precise control over the application of policies, minimizing the risk of unintended consequences on other departments or users. The desktop background setting can be configured under User Configuration > Administrative Templates > Control Panel > Personalization, while the password policy can be set under Computer Configuration > Policies > Windows Settings > Security Settings > Account Policies > Password Policy. Creating a new OU for the finance department and linking the GPO to the root of the domain (as suggested in option b) would apply the settings to all users and computers in the domain, which is not the desired outcome. Similarly, applying the GPO to the entire domain and using security filtering (option c) would complicate management and could lead to errors in policy application. Finally, configuring the GPO at the site level (option d) would apply the settings to all computers within that site, again leading to broader application than intended. Thus, the correct approach is to link the GPO directly to the finance OU, ensuring that the specific security settings are enforced only where needed, aligning with best practices for Group Policy management in a Windows environment. This method not only enhances security but also simplifies policy management by keeping settings localized to relevant users and computers.