The SecOps Group CAP Exam Dumps

The scenario describes an e-commerce website where a user can view order details by manipulating the order_id parameter in the URL (e.g., https://example.com/order_id=53870). A security researcher found that changing the order_id allows access to arbitrary orders and sensitive data, indicating an authorization issue. This is not a simple input validation problem (e.g., SQL injection or path traversal), as the input (order_id) is processed, but the system fails to enforce proper access controls. This is a classic case of Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR), where an attacker can access resources by guessing or manipulating identifiers without proper authorization checks. The root cause is a weak authorization mechanism, likely tied to poor session management or privilege validation, allowing unauthorized users to view others' data.

Option A ('The root cause of the problem is a lack of input validation...'): Incorrect, as the issue is not about invalid input (e.g., malicious code) but about unauthorized access to valid data. Whitelisting might help sanitize input, but it doesn't address authorization.

Option B ('The root cause of the problem is a weak authorization (Session Management)...'): Correct, as the problem stems from inadequate authorization checks. Validating user privileges (e.g., ensuring the user can only access their own orders) or improving session management (e.g., tying orders to user sessions) can fix this IDOR vulnerability.

Option C ('The problem can be solved by implementing a Web Application Firewall (WAF)'): Incorrect as a standalone solution, as WAFs mitigate certain attacks (e.g., SQLi, XSS) but are not a substitute for fixing authorization logic. A WAF might detect patterns but won't enforce proper access control.

Option D ('None of the above'): Incorrect, as Option B accurately identifies the root cause and solution.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Authorization and Access Control' and 'OWASP Top 10 (A04:2021 - Insecure Design).'

A Race Condition vulnerability occurs in multi-threaded or multi-process applications when two or more threads access a shared resource concurrently, and the outcome depends on the non-deterministic order of their execution. This can lead to inconsistent states or security issues, such as privilege escalation or data corruption, if the access is not properly synchronized (e.g., using locks or semaphores). The classic definition focuses on concurrent access to the same resource.

Option A ('A situation that occurs when two threads access the same resource at the same time'): Correct, as this accurately describes a race condition where the lack of synchronization on a shared resource (e.g., a file, variable, or database entry) can lead to unpredictable behavior.

Option B ('A situation that occurs when two threads access different resources at the same time'): Incorrect, as race conditions specifically involve contention over the same resource, not different ones.

Option C ('A situation that occurs when a single thread unpredictably accesses two resources'): Incorrect, as race conditions require multiple threads or processes; a single thread's behavior is not a race condition.

Option D ('A situation that occurs when a single thread predictably accesses two resources'): Incorrect, as predictability negates the race condition concept, and it still involves only one thread.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Race Condition Vulnerabilities' and 'Multi-Threaded Security.'

The code snippet shows HTML <meta> and <link> tags, along with a <script> tag, loading external resources:

Bootstrap CSS from cdnjs.cloudflare.com (version 4.1.1)

jQuery JavaScript from cdnjs.cloudflare.com (version 3.3.1)

Let's evaluate the potential vulnerabilities:

The resources are loaded from a third-party CDN (cdnjs.cloudflare.com), and the versions specified (Bootstrap 4.1.1 and jQuery 3.3.1) may have known vulnerabilities. For instance, jQuery 3.3.1 has known XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2019-11358) that can be exploited if the library is used insecurely. Similarly, Bootstrap 4.1.1 has known issues (e.g., CVE-2018-14041) related to XSS in certain components like tooltips or modals if not configured properly.

The use of outdated or vulnerable third-party components is a Component with a Known Vulnerability, a common issue in web applications. The CAP syllabus emphasizes identifying and mitigating risks from third-party libraries, especially those with known CVEs.

Option A ('SQL Injection'): SQL injection occurs in server-side database queries, not in client-side HTML or JavaScript loading. This code snippet does not involve database interaction, so this is incorrect.

Option B ('Type Juggling'): Type juggling is a PHP-specific vulnerability where loose type comparison (== vs ===) leads to security issues. This code is HTML/JavaScript, not PHP, so type juggling does not apply.

Option C ('Component with a Known Vulnerability'): As explained, the use of potentially outdated jQuery and Bootstrap versions introduces the risk of known vulnerabilities, making this the most applicable answer.

Option D ('Server-Side Request Forgery'): SSRF involves tricking the server into making unauthorized requests, which is not relevant here as the code loads resources in the browser, not on the server.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Component Vulnerabilities' and 'OWASP Top 10 (A09:2021 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities).'

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.'

The request is a POST to /dashboard with a payload containing XML data, specifically an xml_foo parameter with a <!DOCTYPE> declaration and an XML entity (<!ENTITY example SYSTEM 'file:///etc/passwd'>). Let's analyze the vulnerability:

The payload defines an XML External Entity (XXE) with <!ENTITY example SYSTEM 'file:///etc/passwd'>, 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 <foo>&example;</foo>, which would expand to the contents of /etc/passwd if the parser processes the entity.

This is a classic XML 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., <!ENTITY a '&b;&b;'> <!ENTITY b 'lol'>), 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).'