The SecOps Group Certified AppSec Practitioner CAP Exam Practice Test

Answer : A

The robots.txt file is a text file placed in a website's root directory to communicate with web crawlers (e.g., Googlebot) about which pages or resources should not be accessed or indexed. It uses directives like Disallow to specify restricted areas (e.g., Disallow: /admin/). However, robots.txt is not a security mechanism; it is only a request to crawlers, and malicious bots or users can ignore it.

Option A ('Developers must not list any sensitive files and directories in this file'): Correct. Listing sensitive files or directories (e.g., Disallow: /secret/) in robots.txt can inadvertently expose their existence to attackers, who can then attempt to access them directly. The best practice is to avoid mentioning sensitive paths and rely on proper access controls (e.g., authentication, authorization) instead.

Option B ('Developers must list all sensitive files and directories in this file to secure them'): Incorrect. Listing sensitive paths in robots.txt does not secure them; it only informs crawlers to avoid them, and it can serve as a roadmap for attackers.

Option C ('Both A and B'): Incorrect, as A and B are contradictory; B is false.

Option D ('None of the above'): Incorrect, as A is true.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Web Crawler Security' and 'Information Disclosure Prevention.'

Answer : C

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The use of outdated or vulnerable third-party components is a Component with a Known Vulnerability, a common issue in web applications.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).'

Answer : D

SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) is an XML-based standard for authentication and authorization, commonly used for single sign-on (SSO). Its reliance on XML and the complexity of its trust model make it vulnerable to several attacks:

Option A ('XML Signature Wrapping Attack'): This is a common SAML attack where an attacker manipulates the XML structure to wrap a malicious element while preserving the signature, tricking the relying party into accepting a forged assertion. This attack exploits the way SAML parsers handle signed XML messages.

Option B ('XML External Entity Injection'): SAML messages are XML-based, making them susceptible to XXE (XML External Entity) attacks if the XML parser is misconfigured. An attacker can include external entities to access local files or make network requests, compromising the system.

Option C ('Assertion Replay Attack'): In this attack, an attacker intercepts a valid SAML assertion and reuses it to impersonate the user. If the assertion lacks proper replay protection (e.g., timestamps, nonces), the relying party may accept the replayed assertion as valid.

Option D ('All of the above'): Correct, as all three attacks (XML Signature Wrapping, XXE Injection, and Assertion Replay) are well-documented vulnerabilities in SAML implementations.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'SAML Security' and 'XML-Based Attacks.'

Answer : C

A Dependency Confusion Attack occurs when an attacker uploads a malicious package with the same name as a private package to a public package repository (e.g., npm, PyPI), causing a package manager to prioritize the malicious public package over the intended private one due to misconfiguration or version precedence. To identify potential private packages for such an attack, attackers analyze dependency configuration files that list the application's dependencies.

Option A ('package.json'): This file is used by npm (Node.js package manager) to define dependencies for JavaScript projects. It lists package names and versions, making it a prime target for identifying private packages that might be targeted in a dependency confusion attack.

Option B ('requirements.txt'): This file is used by pip (Python package manager) to define dependencies for Python projects. It similarly lists package names and versions, making it another target for identifying private packages.

Option C ('Both A and B'): Correct, as both package.json (JavaScript/Node.js) and requirements.txt (Python) are dependency configuration files that can reveal private package names, which an attacker might exploit in a dependency confusion attack.

Option D ('None of the above'): Incorrect, as both files are relevant.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Supply Chain Attacks' and 'Dependency Management.'

Answer : A

Cookies can have security attributes to enhance their protection against various attacks. The question asks which attribute ensures that the cookie is only sent over a TLS (encrypted) channel, meaning it is transmitted securely via HTTPS and not over unencrypted HTTP.

Option A ('Secure'): The Secure attribute ensures that the browser only sends the cookie over a secure, encrypted connection (i.e., HTTPS). If a request is made over HTTP, the browser will not include the cookie, preventing it from being intercepted in plaintext. This is the correct answer.

Option B ('HttpOnly'): The HttpOnly attribute prevents the cookie from being accessed by JavaScript (e.g., via document.cookie), mitigating XSS attacks that steal cookies, but it does not enforce transmission over TLS.

Option C ('No_XSS'): This is not a valid cookie attribute; it appears to be a made-up term and does not relate to TLS enforcement.

Option D ('None of the above'): Incorrect, as the Secure attribute directly addresses the requirement.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under 'Cookie Security' and 'Session Management.'

Answer : C

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.'

Answer : A

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.'