Which of the following situations would MOST likely warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment?
Which of the following situations would MOST likely warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment?
Revalidation of a previous security assessment is most likely warranted after the detection of a breach. A breach indicates that the existing security measures and the previous assessment were insufficient in preventing an attack. By revalidating the earlier assessment, the organization can identify the specific vulnerabilities that were exploited, understand the failures in the security posture, and take corrective actions to fortify defenses and prevent future breaches.
A. After detection of a breach is the most likely situation that would warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment. Detection of a security breach indicates that the current security measures in place have failed, and a revalidation of the previous security assessment would be necessary to identify any additional vulnerabilities and to ensure that the organization's security measures are adequate to prevent future breaches.
It's tough, but if there was a breach why would you revalidate failed measures? Theres nothing to revalidate if you have a breach cause its proved to be invalid measures.
In my line of work, after a initial security assessments vulnerabilities are remediated, we are always going to revalidate the assessment to prove the vulnerabilities have been handled properly. I have to take this into account and go with D.. I would think a merger would call for a new assessment entirely because the landscape changes. After "Detection" of a breach we are performing incident response, not a new security assessment. I encourage everyone to do their own research for this question, its an odd one.
A or B? A 90% B 70% D 40%
This is on the money and I think if CompTIA wants us to answer A or B, they fundamentally don't understand what is required/what transpires during a pentest.
The situation that would MOST likely warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment is option A: After detection of a breach. If a breach has occurred, it indicates that the existing security measures and controls have not been effective in preventing the attack. In such a scenario, it is important to revalidate the previous security assessment to determine what went wrong, and what changes need to be made to strengthen the security posture of the organization.
Revalidation of a previous security assessment becomes most essential when significant changes occur that might drastically alter the security posture of the organization. Among the given options: B. After a merger or an acquisition This situation would MOST likely warrant a revalidation of the security assessment. Mergers and acquisitions typically involve integrating different systems, networks, applications, policies, and procedures. These substantial changes can introduce new risks and vulnerabilities that were not part of the previous security landscape. While the other options might also justify a review or partial reassessment of security measures, a merger or acquisition would most likely necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation due to the complexity and the broad range of potential changes to the organization's security environment.
A merger would warrant a NEW assessment, re-validating an old assessment is of no use within an environment that now has new systems, networks, applications, policies, and procedures.
After merger and acquisition it is often required to retest the security posture, as one is not aware of other company's security status.
A breach is an indication that the existing security measures were not sufficient, and that there may be additional vulnerabilities or weaknesses that need to be addressed. Revalidating the previous security assessment can help identify the areas where the breach occurred and determine what additional measures need to be taken to prevent future breaches.
After a security breach, the immediate priority should be to contain and remediate the breach. However, once the breach has been dealt with, it is important to review the security assessment to identify any weaknesses or gaps in the security controls that allowed the breach to occur.
A. After detection of a breach is the situation that would MOST likely warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment. When a breach occurs, it indicates that the previous security assessment was not effective, and revalidation is necessary to identify the root cause and address any new vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may have been exploited.
i think A is the correct answer
B is correct
Going with B on this one.
Neveermind. A is the answer.
ChatGPT says A is the most likely situation
A. A breach does not warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment. It straight proves that there were problems with it to begin with. B. A merge usually triggers a security revalidation so I'll go with this one.
Do not overthink it, it is A
For a retest, the purpose is to analyze progress made in applying the mitigations to the attack vectors that were found during the penetration test. The first step will be scheduling additional tests with the client organization in order to assess their progress...
This should be a logical extension of the original testing. Allowing time for mitigation measures to be implemented, then revalidating the test that showed the need for those measures in the first place to ensure they are operating as intended.
I vote D because you would want to verify the effectiveness of your remediation efforts. Options A and B requires to review the "Security Policy" of a company - not the security assessment. Option C is more into regression testing, than security assessment.
I vote in D because the statement said: revalidation of a previous security assessment. So, is recommended after you remediated the identified vulnerability to redo a revalidation.