Which of the following is the BEST way to mitigate the risk associated with malicious changes to binary code during the software development life cycle?

Question

Options

• ADigital envelope
• BSeparation of duties
• CDigital signature
• DChange management procedures

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  13% (5)
• C
  78% (31)
• D
  8% (3)

Explanation

Digital signatures are the best control here because they cryptographically bind a hash of the binary to the developer's private key - any tampering with the binary after signing will cause signature verification to fail, directly detecting malicious modifications to the code itself.

Why the distractors fall short:

• A (Digital envelope) combines encryption and key exchange to protect confidentiality of data in transit, not code integrity - it doesn't detect tampering with binaries.
• B (Separation of duties) is a process control that reduces the chance of unauthorized actions by requiring multiple people, but it cannot detect if a binary was altered after the fact.
• D (Change management procedures) governs approval workflows for changes, but an attacker bypassing those procedures would leave no cryptographic evidence in the binary itself.

Memory tip: Think "signature = proof of identity + proof of integrity." If someone tampers with a signed binary, the hash won't match - the signature breaks. That's the only option that technically proves the binary hasn't changed since it was signed.

No community discussion yet for this question.