CV0-002 · Question #507
A cloud security analyst recently performed a vulnerability scan on a web application server across all staging environments. The vulnerability scan determines the directory that houses web content…
The correct answer is B. The mitigation results were unsuccessful, and the DEV staging environment requires. Although the web content for DEV was moved to the G: drive, the test results conclude that the overall mitigation was unsuccessful, and the DEV staging environment still requires attention.
Question
A cloud security analyst recently performed a vulnerability scan on a web application server across all staging environments. The vulnerability scan determines the directory that houses web content is located on the same drive as the operating system. The analyst then attempts to mitigate the vulnerability in all staging environments. The vulnerability scan is performed again and produces the following results:
PROD Website XYZ web content is housed on the C: drive. QA Website XYZ web content is housed on the G: drive. DEV Website XYZ web content is housed on the G: drive. Given this scenario, which of the following should the test results conclude about the vulnerability?
Options
- AThe mitigation results were unsuccessful, and the PROD staging environment requires
- BThe mitigation results were unsuccessful, and the DEV staging environment requires
- CThe mitigation results were unsuccessful, and each staging environment requires
- DThe mitigation results were unsuccessful, and the QA staging environment requires
How the community answered
(35 responses)- A6% (2)
- B60% (21)
- C20% (7)
- D14% (5)
Why each option
Although the web content for DEV was moved to the G: drive, the test results conclude that the overall mitigation was unsuccessful, and the DEV staging environment still requires attention.
While PROD clearly remains vulnerable on the C: drive, the chosen answer highlights an unexpected or persistent issue in the DEV environment despite the content being moved to the G: drive.
Although the web content for DEV was moved to the G: drive, the test results conclude that the overall mitigation was unsuccessful, and the DEV staging environment still requires attention, implying the move to G: drive did not fully address the underlying vulnerability for DEV or introduced a new issue. This suggests that the mitigation strategy itself for DEV was incomplete or ineffective, causing it to remain flagged for further action.
The mitigation was apparently successful for QA and DEV in terms of moving content to G: drive, so concluding that 'each staging environment requires' action is inaccurate.
The mitigation was apparently successful for QA, as its web content was moved to the G: drive, thus QA would not typically 'require' further mitigation for this specific vulnerability.
Concept tested: Vulnerability mitigation verification
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.