매달, 우리는 1000명 이상의 사람들이 시험 준비를 잘하고 시험을 잘 통과할 수 있도록 도와줍니다.
Certified AppSec Practitioner Exam 온라인 연습
최종 업데이트 시간: 2025년06월06일
당신은 온라인 연습 문제를 통해 The SecOps Group secops-CAP 시험지식에 대해 자신이 어떻게 알고 있는지 파악한 후 시험 참가 신청 여부를 결정할 수 있다.
시험을 100% 합격하고 시험 준비 시간을 35% 절약하기를 바라며 secops-CAP 덤프 (최신 실제 시험 문제)를 사용 선택하여 현재 최신 60개의 시험 문제와 답을 포함하십시오.
정답:
Explanation:
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)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Session Management," "Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR)," and "OWASP Top 10" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
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."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Docker Security," "Container Orchestration," and "OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS)" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The Same-Origin Policy (SOP) is a fundamental security mechanism in web browsers that restricts how a document or script loaded from one origin can interact with resources from another origin. An origin is defined by the combination of protocol, host, and port. Two pages have the same origin if their protocol (e.g., http://), host (e.g., www.example.com), and port (default is 80 for HTTP) match exactly. The given URL is http://www.example.com/dir/page2.html, which uses HTTP, host www.example.com, and the default port 80.
Option 1 ("http://www.example.com/dir/other.html"): Matches the protocol (http), host (www.example.com), and port (default 80), so it is in the same origin.
Option 2 ("http://www.example.com:81/dir/other.html"): Differs in port (81 vs. default 80), so it is a different origin.
Option 3 ("http://www.example.com/dir/other.html"): Identical to Option 1, matching protocol, host, and port, so it is in the same origin. However, since it’s a duplicate of Option 1 in the list, it doesn’t add a new page.
Option 4 ("http://en.example.com/dir/other.html"): Differs in host (en.example.com vs.
www.example.com), so it is a different origin.
Since the question asks which pages are in the same origin, and only Option 1 (and its duplicate Option 3) matches, the correct answer is A ("1 Only"), considering unique pages. The CAP syllabus covers SOP under "Client-Side Security" and "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Same-Origin Policy," "Browser Security Models," and "OWASP Client-Side Security" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) is an open standard for exchanging authentication and authorization data between parties, particularly in the context of single sign-on (SSO). It is based on XML and is widely used to enable secure web-based authentication and authorization across different domains. The correct full form is Security Assertion Markup Language, where "Assertion" refers to statements about a subject (e.g., identity, attributes), "Markup" indicates the XML-based structure, and "Language" denotes the defined syntax.
Option A ("Security Assertion Markup Language"): This is the correct and official full form of SAML as defined by OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).
Option B ("Security Authorization Markup Language"): Incorrect, as "Authorization" is not part of the acronym; SAML focuses on both authentication and authorization assertions.
Option C ("Security Assertion Management Language"): Incorrect, as "Management" is not part of the acronym; SAML is about markup, not management.
Option D ("Secure Authentication Markup Language"): Incorrect, as "Secure" is not part of the acronym, and SAML covers more than just authentication.
The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Authentication and Authorization" and "Single Sign-On (SSO) Standards."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "SAML Overview," "Authentication Protocols," and "OWASP Identity Management" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
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)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Third-Party Component Security," "Software Supply Chain Security," and "OWASP Top 10" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The HTTP request is a GET to /help.php with a parameter file=../../../etc/passwd. Let’s analyze the vulnerability:
The file parameter includes ../ sequences, which are used to navigate up the directory structure (.. moves up one directory level). The request attempts to access /etc/passwd, a sensitive system file on Linux servers that contains user information.
This is indicative of a Path Traversal Vulnerability (also known as Directory Traversal), where an attacker manipulates file paths to access unauthorized files outside the intended directory. If the server does not sanitize or restrict the file parameter, it may serve the contents of /etc/passwd, leading to sensitive information disclosure.
Option A ("Cross-Site Request Forgery Vulnerability"): CSRF involves tricking a user into making an unintended request, typically via a malicious form or link. This request does not indicate CSRF; it’s a direct attempt to manipulate file access, so this is incorrect.
Option B ("Path Traversal Vulnerability"): As explained, the ../ sequences in the file parameter are a clear attempt at path traversal, making this the correct answer.
Option C ("Code Injection Vulnerability"): Code injection involves executing malicious code (e.g., PHP, SQL), but this request aims to read a file, not execute code, so this is incorrect. Option D ("All of the above"): Since only Path Traversal applies, this is incorrect.
The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Path Traversal" and "OWASP Top 10 (A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Path Traversal Attacks," "Input Validation," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The HTTP request is a POST to /changepassword with a session cookie (JSESSIONID) and parameters new_password and confirm_password.
Let’s evaluate each option:
Option A ("The change password feature does not validate the user"): The request includes a JSESSIONID cookie, which typically indicates that the user is authenticated via a session. There’s no evidence that user validation is absent, so this is not correct.
Option B ("The change password feature uses basic authorization"): Basic authorization would involve an Authorization: Basic header with a Base64-encoded username and password, which is not present here. The authentication appears to be session-based (via cookie), not basic auth, so this is incorrect.
Option C ("The change password feature is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery attack"): Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) occurs when a malicious site tricks a user’s browser into making an unintended request to another site where the user is authenticated. This request lacks a CSRF token (e.g., a unique, unpredictable token in the request body or header) to verify the request’s legitimacy. The Sec-Fetch-Site: same-origin header indicates the request is currently from the same origin, but this is a browser feature, not a server-side CSRF protection. Without a CSRF token, the endpoint is vulnerable to CSRF, as an attacker could craft a malicious form on another site to submit this request on behalf of the user. This is the correct answer.
Option D ("All of the above"): Since A and B are incorrect, D cannot be correct.
The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)" and "OWASP Top 10 (A08:2021 - Software and Data Integrity Failures)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "CSRF Prevention," "Session Management," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The HTTP response headers provide metadata about the server and its configuration. Let’s analyze each header and evaluate the statements:
Headers Breakdown:
Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0: Indicates the web server is Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) version 8.0.
X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727: Indicates the application is using ASP.NET version 2.0.50727.
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET: Confirms the application framework is ASP.NET.
Other headers (e.g., Cache-Control, Content-Type, Expires) are standard and not directly relevant to the statements.
Option A ("The application is using an outdated server technology"): The Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0 header indicates the server is running IIS 8.0, which was released in 2012 and is associated with Windows Server 2012. As of the current date (March 06, 2025), IIS 8.0 is outdated; Microsoft has released newer versions (e.g., IIS 10 with Windows Server 2016/2019). Additionally, mainstream support for Windows Server 2012 ended in October 2018, and extended support ended in October 2023, making IIS 8.0 unsupported and vulnerable to unpatched security issues. This statement is true.
Option B ("The application is disclosing the server version"): The Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0 header explicitly discloses the server type (IIS) and version (8.0). Disclosing server version information is a security risk because attackers can use this to identify known vulnerabilities specific to that version (e.g., CVE exploits for IIS 8.0). Best practice is to suppress or obfuscate this header (e.g., Server: WebServer), so this statement is true.
Option C ("The application is disclosing the version of the framework used"): The X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 header reveals the ASP.NET framework version (2.0.50727), which corresponds to .NET Framework 2.0, released in 2005. Disclosing the framework version is a security risk because attackers can target known vulnerabilities in that version (e.g., .NET Framework 2.0 is long unsupported; support ended in 2011). Best practice is to disable this header in the application configuration (e.g., in web.config for ASP.NET), so this statement is true.
Option D ("All of the above"): Since A (outdated server technology), B (disclosing server version), and C (disclosing framework version) are all true, this is the correct answer.
The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Information Disclosure" and "HTTP Header Security."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Information Disclosure Prevention," "Server Hardening," and "OWASP Secure Headers Project" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
In WordPress, the file that stores database connection details, including the database name, username, password, and host, is wp-config.php. This file is located in the root directory of a WordPress installation and is critical for configuring the connection to the MySQL database. It contains constants like DB_NAME, DB_USER, DB_PASSWORD, and DB_HOST, which must be protected from unauthorized access to prevent database compromise.
Option A ("wp-configuration.php"): A common misspelling; the correct file name lacks the extra "ation."
Option B ("wp-conf.php"): This is not a valid WordPress file name.
Option C ("wp-secret.php"): This is not a standard WordPress file.
Option D ("wp-config.php"): The correct and official file name used by WordPress.
The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Configuration Management" and "Application Security."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Application Configuration," "WordPress Security," and "Database Security" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
TLS (Transport Layer Security) certificates are validated by browsers to ensure secure communication. Browsers maintain a trusted store of public keys from known Certifying Authorities (CAs), which are used to verify the digital signature of a TLS certificate presented by a server. This process involves checking the certificate’s signature against the CA’s public key to confirm its authenticity and validity. If the signature matches and other criteria (e.g., expiration, revocation) are met, the certificate is deemed valid.
Option A ("The browser contains the private key..."): Incorrect, as browsers do not contain private keys of CAs; private keys are kept secret by the CAs themselves.
Option B ("The browser contains the public key..."): Correct, as browsers use CA public keys to validate certificates, enabling differentiation between valid and invalid TLS certificates.
Option C ("The browser contains both the public and private key..."): Incorrect, as browsers only store public keys, not private keys, for security reasons.
Option D ("The browser does not have any mechanism..."): Incorrect, as browsers have robust mechanisms (via CA public keys) to validate TLS certificates.
The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Secure Communication" and "TLS Configuration."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "TLS/SSL Security," "Certificate Validation," and "OWASP Cryptographic Practices" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
SQL injection vulnerabilities allow attackers to manipulate database queries, potentially accessing unauthorized data, including file contents, if the database supports such operations. In MySQL, the LOAD_FILE() function is specifically designed to read the contents of a file on the server where the database is hosted, provided the file exists, the database user has appropriate privileges (e.g., FILE privilege), and the file is readable. For example, SELECT LOAD_FILE('/etc/passwd') could extract the contents of the /etc/passwd file if exploitable.
Option A ("READ_FILE()"): This is not a valid MySQL function.
Option B ("LOAD_FILE()"): This is the correct function for reading file contents in MySQL, making it the right choice for exploitation.
Option C ("FETCH_FILE()"): This is not a recognized MySQL function.
Option D ("GET_FILE()"): This is also not a valid MySQL function.
The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "SQL Injection" and "Database Security."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Injection Vulnerabilities," "MySQL Security Features," and "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
A safe password must adhere to security best practices, including sufficient length, complexity, and resistance to common attacks (e.g., brute force, dictionary attacks). Let’s evaluate each option: Option A ("Monday@123"): This password is weak because it combines a common word ("Monday") with a simple number and symbol pattern. It is vulnerable to dictionary attacks and does not meet complexity requirements (e.g., mixed case, special characters, and randomness).
Option B ("abcdef"): This is a sequence of letters with no numbers, special characters, or uppercase letters. It is extremely weak and easily guessable, making it unsafe.
Option C ("Sq0Jh819%ak"): This password is considered safe because it is at least 10 characters long, includes a mix of uppercase letters (S, J, H), lowercase letters (q, h, a, k), numbers (0, 8, 9, 1), and a special character (%). It lacks predictable patterns and meets modern password policy standards (e.g., NIST SP 800-63B recommends at least 8 characters with complexity).
Option D ("1234567890"): This is a simple numeric sequence, highly predictable, and vulnerable to brute-force attacks, making it unsafe.
The correct answer is C, as it aligns with secure password creation guidelines, a key topic in the CAP syllabus under "Authentication Security" and "Secure Coding Practices."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Password Management," "Authentication Security," and "OWASP Secure Coding Guidelines" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The screenshot shows an HTTP response header from https://example.com with a 404 status. Let’s evaluate each option:
Option A ("The application discloses the framework name and version"): The X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.5-5 header reveals the server is running PHP version 5.4.5-5, which is a security risk as it exposes the framework and version. This information can help attackers identify known vulnerabilities, making A incorrect (i.e., it is a problem).
Option B ("The application reveals user-agent details"): The response does not include user-agent details; it only shows the server’s configuration. User-agent details are part of the request, not the response, so this is incorrect (not a problem here).
Option C ("A cookie is set with HttpOnly and a Secure flag"): The Cookie header includes HttpOnly and Secure attributes, which are best practices to prevent JavaScript access and ensure transmission over HTTPS, respectively. This is correct behavior, so it is not incorrect.
Option D ("The application accepts insecure protocol"): The response uses https://, indicating a secure protocol (TLS), and there’s no evidence of accepting insecure protocols like HTTP. This is not incorrect.
Thus, the incorrect statement is A, as disclosing the framework name and version via X-Powered-By is a security misconfiguration. This aligns with the CAP syllabus under "Security Headers" and "Information Disclosure."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Security Misconfigurations," "HTTP Headers," and "OWASP Top 10 (A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration)" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
The screenshot shows an HTTP POST request to /upload.php with a multipart/form-data payload, where the attacker uploads a file named malicious.php disguised as an image/jpeg but containing PHP code (<?php phpinfo(); ?>). This indicates an attempt to exploit a File Upload Vulnerability. Such vulnerabilities occur when an application allows users to upload files without proper validation or sanitization, enabling attackers to upload malicious scripts (e.g., PHP) that can be executed on the server. In this case, if the server executes the uploaded malicious.php, it could expose server information via phpinfo() or perform other malicious actions.
Option A ("HTTP Desync Attack") involves manipulating HTTP request pipelines, which is not relevant here as the request appears standard. Option B ("File Path Traversal Attack") involves accessing unauthorized files using ../, which is not evident in this request. Option D ("Server-Side Request Forgery") involves tricking the server into making unintended requests, which does not apply to file uploads. Thus, C is the correct answer, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "File Handling Security" and "OWASP Top 10 (A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration)."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "File Upload Vulnerabilities," "Input Validation," and "OWASP Top 10" sections.
정답:
Explanation:
CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) is a mechanism that allows servers to specify which origins can access their resources, enhancing security for cross-origin requests. A common misconfiguration occurs with the Access-Control-Allow-Origin and Access-Control-Allow-Credentials headers. When Access-Control-Allow-Origin is set to * (wildcard, allowing all origins), it permits any domain to make requests. However, if Access-Control-Allow-Credentials is set to true (allowing credentials like cookies or HTTP authentication), this creates a security risk. Browsers will block such requests because sending credentials with a wildcard origin violates CORS security policies, but an attacker could exploit this misconfiguration to trick a victim’s browser into making unauthorized requests if other controls are absent.
Option A is correct because the combination of Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true is exploitable, as it enables potential credential leakage or unauthorized access. Option B is incorrect because Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: false disables credential sending, reducing exploitability. Option C is incorrect because the value of Access-Control-Allow-Credentials is not irrelevant; it must be false with a wildcard origin to comply with security standards. Option D ("All of the above") is incorrect as only A holds true. This is a key topic in the CAP syllabus under "CORS Misconfiguration" and "Client-Side Security."
Reference: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "CORS Configuration," "Security Misconfigurations," and "OWASP Secure Headers" sections.