CompTIA Updated SY0-701 Exam Questions and Answers by ciara

The scenario indicates that a user downloaded an unofficial patch, applied it, and afterward system files changed—detected by FIM. This strongly suggests the presence of a rootkit, which is designed to deeply embed itself into the operating system, altering core system files, modifying kernels, and hiding its presence.

Rootkits commonly replace or modify OS-level files, which results in changed file hashes—exactly what FIM is detecting. Rootkits often gain privileged, persistent control and are frequently disguised as legitimate updates or patches.

A logic bomb (A) is triggered by an event but does not typically modify OS files. A keylogger (B) captures keystrokes but doesn’t modify system files broadly. Ransomware (C) encrypts files, not silently alters system components.

Thus, the best match is D: Rootkit.

Anair-gapped (C)system is completely isolated from unsecured networks (like the internet) and other systems, preventing any form of remote access. This is often used in highly sensitive environments such as military, nuclear, or critical infrastructure systems.

This is mentioned underDomain 3.4: Given a scenario, apply cybersecurity resilience conceptsin theCompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Exam Objectives, specifically under“Isolation (e.g., air-gapped)”.

The correct answer is Attack surface because opening multiple common service ports unnecessarily increases the number of potential entry points an attacker can target. In the Security+ SY0-701 exam objectives, the attack surface is defined as the total number of exposed interfaces, services, ports, protocols, and access points that an attacker could attempt to exploit. Each open port corresponds to a listening service, and every exposed service represents an opportunity for reconnaissance, exploitation, or abuse.

In this scenario, the business intends to open ports for FTP, SSH, SMTP, HTTP, and HTTPS without clearly limiting access. While some of these services may be required, opening all of them broadly—especially to a screened subnet—significantly expands the attack surface. If any of these services are misconfigured, unpatched, or vulnerable, attackers could exploit them to gain unauthorized access. The SY0-701 study guide emphasizes minimizing exposed services as a foundational defensive strategy, often referred to as reducing attack surface area.

Option C, least privilege, is related but not the best answer. Least privilege focuses on granting users or systems only the minimum access required, whereas this question specifically concerns exposed network services rather than access rights. Option A, secure access service edge (SASE), is a cloud-based architecture model and is unrelated to basic firewall port exposure decisions. Option D, separation of duties, applies to role and responsibility distribution, not network exposure.

By advising against opening multiple common ports, the consultant is recommending a reduction in exposed services to limit opportunities for attack. This aligns directly with SY0-701 guidance on secure network design, firewall hardening, and minimizing externally accessible services.

In summary, limiting open ports reduces the organization’s attack surface, making Attack surface the correct and best answer.

An endpoint detection and response (EDR) system is a security tool that monitors and analyzes the activities and behaviors of endpoints, such as computers, laptops, mobile devices, and servers. An EDR system can detect, prevent, and respond to various types of threats, such as malware, ransomware, phishing, and advanced persistent threats (APTs). One of the features of an EDR system is to block the automatic execution of downloaded programs, which can prevent malicious code from running on the endpoint when a user clicks on a link in a phishing message. This can reduce the impact of a phishing attack and protect the endpoint from compromise. Updating the EDR policies to block automatic execution of downloaded programs is a technical control that can mitigate the risk of phishing, regardless of the user’s awareness or behavior. Therefore, this is the best answer among the given options.

The other options are not as effective as updating the EDR policies, because they rely on administrative or physical controls that may not be sufficient to prevent or stop a phishing attack. Placing posters around the office to raise awareness of common phishing activities is a physical control that can increase the user’s knowledge of phishing, but it may not change their behavior or prevent them from clicking on a link in a phishing message. Implementing email security filters to prevent phishing emails from being delivered is an administrative control that can reduce the exposure to phishing, but it may not be able to block all phishing emails, especially if they are crafted to bypass the filters. Creating additional training for users to recognize the signs of phishing attempts is an administrative control that can improve the user’s skills of phishing detection, but it may not guarantee that they will always be vigilant or cautious when receiving an email. Therefore, these options are not the best answer for this question. References = Endpoint Detection and Response – CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 – 2.2, video at 5:30; CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 163.