The SecOps Group CNSP Reliable Test Voucher - CNSP Reliable Test Tips
The SecOps Group CNSP Reliable Test Voucher - CNSP Reliable Test Tips
Blog Article
Tags: CNSP Reliable Test Voucher, CNSP Reliable Test Tips, CNSP Original Questions, Reliable CNSP Test Blueprint, Detail CNSP Explanation
Our company has successfully launched the new version of the CNSP study materials. Perhaps you are deeply bothered by preparing the exam. Now, you can totally feel relaxed with the assistance of our study materials. Our products are reliable and excellent. What is more, the passing rate of our CNSP Study Materials is the highest in the market. Purchasing our CNSP study materials means you have been half success. Good decision is of great significance if you want to pass the exam for the first time.
The SecOps Group CNSP Exam Syllabus Topics:
Topic | Details |
---|---|
Topic 1 |
|
Topic 2 |
|
Topic 3 |
|
Topic 4 |
|
Topic 5 |
|
Topic 6 |
|
Topic 7 |
|
Topic 8 |
|
Topic 9 |
|
Topic 10 |
|
Topic 11 |
|
Topic 12 |
|
Topic 13 |
|
Topic 14 |
|
Topic 15 |
|
Topic 16 |
|
>> The SecOps Group CNSP Reliable Test Voucher <<
The SecOps Group CNSP Reliable Test Tips | CNSP Original Questions
If you are nervous on your CNSP exam for you always have the problem on the time-schedule or feeling lack of confidence on the condition that you go to the real exam room. Our Software version of CNSP study materials will be your best assistant. With the advantage of simulating the real exam environment, you can get a wonderful study experience with our CNSP Exam Prep as well as gain the best pass percentage.
The SecOps Group Certified Network Security Practitioner Sample Questions (Q10-Q15):
NEW QUESTION # 10
What types of attacks are phishing, spear phishing, vishing, scareware, and watering hole?
- A. Probes
- B. Insider threats
- C. Social engineering
- D. Ransomware
Answer: C
Explanation:
Social engineering exploits human psychology to manipulate individuals into divulging sensitive information, granting access, or performing actions that compromise security. Unlike technical exploits, it targets the "human factor," often bypassing technical defenses. The listed attacks fit this category:
Phishing: Mass, untargeted emails (e.g., fake bank alerts) trick users into entering credentials on spoofed sites. Uses tactics like urgency or trust (e.g., typosquatting domains).
Spear Phishing: Targeted phishing against specific individuals/organizations (e.g., CEO fraud), leveraging reconnaissance (e.g., LinkedIn data) for credibility.
Vishing (Voice Phishing): Phone-based attacks (e.g., fake tech support calls) extract info via verbal manipulation. Often spoofs caller ID.
Scareware: Fake alerts (e.g., "Your PC is infected!" pop-ups) scare users into installing malware or paying for bogus fixes. Exploits fear and urgency.
Watering Hole: Compromises trusted websites frequented by a target group (e.g., industry forums), infecting visitors via drive-by downloads. Relies on habitual trust.
Technical Details:
Delivery: Email (phishing), VoIP (vishing), web (watering hole/scareware).
Payloads: Credential theft, malware (e.g., trojans), or financial fraud.
Mitigation: User training, email filters (e.g., DMARC), endpoint protection.
Security Implications: Social engineering accounts for ~90% of breaches (e.g., Verizon DBIR 2023), as it exploits unpatchable human error. CNSP likely emphasizes awareness (e.g., phishing simulations) and layered defenses (e.g., MFA).
Why other options are incorrect:
A . Probes: Reconnaissance techniques (e.g., port scanning) to identify vulnerabilities, not manipulation-based like these attacks.
B . Insider threats: Malicious actions by authorized users (e.g., data theft by employees), not external human-targeting tactics.
D . Ransomware: A malware type (e.g., WannaCry) that encrypts data for ransom, not a manipulation method-though phishing often delivers it.
Real-World Context: The 2016 DNC hack used spear phishing to steal credentials, showing social engineering's potency.
NEW QUESTION # 11
What is the response from an open UDP port which is behind a firewall (port is open on the firewall)?
- A. A SYN Packet
- B. A FIN Packet
- C. ICMP message showing Port Unreachable
- D. No response
Answer: D
Explanation:
UDP (User Datagram Protocol), per RFC 768, is connectionless, lacking TCP's handshake or acknowledgment mechanisms. When a UDP packet reaches a port:
Closed Port: The host typically sends an ICMP "Destination Port Unreachable" (Type 3, Code 3) unless suppressed (e.g., by firewall or OS settings).
Open Port: If a service is listening (e.g., DNS on 53/UDP), it processes the packet but doesn't inherently reply unless the application protocol requires it (e.g., DNS sends a response).
Scenario: An open UDP port behind a firewall, with the firewall rule allowing traffic (e.g., permit udp any host 10.0.0.1 eq 123). The packet reaches the service, but UDP itself doesn't mandate a response. Most services (e.g., NTP, SNMP) only reply if the packet matches an expected request. In this question's generic context (no specific service), no response is the default, as the firewall permits the packet, and the open port silently accepts it without feedback.
Security Implications: This silence makes UDP ports harder to scan (e.g., Nmap assumes "open|filtered" for no response), but exposed open ports risk amplification attacks (e.g., DNS reflection). CNSP likely contrasts UDP's behavior with TCP for firewall rule crafting.
Why other options are incorrect:
A . ICMP message showing Port Unreachable: Occurs for closed ports, not open ones, unless the service explicitly rejects the packet (rare).
C . A SYN Packet: SYN is TCP-specific (handshake initiation), irrelevant to UDP.
D . A FIN Packet: FIN is TCP-specific (connection closure), not UDP.
Real-World Context: Testing UDP 53 (DNS) with dig @8.8.8.8 +udp yields a response, but generic UDP probes (e.g., nc -u) often get silence.
NEW QUESTION # 12
What will be the subnet mask for 192.168.0.1/18?
- A. 255.255.255.0
- B. 255.255.192.0
- C. 255.225.192.0
- D. 255.225.225.0
Answer: B
Explanation:
An IP address with a /18 prefix (CIDR notation) indicates 18 network bits in the subnet mask, leaving 14 host bits (32 total bits - 18). For IPv4 (e.g., 192.168.0.1):
Binary Mask: First 18 bits are 1s, rest 0s.
1st octet: 11111111 (255)
2nd octet: 11111111 (255)
3rd octet: 11000000 (192)
4th octet: 00000000 (0)
Decimal: 255.255.192.0
Calculation:
Bits: /18 = 2