The SecOps Group CAP Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

A Race Condition vulnerability occurs in multi-threaded or multi-process applications when two or more threads access a shared resource concurrently, and the outcome depends on the non-deterministic order of their execution. This can lead to inconsistent states or security issues, such as privilege escalation or data corruption, if the access is not properly synchronized (e.g., using locks or semaphores). The classic definition focuses on concurrent access to the same resource.

Option A ("A situation that occurs when two threads access the same resource at the same time"): Correct, as this accurately describes a race condition where the lack of synchronization on a shared resource (e.g., a file, variable, or database entry) can lead to unpredictable behavior.

Option B ("A situation that occurs when two threads access different resources at the same time"): Incorrect, as race conditions specifically involve contention over the same resource, not different ones.

Option C ("A situation that occurs when a single thread unpredictably accesses two resources"): Incorrect, as race conditions require multiple threads or processes; a single thread’s behavior is not a race condition.

Option D ("A situation that occurs when a single thread predictably accesses two resources"): Incorrect, as predictability negates the race condition concept, and it still involves only one thread.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Race Condition Vulnerabilities" and "Multi-Threaded Security."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Concurrency Issues," "Race Conditions," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.

When multiple domain names (e.g., and ) resolve to the same IP address (e.g., 1.3.3.7), a web server hosting multiple applications on that IP must determine which application to serve. This is achieved using theHTTP "Host" header, which is part of the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The client (browser) includes the requested domain (e.g., Host: in the request, allowing the server to route the request to the appropriate virtual host or application configured for that domain. This is a standard practice in virtual hosting.

Option A ("The web server inspects the HTTP 'Host' header sent by the client"): Correct, as the Host header enables the server to distinguish between applications on the same IP.

Option B ("The web server inspects the cookies sent by the client"): Incorrect, as cookies are used for session management or personalization, not for identifying the requested application.

Option C ("The web server inspects the client's SSL certificate"): Incorrect, as SSL certificates are used for encryption and authentication, not for application routing (though they may include the domain name for validation).

Option D ("The web server uses a reverse DNS lookup of the client's IP address"): Incorrect, as reverse DNS lookup resolves an IP to a domain, which is irrelevant for the server determining the requested application.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Web Server Configuration" and "HTTP Protocol Security."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "HTTP Headers," "Virtual Hosting," and "OWASP Web Security Testing Guide" sections.

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., 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 References (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 orprivilege 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)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Session Management," "Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)," and "OWASP Top 10" sections.