The SecOps Group CAP Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Null Byte Injection is a vulnerability where a null byte character (\0 or ASCII 0) is injected into user-supplied input to manipulate application behavior, often bypassing filters or terminating strings prematurely in languages like C or C++ that rely on null-terminated strings. In web applications, this is typically encoded in URLs using percent-encoding (e.g., %xx, where xx is the hexadecimal value). The ASCII value of a null byte is 0, which is represented as %00 in URL encoding.

Option A ("%01"): Represents the ASCII character with value 1 (Start of Heading), not a null byte.

Option B ("%10"): Represents the ASCII character with value 16 (Data Link Escape), not a null byte.

Option C ("%25"): Represents the % character itself (ASCII 37), not a null byte.

Option D ("%00"): Represents the null byte (ASCII 0), which is the correct URL-encoded form used in Null Byte Injection attacks.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Injection Attacks" and "Input Validation Bypasses."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Null Byte Injection," "URL Encoding," and "OWASP Injection Prevention" sections.

The request is a POST to /dashboard/userdata with a parameter The response is a 200 OK with an HTML page titled "Admin Panel," suggesting the server processed the request and returned content from Let’s evaluate the vulnerability:

Analysis: The useragent parameter contains a URL and the server appears to fetch content from this URL, as indicated by the response containing the "Admin Panel" page. The URL 127.0.0.1 refers to the server’s localhost, meaning the server is making an internal request to itself based on user input. This is a hallmark of Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where an attacker can trick the server into making requests to arbitrary locations, including internal systems (e.g., 127.0.0.1) or external sites. SSRF can lead to accessing internal resources (e.g., admin panels, metadata endpoints) or performing unauthorized actions.

Option A ("HTTP Desync Attack"): HTTP Desync attacks exploit discrepancies in how front-end and back-end servers interpret HTTP requests (e.g., smuggling requests). This scenario involves a straightforward POST request with no evidence of desynchronization or smuggling, so this is incorrect.

Option B ("File Path Traversal Attack"): File Path Traversal involves manipulating file paths (e.g., ../../etc/passwd) to access unauthorized files on the server’s filesystem. The useragent parameter contains a URL, not a file path, and the response indicates a web request, not filesystem access, so this is incorrect.

Option C ("Open URL Redirection"): Open URL Redirection occurs when the server redirects the client to a user-supplied URL (e.g., via a Location header). The response here is a 200 OK, not a redirect (e.g., 302 Found), and the server is fetching content server-side, not redirecting the client, so this is incorrect.

Option D ("Server-Side Request Forgery"): Correct, as the server is making a request to based on the useragent parameter, indicating an SSRF vulnerability.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)" and "OWASP Top 10 (A10:2021 - Server-Side Request Forgery)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "SSRF Vulnerabilities," "Input Validation for URLs," and "OWASP SSRF Prevention Cheat Sheet" sections.

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.