CAP Exam Dumps : Certified AppSec Practitioner Exam

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.

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 password reset mechanism now includes a one-time random token alongside the userId in the reset link: &token=70e7803e-bf53-45e1-8a3f-fb15da7de3a0. Let’s evaluate the effectiveness of this mechanism:

Analysis: The inclusion of a one-time random token (e.g., 70e7803e-bf53-45e1-8a3f-fb15da7de3a0) is a best practice for secure password reset mechanisms. This token should be unique, unpredictable, and tied to the specific user’s reset request (e.g., stored in the database with an expiration time). When the user clicks the link, the application should verify that the token matches the one associated with the userId and that it hasn’t been used or expired.

Preventing Arbitrary Resets: Without the token, an attacker could manipulate the userId (e.g., to 5299) to reset another user’s password (as seen in Question 45). However, with the token, the attacker would need to guess the correct token for the targeted userId, which is computationally infeasible if the token is sufficiently random (e.g., a UUID or cryptographically secure random string) and properly validated. This prevents unauthorized password resets.

Additional Considerations: The link uses ensuring a secure channel (unlike Question 45). The message "If the email exists..." prevents username enumeration, as discussed previously.

Option A ("True"): Correct, as the one-time random token, if implemented correctly (e.g., validated server-side, single-use, time-limited), prevents an attacker from resetting arbitrary users’ passwords.

Option B ("False"): Incorrect, as the mechanism is secure with the token.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Secure Password Reset" and "Token-Based Authentication."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Password Reset Security," "Token Generation Best Practices," and "OWASP Forgot Password Cheat Sheet" sections.