SecurityX CAS-005 Book

The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) v3.1 uses three metric groups to calculate overall scores:Base,Temporal, andEnvironmental.

Base (E):Mandatory metrics assessing exploitability (e.g., attack vector) and impact (confidentiality, integrity, availability).

Temporal (A):Optional metrics reflecting the current state of the vulnerability (e.g., exploit availability, remediation level).

Environmental (F):Optional metrics tailoring the score to the organization’s context (e.g., security requirements).

B, C, D (Availability, Integrity, Confidentiality):These are subcomponents of the Base Impact metrics, not standalone groups.

G (Impact):A category within Base, not a group.

H (Attack vector):A single Base metric, not a group.

Reviewing data sovereignty laws in countries where the organization has no presence is likely due to concerns about regulatory enforcement. Data sovereignty laws dictate how data can be stored, processed, and transferred across borders. Understanding these laws is crucial for compliance, especially if the organization handles data that may be subject to foreign regulations.

A. The organization is performing due diligence of potential tax issues: This is less likely as tax issues are generally not directly related to data sovereignty laws.

B. The organization has been subject to legal proceedings in countries where it has a presence: While possible, this does not explain the focus on countries where the organization has no presence.

C. The organization is concerned with new regulatory enforcement in other countries: This is the most likely reason. New regulations could impact the organization’s operations, especially if they involve data transfers or processing data from these countries.

D. The organization has suffered brand reputation damage from incorrect media coverage: This is less relevant to the need for reviewing data sovereignty laws.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Understanding Residual Risk:

Residual riskis the amount of risk remainingafter controls and mitigations have been applied.

Risk appetitedefines the level of risk an organization iswilling to acceptbefore taking additional actions.

Why Option D is Correct:

TheCIO must clarify the organization’s "Risk Appetite"to determinehow much residual risk is acceptable.

If risk exceeds the appetite,additional security measuresneed to be implemented.

This aligns withISO 31000andNIST Risk Management Framework (RMF).

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (Mitigation):Mitigation refers toreducing risk, but it doesn’t define the acceptable level of residual risk.

B (Impact):Impact assessment measurespotential damage, but it does not determine what is acceptable.

C (Likelihood):Likelihood is theprobability of risk occurring, but not what level isacceptable.

To meet the requirements of having all endpoints establish telemetry with a SIEM, integrate into an XDR platform, and allow SOC services to monitor the XDR platform, the best approach is to implement Host Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS) and a host-based firewall. HIPS can provide detailed telemetry data to the SIEM and can be integrated into the XDR platform for comprehensive monitoring and response. The host-based firewall ensures that only authorized traffic is allowed, providing an additional layer of security.