hardMultiple Choice
CAS-004 Practice Question: A SOC team uses a SOAR platform to automate…
A SOC team uses a SOAR platform to automate incident response. They want to ensure that playbooks run with minimal human intervention but still require approval for actions that could cause service disruption. Which approach should be used?
⚠ Common exam trap
CAS-005 often tests the trade-off between automation and human oversight, with candidates incorrectly choosing full automation or full manual approval instead of conditional approval for destructive actions.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Implement conditional manual approval for destructive actions.
Implementing conditional manual approval for destructive actions allows playbooks to run automatically for most steps, but pauses for human approval when an action could cause service disruption. This balances automation with safety.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Require analyst sign-off for every playbook action.
Why it's wrong here
Requiring sign-off for every action eliminates the minimal-human-intervention requirement, defeating the automation objective. It is tempting because it guarantees oversight, and would be correct in a fully manual SOC where no action may proceed without explicit analyst authorisation.
- ✗
Use network isolation as a safety net for any action.
Why it's wrong here
Network isolation blocks traffic but does not gate playbook steps pending approval, so disruptive actions still execute without human sign-off. It is tempting as a containment safeguard, and would be correct when the goal is limiting blast radius after an incident rather than controlling automation flow.
- ✓
Implement conditional manual approval for destructive actions.
Why this is correct
Conditional manual approval satisfies the minimal-intervention constraint by automating routine playbook steps while pausing only before destructive actions, such as resource deletion or service restarts. This gates high-impact operations behind human authorisation, preventing service disruption without imposing blanket approval that would defeat the automation's efficiency.
- ✗
Configure the SOAR to automatically execute all playbook steps.
Why it's wrong here
Automatic execution of all steps removes the approval gate entirely, so service-disrupting actions run unchecked. It is tempting because it maximises automation speed, and would be correct for low-risk, reversible playbooks such as enriching alerts or creating tickets where no approval is warranted.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CAS-005 question is part of Courseiva's 973-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official CompTIA exam blueprint
This CAS-005 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CAS-005 exam.