mediumMultiple Choice
CAS-004 Practice Question: Refer to the exhibit
Exhibit
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": "*",
"Action": "s3:GetObject",
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::example-bucket/*",
"Condition": {
"IpAddress": {
"aws:SourceIp": "192.0.2.0/24"
}
}
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": "*",
"Action": "s3:PutObject",
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::example-bucket/*"
}
]
}Refer to the exhibit. Which security issue does this cloud storage bucket policy present?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse the action (`PutObject` vs `GetObject`) and assume any anonymous principal implies read access, when in fact the policy explicitly allows write operations without any authentication or IP restriction.
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
✓
The bucket allows anonymous PUT operations from any source
The cloud storage bucket policy shown includes a `Principal: "*"` with `Action: "PutObject"` and no `Condition` block restricting the source IP or requiring authentication. This means any unauthenticated user on the internet can upload objects to the bucket, which is a classic data ingestion vulnerability. Option C correctly identifies this as allowing anonymous PUT operations from any source.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
The bucket allows anonymous GET operations from any IP
Why it's wrong here
Anonymous GET access is a genuine exposure, but the exhibit's policy grants it only to a specific service principal, not any IP. It tempts because public-read buckets are a classic misconfiguration; here the flaw lies in the principal scope, not anonymous access.
- ✗
The bucket policy is too restrictive
Why it's wrong here
A bucket policy granting only the owner full control and denying all other principals is not a security issue; it is the intended least-privilege configuration. This option tempts candidates who equate restrictive access with misconfiguration, but over-restriction becomes relevant only when legitimate workloads or delegated users are blocked, which the exhibit does not show.
- ✓
The bucket allows anonymous PUT operations from any source
Why this is correct
Anonymous PUT access lets unauthenticated users upload or overwrite objects, directly violating the least-privilege and data-integrity requirements the bucket policy must enforce. Because no identity or authentication check occurs, any source can inject malicious content, ransomware or exfiltration scripts, and existing objects can be replaced or corrupted without audit attribution.
- ✗
The bucket is not encrypted
Why it's wrong here
Encryption at rest is configured separately from bucket policy, so the exhibit cannot demonstrate its absence. It tempts because unencrypted storage is a frequent finding; the policy's real issue is the permissive principal and action combination.
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 by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.