hardMultiple Select
CS0-003 Practice Question: An application has a high CVSS vulnerability, but…
An application has a high CVSS vulnerability, but a WAF rule blocks known exploit payloads. What should the team still do? (Choose two.)
⚠ Common exam trap
The CS0-004 exam often tests the misconception that a compensating control like a WAF rule is equivalent to a permanent fix, leading candidates to incorrectly mark the vulnerability as remediated without addressing the root cause in the application code.
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
✓
Validate the WAF rule against bypass and false-positive risk
A WAF rule blocking known exploit payloads does not guarantee complete protection, as attackers can craft bypass techniques such as encoding, parameter pollution, or using different HTTP methods. Validating the rule against bypass and false-positive risks ensures the WAF is effective without disrupting legitimate traffic, which is critical for maintaining both security and availability.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Validate the WAF rule against bypass and false-positive risk
Why this is correct
While a Web Application Firewall (WAF) rule serves as an effective compensating control, it must be rigorously validated to ensure attackers cannot bypass it using encoding or alternative payloads. Additionally, testing prevents the rule from generating excessive false positives that could disrupt legitimate application traffic.
- ✗
Remove the application from vulnerability scans
Why it's wrong here
Excluding the application from vulnerability scans creates a dangerous blind spot, concealing both the unpatched vulnerability and any new security flaws that may be introduced over time. Continuous monitoring is essential to maintain visibility into the asset's overall risk posture.
- ✗
Mark the vulnerability as permanently remediated
Why it's wrong here
Marking the vulnerability as permanently remediated is incorrect because the underlying code defect or misconfiguration has not been patched. A compensating control like a WAF only mitigates the risk of exploitation; it does not resolve the root vulnerability, which could still be exposed if the WAF is misconfigured or disabled.
- ✓
Track the vulnerability until the underlying flaw is fixed
Why this is correct
A WAF rule is a temporary compensating control rather than a permanent remediation. Security teams must continue to track the vulnerability in their registry until the vendor patch or code-level fix is fully deployed, ensuring the risk is not forgotten or left unaddressed long-term.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Security Metrics and KPIs
Key term
Exploit
An exploit is a piece of code, a sequence of commands, or a technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability in a system or software to cause unintended behavior, often for malicious purposes.
Key term
Vulnerability
A vulnerability is a weakness in a system, network, or software that could be exploited by a threat to cause harm or unauthorized access.
About these practice questions
This CS0-004 question is part of Courseiva's 701-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 CS0-004 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 CS0-004 exam.