Courseiva
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and MitigationsmediumMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

SY0-701 Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations Practice Question

A customer portal has a form that submits a money-transfer request with the user’s existing session cookie. Security testing shows that if a user visits a malicious site while logged in, the portal will submit the transfer request without any additional verification. Which control would best reduce this risk?

⚠ Common exam trap

Watch out — candidates often confuse CSRF with XSS or session hijacking, and incorrectly choose input validation or stored procedures, not realizing that the core vulnerability is the lack of origin verification for state-changing requests.

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

Add a server-validated anti-CSRF token to each state-changing request

The described attack is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), where a malicious site forces an authenticated user's browser to submit a state-changing request without the user's consent. Adding a server-validated anti-CSRF token ensures that each request includes a unique, unpredictable value tied to the user's session, which the server verifies before processing. This prevents the malicious site from forging a valid request because it cannot guess or obtain the token.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • Replace the transfer form with a stored procedure

    Why it's wrong here

    Stored procedures help reduce SQL injection risk, but they do not stop unwanted cross-site request submission.

  • Add a server-validated anti-CSRF token to each state-changing request

    Why this is correct

    An anti-CSRF token is the best control because it ties the request to the legitimate application session and makes it difficult for an attacker-controlled site to forge the request successfully. State-changing actions such as transfers should validate a unique token on the server side, ideally with other browser protections like SameSite cookies. This directly addresses cross-site request forgery.

  • Enable input length limits on the transfer amount field

    Why it's wrong here

    Input length limits can improve validation, but they do not prevent an attacker from submitting a forged request from another site.

  • Turn on content security policy to block all script execution

    Why it's wrong here

    Content security policy helps reduce some browser-based attacks such as XSS, but it does not reliably stop CSRF by itself.

About these practice questions

One of 1,013 original SY0-701 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

JA

Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security

Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva

This SY0-701 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 SY0-701 exam.