- A
Verify the vendor advisory and package metadata, then document evidence of the fixed build.
A version number alone can be misleading when a vendor backports a fix without changing the upstream version. The analyst should confirm the remediation using vendor notes, package release metadata, or other authoritative evidence. That ensures the finding is truly remediated before the ticket is closed and prevents a false assumption based only on a scanner result.
- B
Close the ticket immediately because the patch was installed successfully.
Why wrong: Successful installation does not always prove the vulnerability was removed, especially when versioning does not change.
- C
Raise the severity of the finding because the scanner still reports it.
Why wrong: Escalating severity without validation does not solve the underlying evidence gap or confirm exploitability.
- D
Disable the scanner until the next maintenance window to avoid repeated alerts.
Why wrong: Turning off scanning hides the issue instead of proving that the fix is present and effective.
Quick Answer
The correct answer is to verify the vendor advisory and package metadata, then document evidence of the fixed build. This is necessary because when a distribution backports a security fix, it applies the patch to an older package version without incrementing the version number, so the vulnerability scanner still flags the package based on its unchanged version string. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of patch management and the limitations of automated vulnerability scanning, often appearing as a trick question where candidates assume a version change is required. A common trap is to immediately reinstall or update the package, but the correct approach is to confirm the fix using commands like `rpm -q --changelog` or `dpkg --status` and document the evidence. Memory tip: “Version unchanged, fix applied—verify the changelog, don’t let the scanner misguide.”
SY0-701 Security Operations Practice Question
This SY0-701 practice question tests your understanding of security operations. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
A Linux host is patched, but the scanner still flags the package as vulnerable. The vendor advisory says the distribution backported the fix, so the package version did not change. What should the analyst do before closing the ticket?
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
Verify the vendor advisory and package metadata, then document evidence of the fixed build.
Option A is correct because when a vendor backports a security fix to an older package version without incrementing the version number, the vulnerability scanner may still flag the package based on its version string. The analyst must verify the vendor advisory and package metadata (e.g., using `rpm -q --changelog` or `dpkg --status`) to confirm the fix is present, then document this evidence to close the ticket with proper justification.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Verify the vendor advisory and package metadata, then document evidence of the fixed build.
Why this is correct
A version number alone can be misleading when a vendor backports a fix without changing the upstream version. The analyst should confirm the remediation using vendor notes, package release metadata, or other authoritative evidence. That ensures the finding is truly remediated before the ticket is closed and prevents a false assumption based only on a scanner result.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✗
Close the ticket immediately because the patch was installed successfully.
Why it's wrong here
Successful installation does not always prove the vulnerability was removed, especially when versioning does not change.
- ✗
Raise the severity of the finding because the scanner still reports it.
Why it's wrong here
Escalating severity without validation does not solve the underlying evidence gap or confirm exploitability.
- ✗
Disable the scanner until the next maintenance window to avoid repeated alerts.
Why it's wrong here
Turning off scanning hides the issue instead of proving that the fix is present and effective.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates assume a patched system always has a newer package version, but CompTIA tests the understanding that backported fixes keep the same version string, requiring manual verification of the changelog or vendor advisory.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Backporting is common in enterprise Linux distributions (e.g., RHEL, Ubuntu LTS) where security patches are applied to the same package version to maintain API/ABI stability. The analyst can use `rpm -q --changelog <package>` on RPM-based systems or `apt-get changelog <package>` on Debian-based systems to view the changelog and confirm the CVE is addressed. In a real-world scenario, a vulnerability scanner like Nessus or OpenVAS may rely on version comparison, so documenting the backport evidence is essential for audit trails and compliance.
KKey Concepts to Remember
- Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
- Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
- Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
- Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A security team runs a vulnerability scan on a web application and discovers an unpatched SQL injection flaw. The team prioritises remediation by CVSS score — critical flaws are patched within 24 hours, high within 7 days. Questions like this test whether you understand vulnerability management processes, scanning tools, and remediation prioritisation.
What to study next
Got this wrong? Here's your next step.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
- →
Security Operations — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
- →
Security Operations practice questions
Targeted practice on this topic area only
- →
All SY0-701 questions
1,152 questions across all exam domains
- →
Security+ SY0-701 study guide
Full concept coverage aligned to exam objectives
- →
SY0-701 practice test guide
How to use practice tests most effectively before exam day
Related practice questions
Related SY0-701 practice-question pages
Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.
General Security Concepts practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to General Security Concepts.
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations.
Security Architecture practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Architecture.
Security Operations practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Operations.
Security Program Management and Oversight practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Program Management and Oversight.
Security+ social engineering questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ social engineering questions.
Security+ cryptography practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ cryptography.
Security+ IAM questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ IAM questions.
Security+ risk management questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ risk management questions.
Security+ incident response questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ incident response questions.
Security+ malware questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ malware questions.
Security+ vulnerability management questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ vulnerability management questions.
Practice this exam
Start a free SY0-701 practice session
Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.
FAQ
Questions learners often ask
What does this SY0-701 question test?
Security Operations — This question tests Security Operations — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Verify the vendor advisory and package metadata, then document evidence of the fixed build. — Option A is correct because when a vendor backports a security fix to an older package version without incrementing the version number, the vulnerability scanner may still flag the package based on its version string. The analyst must verify the vendor advisory and package metadata (e.g., using `rpm -q --changelog` or `dpkg --status`) to confirm the fix is present, then document this evidence to close the ticket with proper justification.
What should I do if I get this SY0-701 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Keep practising
More SY0-701 practice questions
- An HR analyst must send a salary file to an external auditor. The auditor only needs names, departments, and salary tota…
- An investigator receives a suspect laptop drive that may be used in court. Which approach best supports a forensically s…
- An investigator must collect data from a suspected insider-threat laptop so the evidence could be used in an HR and lega…
- An NDR tool shows a production web server sending small, periodic DNS queries to random-looking subdomains under a domai…
- An investigator needs to make a forensic image of a suspect laptop without changing the original drive contents. Which t…
- An operations team manages Linux servers over SSH. The security team wants to stop direct management access from employe…
Last reviewed: Jun 11, 2026
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.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.