The correct answer is to replace push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA and reinforce verification for unusual login prompts. This directly addresses the vulnerability exposed in Team C’s mailbox takeover, where a user approved an MFA push while traveling—a classic MFA fatigue attack. Push-based MFA relies on user judgment, making it susceptible to prompt bombing, whereas phishing-resistant MFA (such as FIDO2 or hardware tokens) cryptographically binds authentication to a specific device and site, eliminating the possibility of approving a prompt from an untrusted source. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, this scenario tests your ability to interpret incident data and apply layered defenses; a common trap is choosing additional training alone, which doesn’t stop the technical weakness in push notifications. Remember the mnemonic “Push is for pestering, FIDO is for finality”—phishing-resistant MFA ends the fatigue cycle by removing the approval prompt entirely.
SY0-701 General Security Concepts Practice Question
This SY0-701 practice question tests your understanding of general security concepts. 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.
Exhibit
Phishing awareness results:
Team A: click rate 8%, report rate 6%, median report time 52 min
Team B: click rate 7%, report rate 18%, median report time 14 min
Team C: click rate 12%, report rate 21%, median report time 10 min
Incident summary: Team C had one mailbox takeover after a user approved an MFA push while traveling.
Based on the exhibit, which control would most effectively reduce the remaining successful attacks?
Phishing awareness results:
Team A: click rate 8%, report rate 6%, median report time 52 min
Team B: click rate 7%, report rate 18%, median report time 14 min
Team C: click rate 12%, report rate 21%, median report time 10 min
Incident summary: Team C had one mailbox takeover after a user approved an MFA push while traveling.
Phishing awareness results:
Team A: click rate 8%, report rate 6%, median report time 52 min
Team B: click rate 7%, report rate 18%, median report time 14 min
Team C: click rate 12%, report rate 21%, median report time 10 min
Incident summary: Team C had one mailbox takeover after a user approved an MFA push while traveling.
A
Continue generic awareness posters without changing technical controls.
Why wrong: Posters alone will not stop approval-based MFA abuse or other prompt fatigue attacks.
B
Replace push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA and reinforce verification for unusual login prompts.
Phishing-resistant MFA blocks prompt abuse, and verification steps help users resist social engineering during abnormal sign-in events.
C
Disable MFA on mobile devices so users can log in faster.
Why wrong: Removing MFA would make account takeover much easier and would increase risk significantly.
D
Allow employees to approve prompts from any device to reduce help desk calls.
Why wrong: Loosening prompt approval would make MFA fatigue attacks easier to succeed, not harder.
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Replace push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA and reinforce verification for unusual login prompts.
Team C's successful attack was a mailbox takeover resulting from a user approving an MFA push notification while traveling. This indicates that push-based MFA is vulnerable to MFA fatigue attacks, where an attacker bombards the user with prompts until they approve. Replacing push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA (e.g., FIDO2/WebAuthn or hardware tokens) eliminates the possibility of approving a prompt from an untrusted device, and reinforcing verification for unusual login prompts adds a critical user behavior layer to detect anomalies.
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.
✗
Continue generic awareness posters without changing technical controls.
Why it's wrong here
Posters alone will not stop approval-based MFA abuse or other prompt fatigue attacks.
✓
Replace push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA and reinforce verification for unusual login prompts.
Why this is correct
Phishing-resistant MFA blocks prompt abuse, and verification steps help users resist social engineering during abnormal sign-in events.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Disable MFA on mobile devices so users can log in faster.
Why it's wrong here
Removing MFA would make account takeover much easier and would increase risk significantly.
✗
Allow employees to approve prompts from any device to reduce help desk calls.
Why it's wrong here
Loosening prompt approval would make MFA fatigue attacks easier to succeed, not harder.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
CompTIA often tests the misconception that any MFA is equally secure; the trap here is that candidates may think push-based MFA is sufficient because it is 'multi-factor,' but the exam expects you to recognize that push-based MFA is vulnerable to fatigue attacks and that phishing-resistant MFA is the appropriate technical control to prevent such successful attacks.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Phishing-resistant MFA, such as FIDO2/WebAuthn, uses public-key cryptography where the private key never leaves the user's device and the authentication request is bound to the specific origin (Relying Party ID). This prevents relay attacks and MFA fatigue because the user must physically possess the device and the cryptographic challenge is tied to the exact website or app, not a generic push notification. In contrast, push-based MFA (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator or Duo Push) relies on a simple approval gesture that can be triggered remotely, making it susceptible to social engineering and prompt bombing.
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
An employee at a financial services firm receives an email that appears to come from the IT helpdesk, asking them to reset their password via a link. The link leads to a convincing fake portal that harvests credentials. Security teams use phishing simulations and security-awareness training to reduce this attack vector. Questions like this test whether you can identify social engineering techniques and appropriate controls.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this SY0-701 question in full detail.
General Security Concepts — This question tests General Security Concepts — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Replace push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA and reinforce verification for unusual login prompts. — Team C's successful attack was a mailbox takeover resulting from a user approving an MFA push notification while traveling. This indicates that push-based MFA is vulnerable to MFA fatigue attacks, where an attacker bombards the user with prompts until they approve. Replacing push-based MFA with phishing-resistant MFA (e.g., FIDO2/WebAuthn or hardware tokens) eliminates the possibility of approving a prompt from an untrusted device, and reinforcing verification for unusual login prompts adds a critical user behavior layer to detect anomalies.
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 →
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.
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.