- A
Cross-site request forgery is present because the state-changing request works without a valid anti-CSRF token.
If a state-changing request succeeds without a valid anti-CSRF token, the application is not reliably verifying that the request originated from the intended user session. That makes the action vulnerable to cross-site request forgery, where a malicious site can induce a logged-in user to submit an unauthorized request.
- B
Broken access control or IDOR is present because changing customerId reveals another user's invoice.
Changing an object identifier and gaining access to another user's data is a textbook broken access control issue, often described as IDOR. The server is trusting the client-supplied identifier without enforcing ownership or authorization checks. That means a user can reach records they should not be able to view.
- C
SQL injection is present because the customerId value changes in the URL.
Why wrong: A parameter changing from one integer to another does not by itself indicate SQL injection. SQL injection would require evidence that the application is interpreting malicious SQL syntax, such as quotes, comments, or database error behavior. Here, the clue is unauthorized object access, not database query manipulation.
- D
Cross-site scripting is present because the invoice data is returned in the browser.
Why wrong: Receiving another user's invoice in the browser is not evidence of script injection. Cross-site scripting requires malicious script execution in a victim's browser context. The scenario describes unauthorized data disclosure through an identifier change, which is an access-control problem rather than a content-injection issue.
- E
Insecure deserialization is present because the request uses JSON-like parameters.
Why wrong: The presence of request parameters or JSON formatting does not imply insecure deserialization. That weakness involves tampering with serialized objects or object state during parsing. The scenario provides no evidence of object deserialization, integrity bypass, or gadget-chain exploitation.
Quick Answer
The correct answers are Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) and Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR), which together reveal a failure in both access control and request validation. The first scenario—where a POST request to update an address succeeds without an anti-CSRF token—demonstrates CSRF because the application fails to verify the request’s origin, allowing an attacker to trick a victim into unknowingly submitting a state-changing action. The second scenario—where simply changing a customerId parameter in a GET request returns another user’s invoice—is a textbook IDOR vulnerability, as the application does not enforce proper authorization checks on direct object references. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, these two vulnerabilities often appear together to test your ability to distinguish between a lack of request validation (CSRF) and a lack of authorization (IDOR). A common trap is confusing IDOR with CSRF; remember that CSRF exploits trust in the user’s session, while IDOR exploits missing permission checks on object identifiers. Memory tip: CSRF = “Crafty Session Ride Forge,” IDOR = “I Directly Own Resources” without checking.
SY0-701 Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations Practice Question
This SY0-701 practice question tests your understanding of threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigations. 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.
During testing of a shopping portal, a POST request to /api/address/update succeeds even when the anti-CSRF token is removed. In a separate test, changing customerId=1842 to customerId=1843 in a GET request returns another user's invoice data. Which two vulnerabilities are present? Select two.
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
Cross-site request forgery is present because the state-changing request works without a valid anti-CSRF token.
Option A is correct because the POST request to /api/address/update succeeds without the anti-CSRF token, which means the application does not validate the origin of the request. This allows an attacker to forge a cross-site request that changes the victim's address without their knowledge, a classic CSRF vulnerability.
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.
- ✓
Cross-site request forgery is present because the state-changing request works without a valid anti-CSRF token.
Why this is correct
If a state-changing request succeeds without a valid anti-CSRF token, the application is not reliably verifying that the request originated from the intended user session. That makes the action vulnerable to cross-site request forgery, where a malicious site can induce a logged-in user to submit an unauthorized request.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✓
Broken access control or IDOR is present because changing customerId reveals another user's invoice.
Why this is correct
Changing an object identifier and gaining access to another user's data is a textbook broken access control issue, often described as IDOR. The server is trusting the client-supplied identifier without enforcing ownership or authorization checks. That means a user can reach records they should not be able to view.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✗
SQL injection is present because the customerId value changes in the URL.
Why it's wrong here
A parameter changing from one integer to another does not by itself indicate SQL injection. SQL injection would require evidence that the application is interpreting malicious SQL syntax, such as quotes, comments, or database error behavior. Here, the clue is unauthorized object access, not database query manipulation.
- ✗
Cross-site scripting is present because the invoice data is returned in the browser.
Why it's wrong here
Receiving another user's invoice in the browser is not evidence of script injection. Cross-site scripting requires malicious script execution in a victim's browser context. The scenario describes unauthorized data disclosure through an identifier change, which is an access-control problem rather than a content-injection issue.
- ✗
Insecure deserialization is present because the request uses JSON-like parameters.
Why it's wrong here
The presence of request parameters or JSON formatting does not imply insecure deserialization. That weakness involves tampering with serialized objects or object state during parsing. The scenario provides no evidence of object deserialization, integrity bypass, or gadget-chain exploitation.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates confuse IDOR with SQL injection because both involve manipulating a parameter in the URL, but IDOR is about missing access controls, not database injection.
Trap categories for this question
Scenario analysis trap
Receiving another user's invoice in the browser is not evidence of script injection. Cross-site scripting requires malicious script execution in a victim's browser context. The scenario describes unauthorized data disclosure through an identifier change, which is an access-control problem rather than a content-injection issue.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
CSRF exploits the fact that browsers automatically include cookies (including session cookies) with every request to a domain. Without a token tied to the user's session, the server cannot distinguish a legitimate request from a forged one. IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) occurs when the application exposes internal object references (like customerId) without proper authorization checks, allowing attackers to enumerate or access other users' data by simply incrementing the ID.
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.
- →
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
- →
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations 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?
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations — This question tests Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Cross-site request forgery is present because the state-changing request works without a valid anti-CSRF token. — Option A is correct because the POST request to /api/address/update succeeds without the anti-CSRF token, which means the application does not validate the origin of the request. This allows an attacker to forge a cross-site request that changes the victim's address without their knowledge, a classic CSRF vulnerability.
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 →
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.