- A
Trust any caller who can provide a manager's name and employee ID.
Why wrong: This makes social engineering easier because attacker-supplied details are often available from public sources or prior leaks.
- B
Require a callback to a previously verified number and ticket approval before reset.
A callback to a known-good number, combined with ticket validation and approval workflow, forces the request to be verified through independent channels. This defeats the attacker’s ability to rely on stolen or guessed details during the call. It is a practical anti-pretexting control because it reduces trust in information provided by the caller alone.
- C
Remove MFA so users are less likely to get locked out while traveling.
Why wrong: Removing MFA lowers security significantly and would make account compromise much easier, not harder.
- D
Use caller ID alone to confirm the person is legitimate.
Why wrong: Caller ID can be spoofed, so it is not a reliable method for identity verification in service desk workflows.
Quick Answer
The answer is requiring a callback to a previously verified number combined with ticket approval. This control directly counters the social engineering prevention callback strategy because it forces the attacker to pass two independent verification layers: a callback to a known trusted number confirms the requestor’s physical access to a legitimate contact point, while ticket approval creates an audit trail and requires secondary authorization, making it nearly impossible for an impersonator to succeed with just a manager’s name. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of defense-in-depth against vishing and identity fraud, where the common trap is choosing a single-factor control like “verify the manager’s name” or “send an email confirmation,” which the attacker can easily spoof. Remember the memory tip: “Call back, then ticket—two locks on the wicket.”
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.
An attacker calls the service desk claiming to be a traveling contractor whose phone was stolen. They know the contractor's manager name and ask for an MFA reset to a new number 'just for today.' Which control would best reduce the success of this attack?
Clue words in this question
Noticing these words before you look at the options changes how you read each choice.
Clue:
"best"Why it matters: Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.
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
Require a callback to a previously verified number and ticket approval before reset.
Option B is correct because it introduces two verification factors that directly counter the social engineering vector: a callback to a previously verified number ensures the requestor is reachable at a known trusted contact point, and ticket approval creates an audit trail and requires secondary authorization. This combination prevents an attacker from simply claiming an identity and requesting a change without independent confirmation, which is the core weakness the attacker exploits.
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.
- ✗
Trust any caller who can provide a manager's name and employee ID.
Why it's wrong here
This makes social engineering easier because attacker-supplied details are often available from public sources or prior leaks.
- ✓
Require a callback to a previously verified number and ticket approval before reset.
Why this is correct
A callback to a known-good number, combined with ticket validation and approval workflow, forces the request to be verified through independent channels. This defeats the attacker’s ability to rely on stolen or guessed details during the call. It is a practical anti-pretexting control because it reduces trust in information provided by the caller alone.
Clue confirmation
The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✗
Remove MFA so users are less likely to get locked out while traveling.
Why it's wrong here
Removing MFA lowers security significantly and would make account compromise much easier, not harder.
- ✗
Use caller ID alone to confirm the person is legitimate.
Why it's wrong here
Caller ID can be spoofed, so it is not a reliable method for identity verification in service desk workflows.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates may think providing a manager's name and employee ID is sufficient proof of identity, but the exam tests that these are easily obtained via reconnaissance and do not constitute multi-factor authentication or out-of-band verification.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Under the hood, a callback to a previously verified number leverages the PSTN or VoIP provider's authentication of the called number (e.g., via ANI or a verified caller ID database), which is harder for an attacker to spoof than an incoming call's display. The ticket approval process typically integrates with an identity management system (e.g., Active Directory or Azure AD) and requires a second administrator to approve the MFA reset, enforcing separation of duties as per NIST SP 800-63B guidelines for account recovery. In real-world attacks like the 2020 Twitter breach, social engineers used similar pretexting to trick help desk staff into resetting MFA without callback verification, leading to high-profile account takeovers.
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.
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: Require a callback to a previously verified number and ticket approval before reset. — Option B is correct because it introduces two verification factors that directly counter the social engineering vector: a callback to a previously verified number ensures the requestor is reachable at a known trusted contact point, and ticket approval creates an audit trail and requires secondary authorization. This combination prevents an attacker from simply claiming an identity and requesting a change without independent confirmation, which is the core weakness the attacker exploits.
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.
Are there clue words in this question I should notice?
Yes — watch for: "best". Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.
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.