The answer is requiring access to the code repository only from company-managed IP addresses. This control prevents session cookie theft from enabling a cloud repository access breach by enforcing network-layer restrictions: even if an attacker steals a valid session token via malware, the connection is blocked because it originates from an unauthorized, external IP rather than the corporate VPN or NAT gateway. On the CISA exam, this question tests your understanding of preventive controls versus detective controls like audit logging—a common trap is choosing stronger authentication or session timeout, but those fail once cookies are already stolen. The key concept is that network segmentation and IP whitelisting stop exfiltration at the entry point, regardless of credential validity. Memory tip: think “Where, not who”—control the network origin, not just the identity.
CISA Protection of Information Assets Practice Question
This CISA practice question tests your understanding of protection of information assets. 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 software development company uses a cloud-based source code repository (e.g., GitHub) to store proprietary code. The company has two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled for all accounts. A developer's personal computer was infected with malware that stole the developer's session cookies and local credentials. The attacker used the stolen session to access the code repository and exfiltrated the entire codebase. The company's security team reviews the incident and notes that the repository has audit logging, but the logs were not monitored in real time. The team wants to implement additional controls to prevent a similar incident. Which control would have been most effective in preventing the exfiltration?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Require access to the code repository only from company-managed IP addresses
Option C is correct because restricting access to the code repository to only company-managed IP addresses (e.g., via a VPN or a corporate NATgateway) would have prevented the attacker from using the stolen session cookies from an external, non-corporate IP. Even though the attacker had valid session tokens, the repository's access control list (ACL) would have blocked the connection at the network layer, stopping the exfiltration before it could begin. This control addresses the root cause—unauthorized network origin—rather than relying on detection or session management alone.
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.
✗
Use a SIEM to alert on unusual access patterns in real time
Why it's wrong here
SIEM is detective, not preventive.
✗
Enforce code signing for all commits
Why it's wrong here
Code signing ensures authenticity of code, does not prevent exfiltration.
✓
Require access to the code repository only from company-managed IP addresses
Why this is correct
IP whitelisting prevents access from unauthorized locations.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Implement a shorter session timeout for the code repository
Why it's wrong here
Shorter timeout reduces window but session could be reused immediately.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates often choose a detective or session-management control (like SIEM or shorter timeout) because they focus on the stolen session cookies, but the most effective preventive control is one that restricts the network origin of access, which the attacker cannot bypass without a corporate IP.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
IP-based access controls typically rely on firewall rules or cloud provider security groups (e.g., AWS Security Groups, GitHub IP allow lists) that evaluate the source IP of each HTTP request. Even with valid session cookies, the repository's API gateway or web server will reject requests from non-whitelisted IPs at the transport layer (TCP handshake) or application layer (HTTP 403). In a real-world scenario, if the developer's personal computer was infected outside the corporate network, the attacker's IP would not match the allowed range, effectively blocking the exfiltration regardless of session validity.
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 small business has 20 workstations on the 192.168.1.0/24 network and one public IP from its ISP. The router uses PAT (NAT overload) so all 20 devices share one public address using different source ports. NAT questions test whether you understand the four address terms and which direction each translation applies.
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.
Protection of Information Assets — This question tests Protection of Information Assets — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Require access to the code repository only from company-managed IP addresses — Option C is correct because restricting access to the code repository to only company-managed IP addresses (e.g., via a VPN or a corporate NAT gateway) would have prevented the attacker from using the stolen session cookies from an external, non-corporate IP. Even though the attacker had valid session tokens, the repository's access control list (ACL) would have blocked the connection at the network layer, stopping the exfiltration before it could begin. This control addresses the root cause—unauthorized network origin—rather than relying on detection or session management alone.
What should I do if I get this CISA 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 CISA practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA 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 CISA 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.