mediumMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: A new web application is being developed using…
A new web application is being developed using several open-source libraries. Which risk identification method is most effective for identifying vulnerabilities in these libraries?
⚠ Common exam trap
Watch out — candidates often confuse SAST (which finds code-level bugs) with SCA (which finds library vulnerabilities), assuming any security testing tool can identify open-source risks, but only SCA is designed to inventory and assess third-party components against known CVEs.
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
✓
Software composition analysis (SCA)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) is specifically designed to identify known vulnerabilities in open-source libraries by analyzing dependency manifests (e.g., pom.xml, package.json) and correlating them against vulnerability databases like the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). For a web application built with multiple open-source components, SCA automates the detection of outdated or vulnerable libraries, which is the most effective method for this risk identification scenario.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Static application security testing (SAST)
Why it's wrong here
SAST analyses first-party source code, not third-party dependency trees, so it misses vulnerable open-source library versions. It tempts because SAST is the correct method for finding coding flaws in code the team itself writes, such as injection or unsafe deserialisation.
- ✓
Software composition analysis (SCA)
Why this is correct
SCA scans dependencies and matches them against vulnerability databases, ideal for open-source risk identification.
- ✗
Dynamic application security testing (DAST)
Why it's wrong here
DAST probes a running application through its interfaces, so it cannot see vulnerable library versions or their known CVEs in source or dependency manifests. It tempts because DAST is the right method for finding runtime injection and authentication flaws in deployed web applications.
- ✗
Manual code review
Why it's wrong here
Manual review examines code the team authored; it cannot scale to every transitive open-source dependency and their published CVEs. It tempts because manual review is the right method for auditing bespoke business logic or cryptographic implementations where automated tooling lacks context.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 1,062 original CRISC practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CRISC 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 CRISC exam.