Exam PT0-002 topic 1 question 76 discussion

A. After detection of a breach is the most likely situation that would warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment. Detection of a security breach indicates that the current security measures in place have failed, and a revalidation of the previous security assessment would be necessary to identify any additional vulnerabilities and to ensure that the organization's security measures are adequate to prevent future breaches.

B) Because you're RE-validating a test, meaning the same tests you previously ran. Not A because if a breach occurred, that warrants an entirely new test. C makes sense too, but B would be MORE urgent. D just doesn't make sense at all.

If you fail or perform poorly on an assessment, you would remedy as many findings as possible. Then you would revalidate. After a merger or acquisition would prompt for a new validation. After a security breach wouldn't make sense unless you make configuration changes.

The questions asks about re-validation of a previous security assessment. In the case of a merger or acquisition, this would require a completely different assessment. With the word, "revalidation", the question is asking "under what situation would you assume that there was something wrong with the previous security assessment". When a company is breached, the security assessment didn't properly identify holes in the company's security posture and thus needs to be re-examined.

Going A. you should revalidate your security assessment after a breach B would cause you to create a new security assessment not revalidate an old one. D is also important to revalidate after remidiation however its more critical to revalidate your security measures after a breach as it is a more immediate trigger and highlights active security issues.

D. After a security breach, you'd perform incident response to confirm the cause of the breach, not a vulnerability scan. Once you patch vulnerabilities after a scan, you scan to validate.

I vote in D because the statement said: revalidation of a previous security assessment. So, is recommended after you remediated the identified vulnerability to redo a revalidation.

I vote D because you would want to verify the effectiveness of your remediation efforts. Options A and B requires to review the "Security Policy" of a company - not the security assessment. Option C is more into regression testing, than security assessment.

This should be a logical extension of the original testing. Allowing time for mitigation measures to be implemented, then revalidating the test that showed the need for those measures in the first place to ensure they are operating as intended.

For a retest, the purpose is to analyze progress made in applying the mitigations to the attack vectors that were found during the penetration test. The first step will be scheduling additional tests with the client organization in order to assess their progress...

Do not overthink it, it is A

A. A breach does not warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment. It straight proves that there were problems with it to begin with. B. A merge usually triggers a security revalidation so I'll go with this one.

ChatGPT says A is the most likely situation

Going with B on this one.

After merger and acquisition it is often required to retest the security posture, as one is not aware of other company's security status.

Revalidation of a previous security assessment becomes most essential when significant changes occur that might drastically alter the security posture of the organization. Among the given options: B. After a merger or an acquisition This situation would MOST likely warrant a revalidation of the security assessment. Mergers and acquisitions typically involve integrating different systems, networks, applications, policies, and procedures. These substantial changes can introduce new risks and vulnerabilities that were not part of the previous security landscape. While the other options might also justify a review or partial reassessment of security measures, a merger or acquisition would most likely necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation due to the complexity and the broad range of potential changes to the organization's security environment.

The situation that would MOST likely warrant revalidation of a previous security assessment is option A: After detection of a breach. If a breach has occurred, it indicates that the existing security measures and controls have not been effective in preventing the attack. In such a scenario, it is important to revalidate the previous security assessment to determine what went wrong, and what changes need to be made to strengthen the security posture of the organization.