Exam CAS-004 topic 1 question 181 discussion

Competitor is not an "threat actor". Based on the information provided, it seems that the most likely threat actor involved is an APT/nation-state. This is based on the fact that the security analyst's investigative report describes lateral movement across the network from various IP addresses originating from a foreign adversary country, which typically indicates a more advanced and sophisticated type of threat actor. A competitor is also a possibility, but given the other indicators (website defacement, calls from the company president about the damage to the brand) and the fact that the security analyst's report specifically mentions a foreign adversary country, it seems more likely that an APT/nation-state is the primary threat actor in this scenario.

Well, it is possible that the Competitor might have hired APT to do the dirty work LOL but nevertheless evidence points to an advanced ATT&CK

Given 2-3 of the items listed point to competitor more than APT/nation-state, I'm going with D. The only indicator of APT/nation-state is foreign addresses but competitors cross nations, including foreign adversary countries. You can also have a competitor pay a threat actor to work on their behalf or simply use VPNs/proxies to make an attack appear like it's from a different country. Whether or not competitors are a "main" threat actor type I think is irrelevant. It is absolutely a threat actor type and the bulk of the indicators point to it.

I'm choosing C. A competitor job offer is easily explained by the website defacement that is damaging the brand. Competitors often keep close watch of each competing entity website as a part of normal business. They would possibly be the first to discover the website defacement in the first place.

Going with C. Nation state/APTs are known for false flag attacks

4. A security analyst's investigative report, based on logs from the past six months, describing how lateral movement across the network from various IP addresses originating from a foreign adversary country resulted in exfiltrated data

I would say competitor. APT/nation states don't necessarily benefit from defacement of a companies "brand". The email for a job opening could be a distractor, but I take it as relevant. The data exfiltration could also be a good indicator of a competitor. The foreign IPs are very easily explained away with the use of VPNs.

D is the correct answer

I would say competitor the whole process is trying to make the brand reputation goes down.