Q: 10
[Security Operations]
An organization found a significant vulnerability associated with a commonly used package in a
variety of operating systems. The organization develops a registry of software dependencies to
facilitate incident response activities. As part of the registry, the organization creates hashes of
packages that have been formally vetted. Which of the following attack vectors does this registry
address?
Options
Discussion
A. C is tempting but the registry with vetted hashes is really about stopping supply chain risk, not side channels.
Don't think it's B. Option C makes more sense to me here because side-channel analysis can look at how software interacts, and keeping hashes helps track changes. I saw similar advice in some official guides. Disagree?
D , since on-path could be caught if the hash registry checks for transit changes.
Makes sense to me, A. The hash registry mainly blocks supply chain attacks.
D , because if the registry is mainly checking hashes at download time, that helps stop on-path package tampering.
I picked D since a registry with hashes could help spot tampering while packages move over the network. If someone messes with a package in transit, the hash won’t match after download. Might be missing something on supply chain specifics but I thought on-path fit better here.
Wouldn't the hashes of vetted packages mainly help with identifying compromised or malicious dependencies? That seems like supply chain to me, since on-path (D) is more about interception during transit, not package integrity. Am I missing a scenario where another option would fit?
A
Nah, pretty sure it's A. The registry with hashes is specifically designed to detect if a compromised or altered package gets slipped in via the supply chain. C looks tempting but side-channel attacks aren't mitigated by hashed dependencies-those are more about physical or process leaks. Let me know if you see it differently.
I see why you'd think C but D looks closer to me since on-path attacks mess with data in transit, and verified hashes could catch tampering. Might be missing something here.
Be respectful. No spam.