Threats, Vulnerabilities & Mitigations: what Security+ tests and how to prepare
The domain most people expect the exam to be about. It covers threat actors and their motivations, attack surfaces, the vulnerability types you are expected to recognise, and the mitigations that answer them.
The list below follows the published exam objectives for SY0-701. Depth matters more than breadth here: the exam asks you to apply these ideas to a scenario, not to recite them.
Threat actor types and attributes — nation-state, unskilled attacker, hacktivist, insider threat, organised crime, shadow IT — and their motivations.
Vulnerability types across application, operating system, web, hardware, virtualisation, cloud, supply chain and cryptography.
Indicators of malicious activity: malware, physical, network, application and cryptographic attacks.
Mitigation techniques including segmentation, access control, isolation, hardening, patching, encryption and monitoring.
Common mistakes
Where candidates lose marks
Matching an attack to a plausible mitigation rather than the best one. Several options usually help; the exam wants the one that addresses the specific weakness described.
Reading threat actor questions as trivia. The attribute that matters — resources, sophistication, motivation — is what determines the correct answer, not the label.
Overlooking that "unsupported systems and applications" is its own vector. It appears more often than candidates expect.
Practise reading the scenario for the specific weakness before looking at the options. The most common error in this domain is recognising the attack family correctly and then picking a control that mitigates a different member of it.
Try three questions. Understand every answer.
Original English practice examples, with answers and explanations available here. No account required. These are independent teaching examples, not official exam questions or exam dumps.
Question 1 of 3 · Threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigations
Answer and explanation
Best answer: Validate and apply the workaround, monitor it, and track the pending patch
A validated compensating control can reduce exposure while the permanent fix is pending. Retain the vulnerability record, residual risk, and a plan to apply and verify the patch.
Why the other choices fit less well
Waiting leaves exposure unchanged, and a hostname change does not block the flaw. A workaround reduces risk without necessarily removing the vulnerability, so closing it as permanently fixed overstates the evidence.
Best answer: Grant approved read-only access to that dataset with a reviewed expiry
Limit permissions to the approved task, resource and duration. Review the expiry and record the grant so access can be removed when the investigation ends.
Why the other choices fit less well
Permanent administrator rights exceed the task. Shared credentials weaken individual accountability. Disabling logs removes evidence without reducing the permissions required.
Best answer: Preserve both records and investigate or repeat the transfer before relying on the copy
The received bytes have not passed the expected integrity check. Preserve the acquisition record and investigate the discrepancy or acquire a verified copy.
Why the other choices fit less well
A filename does not establish byte-level integrity. Replacing the original hash hides the discrepancy. Do not describe the copy as verified until the mismatch is resolved.
Paid question-bank access is a one-time purchase, with no recurring subscription. Official exam registration, vouchers and provider labs are separate from CertSprint practice.
Find out if this domain is your weak one
20 free Security+ questions, no card required. Readiness is reported per domain, so you can see whether Threats, Vulnerabilities & Mitigations is where your revision should go.
