In the cоntext оf netwоrking, the resources thаt cаn provide novel ideаs, timely information, job opportunities, business leads, influence, and community support as a result of networking relationships are referred to as...
99. Whаt is the typicаl GFR?
51. GnRH, FSH, аnd LH levels аre lоwest during which phаse оf the menstrual cycle?
In eаrly 2024, а nаtiоnal public transpоrtatiоn agency deployed a new web-based fleet coordination system to centralize scheduling, monitor GPS feeds, and issue route changes to buses in real time. The system interfaces with onboard tablets via a secure VPN tunnel and provides access control via role-based login. The web portal is hosted on a cloud platform and exposes several REST APIs used by third-party logistics partners. Six months after deployment, the agency noticed unusual delays and route anomalies. An investigation revealed that attackers had exploited a query parameter injection flaw in the route update API. By crafting a specially formatted URL and bypassing inadequate input validation, the attacker inserted a rogue SQL command into a GET request. This command was able to both exfiltrate historical route data and modify live schedules, resulting in diverted buses and disrupted transit service. Log reviews further showed the attacker had used automated scripts to iterate through multiple endpoint variations, ultimately chaining their access with a misconfigured admin token reuse vulnerability. You have been brought in as a cybersecurity consultant to analyze the incident. You are presented with three similar attack patterns from the CAPEC database: CAPEC-137: Parameter Injection: https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/137.html CAPEC-248: Command Injection: https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html CAPEC-153: Input Data Manipulation: https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/153.html Based on the case above, write a detailed essay answering the following: Identify the most appropriate CAPEC pattern that aligns with the attacker’s method. Justify your selection by explaining how it applies more precisely than the other two options. Describe the step-by-step process of the attack using the selected CAPEC pattern. Include how the attacker gained access, manipulated the input, and escalated their effect. Map the attack to the most relevant STRIDE threat categories. Explain your reasoning. Recommend a set of technical and procedural mitigations that would reduce the likelihood or impact of this attack. Go beyond generic suggestions — consider API security, input validation, access control, and cloud architecture issues. Your response will be graded based on technical accuracy, depth of analysis, ability to reason between similar attack patterns, and completeness of proposed mitigations. Criteria Excellent (Full Points) Average (Partial Points) Poor (Few or No Points) Points 1. CAPEC Pattern Identification and Justification (9 pts) Correct CAPEC selected (CAPEC-137) with a clear, precise, and technically sound justification, comparing it effectively to the other two options. Correct CAPEC selected but with limited or vague justification, OR incorrect CAPEC with a partial rationale. Incorrect CAPEC selected with no clear justification, or only superficial comparison made. /9 2. Attack Description Using CAPEC (8 pts) Describes the full attack chain step-by-step using the selected CAPEC, clearly relating each phase to the scenario (access, injection, escalation, impact). Describes the attack with some logical flow, but misses one or more key steps or lacks clarity in linking to the CAPEC. Incomplete, vague, or generic description, or not clearly aligned with the selected CAPEC. /8 3. STRIDE Mapping and Explanation (7 pts) Identifies correct STRIDE categories (e.g., Tampering, Information Disclosure, Elevation of Privilege) and gives strong reasoning linked to the scenario. Identifies some relevant STRIDE threats but with limited explanation or unclear application to the case. STRIDE mapping is incorrect or missing, or reasoning is flawed or superficial. /7 4. Mitigation Strategy (Technical + Procedural) (6 pts) Recommends specific, technically accurate mitigations (e.g., input validation, schema enforcement, token handling), well-connected to the attack. Suggestions are partially correct or too generic (e.g., "use encryption" or "secure APIs" without details). Mitigations are generic, incorrect, or not linked to the vulnerabilities or case context. /6