The most likely reason the device must be replaced is that the motherboard was not configured with a TPM (Trusted Platform Module) from the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) supplier.
Why TPM is Necessary for Full Disk Encryption:
Hardware-Based Security: TPM provides a hardware-based mechanism to store encryption keys securely, which is essential for full disk encryption.
Compatibility: Full disk encryption solutions, such as BitLocker, require TPM to ensure that the encryption keys are securely stored and managed.
Integrity Checks: TPM enables system integrity checks during boot, ensuring that the device has not been tampered with.
Other options do not directly address the requirement for TPM in supporting full disk encryption:
A . The HSM is outdated: While HSM (Hardware Security Module) is important for security, it is not typically used for full disk encryption.
B . The vTPM was not properly initialized: vTPM (virtual TPM) is less common and not typically a reason for requiring hardware replacement.
C . The HSM is vulnerable to common exploits: This would require a firmware upgrade, not replacement of the device.
E . The HSM does not support sealing storage: Sealing storage is relevant but not the primary reason for requiring TPM for full disk encryption.
Reference:
CompTIA SecurityX Study Guide
"Trusted Platform Module (TPM) Overview," Microsoft Documentation
"BitLocker Deployment Guide," Microsoft Documentation

Incident response follows a standard process (e.g., NIST 800-61): Preparation, Identification, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, Lessons Learned. After identifying the attack (file and origin), the next step isContainment-limiting the spread or impact (e.g., isolating systems) before remediation or recovery.
Option A:Remediation (fixing the root cause) follows containment.
Option B:Correct-containment prevents further damage post-identification.
Option C:"Response" is too vague; it encompasses all steps.
Option D:Recovery (restoring systems) comes after containment and eradication.

Based on the provided authentication logs, we observe that User1's accountexperienced multiple failed login attempts within a very short time span (at 8:01:23 AM on 12/15). This pattern indicates a potential brute-force attack or an attempt to gain unauthorized access. Here's a breakdown of why disabling User1's account is the appropriate first step:
Failed Login Attempts: The logs show that User1 had four consecutive failed login attempts:
VM01 at 8:01:23 AM
VM08 at 8:01:23 AM
VM01 at 8:01:23 AM
VM08 at 8:01:23 AM
Security Protocols and Best Practices: According to CompTIA Security+ guidelines, multiple failed login attempts within a short timeframe should trigger an immediate response to prevent further potential unauthorized access attempts. This typically involves temporarily disabling the account to stop ongoing brute-force attacks.
Account Lockout Policy: Implementing an account lockout policy is a standard practice to thwart brute-force attacks. Disabling User1's account will align with these best practices and prevent further failed attempts, which might lead to successful unauthorized access if not addressed.
Reference:
CompTIA Security+ SY0-601 Study Guide by Mike Chapple and David Seidl
CompTIA Security+ Certification Exam Objectives
NIST Special Publication 800-63B: Digital Identity Guidelines
By addressing User1's account first, we effectively mitigate the immediate threat of a brute-force attack, ensuring that further investigation can be conducted without the risk of unauthorized access continuing during the investigation period.

Homomorphic encryption allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it, preserving confidentiality. However, its adoption faces significant challenges due to performance overhead. According to the CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 study materials (Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, 3.3), homomorphic encryption requires substantial computational resources, which standard processors struggle to provide efficiently. Specialized hardware, such as coprocessors (e.g., GPUs or TPUs), is often needed to handle the complex mathematical operations involved. The lack of widespread, optimized coprocessor support in existing infrastructure is a primary barrier to adoption.
Option A (Incomplete mathematical primitives): While early homomorphic encryption schemes had limitations, modern schemes (e.g., CKKS, BFV) have mature mathematical foundations, making this less of a challenge today.
Option B (No use cases): Use cases exist, such as secure cloud computing and privacy-preserving data analytics, so this is not accurate.
Option C (Quantum computers): Homomorphic encryption is not dependent on quantum computing, and quantum computers are unrelated to its current challenges.
Option D (Insufficient coprocessor support): This is the most accurate, as performance bottlenecks require specialized hardware that is not yet widely available or integrated.
Reference:
CompTIA SecurityX CAS-005 Official Study Guide, Domain 3: Cybersecurity Technology, Section 3.3: "Evaluate emerging cryptographic technologies, including homomorphic encryption challenges." CAS-005 Exam Objectives, 3.3: "Analyze barriers to adopting advanced encryption techniques."

Comprehensive and Detailed
Determining if attacks are from the same actor requires unique attribution. Let's analyze:
A . Code stylometry:Analyzes coding style to identify authorship, the best method for linking malware to a specific actor per CAS-005's threat intelligence focus.
B . Common IOCs:Indicates similar attacks but not necessarily the same actor.
C . IOCextractions:Similar to B, lacks specificity for attribution.