A false negative occurs when a security control or scanning tool fails to detect a vulnerability that actually exists. In vulnerability scanning, this means the scan reports a system as secure even though it is vulnerable. Therefore, a result that shows no known vulnerability is an example of a false negative if a vulnerability is present but undetected.
CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 explains that false negatives are particularly dangerous because they provide a false sense of security, potentially leaving systems exposed to exploitation. Causes of false negatives include outdated vulnerability signatures, misconfigured scanners, credentialed scan failures, or unsupported legacy systems.
Option A describes a false positive, where a vulnerability is reported but does not exist. Option B may indicate an outdated scan result, not necessarily a false negative. Option D is incorrect because zero-day vulnerabilities do not have known remediations and are typically not detected by signature-based scanners.
Thus, the correct example of a false negative is C: A result that shows no known vulnerability.

To efficiently identify where data was exfiltrated from and where it was sent, the best action is to analyze firewall and network logs for unusually large outbound data transfers. Security+ SY0-701 emphasizes that network-level telemetry provides the most direct evidence of data exfiltration, including source IPs, destination IPs or domains, ports, protocols, timestamps, and data volume.
Firewall and flow logs can quickly reveal which internal systems transmitted large quantities of data externally and identify the attacker's destination infrastructure. This approach is efficient because it focuses directly on the movement of data rather than preliminary or secondary indicators.
IPS/IDS logs (B) are more useful for detecting reconnaissance or intrusion attempts, not confirming data theft paths. Endpoint and application logs (C) may help identify tools used but are less efficient for mapping data movement. External vulnerability scans (D) identify weaknesses, not exfiltration activity.
Therefore, the most efficient action is A: Analyze firewall and network logs for large outbound traffic.

A geolocation policy is a policy that restricts or allows access to data or resources based on the geographic location of the user or device. A geolocation policy can be implemented using various methods, such as IP address filtering, GPS tracking, or geofencing. A geolocation policy can help the company's legal department to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive documents from individuals in high-risk countries12.
The other options are not effective ways to limit access based on location:
Data masking: This is a technique of obscuring or replacing sensitive data with fictitious or anonymized data. Data masking can protect the privacy and confidentiality of data, but it does not prevent access to data based on location3.
Encryption: This is a process of transforming data into an unreadable format using a secret key or algorithm. Encryption can protect the integrity and confidentiality of data, but it does not prevent access to data based on location. Encryption can also be bypassed by attackers who have the decryption key or method4.
Data sovereignty regulation: This is a set of laws or rules that govern the storage, processing, and transfer of data within a specific jurisdiction or country. Data sovereignty regulation can affect the availability and compliance of data, but it does not prevent access to data based on location. Data sovereignty regulation can also vary depending on the country or region.
Reference = 1: CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 972: Account Policies - SY0-601 CompTIA Security+ : 3.7, video by Professor Messer3: CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 1004: CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 101. : CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Certification Study Guide, page 102.

The correct answer is Train supervisors to identify and manage disgruntled employees because insider threat risk is strongly tied to human behavior, morale, and organizational change. In the Security+ SY0-701 framework, insider threats are not limited to technical weaknesses but are often driven by emotional, financial, or workplace stressors-such as layoffs, demotions, or job uncertainty. During workforce reductions, employees may experience resentment or fear, increasing the likelihood of malicious or negligent actions.
Security awareness programs are designed to address human-centric risks through education, observation, and early intervention. Training supervisors equips them to recognize warning signs of insider threat behavior, including sudden disengagement, policy violations, excessive access requests, or hostile workplace conduct. The SY0-701 study guide emphasizes that managers and supervisors are in the best position to observe behavioral changes and escalate concerns before they turn into security incidents.
Option A is incorrect because disabling accounts before termination can disrupt operations, violate HR procedures, and raise legal or ethical concerns. Option C, configuring DLP to monitor staff targeted for termination, may be inappropriate, legally risky, and reactive rather than preventive. Option D focuses on external threats like phishing and manipulation, not internal risks tied to layoffs.
By training supervisors, the organization strengthens administrative and operational controls that align with security governance and personnel risk management objectives in SY0-701. This proactive approach supports collaboration between HR, management, and security teams, ensuring insider threats are identified early and handled appropriately.
In summary, insider threat mitigation during layoffs is most effective when focused on people and processes. Training supervisors helps detect risk indicators early, supports employee well-being, and reduces the likelihood of intentional or accidental security incidents during periods of organizational stress.