How to Prevent Fraudulent Wire Transfers via Business Email Compromise?
An accounting clerk sent money to an attacker's bank account after receiving fraudulent instructions to use a new account. Which of the following would most likely prevent this activity in the future?
Community Votes
83% of anonymous learners picked answer D. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
The question tests your ability to distinguish between technical controls, training, and procedural safeguards, with the common trap being the selection of phishing simulations over direct process hardening.
This scenario highlights the importance of implementing robust procedural controls for financial transactions to mitigate business email compromise attacks. The community overwhelmingly agrees that updating wire transfer verification processes is the most effective preventive measure compared to technical or awareness-only solutions.
Candidates frequently choose regular phishing campaigns because they assume user education alone can stop sophisticated social engineering, overlooking that BEC attacks bypass standard email filters and require mandatory procedural verification like dual authorization or out-of-band confirmation.
Community Discussion (6 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Updating processes for sending wire transfers directly addresses the procedural vulnerability exploited in this business email compromise attack. By implementing mandatory controls such as dual approval, out-of-band verification, and callback procedures for new payee changes, organizations establish a defense-in-depth layer that neutralizes social engineering tactics. As noted in the top-voted discussion, these procedural safeguards ensure that payment instructions are authenticated through independent channels before funds are released.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Standardizing security incident reporting is reactive rather than preventive, meaning it documents breaches after they occur instead of stopping them. Regular phishing campaigns improve general security awareness but cannot guarantee compliance with critical financial workflows, as attackers often craft highly convincing, context-specific emails that bypass even trained employees. Insider threat detection focuses on malicious internal actors, whereas this scenario involves an external attacker manipulating a legitimate employee through deception.Community Comment Notes
The majority of candidates correctly identified the updated process option, emphasizing that procedural updates like multi-level approvals and separate communication channel verification directly tackle the root cause. Several users highlighted that while phishing training is valuable, it does not replace strict financial controls required for high-risk transactions. One dissenting vote for incident reporting was dismissed by the group, as documentation lacks any preventive function for active fraud schemes. Overall, the consensus reinforces CompTIA’s emphasis on governance and procedural controls over purely technical or awareness-based fixes.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When faced with scenarios involving financial fraud or sensitive data handling, always prioritize procedural and administrative controls like approval workflows and verification steps over training or monitoring options if the question asks for prevention. CompTIA frequently tests the hierarchy of controls, so look for answers that mandate physical or logical separation of duties to break the attack chain.
Related Analysis
Practice All SY0-701 Questions
Access 100 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full SY0-701 Practice Test →