Real IT Certification Exams Questions & Dumps | Get Certified with CertQuestionsBank.com

Question#1

You are tasked with integrating a new security tool that uses WebSockets for real-time event streaming and requires persistent authentication (e.g., long-lived tokens). Cortex XSOAR needs to consume these events, process them, and potentially push actions back to the tool.
Which of the following combination of XSOAR features would be necessary to build this real-time, bi-directional integration, and what advanced considerations are paramount for its stability?

A. Necessary: Generic Webhook for event reception, and standard 'HTTP Request' commands for pushing actions. Considerations: Webhooks are pull-based, not suitable for real-time streaming; HTTP is stateless and not persistent.

B. Necessary: A custom Python integration leveraging a WebSocket library (e.g., websockets or socket io) to maintain a persistent connection and handle real-time event parsing. Integration commands would be exposed for sending actions back. Considerations: Implementing robust error handling for connection drops, re-authentication mechanisms for token expiry, and managing concurrent connections if the tool supports multiple streams.

C. Necessary: XSOAR's out-of-the-box 'Log Collector' for event ingestion, and a generic 'Execute Command' task to send actions. Considerations: Log collectors typically consume files or syslog, not WebSockets; 'Execute Command' is not bi-directional for a stream.

D. Necessary: Using XSOAR's 'Polling' mechanism to repeatedly query the tool's REST API for new events, and 'Playbook Task' to push actions. Considerations: Polling is not real-time; the tool's API might not expose events for polling.

E. Necessary: XSOAR's 'Feed' integration for consuming events, and 'Incident Fields' for pushing actions. Considerations: Feeds are for static data ingestion, not real-time, bi-directional communication.

Explanation:
Option B is the only viable approach for integrating a WebSocket-based real-time event stream. XSOAR's core strength lies in its extensibility. A custom Python integration would be required to leverage a Python WebSocket library to establish and maintain a persistent connection to the security tool. This integration would act as a listener, parsing incoming events and creating XSOAR incidents or updating existing ones. It would also expose commands that the playbook could use to send actions back over the WebSocket. The advanced considerations (error handling for disconnections, reauthentication, managing concurrency) are critical for the stability and reliability of such a real-time integration, which is much more complex than standard REST API calls.
Options A, C, D, and E either use inappropriate XSOAR features or fundamentally misunderstand how WebSockets work.

Question#2

A sophisticated adversary has managed to bypass initial defenses and establish persistence on several critical domain controllers within an enterprise network. Cortex XDR has detected anomalous behavior, specifically a series of unusual PowerShell commands executed by a service account that typically performs automated tasks. The SOC team suspects the service account's credentials have been compromised. To effectively scope the breach and understand the full extent of the adversary's access, which combination of Cortex XDR's elements and investigative techniques would yield the most comprehensive intelligence on both the compromised user (service account) and the affected assets (domain controllers)?

A. Leverage User Behavioral Analytics (UBA) to identify deviations from the service account's baseline activity, then use the Incident timeline to trace all activities linked to the compromised service account across all connected assets. Finally, initiate a Live Response forensic collection on the affected domain controllers to gather volatile memory and detailed file system artifacts.

B. Focus solely on network connection logs to identify all outbound connections from the domain controllers. Isolate the affected domain controllers from the network. Submit the suspicious PowerShell scripts to WildFire for static analysis, then block the identified malicious hashes globally.

C. Use Cortex XDR's Asset Management to identify all domain controllers and their installed software. Cross-reference this with threat intelligence feeds for known vulnerabilities. Perform an immediate password reset for the compromised service account and apply network segmentation to the domain controllers.

D. Analyze Cortex XDR's alert console for all alerts generated by 'ServiceAccountX'. Utilize the Query Builder to search for file modifications on the domain controllers and block any suspicious file operations using Exploit Protection policies.

E. Examine 'user_logon' and 'process_execution' events in Cortex Data Lake filtered by the service account's SI

F. Perform a 'host_discovery' and 'network_scan' using Live Response against the domain controllers to map their network topology. Then, deploy a custom YARA rule to detect similar PowerShell commands across the entire environment.

Explanation:
This scenario requires a multi-faceted approach combining behavioral analysis, historical tracing, and live forensics.
Option A offers the most comprehensive and effective strategy:

Question#3

An advanced persistent threat (APT) group is suspected of using living-off-the-land (LOTL) techniques on a critical server, specifically leveraging the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) service for persistence and execution. Cortex XDR has raised a 'Suspicious WMI Event Subscriber' alert.
To fully understand the attacker's WMI activity, including the exact WMI queries, associated processes, and any network activity generated by the WMI commands, which key Cortex XDR data sources and features would be indispensable for a thorough investigation?

A. WMI event logs collected by the XDR agent, combined with process execution telemetry and network connection logs. The Incident Graph for visualizing the WMI event causality.

B. Active Directory logs for user authentication, coupled with network flow data and firewall logs to identify unusual traffic patterns.

C. File system activity logs to detect new executables, and DNS query logs to identify C2 domains. Threat intelligence lookup for known APT indicators.

D. Vulnerability scan reports to identify unpatched systems, and endpoint isolation using Live Response to contain the threat.

E. Cloud audit logs for suspicious API calls, and email security logs for phishing attempts.

Explanation:
Investigating WMI-based attacks requires specific and granular data. Cortex XDR agents are capable of collecting detailed WMI event logs, including WMI object modifications, event consumers, and providers. This directly addresses understanding the 'WMI queries' and changes. Combining this with process execution telemetry (to see which processes initiated WMI actions) and network connection logs (to see if WMI led to network communication, e.g., for data exfiltration or C2) is crucial. The Incident Graph in Cortex XDR is invaluable for visualizing the causality chain of these complex events, making it easier to trace the attacker's actions.
Options B, C, D, and E provide relevant security data but are not as directly tailored to dissecting WMI-specific attack techniques and their immediate consequences.

Question#4

During a malware outbreak, a Palo Alto Networks security engineer needs to quickly determine if any newly submitted files to WildFire from endpoints are exhibiting specific command-and-control (C2) beaconing patterns or attempting to exploit a recently discovered zero-day vulnerability.
Which of the following Cortex XDR and WildFire features or functionalities would be most effective for this real- time monitoring and proactive threat hunting, and why?

A. Monitoring the 'WildFire Submissions' dashboard in Cortex XDR for any 'Pending Analysis' status, then manually reviewing each report for C2 indicators. This is effective due to its granular control.

B. Creating a new custom rule in Cortex XDR's Behavioral Threat Protection to specifically look for the zero-day exploit's signature, and configuring WildFire to perform static analysis on all incoming files, as static analysis is faster.

C. Utilizing WildFire's 'File Hash Lookup' for every suspicious file detected by XD

D. This allows for quick verdicts but doesn't proactively identify new C2 or zero-day exploitation attempts unless the hash is already known malicious.

E. Leveraging Cortex XDR's 'Threat Hunting' module with XQL queries to search for specific network connections (e.g., unusual ports, C2 domains) and file execution events related to new WildFire submissions. Simultaneously, WildFire's dynamic analysis (sandboxing) will analyze unknown files for behavioral patterns indicative of C2 or zero-day exploitation, regardless of known signatures.

F. Configuring the firewall to block all traffic to external C2 domains based on threat intelligence feeds, which will prevent C2 communication, and assuming WildFire will automatically detect and prevent the zero-day exploit if the file is unknown.

Explanation:
Option D is the most comprehensive and effective approach. Cortex XDR's Threat Hunting with XQL allows proactive searching across endpoint data, including network connections and file executions, to identify C2 patterns. Concurrently, WildFire's core strength lies in dynamic analysis (sandboxing) of unknown files, where it executes the file in a safe environment to observe its true behavior, including C2 beaconing attempts and exploitation techniques, even for zero-days not yet covered by static signatures. This combination provides both proactive hunting and behavioral analysis for unknown threats.

Question#5

Consider an advanced XSOAR threat intelligence scenario where you need to implement a 'kill chain stage' attribute for indicators, which is dynamically determined based on external context and used to prioritize responses. You receive a daily JSON feed of indicators. If an indicator's 'source_context' field contains 'initial_access', it should be tagged as 'Reconnaissance'. If it contains 'persistence_mechanism', it should be tagged as 'Persistence'. If 'lateral_movement_tool', it's 'Lateral Movement'. This custom attribute, once set, should influence the severity of any incident created from this indicator.
Which XSOAR objects and code snippet best exemplify how to achieve this dynamic tagging and incident severity influence?

A. XSOAR Objects: 'Indicator Mapper', 'Indicator Type', 'Incident Field'. Code Snippet for Mapper:

This 'killchainstage’ indicator field would then be mapped to an 'incident.severity' field in an incident layout.

B. XSOAR Objects: 'Threat Intelligence Feed' (for JSON ingestion), 'Indicator Playbook', 'Custom Indicator Field'. Code Snippet for Indicator Playbook Automation (e.g., Python script task):

Then, an incident creation playbook would read 'indicator.killChainPhase’ to set incident severity.

C. XSOAR Objects: 'Indicator Layout', 'Incident Pre-Process Rule', 'Automation Script'. Code Snippet for Automation Script (part of Pre-Process Rule):

This would be run on incident creation, setting a custom incident field.

D. XSOAR Objects: 'Indicator Type', 'Indicator Layout', 'Scheduled Job'. Code Snippet for Scheduled Job's Automation:

Incident severity would then be based on incident tags.

E. XSOAR Objects: 'Playbook', 'Manual Task', 'Dashboard'. No code snippet, as this would involve manual analysis of each indicator after ingestion to assign a kill chain stage, followed by manual update of incident severity based on human judgment. Dashboards would display the manually assigned stages.

Explanation:
Option B is the most robust and XSOAR-idiomatic way to achieve dynamic custom indicator field assignment and subsequent incident severity influence, particularly for complex conditional logic that goes beyond simple lookups or direct mappings. 'Threat Intelligence Feed': Essential for ingesting the daily JSON feed. 'Indicator Playbook': This is triggered upon ingestion of new indicators. It's the ideal place to run automation that enriches and modifies indicators. 'Custom Indicator Field': You'd define a custom indicator field, e.g., 'killChainPhase' (as shown in the snippet), to store this dynamic attribute. Python script task within the Indicator Playbook: This script can contain the sophisticated logic to parse the ‘source_context’ and assign the correct 'killChainPhase’. After setting the 'killChainPhase’ in the indicator object, the "setlndicator’ command (or 'demisto.updatelndicator' for newer versions) is used to persist this custom field back to the indicator. Subsequent Incident Creation Playbook: When an incident is created from this enriched indicator, the incident creation playbook can then read the 'indicator.killChainPhase’ field and use it to set the incident's severity or other relevant incident fields.
Option A's Mapper 'lookup' transformer is generally for simpler, direct mappings. While it can map one field to another based on exact matches, the ‘source_context’ being a substring match ('contains') makes a custom script more flexible and reliable for this dynamic logic. Also, directly mapping 'indicator.killchainstage’ to 'incident.severity’ in a layout often assumes a direct 1:1 relationship, whereas a playbook allows for more nuanced severity mapping (e.g., Reconnaissance could be medium, Lateral Movement high).
Option C runs on incident creation, not indicator ingestion/enrichment.
Option D is a scheduled job, not immediate, and uses tags, which is less structured than a dedicated custom field.
Option E is entirely manual and not scalable or automated.

SecOps-Pro Online Practice Questions

Question#1

Question#2

Question#3

Question#4

Question#5

Top 20 Exams

Important Links

Know Us

Follow Us