Cisco 350-201 Practice Test 19
Question 180
For an original CBRCOR educational scenario, consider: A manager reports mean time to contain but excludes incidents that exceed service-level targets, distorting the response benchmark. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Change: Identify the deployment model and operational boundary for public, private, hybrid and multicloud architectures.
- Report only the fastest incidents and label acknowledgment latency as time from initial compromise to full recovery.
- Check: Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing.
- Change: Measure detection, acknowledgment, containment and recovery intervals with consistent event definitions and representative incident populations.
- Check: Recalculate detection and containment durations from source alert, first malicious activity, intervention and restoration timestamps.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ. Evidence: Recalculate detection and containment durations from source alert, first malicious activity, intervention and restoration timestamps.
E:Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ. Required intervention: Measure detection, acknowledgment, containment and recovery intervals with consistent event definitions and representative incident populations.
Incorrect Answers
A:Change: Identify the deployment model and operational boundary for public, private, hybrid and multicloud architectures. Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ.
B:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary correctness, governance or operational boundary rather than correcting it. Applied case: A manager reports mean time to contain but excludes incidents that exceed service-level targets, distorting the response benchmark.
C:Check: Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing. Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ.
Question 181
A SOC analyst is examining this cybersecurity operations situation: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts. A proposed shortcut is: Disable every noisy detection permanently and declare monitoring improved because total alerts decreased. What should the SOC analyst recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Disable every noisy detection permanently and declare monitoring improved because total alerts decreased.
- Preserve web and identity evidence, remove unauthorized access, restore trusted content and validate integrity using the defacement playbook.
- Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy.
- Combine approved DNS telemetry, flow metadata and packet capture where available, choosing visibility according to the investigative question.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:This targeted action addresses the observed security or operational control gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts.
Incorrect Answers
A:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. For this best change assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary correctness, governance or operational boundary rather than correcting it.
B:Preserve web and identity evidence, remove unauthorized access, restore trusted content and validate integrity using the defacement playbook. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Combine approved DNS telemetry, flow metadata and packet capture where available, choosing visibility according to the investigative question. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 182
A Cisco cybersecurity incident response review finds: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts. The team proposes: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- Endpoint process and memory evidence can disappear on reboot, whereas a port scanner cannot capture host-local volatile state.
- A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
- DNS logs identify queried names while flow records show connection summaries and packet capture can expose protocol detail subject to encryption.
- Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Demonstrable success requires: The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases. Applied case: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts.
Incorrect Answers
A:Endpoint process and memory evidence can disappear on reboot, whereas a port scanner cannot capture host-local volatile state. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
C:DNS logs identify queried names while flow records show connection summaries and packet capture can expose protocol detail subject to encryption. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Different incident-response timing metrics describe separate delays and become misleading when timestamps or sample inclusion differ. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 183
The SOC team has not yet approved changes. Current evidence indicates: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Compare the service contract, guest patch inventory, security groups and administration paths for the vulnerable VM.
- Verify affected host and identity scope, ongoing traffic, critical workflows and allowed emergency actions.
- Recalculate detection and containment durations from source alert, first malicious activity, intervention and restoration timestamps.
- Re-run a labeled set of benign and malicious activity against the rule and review precision, recall and handling effort.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Applied case: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts.
Incorrect Answers
A:Compare the service contract, guest patch inventory, security groups and administration paths for the vulnerable VM. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
B:Verify affected host and identity scope, ongoing traffic, critical workflows and allowed emergency actions. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
C:Recalculate detection and containment durations from source alert, first malicious activity, intervention and restoration timestamps. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 184
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts. The response owner needs positive and negative results and evidence that legitimate security and business workflows still function. Which acceptance result demonstrates correct security operations behavior without disrupting authorized workflows? Select ONE best answer.
- Confirmed harmful activity is restricted promptly while unrelated production services stay available where feasible.
- The selected evidence actually covers the system and government cloud service before acceptance.
- The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases.
- Attack traffic is attenuated and agreed legitimate availability indicators recover without an uncontrolled network-wide outage.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. The result must be validated using the documented device, service or access context.
Incorrect Answers
A:Confirmed harmful activity is restricted promptly while unrelated production services stay available where feasible. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
B:The selected evidence actually covers the system and government cloud service before acceptance. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Attack traffic is attenuated and agreed legitimate availability indicators recover without an uncontrolled network-wide outage. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 185
An implementation sign-off request identifies the following problem: Analysts close most automated detections as benign, but leadership judges performance only by growing alert counts. Which paired technical change and validation should close the implementation review? Select ONE best answer.
- Change: Preserve web and identity evidence, remove unauthorized access, restore trusted content and validate integrity using the defacement playbook. Verify: Compare known-good artifact hashes, content history, CMS authentication events and deployment approvals with the changed files.
- Change: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy. Verify: Re-run a labeled set of benign and malicious activity against the rule and review precision, recall and handling effort.
- Change: Map the payment-data flows and contracted provider responsibilities to applicable PCI DSS controls and scope. Verify: Trace card data paths, payment integrations, service-provider attestations and relevant encryption and access controls.
- Change: Execute preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery and post-incident improvement with evidence at each stage. Verify: Reconstruct an incident timeline and check the recorded decision, evidence and closure prerequisites for each stage.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. The change is successful only when: The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases.
Incorrect Answers
A:Change: Preserve web and identity evidence, remove unauthorized access, restore trusted content and validate integrity using the defacement playbook.
C:Change: Map the payment-data flows and contracted provider responsibilities to applicable PCI DSS controls and scope. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Change: Execute preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery and post-incident improvement with evidence at each stage. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 186
A SOC analyst is examining this cybersecurity operations situation: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation. A proposed shortcut is: Disable every noisy detection permanently and declare monitoring improved because total alerts decreased. What should the SOC analyst recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy.
- Rank risks by connecting asset business value, vulnerability exploitability, threat activity and control exposure rather than severity alone.
- Execute preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery and post-incident improvement with evidence at each stage.
- Disable every noisy detection permanently and declare monitoring improved because total alerts decreased.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:This targeted action addresses the observed security or operational control gap without discarding necessary controls. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Incorrect Answers
B:This option addresses a different security operations topic (Asset threat vulnerability risk analysis) rather than the documented False positives and alert quality metrics decision.
C:Execute preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery and post-incident improvement with evidence at each stage. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Use this instead: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy.
Question 187
A Cisco cybersecurity incident response review finds: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation. The team proposes: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- A playbook is actionable when its triggers, permissions and handoffs tell responders who makes each decision.
- DNS logs identify queried names while flow records show connection summaries and packet capture can expose protocol detail subject to encryption.
- A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
- Branches distinguish confirmed compromise from suspicious observation and prevent a fixed response from causing avoidable business damage.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Demonstrable success requires: The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases. This principle explains the proposed technical approach, which is: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy.
Incorrect Answers
A:A playbook is actionable when its triggers, permissions and handoffs tell responders who makes each decision. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
B:DNS logs identify queried names while flow records show connection summaries and packet capture can expose protocol detail subject to encryption. A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation.
D:Branches distinguish confirmed compromise from suspicious observation and prevent a fixed response from causing avoidable business damage. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 188
The SOC team has not yet approved changes. Current evidence indicates: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Test restored image integrity, credential invalidation, control alerts and service behavior with a staged re-entry scenario.
- Re-run a labeled set of benign and malicious activity against the rule and review precision, recall and handling effort.
- Compare baseline and attack traffic, origin distribution, edge capacity and business request success before and after controls.
- Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Confirm afterward that: The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases.
Incorrect Answers
A:Test restored image integrity, credential invalidation, control alerts and service behavior with a staged re-entry scenario. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
C:Compare baseline and attack traffic, origin distribution, edge capacity and business request success before and after controls. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 189
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation. The response owner needs positive and negative results and evidence that legitimate security and business workflows still function. Which acceptance result demonstrates correct security operations behavior without disrupting authorized workflows? Select ONE best answer.
- Auditors can identify in-scope components, responsibility boundaries and objective PCI DSS evidence for the payment service.
- The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases.
- Required evidence is retained and an incident cannot close until authorized recovery and monitoring checks succeed.
- The residual-risk plan documents covered and uncovered exposures without removing essential security operations safeguards.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Applied case: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Auditors can identify in-scope components, responsibility boundaries and objective PCI DSS evidence for the payment service. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
C:Required evidence is retained and an incident cannot close until authorized recovery and monitoring checks succeed. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:The residual-risk plan documents covered and uncovered exposures without removing essential security operations safeguards. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
Question 190
For an original CBRCOR educational scenario, consider: A newly tuned SIEM rule lowers false positives dramatically yet also misses known malicious test events during evaluation. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Disable every noisy detection permanently and declare monitoring improved because total alerts decreased.
- Check: Re-run a labeled set of benign and malicious activity against the rule and review precision, recall and handling effort.
- Change: Assign guest operating-system hardening, identity policy and network exposure controls to the IaaS customer while recording provider infrastructure duties.
- Check: Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing.
- Change: Track precision, missed detections, analyst workload and case outcomes together when measuring and tuning alert efficacy.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Acceptance: The rule reduces avoidable work without unacceptable loss of validated malicious cases.
E:A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise. Evidence: Re-run a labeled set of benign and malicious activity against the rule and review precision, recall and handling effort.
Incorrect Answers
A:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary correctness, governance or operational boundary rather than correcting it. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
C:Change: Assign guest operating-system hardening, identity policy and network exposure controls to the IaaS customer while recording provider infrastructure duties. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
D:Check: Review agency system boundary, NIST control baseline, authorization package and cloud service FedRAMP listing. A smaller alert queue is not evidence of better coverage if true threats are suppressed alongside noise.
