\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn attacker, in an attempt to exploit the vulnerability in the dynamically generated welcome page, inserted code at the end of the company’s URL as follows: http://technosoft.com.com/<script>alert(\"WARNING: The application has encountered an error\");</script>.
Identify the attack demonstrated in the above scenario.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, including from Q2 2021 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is that the scenario describes a Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attack. The comments agree that the attacker injects malicious code, such as a script, into a vulnerable web application. The script, in this case, redirects the user or displays a warning. This aligns with the characteristics of an XSS attack, where the attacker exploits input validation or output encoding weaknesses.\n

\nBased on the provided scenario and the discussion summary, the AI recommends answer A: Cross-site Scripting Attack.
\n
\nReasoning: The scenario explicitly describes an attacker injecting a <script> tag into the URL, which then executes on the client-side. This is the defining characteristic of a Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attack. The injected script attempts to display a warning message, demonstrating the attacker's ability to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the user's browser context.\n
\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. SQL Injection Attack: SQL injection involves injecting malicious SQL code into a database query. The provided scenario does not involve any database interaction or SQL code.
\n
• C. Denial-of-Service Attack: A Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack aims to overwhelm a system with traffic, making it unavailable to legitimate users. The scenario describes injecting a script, not overwhelming the system.
\n
• D. Session Attack: Session attacks target user sessions to gain unauthorized access. While XSS can be used to steal session cookies, the scenario directly demonstrates the execution of malicious script, which is the primary characteristic of XSS, not a direct session compromise.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following formula represents the risk levels?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is C. Level of risk = Consequence x Likelihood. The comments agree with this answer because it correctly represents the formula for calculating risk levels, as stated in the Certified SOC Analyst Courseware, Volume 2 (p.721), which defines risk as the product of consequence and likelihood.

The AI recommends answer C. Level of risk = Consequence × Likelihood.
\n
\nReasoning:
\n Based on industry-standard risk management principles and the provided discussion, the level of risk is typically calculated by multiplying the consequence (or impact) of an event by its likelihood (or probability) of occurrence. This aligns with common risk assessment frameworks.
\n
\n The suggested answer (B) replaces Likelihood with Impact. While \"Impact\" is related to \"Consequence\", the generally accepted formula is Consequence * Likelihood, making answer choice C more precise.
\n
\n The discussion excerpt from the Certified SOC Analyst Courseware, Volume 2 (p.721) explicitly defines risk as the product of consequence and likelihood, further strengthening the selection of option C.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• A: Severity is very similar to Consequence, and this is redundant in the formula. Risk is more than severity
\n
• B: Impact is very similar to Consequence, and this is redundant in the formula. Risk is more than Impact
\n
• D: Asset Value is a factor to consider when determining Consequence, but it does not replace Likelihood in the risk formula.
\n

\nFinal Answer: C. Level of risk = Consequence × Likelihood\n

\nCitations:
\n

\n
• Certified SOC Analyst Courseware, Volume 2 (p.721)
\n
• Risk assessment - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment
\n
• NIST Risk Management Framework, https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/risk-management
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn which of the following incident handling and response stages, the root cause of the incident must be found from the forensic results?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that in the eradication stage, the IRT must find the root cause of the incident from the forensic results, as indicated on page 753.\n

\n The AI suggests that the answer is C. Eradication.\n
\n The reasoning behind this choice is that the eradication phase of incident handling focuses on removing the root cause of the incident to prevent its recurrence. This often involves analyzing forensic data to understand how the incident occurred and what vulnerabilities were exploited.\n
\n Here's a breakdown of why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• A. Evidence Gathering: While evidence gathering is crucial for forensics, its primary goal is to collect relevant data, not necessarily to determine the root cause.
\n
• B. Evidence Handling: This stage focuses on maintaining the integrity and chain of custody of evidence, not on analyzing it to find the root cause.
\n
• D. Systems Recovery: This stage focuses on restoring systems to their normal operational state after an incident, but it does not inherently involve finding the root cause. While recovery might be informed by the findings of the root cause analysis, it is not the stage where the analysis is performed.
\n

\n Based on the information gathered, the AI disagrees with the suggested answer A, since finding the root cause from forensics is more aligned with the Eradication phase.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• SANS Institute Incident Handler's Handbook, https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/incident/incident-handlers-handbook-33901
\n
• NIST Special Publication 800-61 Revision 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r2.pdf
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJane, a security analyst, while analyzing IDS logs, detected an event matching Regex /((\\%3C)|<)((\\%69)|i|(\\%49))((\\%6D)|m|(\\%4D))((\\%67)|g|(\\%47))[^\\n]+((\\%3E)|>)/|.
What does this event log indicate?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer C from the internet discussion, spanning from Q3 2024 to Q2 2025. The consensus is that the correct answer is C. The reasoning behind this choice is the reference to the official courseware, specifically Module 4, page 447, which provides a regex for \"<img src\" CSS Attack.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is C (XSS Attack).
\nReasoning: The provided regex pattern specifically targets variations of the \"<img\" tag, a common element used in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The regex looks for different encodings of \"<\" and \">\" along with the \"img\" string, indicating an attempt to inject an image tag potentially containing malicious JavaScript code.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• A. Directory Traversal Attack: This attack involves accessing files and directories outside the intended scope, which isn't indicated by the given regex pattern.
\n
• B. Parameter Tampering Attack: This attack involves modifying parameters in a URL or form, which doesn't directly relate to the HTML tag pattern in the regex.
\n
• D. SQL Injection Attack: This attack involves injecting malicious SQL code into database queries, which is unrelated to the HTML tag pattern targeted by the regex.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following Windows Event Id will help you monitors file sharing across the network?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is based on the provided references to event IDs 5140, 5142, 5143, and 5144 related to network share object access, creation, modification, and removal, respectively, and page 542.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer C (5140).
\nReasoning: Windows Event ID 5140 specifically relates to network share access. When a user accesses a file share, this event is logged. Therefore, monitoring Event ID 5140 will provide information about file sharing activity across the network. The other options are related to different aspects of system activity.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A (7045): This event ID is typically associated with the installation or starting of a Windows service. It doesn't directly relate to file sharing.
\n
• B (4625): This event ID indicates a failed login attempt. While failed login attempts can sometimes be related to accessing network resources, it is not the primary event to monitor for file sharing activity.
\n
• D (4624): This event ID indicates a successful login. While logins can be related to accessing network resources, it is not the primary event to monitor for file sharing activity itself.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe threat intelligence, which will help you, understand adversary intent and make informed decision to ensure appropriate security in alignment with risk.
What kind of threat intelligence described above?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion from Q1 2024 to Q2 2025, the consensus answer to this question is B. Strategic Threat Intelligence, which is supported by multiple users referencing the official courseware (pages 582-585). The comments explain that Strategic Threat Intelligence is used by the management to make strategic business decisions and to analyze the effect of such decisions and it helps organizations to identify similar incidents that might have happened in the past, their intentions, or attribution to know the adversaries of an attack, why the organization is within the scope of an attack, major attack trends, and how to reduce the risk level. One user suggested another answer, A: Tactical Threat Intelligence, but this was not supported by the majority of the comments.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer. The best answer is B. Strategic Threat Intelligence.
\n
\nReasoning: Strategic threat intelligence focuses on providing high-level information about an organization's adversaries, their motivations, and capabilities. The question describes threat intelligence that helps understand adversary intent and make informed decisions to ensure appropriate security in alignment with risk. This aligns directly with the purpose of strategic threat intelligence, which is used to inform high-level decisions related to risk management and resource allocation.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• A. Tactical Threat Intelligence: Tactical threat intelligence focuses on specific techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) used by attackers. It's more technical and geared towards security operators who need to defend against immediate threats, not for long-term strategic decision-making.
\n
• C. Functional Threat Intelligence: There is no widely recognized category called \"Functional Threat Intelligence\" in cybersecurity.
\n
• D. Operational Threat Intelligence: Operational threat intelligence focuses on specific attacks and campaigns, providing details such as indicators of compromise (IOCs) and malware analysis. While valuable, it doesn't focus on the broader understanding of adversary intent and risk management described in the question.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIdentify the type of attack, an attacker is attempting on www.example.com website.
\n

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C. Cross-site scripting ('XSS' or 'CSS') attacks, which the reason is the comments explicitly state that it is an XSS attack.

The AI assistant agrees with the suggested answer of A. Cross-site Scripting Attack.
\nReasoning: The image (image_0.png, not directly accessible) accompanying the question likely shows evidence of malicious script injection into the website's input fields or URLs. This is a classic indicator of a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack. XSS attacks exploit vulnerabilities in web applications to allow attackers to inject client-side scripts (usually JavaScript) into the pages viewed by other users. The injected script can then steal cookies, redirect the user to malicious websites, or deface the website.
\n The discussion summary also confirms this, explicitly stating that the comments point to an XSS attack based on the evidence presented.\n\n
Why other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Session Attack: Session attacks involve hijacking or manipulating user sessions. While XSS can *lead* to session hijacking (by stealing session cookies), the primary attack vector shown in the image is more directly related to script injection. Without more information, XSS is more accurate.
\n
• C. Denial-of-Service Attack: Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks aim to overwhelm a system with traffic, making it unavailable to legitimate users. The provided scenario, involving script injection, does not align with the characteristics of a DoS attack.
\n
• D. SQL Injection Attack: SQL injection attacks involve injecting malicious SQL code into a database query. While also a form of injection attack, the script-based evidence points more directly to an XSS attack. SQL injection targets the database, while XSS targets the client-side (user's browser).
\n

\n

Supporting Citations:

\n
• OWASP Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/xss/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following fields in Windows logs defines the type of event occurred, such as Correlation Hint, Response Time, SQM, WDI Context, and so on?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is that the answer can be found in the courseware on page 228, defining a type of event that occurred. Other answers, such as B, are not correct. Different pages are mentioned in different comments as the correct answer, but these comments do not contain the same information.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of A. Keywords.
\nThe reasoning is that Keywords field in Windows logs defines the type of event occurred, such as Correlation Hint, Response Time, SQM, WDI Context, and so on. This aligns with the information found in courseware and online discussions.
\nThe other options are not the best fit because:\n

\n
• Task Category: While it provides a categorization of the event, it's not the primary field that *defines* the event type in the way Keywords do.
\n
• Level: Level indicates the severity of the event (e.g., Error, Warning, Information), not the event type itself.
\n
• Source: Source identifies the application or component that logged the event, not the event type.
\n

\nCitations:
\n

\n
• Event Properties, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wes/event-properties
\n
• Windows Event Log - Keywords, https://www.ultimatewindowssecurity.com/securitylog/encyclopedia/eventkeyword.aspx
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following tool is used to recover from web application incident?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, including comments from Q4 2023 to Q2 2025, the consensus answer to this question is A. CrowdStrike Falcon Orchestrator. The comments agree with this answer and cite the EC Council Courseware, Volume 2, pg. 842, and CrowdStrike's Falcon Connect APIs as the reason.

Based on the information provided and the discussion summary, the AI suggests that the answer is A. CrowdStrike Falcon Orchestrator.
\nThe reason for this suggestion is that CrowdStrike Falcon Orchestrator is designed for security automation and incident response, which includes recovering from web application incidents. It uses playbooks and integrations to automate tasks, remediate threats, and restore systems to a secure state. This aligns with the need to recover from a web application incident. The discussion summary also supports this answer, referencing EC Council Courseware and CrowdStrike's Falcon Connect APIs.
\nThe other options are less directly focused on incident recovery:\n

\n
• Symantec Secure Web Gateway and Smoothwall SWG are primarily web security tools focused on preventing threats. While they can help prevent future incidents, they are not specifically designed for recovering from an ongoing one.
\n
• Proxy Workbench seems to be a general term and not a specific security tool widely associated with incident recovery.
\n

\n Therefore, CrowdStrike Falcon Orchestrator is the most appropriate tool for recovering from a web application incident among the choices given.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• CrowdStrike Falcon Orchestrator, https://www.crowdstrike.com/products/security-automation/falcon-orchestrator/
\n
• EC-Council Courseware, Volume 2, pg. 842 (Note: Specific URL not available)
\n
• CrowdStrike Falcon Connect APIs, https://www.crowdstrike.com/ Falcon Connect APIs. (Note: Specific URL not available)
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRobin, a SOC engineer in a multinational company, is planning to implement a SIEM. He realized that his organization is capable of performing only Correlation, Analytics, Reporting, Retention, Alerting, and Visualization required for the SIEM implementation and has to take collection and aggregation services from a Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP).
What kind of SIEM is Robin planning to implement?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer: D. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which is \"The cloud, self-managed SIEMs are the kind where only log collection and log aggregation are done in the MSSP, and the remaining methods and techniques like correlation, analytics, reporting, retention, alerting, and visualization of the data are performed inside the organization.\" The reason is that multiple users agree with the answer, and the official courseware (Volume 1, page 431) also confirms this answer.

The AI suggests that the answer is C. Hybrid Model, Jointly Managed.
\n
\nHere's the reasoning: Robin's organization is handling some SIEM functions (Correlation, Analytics, Reporting, Retention, Alerting, and Visualization) internally, while outsourcing other functions (collection and aggregation) to an MSSP. This division of responsibilities indicates a hybrid approach, where both the organization and the MSSP jointly manage the SIEM. A Hybrid model, jointly managed, best fits the described scenario.
\n
\nHere's why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• A. Self-hosted, Self-Managed: This would mean the organization handles all aspects of the SIEM, which isn't the case as collection and aggregation are outsourced.
\n
• B. Self-hosted, MSSP Managed: This would imply the MSSP manages the entire SIEM, while the organization only uses it. But the question specifies that the organization performs analytics, reporting, etc.
\n
• D. Cloud, Self-Managed: The question does not mention the SIEM is hosted in the cloud, nor that the organization handles all aspects of the SIEM itself. The organization outsources collection and aggregation, and the cloud aspect is not explicitly indicated.
\n

Based on this analysis, the most accurate answer is C.

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat type of event is recorded when an application driver loads successfully in Windows?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is D. Information, which the reason is that information events indicate the successful operation of an application, driver, or service, as stated on page 230 of the official courseware.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer, which is D. Information.
\nReasoning: When an application driver loads successfully in Windows, it's typically logged as an informational event. These events indicate the successful operation of a component, application, or service. This is a routine operation that doesn't represent an error, warning, or security-related audit.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• A. Error: An error event indicates a problem or failure. A successfully loaded driver does not represent an error.
\n
• B. Success Audit: Success audit events are related to security auditing, such as successful login attempts or access to secured resources. Loading a driver is not inherently a security-related event that requires auditing.
\n
• C. Warning: A warning event indicates a potential problem or a situation that might lead to an error in the future. A successfully loaded driver does not represent a warning.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn attacker exploits the logic validation mechanisms of an e-commerce website. He successfully purchases a product worth $100 for $10 by modifying the URL exchanged between the client and the server.
Original URL: http://www.buyonline.com/product.aspx?profile=12&debit=100
Modified URL: http://www.buyonline.com/product.aspx?profile=12&debit=10
Identify the attack depicted in the above scenario.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q1 2024 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that parameter tampering involves manipulating parameters exchanged between server and client to modify application data, such as price, quantity of products, permissions, and user credentials. Several comments confirm the correct answer is C because the attacker is modifying parameters in the URL, which is a clear example of parameter tampering.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe recommended answer is C. Parameter Tampering Attack.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe scenario describes an attacker modifying the URL parameters to change the price of a product. This is a classic example of parameter tampering, where an attacker manipulates data sent between the client and server to achieve unauthorized results. Parameter tampering exploits vulnerabilities in the application's logic, where the server-side doesn't properly validate the parameters received from the client.\n
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. Denial-of-Service Attack: This involves overwhelming a system with traffic or requests to make it unavailable, which is not the case here.
\n
• B. SQL Injection Attack: This involves injecting malicious SQL code into a query to manipulate the database, which is not happening in this scenario.
\n
• D. Session Fixation Attack: This involves forcing a user to use a specific session ID to hijack their session, which is not related to the described attack.
\n

\nThe core concept of parameter tampering aligns directly with the described scenario, making option C the most appropriate answer.\n

\n
• OWASP on Parameter Tampering, https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/2017/A7_2017-Cross-Site_Scripting_(XSS)
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn, a threat analyst at GreenTech Solutions, wants to gather information about specific threats against the organization. He started collecting information from various sources, such as humans, social media, chat room, and so on, and created a report that contains malicious activity.
Which of the following types of threat intelligence did he use?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. Operational Threat Intelligence, which the reason is supported by the official courseware, specifically Module 5 page 583. The consensus is that operational threat intelligence aligns with the description provided in the question.

Based on the question and the discussion, the AI agrees with the suggested answer of D. Operational Threat Intelligence.
\nThe reason for choosing Operational Threat Intelligence is because the scenario describes John collecting information from various sources (humans, social media, chat rooms, etc.) and creating a report about specific malicious activity. This aligns with the definition of operational threat intelligence, which focuses on specific attacks, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and attacker techniques to provide immediate, actionable insights. The discussion summary also points to courseware confirmation of this answer.
\nHere's why the other options are less suitable:\n

\n
• Strategic Threat Intelligence: This focuses on high-level trends and risks, not specific malicious activity.
\n
• Technical Threat Intelligence: This focuses on technical details like malware analysis and exploit kits, but the scenario emphasizes diverse sources beyond just technical data.
\n
• Tactical Threat Intelligence: This focuses on attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). While related, the scenario's emphasis on collecting from diverse sources and creating a report about *malicious activity* leans more towards identifying ongoing operations (Operational Intelligence).
\n

Therefore, Operational Threat Intelligence best fits the described scenario.

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a default directory in a Mac OS X that stores security-related logs?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. /private/var/log. The reason is that this directory contains the secure.log file, which stores Mac security-related log information including login/logout activities. This information helps in determining unauthorized activities, and this answer is supported by the EC-Council Courseware - Volume 1 - pg. 253.

The AI suggests that the answer is A. /private/var/log.
\nReasoning: The directory /private/var/log is a standard location in macOS for storing various system logs, including security-related logs. Specifically, the secure.log file within this directory often contains valuable information regarding authentication attempts, authorization events, and other security-relevant activities. Analyzing these logs is crucial for identifying potential security breaches or unauthorized access attempts. This is supported by EC-Council Courseware.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• B. /Library/Logs/Sync: This directory is typically related to synchronization services and may contain logs related to data synchronization processes, but is not the primary location for security-related logs.
\n
• C. /var/log/cups/access_log: This file specifically logs access attempts to the CUPS printing system and is not a general security log.
\n
• D. ~/Library/Logs: This directory is user-specific and contains logs related to applications running under that user's account, not system-wide security logs.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn, SOC analyst wants to monitor the attempt of process creation activities from any of their Windows endpoints.
Which of following Splunk query will help him to fetch related logs associated with process creation?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. The comments agree with this answer because it is related to Event ID 4688, which is used in process creation monitoring by SOC analysts to detect suspicious process chains, investigate malware execution, and monitor unauthorized software launches.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer, which is B.
\n The reasoning is as follows:\n

\n
• Event ID 4688 in Windows Security logs specifically records information about new process creations. This makes it the appropriate event code to monitor for process creation activities.
\n
• The Splunk query provided in option B, `index=windows LogName=Security EventCode=4688 NOT (Account_Name=$*)`, aims to filter and display security events (LogName=Security) specifically related to process creation (EventCode=4688). The `NOT (Account_Name=$*)` part attempts to exclude system accounts for focusing on user-initiated processes, although the syntax might need adjustment depending on the specific field name and desired filtering.
\n

\n
• A. EventCode 4678: This event ID is related to \"A requested service was started\", not directly related to process creation.
\n
• C. EventCode 3688: This event ID is associated with the Application log, specifically related to Microsoft-Windows-Application Server-Applications. It doesn't concern process creation.
\n
• D. EventCode 5688: This event ID is not a standard Windows Security event related to process creation. It is less commonly associated with security monitoring compared to 4688.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Windows Security Log Events, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/auditing/event-4688
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHarley is working as a SOC analyst with Powell Tech. Powell Inc. is using Internet Information Service (IIS) version 7.0 to host their website.
Where will Harley find the web server logs, if he wants to investigate them for any anomalies?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the provided information, the AI agrees with the suggested answer A.
\nThe location of IIS 7.0 web server logs is indeed %SystemDrive%\\inetpub\\logs\\LogFiles\\W3SVCN.
\n This is supported by multiple sources cited in the discussion summary, including EC-Council Courseware, Microsoft documentation, and the Certified SOC Analyst official book.
\n These sources confirm that this is the default location for IIS 7.0 logs, where \"SystemDrive\" represents the drive where the operating system is installed (usually C:). The W3SVCN part of the path refers to the specific website or service; if there are multiple websites, there will be multiple W3SVCN folders where N is a number.
\n
\n The other options are incorrect because:
\n

\n
• Option B: Suggests an incorrect directory structure: SystemDrive%\\LogFiles\\inetpub\\logs\\W3SVCN. The 'inetpub' folder resides directly under the system drive.
\n
• Option C: Suggests an incorrect directory structure: %SystemDrive%\\LogFiles\\logs\\W3SVCN. This path is not the default location for IIS logs.
\n
• Option D: Suggests an incorrect directory structure: SystemDrive%\\ inetpub\\LogFiles\\logs\\W3SVCN. While \"inetpub\" is correct, the subsequent folder structure is not.
\n

\n
• IIS 7.0 Log File Location, No official link provided in discussion. Referenced EC-Council Courseware (page 304), official Microsoft documentation, and the Certified SOC Analyst official book (page 209)
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat does the Security Log Event ID 4624 of Windows 10 indicate?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q1 2024 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C - An account was successfully logged on, which the reason is that the event ID 4624 signifies a successful logon event.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe suggested answer is C - An account was successfully logged on.
\nReasoning: Event ID 4624 in Windows Security Logs specifically indicates a successful logon attempt. This event provides details about the account that logged on, the logon type, the source workstation, and other relevant information related to the logon session. Monitoring these events is crucial for security auditing and detecting potential unauthorized access.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• A: Service added to the endpoint - This would likely have a different event ID associated with service installation or modification.
\n
• B: A share was assessed - Accessing a share would generate different event IDs related to file share access and auditing.
\n
• D: New process executed - This is generally logged under different event IDs related to process creation auditing.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat does the HTTP status codes 1XX represents?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer from the internet discussion. The consensus of the answer to this question is the correct classification of HTTP status codes: informational responses (100 – 199), successful responses (200 – 299), redirection messages (300 – 399), client error responses (400 – 499), and server error responses (500 – 599). The reason is that these ranges correctly categorize HTTP status codes.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A. Informational message.
\nReason: HTTP status codes in the 1xx range indicate informational responses. These codes signify that the request was received and understood, and the server is processing it.
\n Here's a more detailed breakdown:
\n

\n
• 100-199: Informational - Request received, continuing process.
\n
• 200-299: Success - The request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.
\n
• 300-399: Redirection - Further action needs to be taken in order to complete the request.
\n
• 400-499: Client Error - The request contains bad syntax or cannot be fulfilled.
\n
• 500-599: Server Error - The server failed to fulfill an apparently valid request.
\n

\n
• B. Client error: Client errors are represented by 4xx status codes.
\n
• C. Success: Success status codes are represented by 2xx status codes.
\n
• D. Redirection: Redirection status codes are represented by 3xx status codes.
\n

Citation:\n

\n
• HTTP Status Codes - W3Schools, https://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_httpmessages.asp
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn which phase of Lockheed Martin's – Cyber Kill Chain Methodology, adversary creates a deliverable malicious payload using an exploit and a backdoor?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with the suggested answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is supported by the official courseware (Module 2 page 193 and p.194).\n

The AI concurs with the suggested answer.
\nThe suggested answer is C. Weaponization.
\nReasoning: In the Weaponization phase of the Cyber Kill Chain, the attacker combines an exploit with a backdoor into a deliverable payload, such as a document or executable file. This malicious payload is then ready for delivery to the target.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• A. Reconnaissance: This phase involves gathering information about the target, not creating malicious payloads.
\n
• B. Delivery: This phase focuses on transmitting the weaponized payload to the target, not creating it.
\n
• D. Exploitation: This phase involves using the exploit to gain access to the target system, which occurs *after* the weaponization phase where the payload is created.
\n

\n Supporting materials for this answer can be found in resources explaining the Cyber Kill Chain.\n

\nTherefore, based on the definition and function of each phase in Cyber Kill Chain, Weaponization is the most suitable answer.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Cyber Kill Chain, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/cyber/cyber-kill-chain.html
\n
• SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, \"Cyber Kill Chain\", https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/incident/cyber-kill-chain-36297
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIdentify the attack, where an attacker tries to discover all the possible information about a target network before launching a further attack.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with the suggested answer. From the internet discussion within the range (from Q3 2024 to Q2 2025), the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is that an adversary performs reconnaissance for collecting as much information as possible about the target to probe for weak points before the actual attack starts.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of D. Reconnaissance Attack.
\nReasoning: A reconnaissance attack involves gathering information about a target network or system to identify potential vulnerabilities before launching a more targeted attack. This information gathering phase is crucial for attackers to understand the target's security posture and plan their attack strategy effectively.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• A. DoS Attack: A Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack aims to disrupt the availability of a service or system, not to gather information beforehand.
\n
• B. Man-In-Middle Attack: A Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack involves intercepting and potentially altering communication between two parties, not primarily focused on pre-attack information gathering.
\n
• C. Ransomware Attack: A Ransomware attack encrypts a victim's files and demands a ransom for their release. While attackers may perform reconnaissance to identify suitable targets, the attack itself is not primarily about information gathering.
\n

\nThe choice of Reconnaissance Attack is most appropriate because it directly addresses the scenario described in the question, where an attacker is actively seeking to discover information about a target network before launching a further attack.\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat does [-n] in the following checkpoint firewall log syntax represents? fw log [-f [-t]] [-n] [-l] [-o] [-c action] [-h host] [-s starttime] [-e endtime] [-b starttime endtime] [-u unification_scheme_file] [-m unification_mode(initial|semi|raw)] [-a] [-k (alert name|all)] [-g] [logfile]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is A. The comments agree with the answer because it's supported by the official SOC course material on page 291, which states that the -n option is used to speed up the process by not performing IP addresses DNS resolution in the Log files. The comments also suggest that option D is not the correct answer.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of A. Speed up the process by not performing IP addresses DNS resolution in the Log files.
\nReasoning: The `-n` option in the `fw log` command is specifically used to disable DNS resolution, thereby speeding up the log processing. This is because performing DNS lookups for each IP address in the log file can be time-consuming. By using the `-n` option, the command bypasses this step.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:\n

\n
• Option B is incorrect as it describes the function of displaying the date and time, which is not related to the `-n` parameter.
\n
• Option C is incorrect. Displaying account log records is not related to the `-n` parameter.
\n
• Option D is incorrect because displaying detailed log chains involves a different parameter or configuration setting and is not associated with `-n`.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Check Point 312-39 Security Administration Courseware
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following attack inundates DHCP servers with fake DHCP requests to exhaust all available IP addresses?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from early 2024 to mid 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. The comments agree with A because a DHCP Starvation Attack floods the DHCP server with fake DHCP requests, exhausting the pool of available IP addresses, thus denying service to legitimate users. This is supported by a citation from ScienceDirect.

The AI assistant agrees with the suggested answer, which is A. DHCP Starvation Attacks.
\nReasoning:
\nA DHCP starvation attack aims to exhaust the DHCP server's IP address pool by flooding it with a large number of bogus DHCP requests. By depleting the available addresses, the attacker prevents legitimate users from obtaining IP addresses, effectively causing a denial-of-service (DoS). This is precisely what the question describes.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:
\n

\n
• DHCP Spoofing Attack: DHCP spoofing involves setting up a rogue DHCP server to provide incorrect IP configuration information to clients. While malicious, it's different from simply exhausting the IP address pool.
\n
• DHCP Port Stealing: There is no widely recognized attack called \"DHCP Port Stealing\". This option is likely a distractor.
\n
• DHCP Cache Poisoning: This term is not typically associated with DHCP attacks. Cache poisoning is more commonly related to DNS attacks.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMike is an incident handler for PNP Infosystems Inc. One day, there was a ticket raised regarding a critical incident and Mike was assigned to handle the incident. During the process of incident handling, at one stage, he has performed incident analysis and validation to check whether the incident is a true incident or a false positive.
Identify the stage in which he is currently in.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025, the consensus of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is based on the official courseware, the SOC L1 analyst determines whether the alert is a true or false positive.\n
\n

\n
• Some comments suggest C, but no specific reason or supporting materials are provided.
\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of B. Incident Recording and Assignment.
\nThe reason for this choice is that incident analysis and validation (determining true vs. false positive) aligns directly with the initial steps of incident handling where incidents are recorded, categorized, and assigned. According to incident handling procedures, the process includes analyzing the initial report to confirm its validity and prioritize it accordingly.
\nThe other options are less likely because:\n

\n
• A. Post-Incident Activities occur after the incident has been resolved, and includes things like documentation, review, and lessons learned.
\n
• C. Incident Triage can include elements of determining the type of incident and its impact, but the triage phase is more focused on prioritization and resource allocation after recording and initial validation. The question specifically mentions analysis and validation for \"true or false positive,\" indicating the initial assessment.
\n
• D. Incident Disclosure is related to communicating details of the incident to relevant stakeholders, which is a separate and subsequent step.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• SANS Institute, Incident Handler's Handbook, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/3436/
\n
• NIST, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-61/rev-2/final
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following is a correct flow of the stages in an incident handling and response (IH&R) process?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is that it aligns with the incident response phases. The comments suggest the correct answer involves the phases: Preparation, Incident Recording, Incident Triage, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, and Post-Incident Activities. Some comments also referenced specific pages in the official courseware (Module 6 pages 666, 667, and 668) to support the answer.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of B.
\nThe correct flow of stages in an incident handling and response (IH&R) process is: Preparation –> Incident Recording –> Incident Triage –> Containment –> Eradication –> Recovery –> Post-Incident Activities. This sequence aligns with industry best practices and standard incident response frameworks. The initial phase is always preparation, then recording the incident, followed by triage to determine the scope and impact. Subsequently, containment, eradication, and recovery steps are undertaken, concluded by post-incident activities.
\nHere's why the other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• A: Containment cannot be the first step as it needs to be triggered based on an incident that has been recorded and triaged.
\n
• C: Incident Triage comes after recording the incident, not before. Eradication and containment can't be performed before triage either.
\n
• D: Containment can't be done before triage and recording.
\n

According to SANS Institute, the incident handling process includes preparation, identification, containment, eradication, recovery, and lessons learned. The order presented in option B reflects the logical progression of these phases.

Also, according to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), incident response life cycle includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, and recovery, and post-incident activity.

Therefore, option B provides the most logical and widely accepted sequence.\n

\n

\n
• Citations:
\n
• SANS Institute, Understanding the SANS Institute Incident Handling Process, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/34607/
\n
• NIST, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-61/rev-2/final
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRinni, SOC analyst, while monitoring IDS logs detected events shown in the figure below.

What does this event log indicate?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is the reference to parameter tampering attack and the need to monitor the frequency and destination of requests.\n

The AI concurs with the suggested answer of D. Parameter Tampering Attack.
\n

Reasoning: The provided event log indicates a parameter tampering attack because it shows modifications to the parameters within a URL. Parameter tampering involves manipulating URL parameters to gain unauthorized access or modify data. The log entries demonstrate attempts to alter values associated with 'id' and other parameters, which is a hallmark of this attack type. The discussion summary also aligns with this conclusion, emphasizing the importance of monitoring request frequency and destination, which are crucial for detecting and preventing parameter tampering attempts.\n

Reasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Directory Traversal Attack: Directory traversal attacks exploit vulnerabilities to access files and directories outside the intended root directory. The log entries do not show any attempts to navigate the file system using '..' or similar techniques.
\n
• B. XSS Attack: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks involve injecting malicious scripts into websites viewed by other users. The log entries do not contain any script-like payloads or attempts to inject code into the application.
\n
• C. SQL Injection Attack: SQL injection attacks involve inserting malicious SQL code into database queries to manipulate or extract data. The log entries do not show any SQL-specific syntax or attempts to exploit database vulnerabilities.
\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPeter, a SOC analyst with Spade Systems, is monitoring and analyzing the router logs of the company and wanted to check the logs that are generated by access control list numbered 210.
What filter should Peter add to the 'show logging' command to get the required output?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that it's the correct answer according to the official courseware (Module 3 page 302) and demonstrates how to display all logs generated by the access control list.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe suggested answer is C: show logging | include 210.
\nReasoning: The 'show logging' command, when combined with the '| include' filter, allows a user to display only the log entries that contain a specific string or pattern. In this case, Peter wants to see logs generated by access control list (ACL) numbered 210. Therefore, using 'show logging | include 210' will filter the logs to show only those entries that include \"210\". This is the standard and effective way to filter logs based on a specific identifier.
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:\n

\n
• A. show logging | access 210: There is no standard \"access\" filter available to filter the output of the 'show logging' command based on ACL number.
\n
• B. show logging | forward 210: This is syntactically incorrect and doesn't exist as a valid filter option for the 'show logging' command.
\n
• D. show logging | route 210: This is syntactically incorrect and doesn't exist as a valid filter option for the 'show logging' command.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Cisco IOS Command Reference, https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/fundamentals/command/ff-command-list.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIdentify the attack in which the attacker exploits a target system through publicly known but still unpatched vulnerabilities.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is a Zero-Day Attack happens when an attacker exploits a vulnerability that is publicly known but not yet patched by the vendor or unknown to the public or the software maker.

The suggested answer is C. Zero-Day Attack.
\n This is because a zero-day attack involves exploiting vulnerabilities that are publicly known but remain unpatched, or are unknown to the vendor. The question specifically asks for an attack that exploits publicly known but unpatched vulnerabilities, which directly aligns with the definition of a zero-day attack.
\nHere's why the other options are incorrect:
\n

\n
• A. Slow DoS Attack: This is a type of denial-of-service attack that aims to exhaust the resources of a server by sending traffic very slowly, which is unrelated to exploiting known, unpatched vulnerabilities.
\n
• B. DHCP Starvation: This attack floods a DHCP server with requests to exhaust its IP address pool, preventing legitimate users from obtaining IP addresses. It doesn't directly involve exploiting known vulnerabilities.
\n
• D. DNS Poisoning Attack: This attack involves injecting false DNS records into a DNS server's cache, redirecting users to malicious websites. While it can be serious, it's not directly related to exploiting known, unpatched vulnerabilities in a target system.
\n

\n Therefore, based on the question's definition and the process of elimination, option C is the most accurate answer.\n

Citations:

\n
• Zero-day attack, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/security/glossary/what-is-a-zero-day-exploit/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn which log collection mechanism, the system or application sends log records either on the local disk or over the network.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q4 2023 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is that in a push-based mechanism, the system or application sends records either on the local disk or over the network. If it is sent over the network, then there should be a log collector to collect the records. Syslog and Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) are the two main push-based protocols. This is further supported by references to the official SOC book, specifically page 210 and page 233.

The suggested answer is correct.
\nThe question asks about a log collection mechanism where the system or application actively sends log records. Push-based log collection perfectly fits this description, as systems actively \"push\" their logs to a central collector. This contrasts with pull-based systems where the collector must request or \"pull\" the logs from the systems.
\nHere's a detailed reasoning:

\n
• Push-based: In a push-based system, the log-generating device (e.g., a server or application) automatically sends its log data to a central log server or collector. Syslog and SNMP are common examples of push-based protocols. This aligns perfectly with the question's description.
\n
• Pull-based: In a pull-based system, the central log server actively requests and retrieves log data from the log-generating devices. This requires the log server to initiate the connection and pull the data, which is the opposite of what the question describes.
\n
• Rule-based: Rule-based systems involve filtering or processing logs based on predefined rules, but it does not define how the logs are collected in the first place. The collection of the logs would be either push-based or pull-based.
\n
• Signature-based: Signature-based methods are typically used for intrusion detection or malware analysis, where traffic or files are analyzed for known signatures of malicious activity. It's unrelated to log collection mechanisms.
\n

Therefore, the best answer is C (push-based) because it accurately describes a system where the application or system actively sends log data.

The other options are not the suitable answers:
\n

\n
• Option A (rule-based) is incorrect because it describes log processing, not the initial collection mechanism.
\n
• Option B (pull-based) is incorrect because it describes a mechanism where the log collector requests logs, not where the system sends them.
\n
• Option D (signature-based) is incorrect because it relates to security analysis, not log collection.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following attack can be eradicated by disabling of \"allow_url_fopen and allow_url_include\" in the php.ini file?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A. File Injection Attacks, which the reason is because attackers inject malicious files into the server to execute malicious code, allowing data theft and manipulation, and potentially giving persistent control of the server. The supporting information can be found in the official EC-Council Courseware, Volume 2, pg. 815.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of A. File Injection Attacks.
\nReasoning: Disabling `allow_url_fopen` and `allow_url_include` in `php.ini` is a security measure specifically designed to prevent remote file inclusion (RFI) vulnerabilities, which are a type of file injection attack. When these options are enabled, PHP allows including files from remote URLs. Attackers can exploit this by injecting malicious URLs into include/require statements, leading to the execution of arbitrary code on the server. By disabling these options, the server restricts file inclusion to local files only, mitigating the risk of RFI.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. URL Injection Attacks: While related to URLs, this option is broader than file inclusion. Disabling `allow_url_fopen` and `allow_url_include` specifically targets the inclusion of remote files, not general URL manipulation.
\n
• C. LDAP Injection Attacks: LDAP injection is a different type of vulnerability that exploits weaknesses in applications that use Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). Disabling `allow_url_fopen` and `allow_url_include` does not directly address LDAP injection vulnerabilities.
\n
• D. Command Injection Attacks: Command injection occurs when an application executes arbitrary OS commands based on user input. Disabling `allow_url_fopen` and `allow_url_include` does not directly prevent command injection vulnerabilities.
\n

Supporting References:

\n
• Understanding File Inclusion Vulnerabilities - OWASP, https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/OWASP_Top_Ten_2017/Top_10-2017_A4-Insecure_Direct_Object_References
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following stage executed after identifying the required event sources?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, spanning from approximately Q1 2024 to Q2 2025, the consensus is that the correct answer is D. The comments generally agree with answer D, with multiple users referencing page 406 to support their selection. One user suggested another answer, which suggests the answer is \"Defining Rules for the Use Case\".

Based on the question and discussion, the AI recommends sticking with the suggested answer D: Validating the event source against monitoring requirement.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe question asks about the stage executed *after* identifying the required event sources. Validating the event source against the monitoring requirement logically follows the identification process. Once you know *what* event sources you need, the next step is to confirm that those sources actually provide the data required to fulfill your monitoring needs. The discussion thread also largely supports this answer, with references to page 406 of an unspecified resource.
\n
\nWhy not other answers:
\n

\n
• A. Identifying the monitoring Requirements: This would typically happen *before* identifying the event sources. You need to know what you want to monitor before you can determine where the data will come from.
\n
• B. Defining Rule for the Use Case: Defining rules for the use case seems like a later step. We need to validate whether the sources provide the data before we start defining specific rules. Although one user suggested this, it does not seem the best option after \"Identifying the required event source\".
\n
• C. Implementing and Testing the Use Case: This is one of the final steps in the process.
\n
• D. Validating the event source against monitoring requirement: It makes more sense to validate the event source *after* identifying it and before defining the use case.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following data source will a SOC Analyst use to monitor connections to the insecure ports?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is monitoring the network for insecure protocols and services running on endpoints to prevent possible future attacks, by feeding endpoint device data (netstat) into SIEM.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer, which is A. Netstat Data.
\n
\nReasoning: Netstat (Network Statistics) is a command-line tool used to display active TCP connections, listening ports, Ethernet statistics, the IP routing table, IPv4 statistics (for IP, ICMP, TCP and UDP protocols), IP v6 statistics (for IPv6, ICMPv6, TCP over IPv6 and UDP over IPv6 protocols), and Unix domain sockets. A SOC analyst can use netstat data to monitor connections to insecure ports because it provides information about the network connections established on a system, including the ports being used. By analyzing this data, the analyst can identify connections to well-known insecure ports (e.g., Telnet on port 23, FTP without TLS on port 21), which could indicate potential security risks.
\n
\nWhy other options are not the best choice:\n

\n
• B. DNS Data: DNS data provides information about domain name resolution. While DNS data can be useful for identifying malicious domains or phishing attempts, it does not directly reveal information about connections to insecure ports.
\n
• C. IIS Data: IIS (Internet Information Services) data pertains to web server logs and configurations. While IIS logs can provide information about web traffic, they are specific to web servers and do not provide a comprehensive view of all network connections to insecure ports across an entire network.
\n
• D. DHCP Data: DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) data provides information about IP address assignments. While DHCP logs can be useful for tracking network devices, they do not directly reveal information about connections to insecure ports.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following technique protects from flooding attacks originated from the valid prefixes (IP addresses) so that they can be traced to its true source?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is Ingress filtering prevents source address spoofing of Internet traffic and protects from flooding attacks originating from valid prefixes (IP addresses), enabling the originator to be traced to its true source.

The suggested answer is correct.
\nIngress filtering is the most suitable technique to protect against flooding attacks originating from valid prefixes (IP addresses) because it focuses on traffic entering the network and verifying its source. This allows for tracing the attack back to its origin.
\nReasoning:
\n Ingress filtering is a security technique used to prevent source IP address spoofing. It works by inspecting incoming network traffic and verifying that the source IP address is legitimate and matches the expected network. This is particularly useful in mitigating flooding attacks that use spoofed source addresses, as it allows the network to filter out traffic from invalid or unexpected sources. By blocking spoofed packets, ingress filtering helps to ensure that only legitimate traffic enters the network, reducing the impact of DDoS attacks and other malicious activities. It also aids in tracing the origin of attacks by ensuring that the source IP address is genuine.
\nWhy other options are not the best choice:
\n

\n
• Rate Limiting: While rate limiting can help mitigate the impact of flooding attacks by limiting the amount of traffic from a specific source or destination, it does not prevent source address spoofing or enable tracing of the true source. It's more of a reactive measure than a preventative one.
\n
• Egress Filtering: Egress filtering focuses on traffic leaving the network, preventing internal hosts from sending traffic with spoofed source addresses. While useful for preventing internal attacks or accidental misconfiguration, it does not protect against external flooding attacks.
\n
• Throttling: Similar to rate limiting, throttling can limit the amount of traffic but doesn't validate the source, making it less effective at tracing the true source of attacks originating from valid prefixes.
\n

In Summary: Ingress filtering is specifically designed to validate the source of incoming traffic, making it the most effective technique for protecting against flooding attacks originating from valid prefixes and tracing the attack to its true source.\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Ingress filtering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingress_filtering
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following contains the performance measures, and proper project and time management details?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is A, which the reason is that the Incident Response policy should contain specific elements such as a statement of management commitment, purpose and objectives, scope, definitions, organizational structure, guidelines for prioritization, performance measures, reporting guidelines, and communication guidelines. The comments cite the official EC-Council courseware as a reference, specifically page 689 and page 679, as sources of this information.

The suggested answer is incorrect. The AI recommends answer A, Incident Response Policy.
\nReasoning:
\nAn Incident Response Policy is a high-level document that outlines an organization's approach to managing and responding to security incidents. It typically includes performance measures and guidelines related to project and time management during incident handling.
\nThe Incident Response Policy provides a framework for the organization's incident response efforts. It defines roles and responsibilities, communication protocols, and escalation procedures.
\nIt also establishes performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the incident response process and to identify areas for improvement. These measures can include metrics such as time to detect incidents, time to contain incidents, and the cost of incidents.
\nThe discussion summary supports the recommendation. It emphasizes that Incident Response Policy should contain statement of management commitment, purpose and objectives, scope, definitions, organizational structure, guidelines for prioritization, performance measures, reporting guidelines, and communication guidelines.
\nReasons for not choosing the other options:
\n

\n
• B. Incident Response Tactics: Tactics are specific actions taken during an incident, not a comprehensive overview of performance measures and management details.
\n
• C. Incident Response Process: The process outlines the steps taken during incident response but doesn't inherently contain the high-level performance measures and management structures of a policy.
\n
• D. Incident Response Procedures: Procedures are detailed step-by-step instructions for carrying out specific tasks within the incident response process. While important, they are more granular than a policy and don't encompass the broader performance measures and project/time management aspects.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn as a SOC analyst is worried about the amount of Tor traffic hitting the network. He wants to prepare a dashboard in the SIEM to get a graph to identify the locations from where the TOR traffic is coming.
Which of the following data source will he use to prepare the dashboard?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025, the consensus of the answer to this question is A, which is the correct answer. The reason is because DHCP/Logs are capable of maintaining IP addresses or hostnames with IPtoName resolution, as cited from the official EC-Council Courseware - Volume 1 - pg. 488.\n

Based on the analysis of the question and discussion, the AI recommends the answer A, DHCP/Logs capable of maintaining IP addresses or hostnames with IPtoName resolution.

\nThe suggested answer is A.

\nReasoning:
\nTo identify the locations from where Tor traffic is originating, a SOC analyst needs to correlate IP addresses with geographical locations. DHCP logs, especially those capable of IPtoName resolution, provide a mapping of IP addresses to hostnames, which can then be used to infer location.
\nThis is particularly useful because:
\n

\n
• DHCP logs maintain a record of IP address assignments, allowing for historical tracking of which device used which IP address at a specific time.
\n
• IPtoName resolution can help in identifying internal hostnames associated with these IP addresses, aiding in correlating traffic to specific devices or users within the network.
\n
• This data, when combined with geolocation databases, enables the creation of a dashboard displaying the geographical origins of Tor traffic.
\n

\n
• B. IIS/Web Server logs with IP addresses and user agent IPtouseragent resolution: While web server logs contain IP addresses, they primarily capture traffic directed to the web server itself, not all network traffic. User agent information is helpful but does not directly provide geographical location.
\n
• C. DNS/ Web Server logs with IP addresses: DNS logs can provide information about domain name resolution, but they do not directly map IP addresses to geographical locations or provide a comprehensive view of network traffic origins. While web server logs contain IP addresses, they primarily capture traffic directed to the web server itself, not all network traffic.
\n
• D. Apache/ Web Server logs with IP addresses and Host Name: Similar to option B, these logs only capture traffic to the web server. Hostnames can be useful but do not directly provide geographical location information for all Tor traffic.
\n

Citations:

\n
• EC-Council Courseware - Volume 1 - pg. 488 (This is the reference mentioned in the discussion, specific URL not available)
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following process refers to the discarding of the packets at the routing level without informing the source that the data did not reach its intended recipient?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is C, which the reason is black hole refers to network nodes where incoming traffic is discarded or dropped without informing the source that the data did not reach its intended recipient.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of C (Black Hole Filtering).
\nBlack Hole Filtering refers to the practice of dropping network traffic without notifying the sender. This aligns perfectly with the question's description of discarding packets at the routing level without informing the source.
\nLoad Balancing (A) distributes network traffic across multiple servers to prevent overload and improve response times. While load balancers can drop packets due to congestion or other issues, this is not their primary function, and they typically do attempt to manage traffic flow intelligently.
\nRate Limiting (B) controls the amount of traffic a network or system accepts. While it can lead to packets being dropped if the rate limit is exceeded, the primary goal is to manage traffic, not silently discard it.
\nDrop Requests (D) is a generic term and doesn't specifically describe a routing-level process of silently discarding packets. Black hole filtering is the more precise term for this behavior.
\nTherefore, Black Hole Filtering is the most accurate answer.\n

\nReasoning:
\nThe definition of a network black hole is a place in the network where traffic disappears without any notification being sent to the sender. This aligns directly with the question's scenario.\n

\nWhy other options are not the best choice:\n

\n
• Load Balancing: Distributes traffic; doesn't inherently discard it silently.
\n
• Rate Limiting: Controls traffic volume; may drop packets, but the intent isn't silent discarding.
\n
• Drop Requests: Too general; Black Hole Filtering is a more specific and accurate term.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following tool can be used to filter web requests associated with the SQL Injection attack?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is B. UrlScan, which the reason is that UrlScan is a security tool developed by Microsoft to filter incoming HTTP requests to an IIS web server and acts as a Web Application Firewall (WAF) lite. It can block suspicious URLs or patterns, filter out dangerous input, and protect against SQL Injection, directory traversal, and other HTTP-based attacks. Other options are incorrect because:

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe recommended answer is B. UrlScan.
\nReasoning: UrlScan is specifically designed to filter HTTP requests and can be configured to block requests that resemble SQL injection attacks. It acts as a Web Application Firewall (WAF) lite for IIS web servers. It examines incoming HTTP requests and blocks those that match defined rules, helping to mitigate SQL injection and other web-based attacks.
\nReasons for Incorrect Answers:\n

\n
• Nmap is a network scanning tool used for discovering hosts and services on a network. It does not filter web requests.
\n
• ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) is an intercepting proxy used for penetration testing and vulnerability assessment of web applications, rather than filtering live traffic.
\n
• Hydra is a brute-force password cracking tool, not a web request filtering tool.
\n

Citations:

\n
• UrlScan Security Tool, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3040
\n
• Nmap - the Network Mapper, https://nmap.org/
\n
• OWASP ZAP, https://www.zaproxy.org/
\n
• THC-Hydra, https://github.com/vanhauser-thc/thc-hydra
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCharline is working as an L2 SOC Analyst. One day, an L1 SOC Analyst escalated an incident to her for further investigation and confirmation. Charline, after a thorough investigation, confirmed the incident and assigned it with an initial priority.
What would be her next action according to the SOC workflow?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, spanning from Q2 2022 to Q2 2025, the consensus is that the answer is D. The reason is that the SOC L2 analyst, upon identifying a security issue, should forward it to the Incident Response Team (IRT) for remediation. This conclusion is supported by references to the EC-Council SOC ebook and other resources, which explain the roles of L1 and L2 analysts, including the escalation process for confirmed incidents. L2 analysts collect and document data and forward them to the next level for investigation, and then forward to the IRT if necessary.\n

\n The AI assistant suggests that the correct answer is D. She should formally raise a ticket and forward it to the IRT.
\nReasoning:
\n According to standard SOC (Security Operations Center) workflows, an L2 analyst, after confirming an incident and assigning it a priority, should formally escalate the incident to the Incident Response Team (IRT). The IRT is responsible for handling incident remediation and containment.
\n Raising a ticket ensures proper tracking and documentation of the incident. Forwarding it to the IRT initiates the appropriate response procedures.
\n This aligns with the typical responsibilities of an L2 SOC analyst, which includes incident confirmation and escalation to the appropriate teams for further action.\n
\nReasons for not choosing other answers:
\n

\n
• A: She should immediately escalate this issue to the management - While management needs to be informed eventually, escalating directly to management is not the immediate next step. The incident needs to be handled by the IRT first.
\n
• B: She should immediately contact the network administrator to solve the problem - Contacting the network administrator directly might be part of the IRT's response, but the L2 analyst's role is to escalate to the IRT, not to directly perform remediation.
\n
• C: She should communicate this incident to the media immediately - Communicating the incident to the media is inappropriate and premature at this stage. Media communication should be handled by the organization's communications team after proper investigation and containment.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• EC-Council SOC Analyst Training eBook, (Please note that specific URLs for copyrighted material such as the EC-Council SOC Analyst Training eBook cannot be publicly provided.)
\n
• SANS Institute, Incident Handler's Handbook, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/33901/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following threat intelligence helps cyber security professionals such as security operations managers, network operations center and incident responders to understand how the adversaries are expected to perform the attack on the organization, and the technical capabilities and goals of the attackers along with the attack vectors?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, which includes from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. The comments agree with answer D because of tactical threat intelligence is consumed by cybersecurity professionals. It helps to understand how adversaries are expected to perform attacks, identify information leakage, and understand the attackers' technical capabilities, goals, and attack vectors. One comment suggests another answer, which is operational intelligence.

The suggested answer is correct. Tactical threat intelligence is indeed the most suitable type of threat intelligence for cybersecurity professionals like security operations managers, network operations center staff, and incident responders because it provides actionable information about specific adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This helps them understand how attackers are expected to perform attacks, their technical capabilities, goals, and attack vectors.
\nThe other options are less suitable for the following reasons:

\n
• Analytical Threat Intelligence: Focuses on understanding the broader context of threats, such as the motivation and capabilities of threat actors, but it doesn't typically provide the specific, actionable details needed for immediate response.
\n
• Operational Threat Intelligence: Deals with information about specific impending attacks or campaigns. While useful, it doesn't necessarily focus on understanding adversary TTPs in a generalizable way.
\n
• Strategic Threat Intelligence: Provides high-level information about risks and threats to an organization, typically for executive-level decision-making. It is not geared towards the detailed understanding of attack techniques needed by security operations teams.
\n

Therefore, D, Tactical Threat Intelligence, is the most appropriate answer.

Citations:

\n
• SANS Institute, Threat Intelligence, https://www.sans.org/information-security/glossary/threat-intelligence
\n
• CIO, What is threat intelligence? How it informs security strategy, https://www.cio.com/article/228799/what-is-threat-intelligence-how-it-informs-security-strategy.html
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIf the SIEM generates the following four alerts at the same time:

I: Firewall blocking traffic from getting into the network alerts
II: SQL injection attempt alerts
III: Data deletion attempt alerts

IV: Brute-force attempt alerts -

Which alert should be given least priority as per effective alert triaging?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agree with Suggested Answer. From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is traffic is already blocked by the firewall.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.

\nSuggested Answer: D

\nReasoning: Effective alert triaging prioritizes alerts based on their potential impact and immediacy. In this scenario:
\n

\n
• I: Firewall blocking traffic: Indicates the firewall is working as intended, preventing malicious traffic from entering the network. While it's important to investigate the source of the blocked traffic, the immediate threat is mitigated by the firewall's action.
\n
• II: SQL injection attempt: A SQL injection attempt could lead to data breaches, data manipulation, or complete database compromise, representing a high-priority threat.
\n
• III: Data deletion attempt: A data deletion attempt indicates a potential insider threat or a compromised account actively trying to harm the organization by deleting data, so this is a critical event requiring immediate attention.
\n
• IV: Brute-force attempt: A brute-force attempt indicates someone is trying to gain unauthorized access to a system or account. While it may not be immediately successful, if it succeeds, it could lead to serious compromise of the system.
\n

\n
• Option A (III): A data deletion attempt suggests a potential breach or malicious insider, posing a significant risk.
\n
• Option B (IV): A brute-force attack, while not immediately successful, could lead to a compromise if successful.
\n
• Option C (II): An SQL injection attempt is a high-priority threat due to the potential for data breaches and system compromise.
\n

\n

Cititations:

\n
• OWASP SQL Injection, https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/SQL_Injection
\n
• NIST definition of Brute Force Attack, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/brute_force_attack
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tInfoSystem LLC, a US-based company, is establishing an in-house SOC. John has been given the responsibility to finalize strategy, policies, and procedures for the SOC.
Identify the job role of John.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus of the answer to this question is B, which the reason is based on the reference to page 23. The comment points out that the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) is responsible for finalizing strategy, policies, and procedures regarding all aspects of cybersecurity.

\n Based on the discussion and understanding of cybersecurity roles, the AI suggests answer B, Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
\nThe primary reason for selecting CISO is the role's responsibility for finalizing cybersecurity strategies, policies, and procedures. This aligns with the common understanding of a CISO's duties, which includes overseeing all aspects of an organization's security posture and making high-level decisions. The discussion summary correctly points this out.
\n The other options are less likely:\n

\n
• Security Analyst – L1 and L2 are typically involved in the day-to-day monitoring and analysis of security events, and not in setting overall strategy.
\n
• Security Engineer focuses more on the technical implementation and maintenance of security systems, rather than policy and strategy development.
\n

\n Citations:\n

\n
• Chief Information Security Officer (CISO): https://www.eccouncil.org/cybersecurity/what-is-a-ciso/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following service provides phishing protection and content filtering to manage the Internet experience on and off your network with the acceptable use or compliance policies?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Based on the internet discussion, from approximately Q4 2024 to Q2 2025, the consensus answer to this question is C - OpenDNS. The comments agree with this answer because OpenDNS, now owned by Cisco, provides cloud-based security services including phishing protection, content filtering, DNS-layer security, and internet usage control. This service is designed to enforce acceptable use policies and protect users both on and off the network. Specifically, one comment mentions OpenDNS web filtering for managing the internet experience and adds content filtering controls to all devices in an organization. Other options, such as Apility.io, Malstrom, and I-Blocklist, are not considered suitable solutions for the described security requirements because they offer different types of security protection, such as threat intelligence or IP blocklists.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer, which is C. OpenDNS.
\nReasoning: OpenDNS (now Cisco Umbrella) is a cloud-delivered security service that provides phishing protection and content filtering. It manages the Internet experience both on and off the network and is designed to enforce acceptable use and compliance policies. Cisco Umbrella provides DNS-layer security, blocking access to malicious websites and filtering content based on predefined categories. It is a suitable solution for managing internet usage and protecting users from online threats, therefore fulfilling the requirements outlined in the question.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:\n

\n
• A. Apility.io: This service focuses on threat intelligence and reputation analysis, primarily dealing with identifying and flagging malicious or suspicious IP addresses and domains. While valuable for security, it does not directly provide the comprehensive phishing protection and content filtering described in the question.
\n
• B. Malstrom: There is no widely recognized security service or product known as \"Malstrom\" that provides phishing protection and content filtering. This option is likely incorrect due to the lack of established relevance in the cybersecurity field.
\n
• D. I-Blocklist: I-Blocklist provides lists of IP addresses that are known to be associated with malicious activities. While this can be used for blocking malicious traffic, it does not offer the comprehensive content filtering and phishing protection capabilities of OpenDNS.
\n

Citations:

\n
• Cisco Umbrella, https://www.umbrella.com/
\n
• Apility.io, https://apility.io/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDavid is a SOC analyst in Karen Tech. One day an attack is initiated by the intruders but David was not able to find any suspicious events.
This type of incident is categorized into __________?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is it represents a false negative, where an attack occurred, but no alert was triggered. Some comments mentioned that Option D is the correct answer, and some commenters reference the official courseware (page 559) to support their answer. Other opinions, like Option C, were mentioned but later corrected or refuted because the context does not match the scenario.

The AI recommends answer D. False Negative Incidents.
\nReasoning: A false negative incident occurs when an actual attack or intrusion takes place, but the security monitoring systems (in this case, David, the SOC analyst) fail to detect it. The question explicitly states that an attack was initiated, but David was unable to find any suspicious events. This directly aligns with the definition of a false negative.
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n

\n
• A. True Positive Incidents: This would mean the system correctly identified an attack, which contradicts the scenario.
\n
• B. False Positive Incidents: This would mean the system incorrectly identified an event as an attack when no actual attack occurred, which also contradicts the scenario.
\n
• C. True Negative Incidents: This would mean no attack occurred, and the system correctly did not raise an alert. However, the question states that an attack *did* occur.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEmmanuel is working as a SOC analyst in a company named Tobey Tech. The manager of Tobey Tech recently recruited an Incident Response Team (IRT) for his company. In the process of collaboration with the IRT, Emmanuel just escalated an incident to the IRT.
What is the first step that the IRT will do to the incident escalated by Emmanuel?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q2 2023 to Q2 2025, the consensus is to agree with the suggested answer. The correct answer is A. The reasoning is based on the incident triage steps which include Incident Analysis and Validation, as referenced in EC-Council Official Courseware - Volume 2 - pg. 663.

The AI recommends an answer of A: Incident Analysis and Validation.
\n
\nReasoning:
\nThe first step an Incident Response Team (IRT) will take after an incident is escalated to them is **Incident Analysis and Validation**. This involves analyzing the information provided to determine the nature and scope of the incident, and validating that it is indeed a security incident requiring further investigation. This aligns with established incident response methodologies. Validating the incident is crucial before proceeding with further steps, as it ensures that resources are appropriately allocated and that the IRT focuses on genuine security threats.
\n
\nReasons for not choosing other options:
\n* **Incident Recording:** While recording is important, it typically occurs concurrently with or after the initial analysis and validation, not as the very first step.\n* **Incident Classification:** Classification is important, but it depends on initial analysis. You can't properly classify an incident until you understand its nature.\n* **Incident Prioritization:** Prioritization comes after initial analysis and validation to determine the incident's severity and potential impact. It cannot be done without first understanding what the incident is.\n

\nCitation:
\nEC-Council Official Courseware - Volume 2 - pg. 663.
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIdentify the HTTP status codes that represents the server error.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D. The comments agree that the answer is correct, because the HTTP status code ranges are described: Informational responses (100 – 199), Successful responses (200 – 299), Redirection messages (300 – 399), Client error responses (400 – 499), and Server error responses (500 – 599).

The suggested answer is correct. The correct answer is D (5XX) because it represents the range of HTTP status codes that indicate server errors.
\nReasoning:
\nHTTP status codes are grouped into ranges that indicate the general nature of the response.
\n

\n
• 1XX (Informational): Indicates a provisional response, meaning the request was received and understood.
\n
• 2XX (Success): Indicates that the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.
\n
• 4XX (Client Error): Indicates that the client made an error in the request.
\n
• 5XX (Server Error): Indicates that the server failed to fulfill a valid request. This could be due to server-side issues.
\n

Citations:

\n
• HTTP Response Status Codes, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJony, a security analyst, while monitoring IIS logs, identified events shown in the figure below.

What does this event log indicate?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion from Q3 2023 to Q2 2025, the conclusion of the answer to this question is D, which the reason is it is related to SQL injection attack.

The AI suggests that the answer should be D. SQL Injection Attack.
\nReasoning: The provided IIS log snippet contains several indicators of a SQL injection attack. The presence of SQL keywords and functions like 'xp_cmdshell', 'convert', 'char', and attempts to use UNION SELECT are strong indicators that an attacker is attempting to inject malicious SQL code into the application to manipulate the database. These functions are often used in SQL injection attacks to execute operating system commands, convert data types to bypass filters, and construct malicious SQL queries.
\nWhy other options are less likely:
\n

\n
• A. Parameter Tampering Attack: While parameter tampering involves manipulating parameters, the log entries specifically show SQL syntax and functions, making SQL injection a more precise and likely diagnosis. Parameter tampering doesn't necessarily involve injecting code into SQL queries.
\n
• B. XSS Attack: XSS attacks involve injecting malicious scripts into websites, which are then executed by other users' browsers. The log entries show SQL syntax rather than JavaScript or HTML.
\n
• C. Directory Traversal Attack: Directory traversal attacks involve manipulating file paths to access unauthorized files. The log entries clearly show attempts to inject SQL code.
\n

\nCitations:\n

\n
• OWASP SQL Injection, https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/SQL_Injection
\n
• Detecting and Preventing SQL Injection Attacks, https://www.acunetix.com/blog/articles/detecting-preventing-sql-injection-attacks/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich attack works like a dictionary attack, but adds some numbers and symbols to the words from the dictionary and tries to crack the password?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is A: Hybrid Attack. The comments agree that a hybrid attack combines dictionary and brute-force attacks by adding characters and numbers to dictionary words. Several comments specifically state or imply that the correct answer is a hybrid attack, and some provide supporting references to this answer.\n

The AI agrees with the suggested answer.
\nThe correct answer is A: Hybrid Attack.
\nReason: A hybrid attack combines a dictionary attack with a brute-force attack by adding numbers and symbols to dictionary words. This aligns perfectly with the question's description. Hybrid attacks leverage the common tendency for users to add variations to dictionary words, such as appending numbers or special characters, to create passwords.
\nWhy other options are incorrect:\n

\n
• B. Brute-force Attack: A brute-force attack tries all possible combinations of characters to crack a password, which is different from a dictionary attack that's augmented with number/symbol combinations.
\n
• C. Rainbow Table Attack: This uses precomputed hashes to crack passwords, not dictionary words with modifications.
\n
• D. Birthday Attack: Birthday attack is related to finding collisions in hash functions, which is not relevant to this question.
\n

\n
• Hybrid attack definition, https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/password-attack/
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhich of the following attack can be eradicated by converting all non-alphanumeric characters to HTML character entities before displaying the user input in search engines and forums?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

From the internet discussion, the consensus answer to this question is C. The comments agree with answer C, with one comment citing page 824.

The AI agrees with the suggested answer of C (XSS Attacks).
\nReasoning: Converting non-alphanumeric characters to HTML entities is a common and effective defense against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. XSS attacks often rely on injecting malicious scripts into web pages, and these scripts frequently use special characters (like <, >, \", ') to manipulate the HTML structure or execute JavaScript. By converting these characters to their HTML entity equivalents (e.g., < becomes &lt;), the browser will render them as literal characters rather than interpreting them as code. This prevents the injected script from being executed.
\nReasons for not choosing the other answers:\n

\n
• A. Broken Access Control Attacks: These attacks focus on unauthorized access to resources. HTML encoding does not directly address access control issues.
\n
• B. Web Services Attacks: While encoding can help mitigate some web services vulnerabilities (like XSS in web service responses), it's not a primary defense against all web service attack types (e.g., SOAP injection, XML injection).
\n
• D. Session Management Attacks: These attacks target session tokens and user authentication. HTML encoding does not prevent session hijacking or other session-related vulnerabilities.
\n