Palo Alto Networks Security Operations Professional SecOps-Pro PDF Questions

Text Material Preview

1 / 18
Palo Alto SecOps-Pro Exam
Palo Alto Networks Security Operations
Professional
https://www.passquestion.com/secops-pro.html
35% OFF on All, Including SecOps-Pro Questions and Answers
Pass SecOps-Pro Exam with PassQuestion SecOps-Pro
questions and answers in the first attempt.
https://www.passquestion.com/
https://www.passquestion.com/
2 / 18
1.A Security Operations Center (SOC) using Palo Alto Networks XSOAR for incident management
receives a high volume of alerts daily. An analyst is tasked with prioritizing incidents related to potential
data exfiltration.
Which of the following incident categorization criteria, when combined, would MOST effectively facilitate
accurate prioritization for data exfiltration incidents, considering both technical indicators and business
impact?
A. Source IP Geolocation and Destination Port. While useful, these alone may not capture the full context
of data exfiltration.
B. Threat Intelligence Feed Match (e.g., C2 IP from Unit 42) and Affected Asset Criticality (e.g., Crown
Jewel Asset). This combines technical indicators with business impact for effective prioritization.
C. Time of Day and User Department. These are primarily contextual and less indicative of immediate
threat severity.
D. Alert Volume from a specific sensor and Protocol Used. Alert volume can be misleading, and protocol
alone might not signify exfiltration.
E. File Hash Reputation (WildFire) and Endpoint OS Version. File hash is good for malware, but OS
version isn't a primary exfiltration indicator.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Effective incident prioritization for data exfiltration requires a combination of strong technical indicators
and an understanding of the business impact. Matching an IP to a known Command and Control (C2)
server from a reputable threat intelligence source like Unit 42 (Palo Alto Networks' threat research team)
provides a high-fidelity technical indicator of a potential breach. Coupling this with the criticality of the
affected asset (e.g., a server hosting sensitive customer data, classified as a 'Crown Jewel') directly
informs the business risk, enabling accurate prioritization. Other options either lack sufficient technical
specificity for exfiltration or don't adequately account for business impact.
2.A large enterprise is implementing a new incident response playbooks within Palo Alto Networks Cortex
XSOAR. They need to define a comprehensive incident categorization schema that supports dynamic
prioritization based on the MITRE ATT&CK framework and internal asset criticality ratings.
Which of the following XSOAR automation snippets, when integrated, best demonstrates an approach to
dynamically categorize and prioritize an incident based on the detection of a 'Lateral Movement'
technique (T 1021 – Remote Services) and the involved asset's 'Crown Jewel' status?
A)
This is too static and doesn't account for dynamic prioritization based on asset criticality.
B)
This snippet correctly uses ATT&CK tags and asset criticality to dynamically categorize and assign
3 / 18
severity, which directly influences prioritization.
C)
This snippet is for incident naming and assignment, not categorization or prioritization logic.
D)
This snippet only adds tags, which can be used for categorization later, but doesn't implement the
prioritization logic itself.
E)
This snippet sets status and assigns a playbook, not directly addressing categorization or dynamic
prioritization.
A. Option A
B. Option B
C. Option C
D. Option D
Answer: B
Explanation:
Option B best demonstrates dynamic categorization and prioritization. It checks for the presence of the
MITRE ATT&CK technique ID (T1021) in the incident's tags (assuming these tags are applied by initial
detection mechanisms or XSOAR ingestion). Crucially, it then checks the criticality of the involved assets.
If both 'Tl 021' and 'CrownJewel' criticality are present, it elevates the category to 'Advanced Persistent
Threat' and sets the severity to 'Critical', indicating a high-priority incident. If only 'T 1021' is present, it
assigns a 'High' severity, still acknowledging the threat but indicating a potentially lower business impact.
This logic directly maps to a robust categorization and prioritization scheme.
3.During a post-incident review of a successful ransomware attack, the incident response team identifies
that initial alerts were generated but deprioritized due to an 'Information' severity classification. Analysis
reveals the alerts, while individually low-fidelity, collectively pointed to a reconnaissance phase followed
by credential access on a critical server.
What adjustment to the incident categorization and prioritization framework would be most effective in
preventing similar oversights?
A. Implement an automated system to escalate any 'Information' level alert to 'Low' severity after 24 hours,
regardless of context.
B. Mandate manual review of all 'Information' severity alerts by a Tier 1 SOC analyst within 1 hour of
generation.
C. Develop correlation rules in the SIEM (e.g., Splunk, QRadar) or SOAR (e.g., XSOAR) to elevate
incident severity based on sequences of related low-severity events targeting high-value assets.
D. Increase the threshold for all network-based alerts by 50% to reduce false positives and focus only on
high-severity alerts.
E. Categorize all alerts related to critical servers as 'High' severity by default, irrespective of the initial
4 / 18
detection's confidence level.
Answer: C
Explanation:
The core issue described is the failure to recognize a low-and-slow attack chain composed of individually
low-fidelity events. Implementing correlation rules (Option C) in the SIEM or SOAR is the most effective
solution. This allows the system to analyze multiple seemingly innocuous events in sequence, identify
patterns indicative of an attack (e.g., reconnaissance followed by credential access on a critical asset),
and then automatically elevate the aggregated incident's severity and priority.
Options A and B are inefficient or reactive.
Option D risks missing legitimate threats.
Option E would lead to significant alert fatigue and false positives, overwhelming analysts.
4.A threat intelligence team produces a report on a new APT group known for targeting specific industry
sectors using novel obfuscation techniques. This report includes IOCs (Indicators of Compromise) and
TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures).
How should this intelligence be integrated into an organization's incident categorization and prioritization
process to maximize its impact?
A. The IOCs should be immediately blocked at the firewall, and the TTPs added to a static incident
classification matrix.
B. The IOCs should be used to create new detection rules with a 'Critical' severity, and the TTPs should
inform playbooks and analyst training for identifying related behavioral anomalies and dynamically
assigning higher priority to incidents matching these TTPs.
C. The report should be circulated to all IT staff for awareness, and any alerts matching the IOCs should
be manually reviewed daily.
D. Only the IOCs should be ingested into the SIEM as watchlists, and TTPs should be ignored as they are
too abstract for direct prioritization.
E. The intelligence should primarily be used for retrospective hunting exercises and not directly integrated
into real-time categorization.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Integrating threat intelligence effectively means leveraging both IOCs and TTPs. IOCs (like hashes, IPs,
domains) are excellent for creating specific, high-fidelity detection rules (Option B), which can be
automatically assigned a high severity due to the known threat actor. TTPs, being behavioral patterns, are
crucial for informing and refining incident categorization and prioritization beyond just IOC matches. By
understanding the APT group's TTPs, security teams can:
1) Create more sophisticated detection logic in the SIEM/EDR, 2) Develop or modify XSOAR playbooks to
look for combinations of events that align with these TTPs, and3) Train analysts to recognize these
behaviors, allowing them to dynamically assign higher priority to incidents exhibiting these characteristics,
even if no explicit IOCs are present. This holistic approach significantly improves detection and response
capabilities.
5.An organization is migrating its security operations to a cloud-native environment, leveraging Palo Alto
Networks Prisma Cloud for security posture management and cloud workload protection. Incident
response requires adapting existing on-premise prioritization schemes.
5 / 18
Which of the following factors becomes SIGNIFICANTLY more impactful for incident prioritization in a
cloud-native context compared to traditional on-premise environments?
A. The physical location of the server hosting the affected application. This is less relevant in cloud as
physical location is abstracted.
B. The organizational unit responsible for the application. While important, this is a consistent factor.
C. The specific cloud service (e.g., S3 bucket, Lambda function, Kubernetes pod) involved and its
configured IAM permissions. Misconfigurations or compromises of these can have rapid, widespread
impact.
D. The brand of the underlying hardware vendor. Cloud abstracts hardware, making this irrelevant.
E. The patching cycle of the operating system. While important, patching is often automated or managed
differently in cloud, and other cloud-specific factors take precedence.
Answer: C
Explanation:
In a cloud-native environment, the specific cloud service and its IAM (Identity and Access Management)
permissions are paramount for incident prioritization. A misconfigured S3 bucket with public access, a
compromised Lambda function with excessive permissions, or a vulnerable Kubernetes pod could lead to
rapid data exposure, privilege escalation, or resource abuse, often with broader and faster impact than
traditional on-premise incidents. The blast radius and potential for lateral movement are heavily
influenced by cloud service configurations and IAM. This makes understanding and prioritizing based on
these factors critical.
6.Consider an incident categorization and prioritization framework within Palo Alto Networks XSOAR. An
analyst identifies an alert indicating a 'Brute Force' attempt (MITRE ATT&CK T 1110) against an
administrative service. The asset involved is tagged in XSOAR as having 'PCI-DSS Data' and
'Internet-Facing'.
Which of the following XSOAR automation script segments would correctly classify this incident as
'Critical' and categorize it appropriately, adhering to best practices for a compliance-driven environment?
(Select all that apply)
A.
This script correctly identifies the attack type, compliance context, and exposure, leading to the highest
severity and a compliance-specific category.
B.
While functional, it uses less precise incident attributes ('name', 'playbook_tags') and a slightly lower
severity ('High') for what should be a critical incident given the full context.
C.
This is a valid approach if 'CriticalAssets' properly identifies assets with PCI-DSS data and internet
6 / 18
exposure, and 'TopTier Attack' is an appropriate category for critical compliance-related incidents.
D.
This script sets a low severity and generic category, failing to account for the critical nature of the alert.
E.
This adds tags and assigns an owner, which is good for follow-up, but doesn't set severity or a specific
categorization that directly impacts immediate prioritization.
Answer: A,C
Explanation:
Both A and C are valid approaches for critical categorization.
Option A directly checks for the MITRE technique tag and specific asset tags ('PCI-DSS Data',
'Internet-Facing'), which are explicit indicators of high risk in a compliance-driven environment, leading to
a 'Critical' severity and a 'Compliance Breach Attempt' category.
Option C leverages a pre-defined list of 'CriticalAssets' (which should encompass assets with PCI-DSS
data and internet exposure) and the MITRE technique. If the 'CriticalAssets' list is accurately maintained
and 'TopTier Attack' is an appropriate category for such a high-impact incident in their schema, this is also
a very effective and scalable method.
Option B uses less precise attributes and a slightly lower severity.
Options D and E fail to address the core prioritization requirement.
7.An organization is using a bespoke vulnerability management system that integrates with Palo Alto
Networks Panorama for firewall rule management and XSOAR for incident orchestration. A new zero-day
vulnerability (CVE-2023-XXXX) affecting a critical web application is disclosed. The vulnerability
management system flags all instances of this application. For effective incident categorization and
prioritization, what dynamic attributes or processes are crucial to incorporate, going beyond mere
vulnerability detection?
A. The CVSS score of the CVE and the number of affected instances. While important, these are static at
disclosure and don't reflect environmental factors or active exploitation.
B. Leveraging external threat intelligence feeds (e.g., Unit 42, CISA KEV) to confirm active exploitation of
CVE-2023-XXXX in the wild, correlating with observed network traffic (e.g., Palo Alto Networks firewall
logs for unusual HTTP requests), and assessing the business impact of the specific web application.
C. Assigning all alerts related to CVE-2023-XXXX to the highest priority, irrespective of whether the
application is internet-facing or handles sensitive data.
D. Prioritizing remediation based solely on the operating system of the affected server, as OS-level
vulnerabilities are always most critical.
E. Ignoring the vulnerability until a patch is released, as immediate action is often disruptive.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Prioritizing a zero-day vulnerability goes far beyond its static CVSS score or the number of affected
systems.
7 / 18
Option B outlines a comprehensive, dynamic approach:
1) Active Exploitation Confirmation: External threat intelligence (like CISA KEV or Unit 42 reports)
indicating active exploitation in the wild immediately elevates the threat.
2) Correlated Network Activity: Analyzing Palo Alto Networks firewall logs or other network telemetry for
unusual traffic patterns (e.g., specific HTTP requests, C2 communications) that align with known
exploitation attempts for that CVE provides high-fidelity in-house detection.
3) Business Impact Assessment: Understanding the criticality of the specific web application (e.g.,
public-facing, handles sensitive customer data, critical business function) is paramount. Combining these
three dynamic factors allows for truly informed categorization (e.g., 'Active Zero-Day Exploitation on
Crown Jewel Asset') and prioritization (e.g., 'Critical - Immediate Containment').
Options A, C, D, and E represent static, overly broad, or negligent approaches.
8.A global enterprise manages its security incidents using Palo Alto Networks XSOAR. The CEO's laptop,
classified as a 'Tier 0' asset, triggers an alert for an 'Unknown Malware Execution' (WildFire verdict:
'Grayware'). Historically, 'Grayware' on endpoints has been deprioritized. However, given the asset's
criticality, the SOC needs a dynamic prioritization mechanism.
Which set of XSOAR automation steps and corresponding incident attributes should be leveraged to
ensure this incident is elevated appropriately, even with a 'Grayware' verdict?
A. Option A
B. Option B
C. Option C
D. Option D
E. Option E
Answer: B
Explanation:
Option B provides the most robust and dynamic solution. The key is to integrate asset criticality into the
incident enrichment and subsequent prioritization logic. Step 1, using an XSOAR pre-processing rule,
automatically enriches the incident data with the 'Tier 0' criticality from the CMDB. This means the incident
context always includes the asset's importance. Step 2, the conditional playbook task, is crucial: it
explicitly checks for both the 'Grayware' verdict AND the 'Tier 0' asset criticality. When both conditionsare
met, it overrides the default 'Grayware' low severity and elevates the incident to 'High' severity with a
specific category like 'Executive Compromise Attempt', ensuring it receives immediate attention despite
the initially 'lower' malware verdict. This demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of context-aware
incident prioritization.
9.A Security Operations Center (SOC) using Cortex XDR observes a high-severity alert indicating a
8 / 18
potential ransomware attack. The alert details include a specific file hash (SHA256:
e3bOc44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855) associated with a
suspicious process.
Which of the following Cortex XDR and Cortex XSOAR capabilities would be most effective in leveraging
this file indicator for rapid investigation and containment?
A. Automatically querying AutoFocus for intelligence on the file hash to determine its reputation and
associated campaigns, then blocking it via WildFire.
B. Using the file hash in a Cortex XDR 'Live Terminal' session to remotely delete the suspicious file from
affected endpoints.
C. Configuring a custom 'Exclusion' in Cortex XDR for this specific file hash to prevent future alerts.
D. Leveraging a Cortex XSOAR playbook to initiate a 'War Room' discussion with the incident response
team.
E. Submitting the file hash to the public VirusTotal API and awaiting a community verdict before taking
action.
Answer: A
Explanation:
Option A is the most effective. Cortex XDR integrates with AutoFocus, Palo Alto Networks' threat
intelligence service, which can provide immediate context and reputation for file hashes. If the hash is
known malicious, WildFire (Palo Alto Networks' cloud-delivered malware analysis service) can be used to
generate a signature and prevent execution, effectively blocking it across the network. This demonstrates
the seamless integration of file indicators for rapid threat intelligence lookup and prevention.
Option B is a reactive measure, and deleting a file without full context can be risky.
Option C is incorrect; you would want to block, not exclude, a malicious file.
Option D is a procedural step but doesn't directly leverage the file indicator for technical containment.
Option E relies on external, potentially slower public services.
10.During a forensic investigation using Cortex XDR, an analyst discovers a persistent backdoor
communicating with an external IP address (192.0. 2.100). The analyst needs to quickly determine if this
IP address is associated with known malicious activity and implement a preventative measure.
Which of the following actions, leveraging Cortex products, would be the most efficient and
comprehensive approach?
A. Manually add 192.0.2.100 to a custom Block List on the Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) and then
perform a 'Threat Vault' lookup in Cortex XDR.
B. Utilize Cortex XSOAR to orchestrate a lookup of 192 .0.2.100 against multiple integrated threat
intelligence feeds (e.g., Unit 42, AlienVault OT X), and if identified as malicious, automatically push a
dynamic block rule to all relevant NGFWs.
C. Initiate a 'Live Response' session in Cortex XDR on affected endpoints to block outbound connections
to 192.0.2.100 locally.
D. Perform a 'Packet Capture' in Cortex XDR for all traffic to and from 192.0.2.100 to gather more
evidence before taking any action.
E. Create a new 'Alert Rule' in Cortex XDR specifically for connections to 192.0.2. lee to monitor future
attempts.
Answer: B
Explanation:
9 / 18
Option B represents the most efficient and comprehensive approach. Cortex XSOARs orchestration
capabilities allow for automated enrichment of IP addresses using various threat intelligence sources.
More importantly, if confirmed malicious, XSOAR can automatically push block rules to NGFWs, ensuring
network-wide prevention.
Option A involves manual steps and doesn't leverage the full automation potential.
Option C is a per-endpoint solution, not network-wide.
Option D is an investigative step, not a preventative measure.
Option E is monitoring, not blocking.
11.A phishing email campaign successfully targets several employees, leading to credential harvesting.
The email contained a malicious link to hxxps://malicious-login.example.com/authenticate.php. A SOC
analyst wants to use Cortex products to proactively prevent further access to this domain and associated
URLs, and to identify any endpoints that might have already accessed it.
Which combination of Cortex capabilities would achieve this most effectively?
A. Option A
B. Option B
C. Option C
D. Option D
E. Option E
Answer: C
Explanation:
Option C is the most effective and comprehensive approach. EDLs are highly efficient for dynamic
blocking of domains on NGFWs, providing immediate network-wide prevention. Simultaneously, Cortex
XDR's XQL (Cortex Query Language) allows for powerful historical searches across endpoint telemetry
(DNS, network connections) to identify past access.
Option A's URL filtering profile might be too granular for the whole domain and 'Forensics' might not be
the most efficient for broad search.
Option B is good for enrichment and feed creation but doesn't explicitly cover the immediate blocking or
comprehensive historical search as effectively.
Option D is too broad and would disrupt legitimate traffic.
Option E is reactive and relies on user action, and 'Behavioral Threat Protection' might not catch a simple,
direct access to a known malicious domain as efficiently as direct blocking and XQL querying.
12.A sophisticated APT group is observed using a custom, polymorphic malware variant. The only
consistent indicator found across initial compromises is the use of a unique, newly registered domain
(evil-command-control.xyz) for C2 communications, which is not yet widely known to public threat
intelligence feeds. The security team needs to rapidly operationalize this domain indicator within their
Cortex ecosystem for both prevention and detection.
10 / 18
A. Submit the domain to WildFire for analysis and await a verdict, then manually create a custom URL
filtering profile on the NGFW for the domain. Use Cortex XDR 'Search' to look for DNS queries to the
domain.
B. Ingest the domain into a custom 'Threat Intelligence Feed' within Cortex XSOAR, which then
automatically pushes it to an External Dynamic List (EDL) on all Next-Generation Firewalls. Concurrently,
configure a new 'Analytics Rule' in Cortex XDR to alert on any network connections or DNS resolutions to
evil-command- control. xyz.
C. Leverage Cortex XDR's 'Indicator Management' to directly import the domain. This will automatically
block traffic to the domain and trigger alerts on existing connections.
D. Modify the existing 'DNS Security Policy' on the NGFW to block all queries to .xyz top-level domains,
and initiate a 'Live Terminal' session on affected endpoints to search for the domain in browser history.
E. Create a custom 'AutoFocus Profile' for the domain evil-command-control.xyz and then use Cortex
XSOAR to create a 'War Room' for manual investigation.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Option B is the most robust and automated solution. Ingesting the domain into a custom XSOAR threat
intelligence feed allows for centralized management and automated distribution to NGFW EDLs for
immediate network-wide blocking. Simultaneously, creating an Analytics Rule in XDR ensures continuous
detection and alerting on any attempts to connect to or resolve the domain on endpoints. This provides
both proactive prevention and reactive detection.
Option A is too manual and reactive.
Option C is incorrect; while XDR can use indicators, direct automatic blocking across the network based
solely on indicator import isn't its primary mechanism without an NGFW integration or specific policy.
Option D is overly broad and would cause legitimate service disruption.
Option E is an investigative step and doesn't provide automated prevention or detection.
13.A security analyst needs to develop a comprehensive detection and response strategy for a zero-day
exploit leveraginga specific malicious URL pattern (e.g.,https: // [ random _ subdomain]. malicious
-c2 ..exe) that bypasses traditional signature-based detection. The organization uses Palo Alto Networks
NGFWs with URL Filtering, WildFire, and Cortex XDR.
Which of the following code-driven approaches, incorporating different indicator types, would offer the
most robust and adaptive defense?
A)
11 / 18
B)
C)
D)
E)
A. Option A
B. Option B
C. Option C
D. Option D
E. Option E
Answer: E
Explanation:
Option E provides the most comprehensive and adaptive defense against a zero-day exploit leveraging a
URL pattern, integrating multiple Cortex product capabilities. Custom URL Category on NGFW: Provides
immediate network-level blocking for the core malicious domain and any subdomains, regardless of the
specific path, using URL filtering. This is a fundamental layer of defense. WildFire Dynamic Updates:
Addresses the 'polymorphic malware variant' aspect. Even if the file hash changes, WildFire's advanced
analysis (including static, dynamic, and bare-metal analysis) can identify the malicious nature of the
payload based on its behavior, leading to a dynamic signature update that prevents future executions.
Cortex XDR Behavioral Threat Protection (BTP): Crucial for zero-day exploits. BTP doesn't rely on
signatures but rather on detecting anomalous and malicious behaviors (e.g., suspicious process
spawning, unusual file writes, privilege escalation) that are indicative of an attack, even if the specific URL
or file is new. Cortex XQL Scheduled Query: This provides proactive hunting and continuous monitoring
for the URL pattern. While NGFW URL filtering blocks, the XQL query specifically targets connections
12 / 18
matching the exploit's URL pattern and correlates them with suspicious process activities on endpoints,
offering deep visibility and alerting even if initial network blocks are bypassed or for historical lookups.
Cortex XSOAR Playbook for Response: Automates the incident response, including sandboxing for
further analysis, blocking detected file hashes (file indicator), and isolating the endpoint, ensuring rapid
containment and remediation.
Option A and B are incomplete.
Option C is less comprehensive in its automation and integration.
Option D focuses too narrowly on DNS and Live Terminal.
14.A large enterprise is experiencing a targeted attack where threat actors are using novel C2 domains
that rapidly change (Domain Generation Algorithms - DGAs) and employ advanced obfuscation
techniques. Traditional URL filtering and static domain blocklists are proving ineffective. The security team
utilizes Cortex XDR, Cortex XSOAR, and has access to a specialized threat intelligence feed from Unit 42
that provides DGA-detected domains and associated malicious file hashes.
How should the enterprise leverage these resources to effectively counter this threat, focusing on
automation and dynamic response?
A. Manually update the NGFW's custom URL category with each new DGA domain identified by Unit 42.
Use Cortex XDR 'Live Terminal' to periodically check DNS caches on endpoints for these domains.
B.
C. Configure Cortex XDR's 'Local Analysis' to identify DGA patterns in real-time on endpoints. If detected,
automatically quarantine the affected file and user. This bypasses network-level controls.
D. Create a custom 'Behavioral Threat Protection' rule in Cortex XDR specifically for detecting unusual
DNS queries from processes that do not normally make network connections. Forward these alerts to a
Splunk SIEM for manual correlation.
E. Subscribe to a commercial threat intelligence feed for DGA domains directly in the NGFW. For file
hashes, configure WildFire to automatically generate signatures for all executable files seen on the
network.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Option B provides the most comprehensive and automated solution for countering rapidly changing DGA
domains and associated file hashes using the full spectrum of Cortex products. Cortex XSOAR as the
Orchestration Hub: It's ideal for ingesting dynamic threat intelligence feeds (like the Unit 42 DGA feed).
Automated EDL Updates: XSOAR can automatically push newly identified DGA domains to an EDL on
NGFWs. This ensures network-level blocking of C2 communications in near real-time, adapting to the
13 / 18
DGAAutomated XDR Prevention Policy Updates: For associated file hashes, XSOAR can
programmatically update Cortex XDR's prevention policies. This means endpoints will immediately block
the execution of those specific malicious files, addressing the file indicator type. Proactive XQL Hunting:
The XSOAR playbook can then trigger XQL queries in Cortex XDR. This allows for historical lookups
across endpoint telemetry (DNS queries, network connections, file events) to identify if any endpoints
have already interacted with the newly identified DGA domains or executed the malicious files. This
addresses both domain and file indicator types for detection and post-compromise investigation.
Automated Endpoint Isolation: If XQL queries identify compromised endpoints, XSOAR can automatically
initiate an XDR isolation action, rapidly containing the threat. This is a critical automated response step.
Option A is too manual.
Option C focuses only on endpoint and might miss network-level prevention.
Option D is a detection method but lacks automated prevention and comprehensive response.
Option E relies on a generic commercial feed (not the specialized Unit 42 feed mentioned) and WildFire
for all executables (which is standard practice but not specific to DGA and file hash automation).
15. A Zero Trust architecture is being implemented across an organization using Palo Alto Networks
products. A critical component is the dynamic creation and enforcement of micro-segmentation policies
based on real-time threat intelligence. Consider a scenario where a new, highly evasive malware variant
(file hash abc123def456) is detected communicating with a specific, ephemeral IP address (203.0.113.5o)
and attempting to exfiltrate data to a suspicious domain (dataleak.biz) via a unique URL
(https://dataleak.biz/upload?id=user_data&token-xYz). Describe how Cortex XSOAR, integrated with
Cortex XDR and NGFWs, would dynamically leverage these distinct indicator types (file, IP, domain, URL)
to enforce a Zero Trust posture and automate threat containment. Select ALL correct actions.
A. Option A
B. Option B
C. Option C
D. Option D
E. Option E
Answer: B,C,D
Explanation:
This question assesses the ability to integrate multiple indicator types dynamically across Cortex products
for Zero Trust enforcement.
A (Incorrect): While XSOAR can integrate with NGFWs, updating an Anti-Malware profile with a specific
file hash is not a typical dynamic or real-time action for NGFWs. NGFWs primarily use WildFire for
file-based prevention, which receives dynamic updates from Palo Alto Networks. XDR is better suited for
endpoint file blocking.
14 / 18
B (Correct): This is a prime example of dynamic micro-segmentation. XSOAR can automatically create or
update NGFW security policies. Using dynamic address groups for the ephemeral IP allows for flexible
blocking as the IP changes. This directly enforces Zero Trust by limiting network access based on threat
intelligence (IP indicator).
C (Correct): This is a core capability of Cortex XDR. Upon detection of a malicious file (file hash indicator),
XDR's EDR functions will automatically quarantine the file and isolate the endpoint. This is crucial for
preventing lateral movement and containing the threat at the host level, aligning with Zero Trust principles
of 'never trust, always verify'.
D (Correct): XSOAR can effectively operationalize domain and URL indicators. Automatically adding the
domain to an EDL consumed by the NGFW's URL Filtering Profile provides immediate network-wide
blocking of communication to the suspicious domain. Additionally, adding the full URL to XDR's 'Custom
Indicator' list enhances endpoint-specific detection, allowing XDR to alert or preventaccess to that exact
URL pattern, even if the domain is partially allowed for other purposes. This comprehensive approach
covers both network and endpoint layers for URL/domain indicators.
E (Incorrect): While 'Live Terminal' can be used for remediation, relying on manual PowerShell scripts and
local hosts file updates is not scalable, automated, or aligned with dynamic Zero Trust enforcement for an
enterprise. XDR's built-in prevention policies and XSOAR's orchestration are the correct tools.
16.A security incident escalates to a full-scale breach investigation. Logs from Cortex Data Lake reveal
suspicious outbound connections to multiple, previously unknown IP addresses (198.51.100.1,
198.51.100.2, 198.51.100.3) originating from internal compromised hosts, along with a newly observed
file hash (d41d8cd98fOOb2θ4e98θ0998ecf8427e) associated with a dropper. The incident response
team needs to quickly identify all historical instances of these indicators, determine their reputation, and
deploy countermeasures across a global network.
Which programmatic solution, combining XQL, Cortex XSOAR, and NGFW APIs, offers the most efficient
and scalable approach?
A.
15 / 18
B. Run multiple XQL queries manually in Cortex XDR for each IP address and the file hash. Then,
manually add each IP to a Custom URL Category on the NGFW, and manually create a WildFire custom
signature for the file hash.
C. Utilize Cortex XSOAR's 'IOC Feed' integration to ingest the IPs and file hash. Configure this feed to
automatically update the firewall's 'Anti-Spyware' profile for IPs and 'Threat Prevention' profile for the file
hash, then generate a report from Cortex Data Lake.
D. Deploy a 'Live Response' script via Cortex XDR to all endpoints to search for the file hash and delete it.
For IPs, rely on DNS Security to block access to resolved malicious domains, not direct IP blocking.
E. Create a new 'Analytics Rule' in Cortex XDR to alert on future occurrences of the IPs and file hash.
Then, email the list of IPs and the hash to the network team for manual firewall rule creation.
Answer: A
Explanation:
Option A provides the most efficient, scalable, and automated programmatic solution leveraging the
indicated Cortex products and their integration capabilities:
1. XQL Query for Historical Lookup: The XQL query shown is powerful and scalable for querying Cortex
Data Lake (which underpins Cortex XDR's data) for both IP addresses and file hashes across a specified
time range. This efficiently identifies all historical instances.
2. Enrichment via AutoFocus/Unit 42: Cortex XSOAR (through its 'ip' and 'file' commands, which abstract
integrations like AutoFocus and Unit 42) can instantly fetch reputation and context for the indicators. This
is crucial for confirming their maliciousness and understanding the threat.
3. Dynamic Blocking (NGFW and XDR): IPs: XSOAR can dynamically update an External Dynamic List
(EDL) on the NGFW via API. EDLs are highly efficient for blocking large numbers of IPs without manual
configuration or commit operations, ensuring network-wide prevention. File Hash: XSOAR can
programmatically update Cortex XDR's prevention policies (e.g., 'Malware Prevention' policy) to block the
execution of the specific file hash across all managed endpoints. This provides endpoint-level prevention.
4. Automated Incident Creation/Response: The script triggers an incident in XSOAR if historical data is
16 / 18
found, allowing for further automated or manual investigation and remediation via playbooks.
Option B is too manual and not scalable.
Option C's method of updating Anti-Spyware/Threat Prevention profiles for specific IPs/hashes via
generic IOC feeds might not be as granular or flexible as EDLs and XDR prevention policies, and it lacks
the comprehensive XQL historical lookup and automated response.
Option D is reactive (deletion) and focuses only on endpoints for the file, and its IP blocking strategy is
indirect.
Option E is reactive and completely manual for network countermeasures.
17.An internal application developer inadvertently embeds hardcoded credentials within a file (SHA256:
f8d7c2e1a9bOc3d4e5f6a7bgc9dØe1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9bØc1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8) that is then committed to
a public GitHub repository. This file also contains a URL (https://internal-api.example.com/sensitive_data)
pointing to a highly confidential internal API. The security team needs to leverage Cortex products to
identify if this file has been processed or accessed internally, prevent external access to the sensitive URL,
and ensure the file's exposure is contained.
Which specific combination of Cortex capabilities would achieve this with the highest fidelity and
automation, considering both file and URL indicator types?
A. Manually create an XDR 'Custom Indicator' for the file hash, then conduct a 'Live Terminal' session on
developer machines to search for the file. For the URL, configure a new 'URL Filtering Profile' on the
NGFW to block the full URL, and manually distribute this policy.
B.
C. Upload the file to WildFire for analysis. If identified as sensitive, WildFire will automatically block its
execution on endpoints. For the URL, rely on the NGFW's 'Data Filtering' profile to prevent exfiltration if
the sensitive data passes through the firewall.
D. Configure a 'File Blocking Profile' on the NGFW to prevent the transfer of files with the specific hash
over the network. For the URL, instruct the network team to manually configure a 'Deny' rule on the
firewall for traffic destined to internal-api.example.com.
E. Create a 'Behavioral Threat Protection' rule in Cortex XDR to detect processes accessing URLs
matching the pattern 'internal-api.example.com'. For the file, conduct an 'Investigation' in Cortex XDR
starting from the file hash.
Answer: B
Explanation:
17 / 18
Option B provides the most comprehensive, automated, and high-fidelity solution by effectively combining
Cortex XSOAR for orchestration with Cortex XDR for endpoint visibility and NGFWs for network control,
utilizing both file and URL indicator types.
1. XQL Query for Detection: The XQL query efficiently searches Cortex Data Lake (XDRs backend) for
historical and real-time instances of the specific file hash and connections to the exact sensitive URL. This
addresses the need to 'identify if this file has been processed or accessed internally'.
2. NGFW URL Blocking: Cortex XSOAR can programmatically interact with the NGFW to add the
sensitive URL to a block list (e.g., a custom URL category or an EDL used by a URL Filtering Profile). This
immediately 'prevents external access to the sensitive URL' at the network perimeter.
3. XDR File Prevention: XSOAR can update Cortex XDR's prevention policies to block the execution or
processing of the specific file hash on endpoints. This ensures 'the file's exposure is contained' at the
endpoint level, preventing further internal propagation or execution of the sensitive file.
4. Automated Alerting/lncident Creation: If the XQL query finds matches, XSOAR can automatically create
an incident, streamlining the incident response process.
Option A is too manual.
Option C (WildFire) is for malware analysis and blocking, not typically for sensitive data exposure unless
the file is also malicious, and 'Data Filtering' might be reactive.
Option D is partly correct for network file blocking but is too manual for the URL and lacks endpoint
detection.
Option E is more focused on detection and doesn't offer the immediate, programmatic prevention
capabilities that B does.
18.A Security Operations Center (SOC) analyst is investigating a surge of highly evasive malware
samples targeting their organization. The current strategy involves submitting suspicious files to a public
sandbox and querying VirusTotal for initial insights. However, the malware consistently bypasses
detection, and detailed behavioral analysis is lacking.
To significantly enhance their detection capabilities against zero-day threats and obtain deeper,
proprietary behavioral intelligence,which of the following actions would be most effective and aligned with
Palo Alto Networks best practices?
A. Increase the frequency of VirusTotal API queries and integrate more community-contributed YARA
rules.
B. Implement an on-premise WildFire appliance or subscribe to WildFire cloud for dynamic analysis,
leveraging its proprietary threat intelligence feed.
C. Rely solely on open-source intelligence feeds and develop custom scripts for static analysis of the
malware.
D. Purchase commercial antivirus software with signature-based detection, as it is more effective against
evasive malware.
E. Focus on network traffic analysis using NetFlow data, as file analysis is often insufficient for advanced
threats.
Answer: B
Explanation:
WildFire, especially in its cloud or on-premise appliance form, provides a dynamic analysis sandbox
environment that is specifically designed to detonate and analyze unknown and evasive malware. Unlike
public sandboxes or solely relying on VirusTotal (which primarily aggregates public antivirus detections
18 / 18
and some sandboxing but lacks proprietary deep analysis), WildFire offers deep behavioral analysis, call
stack analysis, and generates unique threat intelligence specific to Palo Alto Networks' ecosystem, crucial
for identifying zero-day and highly evasive threats. This aligns perfectly with Palo Alto Networks best
practices for advanced threat prevention.
19.During an incident response engagement, a forensic investigator discovers a persistent threat actor
using a custom command-and- control (C2) protocol over port 53 (DNS). The existing SIEM logs show
only generic DNS queries.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the adversary's TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures),
including their C2 infrastructure, exploit development, and motivation, and to proactively block future
attacks, which combination of resources would be most beneficial?
A. VirusTotal for file hash lookups and open-source intelligence blogs for general threat trends.
B. WildFire for malware detonation and real-time signature generation, coupled with extensive Unit 42
research reports and adversary playbooks.
C. Passive DNS reconnaissance and WHOIS lookups for the C2 domains.
D. Employing a commercial Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solution without integrating threat
intelligence feeds.
E. Deep packet inspection of all network traffic and manual reverse engineering of all suspicious binaries.
Answer: B
Explanation:
WildFire is excellent for understanding the technical aspects of malware, including its C2 communication.
However, for a holistic view of the adversary's TTPs, motivations, and broader campaigns, Unit 42's
detailed threat research, adversary playbooks, and intelligence reports are invaluable. Unit 42 focuses on
in-depth analysis of threat actors, their campaigns, and the broader threat landscape, providing strategic
and tactical intelligence that complements WildFire's technical output. This combination allows for both
technical understanding of the attack and strategic intelligence on the adversary.
	Palo Alto SecOps-Pro Exam
	 Palo Alto Networks Security Operations Profession
	https://www.passquestion.com/secops-pro.html 
	Pass SecOps-Pro Exam with PassQuestion SecOps-Pro 
	https