Pass the Cisco CyberOps Professional 300-215 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

The exhibit shows multipleARP reply packetswith the same IP addresses (192.168.51.105and192.168.51.201) being mapped todifferent MAC addresses, which triggers the message: "duplicate use of [IP] detected". This is a strong indicator of anARP spoofing(or poisoning) attack.

ARP spoofing occurs when a malicious actor sends falsified ARP messages to associate their MAC address with the IP address of another host. This misleads other devices on the network and allows interception or redirection of traffic.

The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide specifically recommendsconfiguring port securityon switches as a method tomitigate ARP spoofing, by limiting the number of MAC addresses allowed per port or statically assigning legitimate MAC addresses to switch ports.

Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly AMP for Endpoints) offers features like:

File trajectory: to track file behavior and spread across endpoints.

Orbital Advanced Search: for querying endpoint data to detect threats in real time.

The string in the exhibit is a classic example of Base64 encoding. Base64 is used to encode binary data into ASCII characters, making it suitable for transmitting data over media that are designed to deal with textual data. It typically ends with one or two equal signs=(padding), which this string does. This format is commonly seen in obfuscated payloads or malware communications in the wild.

The hexadecimal representation in the exhibit does not match the Base64 encoding format, which uses ASCII characters (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, +, /) and often includes padding with=. This string is clearly hex and is more aligned withCharcode, where hexadecimal values represent individual characters based on ASCII values.

The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide refers to such encodings during forensic analysis and emphasizes identifying patterns in memory dumps, payloads, or logs. "Security professionals often decode hexadecimal strings to reveal ASCII representations, particularly when inspecting encoded payloads or character obfuscation techniques used in malware".

According to theCyberOps Technologies (CBRFIR) 300-215 study guidecurriculum, when analyzing suspicious behavior—especially when scripts or shell commands are executed from applications like Word (which is uncommon)—the encoded PowerShell payload must be decoded to determine if malicious intent is present. Deobfuscation is a critical step in identifying command-and-control behavior, persistence, or malware execution paths.

—

The alert clearly identifies ET SCAN DirBuster Web App Scan in Progress, referencingSID 2008186, which is a Snort signature that specifically detectsDirBusteractivity. DirBuster is a well-known tool used for brute-forcing hidden directories and files on web servers.

The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide and OWASP both identifydirectory brute-forcingas a reconnaissance technique to find unprotected or misconfigured endpoints on web applications, typically prior to launching deeper attacks.

Therefore, the correct interpretation of the alert is:

C. brute-force attack against directories and files on the target webserver.

From the Wireshark capture:

A (iraniansk.com): This domain isnot a known legitimate resourceand is hosting a suspicious file named “Fy.exe,” strongly indicative of amalware distribution domain.

D (Fy.exe): TheContent-Disposition: attachment; filename="Fy.exe"header explicitly signals abinary executabledownload, a key indicator in Emotet campaigns.

WhileContent-Type: application/octet-stream(E) is typical of binary data transfers, it isnot uniqueto malware and cannot by itself serve as a strong IoC. Thenginx server (B)andcookie/hash string (C)similarly do not uniquely indicate compromise.

The scenario describes an attack vector where insiders or malicious actors useremovable media (USB drives)to introduce malware, which then connects to external sources to exfiltrate data and compromise systems.

Option B addresses the human factor and technological prevention. The guide stresses the need for training to ensure users are aware of social engineering and removable media risks. Blocking the use of USB drives at a system level further minimizes attack vectors.

Option E, usingMulti-Factor Authentication (MFA), provides an additional layer of defense. Even if credentials are stolen, MFA can prevent the attacker from accessing sensitive internal resources without the second authentication factor.

These controls align with defense-in-depth strategies recommended in the Cisco CyberOps Associate curriculum to combat insider threats and external unauthorized access.

According to theCyberOps Technologies (CBRFIR) 300-215 study guidecurriculum, command-and-control (C2) communication is a strong indicator that a system has already been compromised and is actively under the control of an attacker. Sudden outbound traffic to high-risk regions and resolution of known malicious domains are high-confidence signs of an active threat. Therefore, prioritizing detection and disruption of this outbound traffic is critical to prevent further damage or data exfiltration.

While monitoring vulnerability exploitation (B) and gathering port scan data (D) are also valuable, they are more preventive or forensic in nature. The most immediate threat—and therefore the top priority—is stopping active C2 communications.

Input validation (A) is a critical countermeasure to defend against command injection and related vulnerabilities, as discussed in the Cisco guide. Proper validation ensures that malicious commands or payloads are not accepted or executed by the web application.

File integrity monitoring (E) helps detect unauthorized changes such as log deletion or binary modification, making it a crucial tool in recognizing and investigating tampering attempts.Blocking port 443 (B) would disable HTTPS and is not a practical solution. Antivirus (C) does not prevent form-based application attacks, and merely updating the application (D) may not be sufficient without addressing the underlying input validation flaw.

—