Pass the Cisco Certified Specialist - Threat Hunting and Defending 300-220 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

The correct answer isdetecting abnormal authentication behavior across VPN and cloud access. This outcome targetsbehavioral detection, which sits significantly higher on the Pyramid of Pain than static indicators.

Options A and C rely on domains and hashes, which attackers can trivially change. Option D is a response action, not a hunting outcome.

Credential misuse is one of themost common initial access vectors, especially in cloud and remote-access environments. Detecting abnormal authentication behavior—such as:

Impossible travel

Unusual login times

Excessive failed logins

Geographic anomalies

forces attackers tochange how they operate, not just what infrastructure they use.

Cisco tools such as:

Secure Network Analytics

Secure Endpoint

Secure Firewall

Identity telemetry via VPN and SSO

enable this higher-fidelity detection approach. This aligns directly withCBRTHD blueprint objectivesfocused onidentity-based threat hunting.

Therefore,Option Bis correct.

The correct answer isdocument findings and operationalize detections. In Cisco’s threat hunting methodology, confirmation of malicious activity isnot the end of the hunt.

The most critical next step is to:

Document attacker behavior

Identify detection gaps

Create or improve SIEM, EDR, or NDR detection rules

This ensures the organization does not repeatedly rediscover the same threat. Options C and D are incident response and communication activities, not threat hunting lifecycle steps. Option A skips the crucial improvement phase.

TheCBRTHD blueprintstrongly emphasizes:

Continuous improvement

Feedback loops

Detection engineering

By operationalizing findings, the SOC increases maturity and forces adversaries to change tactics.

Therefore,Option Bis correct.

The correct answer isinternal systems authenticating to multiple hosts using SMB in a short time. This behavior is a classic indicator ofcredential-based lateral movement.

When attackers obtain valid credentials, they often move laterally by:

Accessing administrative shares (e.g., C$, ADMIN$)

Using SMB, WMI, WinRM, or RDP

Authenticating to multiple systems rapidly

Cisco Secure Network Analytics excels at identifyingeast-west traffic anomalies, which are central to lateral movement detection. A single host authenticating to many internal systems over SMB in a short time deviates strongly from normal user behavior.

Option A relates to external traffic, not lateral movement. Option C may indicate command-and-control or staging but not lateral movement. Option D aligns more with beaconing behavior.

This technique aligns withMITRE ATT&CK – Lateral Movementand is explicitly covered in theCBRTHD blueprintunder network-based threat hunting.

Thus,Option Bis the correct answer.

The correct answer isreduction in attacker dwell time. Dwell time measures how long an attacker remains undetected in the environment.

As threat hunting maturity increases:

Detection becomes faster

Behavioral coverage improves

Attackers are identified earlier in the kill chain

Metrics such as alert volume or blocked IPs (Options A and D) do not reflect effectiveness and may even indicate excessive noise. Option B measures inputs, not outcomes.

Cisco’sCBRTHD blueprintfocuses onoutcomes, not activity. Reduced dwell time demonstrates:

Effective hunting

Better visibility

Stronger detection engineering

This metric directly correlates with reduced breach impact and improved resilience.

Therefore,Option Cis the correct and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer isUse Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to block malicious domains. The key detail in this scenario is that the endpoint is makingcontinuous outbound TCP connections to a known Command-and-Control (C2) server over port 80, which strongly indicates active malware beaconing or payload retrieval.

Deep Packet Inspection enables security controls—such as next-generation firewalls or network security analytics platforms—to inspectapplication-layer content, including HTTP headers, URLs, domains, and payload characteristics. This allows defenders to block C2 communicationbased on domain names, URL patterns, or behavioral signatures, even if attackers change IP addresses. Since C2 infrastructure is frequently rotated, IP-based blocking alone is insufficient for long-term mitigation.

Option A (browser extension deny list) may help prevent a specific initial infection vector, but it does not addresspost-compromise C2 traffic, especially if malware communicates independently of the browser. Option B (antivirus quarantine) is reactive and limited by signature coverage; modern malware often evades AV detection. Option D (IDS) can detect similar connections but typically does notblocktraffic unless integrated with an IPS or firewall, making it less effective for mitigation.

From a professional threat hunting and SOC standpoint, blocking C2 communication at thenetwork layer using DPIis a high-impact defensive control. It disrupts attacker command channels, prevents data exfiltration, and buys time for endpoint remediation and forensic investigation.

This aligns withMITRE ATT&CK – Command and Control (TA0011)mitigation strategies and reflects a mature security posture:detect at the endpoint, disrupt at the network. Therefore, optionCis the most effective action to mitigate similar connections in the future.

The correct answer isstandardizing hunt documentation and hypotheses. Mature threat hunting programs move beyond ad-hoc, intuition-driven efforts.

Standardization enables:

Knowledge sharing

Consistent methodology

Repeatable hunts

Easier onboarding of new analysts

Option A and B support operations but do not improve hunting maturity. Option D is unrealistic and risky.

By documenting hypotheses, data sources, queries, findings, and outcomes, organizations institutionalize knowledge and continuously improve detection capabilities.

This is a defining characteristic ofhigh-maturity threat hunting programs.

Therefore, optionCis correct.

The correct answer isB. Using "SecurityScan/2.5" to access all /admin endpoints. This log entry most clearly aligns with anauthorized security assessmentactivity designed to test weaknesses previously exploited during a breach.

Authorized security assessments—such as penetration tests or red team exercises—are typicallycontrolled, scoped, and intentional. They focus on validating security controls by probing sensitive areas (like administrative interfaces) while avoiding destructive actions. The user-agent string"SecurityScan/2.5"strongly suggests a purpose-built security scanning tool, which is commonly used by internal security teams or third-party assessors during sanctioned testing.

Option A is incorrect because performing login attempts at scale usingleaked credentialswould constitute real-world malicious behavior unless explicitly approved and tightly controlled. Even in authorized tests, credential stuffing with known leaked credentials is highly sensitive and would be explicitly documented; the wording here implies adversary behavior rather than assessment activity.

Option C is clearly malicious and inappropriate for an authorized assessment. Executing ashutdown commandis a destructive action and would violate standard rules of engagement for professional security testing. Such activity would be classified as adversarial exploitation, not a controlled delivery method.

Option D represents benign reconnaissance. A genericweb crawler gathering public-facing informationis typically associated with search engines or basic reconnaissance and does not directly test weaknesses related to a prior breach. While reconnaissance is part of assessments, it is not a strong indicator of a targeted, authorized delivery method.

From a threat hunting and SOC perspective, recognizing authorized assessment activity is critical to avoid misclassifying tests as incidents. Indicators include identifiable scanner user agents, predictable request patterns, limited scope targeting (such as /admin paths), and non-destructive behavior. This scenario reinforces an important operational lesson:context, intent, and tooling matter. Among the options,SecurityScan/2.5 targeting administrative endpointsbest reflects a legitimate, authorized security assessment delivery method.

The correct answer isformulating a hypothesis to search for credential misuse without alerts. This activity is the defining characteristic ofthreat hunting.

Threat hunting isproactive and hypothesis-driven, meaning analysts intentionally search for attacker behavior that has not yet triggered alerts. Detection engineering, on the other hand, focuses on building and tuning automated rules that respond to known patterns.

Options A, B, and D all representreactive or preventative security operations. They rely on known indicators or alerts and are foundational but insufficient against stealthy adversaries who abuse valid credentials and native tools.

Cisco’sCBRTHD blueprintexplicitly emphasizes hypothesis-based hunting as a core competency. Hunters ask questions like:

“If credentials were stolen, how would that look in our telemetry?”

“What behavior would indicate lateral movement without malware?”

This approach aligns with detectingIndicators of Attack (IOAs)and operating higher on thePyramid of Pain, forcing adversaries to change tactics instead of infrastructure.

Therefore,Option Cis the correct and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer issmall, periodic outbound connections to a rare destination. Beaconing is a hallmark of command-and-control (C2) communication, particularly in stealthy malware campaigns.

Attackers design C2 channels to:

Minimize bandwidth usage

Blend into normal traffic

Avoid triggering threshold-based alerts

As a result, beaconing traffic often consists oflow-volume, regular intervalsconnecting to the same external destination. Cisco Secure Network Analytics is purpose-built to detect this type ofbehavioral anomalyusing NetFlow and telemetry analysis.

Option A suggests data exfiltration rather than beaconing. Option B is too broad and unspecific. Option D relates to denial-of-service or scanning activity, not C2.

This hunting technique aligns withMITRE ATT&CK – Command and Controland is explicitly covered in theCBRTHD blueprintunder network-based threat hunting. Detecting beaconing behavior forces attackers to significantly alter their communication strategy, increasing their operational cost.

Therefore,Option Cis the correct and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer iscorrelating attacker behavior across multiple MITRE ATT&CK techniques. This approach focuses onbehavioral detection, which is the cornerstone of effective threat hunting and advanced security operations.

Attackers who abuse legitimate administrative tools—often referred to asliving-off-the-land techniques—intentionally avoid malware-based detections. File hashes, signatures, and known indicators provide minimal value because there may beno malicious files at all. Options A and D sit at the lowest levels of thePyramid of Pain, making them easy for adversaries to evade.

By correlating behavior across multiple ATT&CK techniques—such as credential access, lateral movement, privilege escalation, and command execution—defenders detecthowthe attacker operates rather thanwhat toolsthey use. This forces adversaries to fundamentally change tradecraft, which is costly, risky, and time-consuming.

Option C improves visibility but does not inherently raise attacker cost. Threat intelligence feeds are reactive and often lag behind active campaigns.

From a professional threat hunting perspective, correlating multiple low-signal behaviors into ahigh-confidence attack patternis how mature SOCs detect stealthy intrusions. This method also supports scalable detection engineering, improved alert fidelity, and reduced false positives.

This strategy directly aligns with higher tiers of theThreat Hunting Maturity Modeland the top of thePyramid of Pain, making optionBthe correct answer.