Pass the Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist FCSS_SOC_AN-7.4 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Understanding FortiAnalyzer Roles:

FortiAnalyzer can operate in two primary modes: collector mode and analyzer mode.

Collector Mode: Gathers logs from various devices and forwards them to another FortiAnalyzer operating in analyzer mode for detailed analysis.

Analyzer Mode: Provides detailed log analysis, reporting, and incident management.

Steps to Configure FortiAnalyzer as a Collector Device:

A. Enable Log Compression:

While enabling log compression can help save storage space, it is not a mandatory step specifically required for configuring FortiAnalyzer in collector mode.

Not selected as it is optional and not directly related to the collector configuration process.

B. Configure Log Forwarding to a FortiAnalyzer in Analyzer Mode:

Essential for ensuring that logs collected by the collector FortiAnalyzer are sent to the analyzer FortiAnalyzer for detailed processing.

Selected as it is a critical step in configuring a FortiAnalyzer as a collector device.

Step 1: Access the FortiAnalyzer interface and navigate to log forwarding settings.

Step 2: Configure log forwarding by specifying the IP address and necessary credentials of the FortiAnalyzer in analyzer mode.

Understanding the Issue:

The custom event handler for detecting SMTP reconnaissance activities is generating a large number of events.

This high volume of events is overwhelming the notification system, leading to potential alert fatigue and inefficiency in incident response.

Event Handler Configuration:

Event handlers are configured to trigger alerts based on specific criteria.

The frequency and volume of these alerts can be controlled by adjusting the trigger conditions.

Possible Solutions:

A. Increase the trigger count so that it identifies and reduces the count triggered by a particular group:

By increasing the trigger count, you ensure that the event handler only generates alerts after a higher threshold of activity is detected.

This reduces the number of events generated and helps prevent overwhelming the notification system.

Selected as it effectively manages the volume of generated events.

B. Disable the custom event handler because it is not working as expected:

Disabling the event handler is not a practical solution as it would completely stop monitoring for SMTP reconnaissance activities.

Not selected as it does not address the issue of fine-tuning the event generation.

C. Decrease the time range that the custom event handler covers during the attack:

Reducing the time range might help in some cases, but it could also lead to missing important activities if the attack spans a longer period.

Not selected as it could lead to underreporting of significant events.

D. Increase the log field value so that it looks for more unique field values when it creates the event:

Adjusting the log field value might refine the event criteria, but it does not directly control the volume of alerts.

Not selected as it is not the most effective way to manage event volume.

Implementation Steps:

Step 1: Access the event handler configuration in FortiAnalyzer.

Step 2: Locate the trigger count setting within the custom event handler for SMTP reconnaissance.

Step 3: Increase the trigger count to a higher value that balances alert sensitivity and volume.

Step 4: Save the configuration and monitor the event generation to ensure it aligns with expected levels.

Conclusion:

By increasing the trigger count, you can effectively reduce the number of events generated by the custom event handler, preventing the notification system from being overwhelmed.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Event Handlers and Configuration FortiAnalyzer Administration Guide

Best Practices for Event Management Fortinet Knowledge Base

By increasing the trigger count in the custom event handler, you can manage the volume of generated events and prevent the notification system from being overwhelmed.

Understanding Incident Creation in FortiAnalyzer:

FortiAnalyzer allows for the creation of incidents to track and manage security events.

Incidents can be created both automatically and manually based on detected events and predefined rules.

Analyzing the Methods:

Option A:Using a connector action typically involves integrating with other systems or services and is not a direct method for creating incidents on FortiAnalyzer.

Option B:Incidents can be created manually on the Event Monitor page by selecting relevant events and creating incidents from those events.

Option C:While playbooks can automate responses and actions, the direct creation of incidents is usually managed through event handlers or manual processes.

Option D:Custom event handlers can be configured to trigger incident creation based on specific events or conditions, automating the process within FortiAnalyzer.

Conclusion:

The two valid methods for creating an incident on FortiAnalyzer are manually on the Event Monitor page and using a custom event handler.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Incident Management in FortiAnalyzer.

FortiAnalyzer Event Handling and Customization Guides.

Understanding the Playbook Configuration:

The "Malicious File Detect" playbook is designed to create an incident when a malicious file detection event is triggered.

The playbook includes tasks such asAttach_Data_To_Incident,Create Incident, andGet Events.

Analyzing the Playbook Execution:

The exhibit shows that theCreate Incidenttask has failed, and theAttach_Data_To_Incidenttask has also failed.

TheGet Eventstask succeeded, indicating that it was able to retrieve event data.

Reviewing Raw Logs:

The raw logs indicate an error related to parsing input in theincident_operator.pyfile.

The error traceback suggests that the task was expecting a specific input format (likely a name or number) but received an incorrect data format.

Identifying the Source of the Failure:

TheCreate Incidenttask failure is the root cause since it did not proceed correctly due to incorrect input format.

TheAttach_Data_To_Incidenttask subsequently failed because it depends on the successful creation of an incident.

Conclusion:

The primary reason for the playbook execution failure is that theCreate Incidenttask received an incorrect data format, which was not a name or number as expected.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Playbook and Task Configuration.

Error handling and debugging practices in playbook execution.

Understanding the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix:

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations.

Each tactic in the matrix represents the "why" of an attack technique, while each technique represents "how" an adversary achieves a tactic.

Analyzing the Provided Exhibit:

The exhibit shows part of the MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise matrix as displayed on FortiAnalyzer.

The focus is on technique T1071 (Application Layer Protocol), which has subtechniques labeled T1071.001, T1071.002, T1071.003, and T1071.004.

Each subtechnique specifies a different type of application layer protocol used for Command and Control (C2):

T1071.001 Web Protocols

T1071.002 File Transfer Protocols

T1071.003 Mail Protocols

T1071.004 DNS

Identifying Key Points:

Subtechniques under T1071:There are four subtechniques listed under the primary technique T1071, confirming that statement B is true.

Event Handlers for T1071:FortiAnalyzer includes event handlers for monitoring various tactics and techniques. The presence of event handlers for tactic T1071 suggests active monitoring and alerting for these specific subtechniques, confirming that statement C is true.

Misconceptions Clarified:

Statement A (four techniques under tactic T1071) is incorrect because T1071 is a single technique with four subtechniques.

Statement D (15 events associated with the tactic) is misleading. The number 15 refers to the techniques under the Application Layer Protocol, not directly related to the number of events.

Conclusion:

The accurate interpretation of the exhibit confirms that there are four subtechniques under technique T1071 and that there are event handlers covering tactic T1071.

References:

MITRE ATT&CK Framework documentation.

FortiAnalyzer Event Handling and MITRE ATT&CK Integration guides.

Understanding the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics:

The MITRE ATT&CK framework categorizes various tactics and techniques used by adversaries to achieve their objectives.

Tactics represent the objectives of an attack, while techniques represent how those objectives are achieved.

Analyzing the Incident Report:

Phishing Email Campaign:This tactic is commonly used for gaining initial access to a system.

Malicious Link and RAT Download:Clicking a malicious link and downloading a RAT is indicative of establishing initial access.

Remote Access Trojan (RAT):Once installed, the RAT allows attackers to maintain access over an extended period, which is a persistence tactic.

Mapping to MITRE ATT&CK Tactics:

Initial Access:

This tactic covers techniques used to gain an initial foothold within a network.

Techniques include phishing and exploiting external remote services.

The phishing campaign and malicious link click fit this category.

Persistence:

This tactic includes methods that adversaries use to maintain their foothold.

Techniques include installing malware that can survive reboots and persist on the system.

The RAT provides persistent remote access, fitting this tactic.

Exclusions:

Defense Evasion:

This involves techniques to avoid detection and evade defenses.

While potentially relevant in a broader context, the incident report does not specifically describe actions taken to evade defenses.

Lateral Movement:

This involves moving through the network to other systems.

The report does not indicate actions beyond initial access and maintaining that access.

Conclusion:

The incident report captures the tactics ofInitial AccessandPersistence.

References:

MITRE ATT&CK Framework documentation on Initial Access and Persistence tactics.

Incident analysis and mapping to MITRE ATT&CK tactics.

Understanding the Playbook and its Components:

The exhibit shows a playbook in which an event trigger starts actions upon detecting a malicious file.

The initial tasks in the playbook includeCREATE_INCIDENTandGET_EVENTS.

Analysis of Current Tasks:

EVENT_TRIGGER STARTER: This initiates the playbook when a specified event (malicious file detection) occurs.

CREATE_INCIDENT: This task likely creates a new incident in the incident management system for tracking and response.

GET_EVENTS: This task retrieves the event details related to the detected malicious file.

Objective of the Next Task:

The next logical step after creating an incident and retrieving event details is to update the incident with the event data, ensuring all relevant information is attached to the incident record.

This helps SOC analysts by consolidating all pertinent details within the incident record, facilitating efficient tracking and response.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A:Update Asset and Identityis not directly relevant to attaching event data to the incident.

Option B:Attach Data to Incidentsounds plausible but typically, updating an incident involves more comprehensive changes including status updates, adding comments, and other data modifications.

Option C:Run Reportis irrelevant in this context as the goal is to update the incident with event data.

Option D:Update Incidentis the most suitable action for incorporating event data into the existing incident record.

Conclusion:

The next task in the playbook should be to update the incident with the event data to ensure the incident reflects all necessary information for further investigation and response.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Playbook Creation and Incident Management.

Best Practices for Automating Incident Response in SOC Operations.

Understanding the Threat Hunting Data:

The Threat Hunting Monitor in the provided exhibits shows various application services, their usage counts, and data metrics such as sent bytes, average sent bytes, and maximum sent bytes.

The second part of the exhibit lists connection attempts from a specific source IP (10.0.1.10) to a destination IP (8.8.8.8), with repeated "Connection Failed" messages.

Analyzing the Application Services:

DNS is the top application service with a significantly high count (251,400) and notable sent bytes (9.1 MB).

This large volume of DNS traffic is unusual for regular DNS queries and can indicate the presence of DNS tunneling.

DNS Tunneling:

DNS tunneling is a technique used by attackers to bypass security controls by encoding data within DNS queries and responses. This allows them to extract data from the local network without detection.

The high volume of DNS traffic, combined with the detailed metrics, suggests that DNS tunneling might be in use.

Connection Failures to 8.8.8.8:

The repeated connection attempts from the source IP (10.0.1.10) to the destination IP (8.8.8.8) with connection failures can indicate an attempt to communicate with an external server.

Google DNS (8.8.8.8) is often used for DNS tunneling due to its reliability and global reach.

Conclusion:

Given the significant DNS traffic and the nature of the connection attempts, it is reasonable to conclude that DNS tunneling is being used to extract confidential data from the local network.

Why Other Options are Less Likely:

Spearphishing (A): There is no evidence from the provided data that points to spearphishing attempts, such as email logs or phishing indicators.

Reconnaissance (C): The data does not indicate typical reconnaissance activities, such as scanning or probing mail servers.

FTP C&C (D): There is no evidence of FTP traffic or command-and-control communications using FTP in the provided data.

References:

SANS Institute: "DNS Tunneling: How to Detect Data Exfiltration and Tunneling Through DNS Queries" SANS DNS Tunneling

OWASP: "DNS Tunneling" OWASP DNS Tunneling

By analyzing the provided threat hunting data, it is evident that DNS tunneling is being used to exfiltrate data, indicating a sophisticated method of extracting confidential information from the network.

Understanding Playbook Variables:

Playbook tasks in Security Operations Center (SOC) playbooks use variables to pass and manipulate data between different steps in the automation process.

Variables help in dynamically handling data, making the playbook more flexible and adaptive to different scenarios.

Types of Variables:

Input Variables:

Input variables are used to provide data to a playbook task. These variables can be set manually or derived from previous tasks.

They act as parameters that the task will use to perform its operations.

Output Variables:

Output variables store the result of a playbook task. These variables can then be used as inputs for subsequent tasks.

They capture the outcome of the task's execution, allowing for the dynamic flow of information through the playbook.

Other Options:

Create:Not typically referred to as a type of variable in playbook tasks. It might refer to an action but not a variable type.

Trigger:Refers to the initiation mechanism of the playbook or task (e.g., an event trigger), not a type of variable.

Conclusion:

The two types of variables used in playbook tasks areinputandoutput.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Playbook Configuration and Variable Usage.

General SOC Automation and Orchestration Practices.