200-201 Security Policies and Procedures Practice Question
A security team wants to adopt a framework that provides a common language for describing cyberthreats, including tactics, techniques, and procedures observed in real intrusions. Which framework should the team use to map adversary behavior?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is selecting a well-known security framework by reputation alone, when only one framework actually catalogs adversary tactics and techniques.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
MITRE ATT&CK
MITRE ATT&CK is the framework that catalogs real-world adversary tactics and techniques, giving defenders a shared vocabulary for describing intrusions. Teams use it to map detections to techniques, identify coverage gaps, and communicate findings consistently. Governance standards and vulnerability scoring systems serve different purposes and do not describe adversary behavior.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
ISO/IEC 27001
Why it's wrong here
ISO/IEC 27001 is a management system standard for establishing, operating, and continually improving an information security management system. It defines requirements for governance, risk treatment, and control selection, but it does not enumerate adversary tactics or techniques. A team seeking to describe how attackers operate would find 27001 useful for program structure, yet it lacks the intrusion behavior detail that the scenario requires.
- ✓
MITRE ATT&CK
Why this is correct
MITRE ATT&CK is a curated knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques derived from real-world observations. It gives defenders a common vocabulary such as initial access, persistence, and credential dumping, letting teams map detections, prioritize coverage, and compare intrusions. The scenario explicitly asks for a framework that describes tactics, techniques, and procedures observed in real intrusions, which is exactly what ATT&CK provides.
- ✗
NIST Cybersecurity Framework
Why it's wrong here
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework organizes security outcomes into functions such as Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. It helps an organization assess and improve its overall program maturity, but it does not catalog adversary tactics and techniques. While it can complement threat-informed defense, it is not the knowledge base that describes how specific intrusions are carried out, so it does not provide the common adversary language the team wants.
- ✗
CVSS
Why it's wrong here
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System rates the severity of software vulnerabilities using metrics like attack vector, complexity, and impact. It helps prioritize patching but says nothing about adversary behavior or campaigns. Two organizations can use CVSS scores consistently while still lacking any shared language for describing how an intruder moved through their networks, so it does not satisfy the stated requirement.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This 200-201 question is part of Courseiva's 968-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Cisco exam blueprint
This 200-201 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-201 exam.