The discrepancy is explained by the fact that the failed login attempts target different usernames rather than a single account. While the server’s account lockout policy blocks a specific user after five failed attempts, it does not limit the total number of attempts from a single IP address across multiple usernames. This means an attacker can cycle through thousands of distinct usernames, each failing up to five times, generating the high event count seen in the SIEM alert. On the Cisco CyberOps Associate 200-201 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of how SIEM aggregation differs from host-based security controls—a common trap is assuming lockout policies apply per source IP rather than per user. Remember the key distinction: lockout is user-specific, while SIEM alerts are source-IP-specific. A helpful memory tip is “Five per name, not per frame”—the lockout counts per username, not per network address.
200-201 Security Concepts Practice Question
This 200-201 practice question tests your understanding of security concepts. This is a configuration task: choose the command set that satisfies every stated requirement. Small differences — like 'secret' vs 'password' or 'transport input ssh' vs 'all' — change whether the answer is correct. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
An organization has implemented a security information and event management (SIEM) system. The SOC analyst receives an alert indicating a high number of failed login attempts from a single IP address targeting a critical server. The analyst checks the server logs and finds that the server is configured to lock the account after 5 failed attempts. However, the alert shows thousands of attempts. Which of the following explains this discrepancy?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
The failed attempts are against different usernames, not the same account
The account lockout policy (5 failed attempts) applies per individual username, not per source IP address. If the attacker is attempting to authenticate with many different usernames from the same IP, each username can fail up to 5 times before being locked, allowing thousands of total failed attempts across different accounts. The SIEM aggregates all failed authentication events from that IP, while the server's lockout mechanism only triggers per user, explaining the discrepancy.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
✓
The failed attempts are against different usernames, not the same account
Why this is correct
This is a common technique to avoid lockout; each account may have only a few attempts, but total attempts across many accounts are high.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
The attacker is using a brute-force tool that bypasses account lockout
Why it's wrong here
Account lockout is a server-side setting; brute-force tools cannot bypass it if properly enforced.
✗
The server's logging is not capturing all authentication events
Why it's wrong here
Logging issues could cause inconsistencies, but the scenario describes a typical multi-username attack.
✗
The SIEM alert is a false positive due to a misconfiguration
Why it's wrong here
While possible, the described behavior is more consistent with a targeted attack using multiple usernames.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
Cisco often tests the distinction between account lockout (per user) and failed login events (per source IP), trapping candidates who assume lockout limits total attempts from an IP rather than per-username attempts.
Trap categories for this question
Scenario analysis trap
Logging issues could cause inconsistencies, but the scenario describes a typical multi-username attack.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
In Windows Active Directory, the 'Account lockout threshold' (default 5 invalid logon attempts) is enforced per Security Identifier (SID), not per source IP. A single IP can generate thousands of Event ID 4625 (failed logon) events across different usernames, each username locking independently after its own threshold. In real-world attacks like password spraying, attackers deliberately target many usernames with a few common passwords to avoid triggering lockout on any single account, making this scenario a classic indicator of a password-spraying attack.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A practitioner preparing for the 200-201 exam encounters this exact type of scenario on the job. The correct answer here is not the most general option — it is the best answer for the specific constraint described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Real exam questions reward reading the full scenario before eliminating options, because the constraint defines which answer fits.
What to study next
Got this wrong? Here's your next step.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Security Concepts — This question tests Security Concepts — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: The failed attempts are against different usernames, not the same account — The account lockout policy (5 failed attempts) applies per individual username, not per source IP address. If the attacker is attempting to authenticate with many different usernames from the same IP, each username can fail up to 5 times before being locked, allowing thousands of total failed attempts across different accounts. The SIEM aggregates all failed authentication events from that IP, while the server's lockout mechanism only triggers per user, explaining the discrepancy.
What should I do if I get this 200-201 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. Refer to the exhibit. A Windows security log shows several events with Event ID 4625 (failed logon). What type of attack is indicated?
easy
✓ A.Brute force attack
B.Pass-the-hash attack
C.Kerberos golden ticket attack
D.Man-in-the-middle attack
Why A: Event ID 4625 indicates a failed logon attempt. A high volume of these events in a short period is characteristic of a brute force attack, where an attacker systematically tries multiple username/password combinations to gain unauthorized access. This is a direct indicator of repeated authentication failures, not a more sophisticated attack.
Last reviewed: Jun 25, 2026
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
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.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.