hardMultiple Choice
200-201 Practice Question: During a threat hunt, an analyst discovers…
During a threat hunt, an analyst discovers sustained outbound traffic from a workstation to multiple IP addresses in different countries on port 443. The traffic patterns show periodic spikes at 5-minute intervals. The workstation is used by a sales representative who frequently accesses cloud CRM. Which additional evidence would most strongly suggest the workstation is compromised?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the concept that legitimate application traffic (e.g., CRM on port 443) can be used as a smokescreen, and candidates mistakenly assume that any traffic on a standard port is benign, overlooking the importance of destination IP analysis and traffic patterns like beaconing.
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
✓
The outbound traffic includes connections to IPs not associated with the CRM
Outbound traffic to IP addresses not associated with the CRM application indicates the workstation is communicating with unknown or malicious destinations. Since the CRM is accessed via a known domain or IP range, connections to unrelated IPs on port 443 (HTTPS) suggest the workstation may be part of a botnet or exfiltrating data, especially given the periodic spikes at 5-minute intervals, which are characteristic of beaconing behavior used by malware to maintain command-and-control (C2) communications.
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 CRM application uses port 443
Why it's wrong here
CRM traffic over 443 is expected baseline behaviour for this sales role, so it explains the observed connections rather than indicating compromise. It tempts because port 443 is the CRM's legitimate channel, yet confirming that fact adds no malicious indicator; beaconing to new foreign hosts with encoded payloads would.
- ✗
The sales representative reported slow performance
Why it's wrong here
Subjective slowness is a symptom users report for many causes and does not tie the periodic 443 spikes to malicious beaconing; process-level telemetry showing an unknown binary initiating those connections would. It tempts because performance complaints often accompany compromise, but they lack the specificity needed to attribute this traffic.
- ✓
The outbound traffic includes connections to IPs not associated with the CRM
Why this is correct
Connections to IPs outside the CRM's known ranges break the expected traffic baseline, indicating command-and-control or exfiltration rather than legitimate cloud access. The periodic five-minute spikes already suggest beaconing, so unmatched destinations confirm compromise rather than benign CRM synchronisation.
- ✗
The workstation has antivirus installed and up-to-date
Why it's wrong here
Current antivirus proves only that a control is installed, not that the workstation is clean; fileless or tunnelled exfiltration evades signature scanning entirely. It tempts because updated protection suggests a hardened host, yet the question asks for evidence of compromise, and this is evidence against it.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 200-201 question from scratch — 968 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.