200-201 Security Monitoring Practice Question
Which of the following is a valid indicator of compromise (IoC)?
⚠ Common exam trap
The 200-201 exam often tests whether candidates can distinguish a technical forensic artifact (hash, IP, domain) from a generic business or identity data point — the trap is picking an email address or name because it 'relates to a person involved in an incident.'
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
✓
A file hash (MD5)
An indicator of compromise is a forensic artifact that provides evidence a system or network has been breached. A file hash such as an MD5 (or SHA-1/SHA-256) uniquely identifies a malicious file and can be searched across endpoints and threat feeds, making it a canonical host-based IoC. Hashes, IP addresses, domain names, URLs, and registry keys are all standard IoC types used in detection and threat intelligence.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
A file hash (MD5)
Why this is correct
A file hash such as MD5 is a concrete, machine-checkable artefact uniquely identifying known malicious files, making it a valid IoC. It satisfies the indicator requirement because hashes are observable, shareable and directly matchable against endpoint or sandbox telemetry.
- ✗
The company's logo
Why it's wrong here
A company logo is static branding content, carrying no evidence of malicious activity, anomalous traffic or system state, so it cannot indicate compromise. It is tempting because logos appear in phishing lures, and would be relevant to brand-abuse monitoring, but an IoC must be an observable artefact such as a hash or IP address.
- ✗
An employee's email address
Why it's wrong here
An employee's email address is routine directory data present in normal correspondence, so its presence evidences nothing about malicious activity. It is tempting because addresses appear in phishing headers, and would be relevant when investigating a specific sender, but an IoC must be an observable artefact such as a malicious domain or file hash.
- ✗
A user's full name
Why it's wrong here
A user's full name is an identity attribute, not an observable artefact of malicious activity such as a hash, IP address or registry key. It is tempting because names appear in audit logs and access reviews, where they identify accounts; that is user administration, not threat detection.
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 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.