mediummulti selectObjective-mapped

A SIEM alert shows a workstation making repeated outbound HTTPS connections every 15 minutes to the same cloud IP address. The host belongs to the patch-management group, and the security team suspects an approved agent may be responsible. Which two checks best validate whether this is a false positive? Select two.

Question 1mediummulti select
Full question →

A SIEM alert shows a workstation making repeated outbound HTTPS connections every 15 minutes to the same cloud IP address. The host belongs to the patch-management group, and the security team suspects an approved agent may be responsible. Which two checks best validate whether this is a false positive? Select two.

Answer choices

Why each option matters

Good practice is not just finding the correct option. The wrong answers often show the exact trap the exam wants you to fall into.

A

Best answer

Verify that the destination domain and IP match the vendor's documented update service.

Correct because matching the observed destination to an approved vendor endpoint strongly supports legitimate automated behavior. It helps confirm that the traffic pattern aligns with expected patch-agent communications.

B

Best answer

Compare the running process, parent process, and digital signature to the approved agent baseline.

Correct because a trusted process with a valid signature and expected parent process is much more likely to be the sanctioned update tool. This is a strong way to separate normal maintenance activity from malware.

C

Distractor review

Immediately isolate the workstation from the network without reviewing any other evidence.

Incorrect because isolation may be unnecessary if the alert is a known maintenance pattern. In monitoring and validation work, confirmatory evidence should be checked before disruptive containment.

D

Distractor review

Suppress every future alert from that subnet permanently.

Incorrect because permanent suppression can hide real malicious activity later. A false positive should be tuned carefully, not ignored forever without verification.

E

Distractor review

Assume the traffic is benign because it occurs at a regular interval.

Incorrect because regular intervals can also describe malware beaconing. Timing alone is not enough to prove legitimacy.

Common exam trap

Common exam trap: usable hosts are not the same as total addresses

Subnetting questions often tempt you into counting all addresses. In normal IPv4 subnets, the network and broadcast addresses are not usable host addresses.

Technical deep dive

How to think about this question

Subnetting questions test whether you can identify the network, broadcast address, usable range, mask and correct subnet. Slow down enough to calculate the block size correctly.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • CIDR notation defines the prefix length.
  • Block size helps identify subnet boundaries.
  • Network and broadcast addresses are not usable hosts in normal IPv4 subnets.
  • The required host count determines the smallest suitable subnet.

TExam Day Tips

  • Write the block size before choosing the subnet.
  • Check whether the question asks for hosts, subnets or a specific address range.
  • Do not confuse /24, /25, /26 and /27 host counts.

Related practice questions

Related SY0-701 practice-question pages

Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.

More questions from this exam

Keep practising from the same exam bank, or move into a focused topic page if this question exposed a weak area.

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this SY0-701 question test?

CIDR notation defines the prefix length.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Verify that the destination domain and IP match the vendor's documented update service. — To validate a false positive, the analyst should match the destination to the approved vendor service and verify the process signature and lineage against the known agent baseline. Those checks confirm whether the communication pattern and executable identity are consistent with normal patching behavior. In monitoring work, correlating multiple sources is better than relying on timing alone, because malicious beacons can also appear periodic. Why others are wrong: Immediate isolation is premature if the traffic matches an authorized update tool. Permanent suppression is unsafe because it can hide future incidents. Regular timing does not prove legitimacy, since many malware families beacon on fixed schedules. The better approach is to correlate endpoint, signature, and destination evidence before deciding.

What should I do if I get this SY0-701 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.

Discussion

Loading comments…

Sign in to join the discussion.