The answer is that this is a likely false positive caused by approved automation, so the alert should be correlated with the change window. This conclusion stems from the core concept of log correlation false positive automation: repeated login attempts from a jump host are a hallmark of configuration-management tools like Ansible or Puppet, which execute tasks across multiple servers during approved change windows. The SOC must distinguish this pattern from a brute-force attack by checking whether the activity aligns with a scheduled maintenance period. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, this scenario tests your ability to apply log correlation to reduce alert fatigue and avoid wasting resources on benign events. A common trap is assuming all failed logins indicate an attack, but automation scripts often retry connections due to network latency or credential rotation. Remember the memory tip: “Jump host, change window—false positive, don’t get winded.”
SY0-701 Security Operations Practice Question
This SY0-701 practice question tests your understanding of security operations. Examine the command output carefully: the correct answer depends on what the output actually shows, not on general recall alone. 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.
Exhibit
Change window: approved 01:00-02:00
01:11:44 jump01 ssh to appsrv02 as configsvc from 10.1.10.20
01:11:47 jump01 ssh to appsrv03 as configsvc from 10.1.10.20
01:12:01 appsrv02 auth.log 2 failed password attempts for configsvc, then success with SSH key
01:12:04 appsrv03 auth.log 1 failed password attempt for configsvc, then success with SSH key
01:12:10 SIEM rule 'brute force against privileged account' triggered
CMDB / automation note: configsvc is restricted to Ansible playbooks launched only from jump01 during maintenance windows
Based on the exhibit, what is the most likely conclusion after correlating the logs?
A configuration-management task ran from a jump host and generated repeated login alerts on target servers. The SOC wants to determine whether this is malicious activity or approved automation.
Clue words in this question
Noticing these words before you look at the options changes how you read each choice.
Clue: "most likely"
Why it matters: Probability qualifier — the question wants the most probable cause or outcome, not a guaranteed one. Eliminate low-probability options.
Change window: approved 01:00-02:00
01:11:44 jump01 ssh to appsrv02 as configsvc from 10.1.10.20
01:11:47 jump01 ssh to appsrv03 as configsvc from 10.1.10.20
01:12:01 appsrv02 auth.log 2 failed password attempts for configsvc, then success with SSH key
01:12:04 appsrv03 auth.log 1 failed password attempt for configsvc, then success with SSH key
01:12:10 SIEM rule 'brute force against privileged account' triggered
CMDB / automation note: configsvc is restricted to Ansible playbooks launched only from jump01 during maintenance windows
A
This is a true brute-force attack because any failed login must be malicious.
Why wrong: A few failed attempts during an approved automation sequence can occur without attacker involvement.
B
This is a likely false positive caused by approved automation, so the alert should be correlated with the change window.
The alert lines up with an approved maintenance window, a known jump host, and a documented configuration-management account that should only be used by automation. The mixed failed-and-successful logins are consistent with scripts negotiating authentication rather than an intruder guessing passwords. The SOC should confirm the change record, document the benign cause, and adjust correlation rules if this pattern recurs.
C
This indicates DNS poisoning because both servers were contacted from the same source IP.
Why wrong: DNS poisoning does not explain authentication failures and successful key-based logins on the target systems.
D
This is proof of ransomware spreading laterally over SMB.
Why wrong: The exhibit shows SSH administrative access, not SMB encryption behavior or file tampering activity.
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
This is a likely false positive caused by approved automation, so the alert should be correlated with the change window.
Option B is correct because the logs show repeated login attempts from a jump host, which is a common pattern for configuration-management tools (e.g., Ansible, Puppet) that execute tasks across multiple servers. The SOC should correlate these events with the approved change window to confirm they are part of legitimate automation, not malicious activity. Failed logins alone do not indicate a brute-force attack, as automation scripts may retry connections or use cached credentials that occasionally fail due to network latency or credential rotation.
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.
✗
This is a true brute-force attack because any failed login must be malicious.
Why it's wrong here
A few failed attempts during an approved automation sequence can occur without attacker involvement.
✓
This is a likely false positive caused by approved automation, so the alert should be correlated with the change window.
Why this is correct
The alert lines up with an approved maintenance window, a known jump host, and a documented configuration-management account that should only be used by automation. The mixed failed-and-successful logins are consistent with scripts negotiating authentication rather than an intruder guessing passwords. The SOC should confirm the change record, document the benign cause, and adjust correlation rules if this pattern recurs.
Clue confirmation
The clue word "most likely" in the question point toward this answer.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
This indicates DNS poisoning because both servers were contacted from the same source IP.
Why it's wrong here
DNS poisoning does not explain authentication failures and successful key-based logins on the target systems.
✗
This is proof of ransomware spreading laterally over SMB.
Why it's wrong here
The exhibit shows SSH administrative access, not SMB encryption behavior or file tampering activity.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates assume any failed login attempt is malicious, but the SY0-701 exam tests the ability to correlate logs with operational context (e.g., change windows, known source IPs) to identify false positives from legitimate automation.
Trap categories for this question
Command / output trap
The exhibit shows SSH administrative access, not SMB encryption behavior or file tampering activity.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Configuration-management tools like Ansible use SSH or WinRM to execute tasks, and they often rely on SSH keys or service accounts with cached credentials. If a credential is rotated or a key is mismatched, the tool may retry the connection, generating multiple failed login events (e.g., Event ID 4625 on Windows or auth.log entries on Linux) that mimic brute-force patterns. The SOC can correlate these with change-management records (e.g., RFC tickets) and verify the source IP belongs to the approved jump host (e.g., 10.0.0.5) to distinguish automation from an actual 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 security analyst at a medium-sized enterprise encounters this scenario during an investigation or architecture review. The correct answer reflects best practice for the specific threat or control described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Security exam questions test whether you can match controls to threats in context — not just recall definitions.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this SY0-701 question in full detail.
Security Operations — This question tests Security Operations — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: This is a likely false positive caused by approved automation, so the alert should be correlated with the change window. — Option B is correct because the logs show repeated login attempts from a jump host, which is a common pattern for configuration-management tools (e.g., Ansible, Puppet) that execute tasks across multiple servers. The SOC should correlate these events with the approved change window to confirm they are part of legitimate automation, not malicious activity. Failed logins alone do not indicate a brute-force attack, as automation scripts may retry connections or use cached credentials that occasionally fail due to network latency or credential rotation.
What should I do if I get this SY0-701 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Are there clue words in this question I should notice?
Yes — watch for: "most likely". Probability qualifier — the question wants the most probable cause or outcome, not a guaranteed one. Eliminate low-probability options.
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 →
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 SY0-701 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA 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 SY0-701 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.