GCFA Practice Question: Analyzing Volatile and Windows Event Artifacts
You are reviewing a Windows 10 host for evidence of process execution. A suspect binary was deleted from disk, but you need to prove it actually ran. Which artifact provides the strongest evidence that the specific executable was launched, independent of any prefetch or shimcache entries?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is treating file-observation artifacts such as ShimCache or Amcache as proof of execution, when they can record files that were merely present or scanned.
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
✓
Security event 4688 with the New Process Name field populated for the binary
Event ID 4688 is generated by the Windows auditing subsystem at the instant a process is created, capturing the new process image path and, when command-line auditing is enabled, the full command line. Unlike ShimCache or Amcache, which can be populated by file presence or scanning, 4688 only appears when execution occurs, so it independently proves the suspect binary was launched.
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 Prefetch file (.pf) containing the binary's name and run count in C:\Windows\Prefetch
Why it's wrong here
Prefetch files are generated when an executable is launched, but the question explicitly seeks evidence independent of prefetch. Additionally, Prefetch can be disabled or cleaned by an attacker, and on some systems it is not enabled at all, so relying on it here would not satisfy the independence requirement.
- ✗
The Amcache.hve entry containing the binary's SHA-1 hash and path
Why it's wrong here
Amcache.hve stores metadata about executables observed by the system, including hashes, but its entries can be created when files are merely present or scanned rather than executed. Because execution is not guaranteed, it does not by itself prove the suspect binary was ever launched on this host.
- ✓
Security event 4688 with the New Process Name field populated for the binary
Why this is correct
Event ID 4688 is written to the Security log when a new process is created, and with process creation auditing enabled it records the New Process Name and often the command line. It is generated at the moment of execution and does not depend on Prefetch or ShimCache, making it the strongest independent proof that the specific executable ran.
- ✗
The AppCompatCache (ShimCache) entry for the binary in the SYSTEM hive
Why it's wrong here
ShimCache records that a file was seen by the application compatibility engine during path resolution, which can occur without execution, for example during a directory listing or antivirus scan. It therefore cannot independently prove the binary was launched, making it weaker evidence than artifacts created only at process start.
About these practice questions
This GCFA question is part of Courseiva's 292-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam 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 GIAC exam blueprint
This GCFA practice question is part of Courseiva's free GIAC 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 GCFA exam.