easyMultiple Choice
SSCP Practice Question: A security analyst receives an alert indicating a…
A security analyst receives an alert indicating a large number of failed login attempts from a single IP. The analyst blocks the IP. What should be done next?
⚠ Common exam trap
It's easy for candidates to assume blocking the IP is the final step, confusing containment with resolution, and overlook the mandatory investigation phase required by incident response frameworks like NIST SP 800-61 or SANS PICERL.
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
✓
Conduct a thorough investigation
Blocking an IP address is an immediate containment action, but it does not confirm the root cause or scope of the incident. A thorough investigation is required to determine whether the failed logins were part of a brute-force attack, credential stuffing, or a misconfigured service, and to check for indicators of compromise (IoCs) such as successful logins from the same IP or lateral movement. Without investigation, the analyst risks missing a broader breach or violating incident response procedures like those outlined in NIST SP 800-61.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Report to management
Why it's wrong here
Management reporting communicates risk but performs no containment or forensic action, so the intrusion attempt remains uninvestigated. Escalation is warranted once evidence is gathered and impact assessed, making it a later governance step rather than the immediate next action after blocking the source IP.
- ✗
Update the firewall rules
Why it's wrong here
The analyst already blocked the IP, so rewriting firewall rules duplicates that containment without adding value. Firewall rule changes suit persistent, policy-level restrictions across subnets or services; here the requirement is to determine whether the attack succeeded and whether other sources are involved.
- ✓
Conduct a thorough investigation
Why this is correct
Investigation is critical to understand if the attack was successful and if other systems are affected.
- ✗
Monitor for recurrence
Why it's wrong here
Passive monitoring leaves the incident unverified: you cannot tell whether credentials were compromised or data exfiltrated. Monitoring suits low-severity anomalies or post-remediation watch periods, whereas this alert demands immediate investigation of authentication logs and affected accounts before closure.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every SSCP question from scratch — 971 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 SSCP practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISC2 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 SSCP exam.