mediumMultiple Choice
Detecting Brute-Force Attacks with SIEM Correlation Rules
Exhibit
Refer to the exhibit. [alert from SIEM] Alert: High Priority Rule: Possible Brute Force Attack Source IP: 192.168.1.50 Target: Server 10.0.0.10 Count: 150 failed logins in 5 minutes Time: 2024-03-21 14:32:15 [additional log from authentication server] Log: Successful login from 192.168.1.50 to 10.0.0.10 at 14:34:20 for user 'admin'.
Given the exhibit, what is the most likely conclusion?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is that candidates may dismiss the successful login as a false positive or coincidence, failing to recognize that the sequential pattern of failures followed by a success from the same source is the definitive signature of a successful brute-force attack.
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
✓
The brute-force attack was successful and the admin account may be compromised
The exhibit shows a brute-force attack with multiple failed login attempts followed by a successful login from the same source IP. This pattern indicates that the attacker likely guessed or cracked the password, making the admin account compromised. Option D is correct because the sequence of events directly correlates with a successful brute-force attack.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
The SIEM alert is a false positive and can be ignored
Why it's wrong here
Treating the alert as a false positive discards corroborating evidence in the exhibit, such as matching source IPs or authentication failures preceding the successful login. A false positive would be correct only if the logged activity were explained by legitimate, expected behaviour. The exhibit shows indicators consistent with an actual security event.
- ✗
The authentication server logs are misconfigured
Why it's wrong here
Misconfigured authentication logs would produce missing, malformed or inconsistent entries, not the coherent sequence shown in the exhibit. Log misconfiguration is the right conclusion when fields are absent or timestamps contradict other sources. Here the logs record a plausible attack pattern, so the configuration is not the cause.
- ✗
The successful login is unrelated and coincidental
Why it's wrong here
Dismissing the login as coincidence ignores the exhibit's correlation between the authentication event and the SIEM alert, which is the evidence the question tests. Coincidental events would be the conclusion only where timestamps, source addresses and usernames show no relationship. The exhibit links them, indicating genuine suspicious activity.
- ✓
The brute-force attack was successful and the admin account may be compromised
Why this is correct
Repeated failed authentications followed by a successful logon for the same admin account indicate the password was eventually guessed, so the attacker gained authenticated access. The success after many failures is the decisive evidence that the account is compromised.
About these practice questions
This SSCP question is part of Courseiva's 971-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 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.