Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Fortinet Exam FCSS_SOC_AN-7.4 Topic 1 Question 10 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's FCSS_SOC_AN-7.4 exam
Question #: 10
Topic #: 1
[All FCSS_SOC_AN-7.4 Questions]

Review the following incident report:

Attackers leveraged a phishing email campaign targeting your employees.

The email likely impersonated a trusted source, such as the IT department, and requested login credentials.

An unsuspecting employee clicked a malicious link in the email, leading to the download and execution of a Remote Access Trojan (RAT).

The RAT provided the attackers with remote access and a foothold in the compromised system.

Which two MITRE ATT&CK tactics does this incident report capture? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B, D, E

Overview of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs): Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) are pieces of evidence that suggest a system may have been compromised. These can include unusual network traffic patterns, the presence of known malicious files, or other suspicious activities.

FortiAnalyzer's Role: FortiAnalyzer aggregates logs from various Fortinet devices to provide comprehensive visibility and analysis of network events. It uses these logs to identify potential IoCs and compromised hosts.

Relevant Log Types:

DNS Filter Logs:

DNS requests are a common vector for malware communication. Analyzing DNS filter logs helps in identifying suspicious domain queries, which can indicate malware attempting to communicate with command and control (C2) servers.


IPS Logs:

Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) logs detect and block exploit attempts and malicious activities. These logs are critical for identifying compromised hosts based on detected intrusion attempts or behaviors matching known attack patterns.

Web Filter Logs:

Web filtering logs monitor and control access to web content. These logs can reveal access to malicious websites, download of malware, or other web-based threats, indicating a compromised host.

Why Not Other Log Types:

Email Filter Logs:

While important for detecting phishing and email-based threats, they are not as directly indicative of compromised hosts as DNS, IPS, and Web filter logs.

Application Filter Logs:

These logs control application usage but are less likely to directly indicate compromised hosts compared to the selected logs.

Detailed Process:

Step 1: FortiAnalyzer collects logs from FortiGate and other Fortinet devices.

Step 2: DNS filter logs are analyzed to detect unusual or malicious domain queries.

Step 3: IPS logs are reviewed for any intrusion attempts or suspicious activities.

Step 4: Web filter logs are checked for access to malicious websites or downloads.

Step 5: FortiAnalyzer correlates the information from these logs to identify potential IoCs and compromised hosts.

Fortinet Documentation: FortiOS DNS Filter, IPS, and Web Filter administration guides.

FortiAnalyzer Administration Guide: Details on log analysis and IoC identification.

By using DNS filter logs, IPS logs, and Web filter logs, FortiAnalyzer effectively identifies possible compromised hosts, providing critical insights for threat detection and response.

Contribute your Thoughts:

Fanny
18 days ago
Hold up, what about Defense Evasion? The RAT could have been designed to bypass security controls and avoid detection. Just a thought, but I'm still leaning towards Initial Access and Persistence.
upvoted 0 times
Tonette
3 days ago
I agree, the attackers gained initial access through the phishing email.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chaya
19 days ago
Ha! 'Unsuspecting employee' - sounds like someone needs some phishing awareness training. Anyway, I'm going with Initial Access and Persistence as the correct answers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arleen
27 days ago
This is a tricky one, but I think the answer is Initial Access and Lateral Movement. The RAT gave the attackers remote access, which could potentially allow them to move laterally across the network.
upvoted 0 times
Britt
10 days ago
Yes, the phishing email was the initial entry point for the attackers, and the RAT helped them establish a foothold and potentially move laterally.
upvoted 0 times
...
Remedios
19 days ago
I agree with you, the attackers gained Initial Access through the phishing email and then potentially moved laterally with the RAT.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Valentin
1 months ago
I agree with Jose. The incident report clearly describes an initial access tactic and a persistence tactic. The other options don't seem as relevant here.
upvoted 0 times
Nobuko
16 days ago
I agree, those are the two tactics captured in the incident report.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xenia
24 days ago
D) Persistence
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
27 days ago
A) Initial Access
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jose
1 months ago
Definitely Initial Access and Persistence. The phishing email and malicious link were the initial access, and the RAT gave the attackers persistence on the system.
upvoted 0 times
Avery
14 days ago
C) Lateral Movement
upvoted 0 times
...
Lezlie
22 days ago
D) Persistence
upvoted 0 times
...
Chauncey
29 days ago
A) Initial Access
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Reita
2 months ago
I believe Lateral Movement could also be a tactic involved, as the attackers were able to move laterally within the compromised system using the RAT.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilda
2 months ago
I agree with Josephine. The phishing email campaign allowed the attackers to gain Initial Access, and the RAT helped them evade defenses.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
2 months ago
I think the tactics captured in the incident report are Initial Access and Defense Evasion.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel