D seems like the most straightforward answer to me. If the event source doesn't exist, it would just ignore the log altogether. But I'm not totally confident, so I'll have to double-check my understanding.
Okay, I've got it! The correct answer is C. NetWitness would automatically add the new event source to the existing list, so it can properly process logs from that source going forward.
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. I know NetWitness has a lot of different components, so it could be doing something more complex like writing to the Archiver but not the Decoder. I'll have to think this through carefully.
I think the answer is B. If the event source doesn't exist, it would parse the log to the Decoder but only in transient mode, not permanently adding it to the list.
I'm going with Option B. Parsing the log in transient mode is a good compromise - it can still process the data without permanently adding the new source. And hey, at least it's not ignoring the log completely, right?
Option D is just plain lazy. Ignoring the log altogether? What is this, 1990? NetWitness should be all about capturing and analyzing every bit of data it can get its hands on.
Option C seems to be the correct answer. NetWitness should add the new Event Source to the existing list, so it can start processing logs from that source going forward.
Bobbye
3 months agoTalia
3 months agoNoah
3 months agoKaycee
4 months agoAnnalee
4 months agoMendy
4 months agoAvery
4 months agoBuddy
4 months agoLazaro
5 months agoKaitlyn
5 months agoEsteban
5 months agoRoyce
5 months agoDeeann
5 months agoOnita
1 year agoTonette
1 year agoDeja
1 year agoCherry
1 year agoMerissa
1 year agoKate
1 year agoJamal
1 year agoAlberta
1 year agoUlysses
1 year agoAlecia
1 year agoLeota
1 year agoGregg
1 year agoLaurel
1 year agoBev
1 year agoRosita
1 year agoWhitney
1 year agoJudy
1 year ago