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

- Free Preparation Discussions

Splunk SPLK-3001 Exam - Topic 1 Question 82 Discussion

Actual exam question for Splunk's SPLK-3001 exam

Question #: 82
Topic #: 1

[All SPLK-3001 Questions]

Which of the following actions would not reduce the number of false positives from a correlation search?

AReducing the severity.

BRemoving throttling fields.

CIncreasing the throttling window.

DIncreasing threshold sensitivity.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

by Cecil at Mar 06, 2024, 04:48 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SPLK-3001 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Angella

7 months ago

Not sure about that, but I feel like A and D are both risky choices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lovetta

8 months ago

Totally agree, increasing the throttling window is a better move.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jovita

8 months ago

Surprised that reducing severity is even an option here!

upvoted 0 times

...

Sage

8 months ago

I think removing throttling fields could actually make it worse.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maira

8 months ago

Increasing threshold sensitivity definitely won't help.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jaclyn

9 months ago

I feel like increasing the throttling window could help reduce false positives, but I need to double-check my notes on that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gilma

9 months ago

Increasing threshold sensitivity sounds like it would lead to more false positives, but I could be mixing it up with another concept.

upvoted 0 times

...

Martina

9 months ago

I remember a practice question where removing throttling fields increased false positives, so I think that might be the right answer here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hermila

9 months ago

I think reducing severity might actually help with false positives, but I'm not completely sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Quentin

9 months ago

I'm going to go with increasing the throttling window as the answer. That seems like it would just let more data through without actually improving the accuracy of the search.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ronny

9 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. Removing throttling fields would probably just make the search less effective overall, not specifically reduce false positives. And increasing threshold sensitivity seems like it would do the opposite of what we want.

upvoted 0 times

...

Annabelle

9 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not totally sure, but I think reducing the severity might actually increase the number of false positives, since you'd be lowering the bar for what counts as a positive result.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jeanice

9 months ago

I'm pretty sure increasing the throttling window would not reduce the number of false positives, since that would just allow more data to be processed and potentially trigger more false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...

Georgeanna

9 months ago

Okay, I think I've got this. Detailed step-by-step instructions are most likely to be found in procedures, which provide the specific actions to take during a security incident. I'll go with C for procedures.

upvoted 0 times

...

Loise

9 months ago

Okay, I've got this. The key is to use the dry run query to estimate the number of bytes that will be processed, not just the number of bytes returned. That will give me a more accurate cost estimate. I'm feeling confident about this one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jolene

10 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I'll need to think carefully about the legal and audit implications.

upvoted 0 times

...

Judy

10 months ago

This looks straightforward enough. I just need to calculate the loss on the shares sold in 1993 and see if any of that loss can be deducted on the 1992 return. I think I have a good handle on how to solve this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Royal

1 year ago

Hmm, this question is making my head spin like a top. Maybe I should just close my eyes and spin around a few times before answering. That might help me choose the right option. Or at least make me dizzy enough not to care about the wrong answer.

upvoted 0 times

Alishia

1 year ago

User 3: I'm not sure, maybe we should consider all the options before deciding.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsay

1 year ago

User 2: Yeah, let's break it down. What do you think about option D?

upvoted 0 times

...

Oretha

1 year ago

User 1: Don't worry, just take a deep breath and think it through.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Louann

1 year ago

Wait, are we supposed to choose the action that wouldn't reduce false positives? In that case, I'm going to go with D. Increasing the threshold sensitivity just sounds like a surefire way to get more false positives.

upvoted 0 times

Dorothy

1 year ago

Yeah, I agree. It seems like the other options would actually help reduce false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rolande

1 year ago

I think you're right, increasing the threshold sensitivity would likely lead to more false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Janella

1 year ago

D, increasing threshold sensitivity? Really? That sounds like it would just make the problem worse, not better. I'm pretty sure the right answer is A, reducing the severity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Erick

1 year ago

Interesting question. I'm going to go with C, increasing the throttling window. That should help filter out more of the false positives, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Ezekiel

1 year ago

Hmm, I think B is the correct answer here. Removing throttling fields would actually increase the number of false positives, not reduce them.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yong

1 year ago

But wouldn't removing throttling fields also help in reducing false positives?

upvoted 0 times

...

Suzan

1 year ago

I agree with Shayne, increasing threshold sensitivity could potentially increase false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shayne

1 year ago

I think increasing threshold sensitivity would not reduce false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...