New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Angella
3 months ago
Not sure about that, but I feel like A and D are both risky choices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lovetta
3 months ago
Totally agree, increasing the throttling window is a better move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jovita
3 months ago
Surprised that reducing severity is even an option here!
upvoted 0 times
...
Sage
4 months ago
I think removing throttling fields could actually make it worse.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maira
4 months ago
Increasing threshold sensitivity definitely won't help.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
4 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
4 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
4 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
5 months ago
I think reducing severity might actually help with false positives, but I'm not completely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Quentin
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
10 months 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
9 months ago
User 3: I'm not sure, maybe we should consider all the options before deciding.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsay
9 months ago
User 2: Yeah, let's break it down. What do you think about option D?
upvoted 0 times
...
Oretha
9 months ago
User 1: Don't worry, just take a deep breath and think it through.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Louann
10 months 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
9 months ago
Yeah, I agree. It seems like the other options would actually help reduce false positives.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolande
10 months ago
I think you're right, increasing the threshold sensitivity would likely lead to more false positives.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Janella
10 months 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
10 months 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
10 months 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
11 months ago
But wouldn't removing throttling fields also help in reducing false positives?
upvoted 0 times
...
Suzan
11 months ago
I agree with Shayne, increasing threshold sensitivity could potentially increase false positives.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shayne
11 months ago
I think increasing threshold sensitivity would not reduce false positives.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel