View Full Cisco 300-220 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps

 

Question 281.

Which telemetry helps identify suspicious DNS query construction?

1. DHCP lease records
2. DNS query logs
3. File ownership data
4. Printer status events

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

DNS query logs provide detailed visibility into domain lookups performed by hosts. A threat hunter can examine queried domains, request frequency, query structure, response patterns, and unusual encoding characteristics. Suspicious DNS activity may indicate command-and-control communication, tunneling, or attempts to evade conventional network controls. Comparing observed queries against normal organizational behavior can help identify anomalies. DHCP records may provide useful host context, but they do not reveal the actual DNS requests. File ownership and printer events are generally unrelated to DNS query construction. Therefore, DNS query logs are the most directly useful telemetry for investigating unusual DNS query structures.

Question 282.

What should a hunter examine when investigating unusual outbound connections?

1. Keyboard layouts
2. File compression ratios
3. Destination reputation
4. Monitor brightness settings

Correct Answer: 3

Explanation:

Destination reputation can provide important context when investigating unusual outbound connections. Hunters can examine whether an external destination is associated with known malicious infrastructure, suspicious hosting, recently registered domains, or other threat intelligence observations. Reputation alone does not prove malicious activity, so it should be combined with connection timing, process ownership, destination ports, and host behavior. Keyboard layouts and monitor settings do not normally provide meaningful network context. Compression ratios may matter during data-transfer investigations but are not the primary starting point for evaluating an unusual external destination. Destination reputation therefore offers useful contextual enrichment for outbound connection analysis.

Question 283.

Which evidence can reveal an executable’s actual launch location?

1. Process execution records
2. DNS response data
3. Authentication failures
4. Firewall rule changes

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

Process execution records can reveal important details about where an executable was launched from. Depending on the endpoint telemetry available, these records may include the executable path, process identifier, parent process, command-line parameters, user context, and execution timestamp. The launch location can help distinguish expected software activity from suspicious execution occurring in temporary folders, user-writable directories, or unusual administrative paths. DNS responses describe name resolution, authentication failures describe unsuccessful access attempts, and firewall changes describe network-control modifications. None directly identifies the executable’s launch path. Process execution telemetry is therefore the most appropriate evidence for this investigation.

Question 284.

Why correlate process activity with user identity?

1. To measure disk capacity
2. To inspect screen resolution
3. To identify software licenses
4. To establish activity ownership

Correct Answer: 4

Explanation:

Correlating process activity with user identity helps establish which account was associated with a particular execution event. This context is valuable when investigating suspicious commands, administrative utilities, unexpected scripts, or potentially compromised sessions. A process running under a privileged account can carry different significance from the same process launched by a standard user. Identity correlation can also help distinguish legitimate administrative work from activity that does not fit the account’s expected responsibilities. Disk capacity, display settings, and software licensing do not establish who initiated a process. Therefore, linking process telemetry with identity information provides useful ownership and accountability context during threat hunting.

Question 285.

Which artifact is useful for detecting persistence through scheduled execution?

1. Scheduled task definitions
2. DNS resolver settings
3. Network interface labels
4. Browser theme preferences

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

Scheduled task definitions can expose persistence mechanisms that execute programs automatically according to a schedule or system event. Hunters can examine task names, executable paths, triggers, configured users, creation times, and command parameters for suspicious characteristics. Unexpected tasks, unusual execution locations, or recently created entries may warrant additional investigation. DNS resolver settings concern name-resolution configuration, network interface labels provide endpoint networking information, and browser themes are generally unrelated to automated execution. Scheduled task telemetry is therefore an important source when investigating persistence based on recurring or event-triggered execution. Correlating task information with process execution records can further strengthen the investigation.

Question 286.

What can flow telemetry reveal about an unfamiliar service?

1. User password history
2. Traffic direction and volume
3. Local file permissions
4. Application window titles

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

Network flow telemetry can reveal traffic direction, source and destination endpoints, communication volume, connection counts, and often the destination or source port. This information can help a hunter determine how an unfamiliar service communicates across the environment. For example, unexpected outbound traffic from a newly observed service may indicate unauthorized functionality or compromised software. Flow data generally does not reveal user password history, local file permissions, or application window titles. Those details require different telemetry sources. By examining communication patterns around the service, hunters can establish whether its network behavior is consistent with the organization’s expected architecture.

Question 287.

Which technique helps identify abnormal activity across comparable endpoints?

1. Manual password resets
2. Packet encryption
3. Peer-group comparison
4. Disk defragmentation

Correct Answer: 3

Explanation:

Peer-group comparison evaluates an endpoint’s behavior against similar systems. Devices performing comparable roles often exhibit similar processes, connections, software activity, and administrative behavior. A deviation from that peer baseline can reveal suspicious activity that might appear normal when viewed on the individual endpoint alone. For example, if one workstation communicates with an unusual destination while comparable workstations do not, that difference becomes an investigation lead. Password resets, packet encryption, and disk defragmentation do not provide a method for identifying behavioral outliers across comparable endpoints. Peer-group comparison is therefore a useful analytical technique for detecting environment-specific anomalies.

Question 288.

Which data source best identifies changes to endpoint startup behavior?

1. Startup configuration telemetry
2. Network latency measurements
3. DNS response codes
4. User profile photographs

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

Startup configuration telemetry can identify modifications that cause applications or scripts to execute when an endpoint starts or a user logs in. Hunters can examine newly added entries, changed executable paths, suspicious command parameters, and modifications occurring near other suspicious events. Such information can reveal persistence mechanisms that would otherwise remain hidden during normal process analysis. Network latency and DNS response codes describe network behavior rather than local startup configuration. User profile photographs are unrelated to execution persistence. Startup telemetry should therefore be included when investigating unexpected applications launching automatically during system initialization or user sign-in.

Question 289.

What does comparing executable hashes across hosts help establish?

1. Network ownership
2. Authentication timing
3. DNS delegation
4. File consistency

Correct Answer: 4

Explanation:

Comparing executable hashes across hosts helps determine whether files are identical or differ at the binary level. If the same executable is present on many systems with the same cryptographic hash, that can support an assessment that the files are consistent. Conversely, a unique hash on one endpoint may indicate a modified, replaced, or independently introduced file that deserves investigation. Hash comparison does not establish network ownership, authentication timing, or DNS delegation. Those questions require other telemetry. Hashes are especially useful when combined with software inventories, file paths, digital signatures, and execution records to understand whether a particular binary is expected.

Question 290.

Which observation most strongly supports a suspected scanning behavior?

1. One successful login
2. Repeated connection attempts
3. A single file rename
4. A changed desktop icon

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

Repeated connection attempts across multiple destinations can support a hypothesis involving network scanning or reconnaissance. A hunter can examine the number of destinations contacted, ports targeted, timing between attempts, response patterns, and the initiating process. Scanning behavior often produces a broader communication footprint than ordinary application activity. A single successful login does not establish scanning, while a file rename or desktop-icon modification provides little network reconnaissance evidence. The observation should still be evaluated within environmental context because legitimate discovery tools and administrative processes can also generate repeated connection attempts. Additional endpoint and identity telemetry can help distinguish expected activity from suspicious reconnaissance.

Question 291.

Which context is most useful when evaluating an unexpected privileged command?

1. Screen resolution
2. Printer inventory
3. Account and session details
4. Browser bookmark count

Correct Answer: 3

Explanation:

Account and session details provide important context for determining whether a privileged command was expected. A hunter can examine which account executed the command, how the session was established, the originating endpoint, authentication method, timestamp, and whether the account normally performs similar administrative actions. This information helps distinguish authorized administration from potentially compromised credentials or unauthorized privilege use. Screen resolution, printer inventory, and browser bookmarks generally do not explain why a privileged command occurred. Identity and session telemetry should therefore be correlated with command-line and process records when investigating unexpected administrative activity.

Question 292.

What should be checked first when a hunt produces excessive benign matches?

1. Refine the query conditions
2. Disable endpoint logging
3. Delete historical records
4. Ignore matching systems

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

When a hunting query produces excessive benign matches, refining the query conditions is generally the appropriate next step. The hunter can add contextual filters such as asset role, process path, account type, destination characteristics, time boundaries, or known approved software. This improves signal quality without sacrificing the underlying telemetry. Disabling endpoint logging would remove useful evidence, deleting historical records would damage investigative context, and simply ignoring matching systems would leave the underlying detection problem unresolved. Query refinement should be guided by the observed false-positive patterns so that the hunt becomes more precise while retaining meaningful suspicious activity.

Question 293.

Which artifact can reveal whether a binary was downloaded from an external source?

1. Process priority
2. CPU utilization
3. File provenance metadata
4. Screen-lock duration

Correct Answer: 3

Explanation:

File provenance metadata can provide clues about how a binary entered an endpoint. Depending on the operating system and available telemetry, provenance information may include origin indicators, download-related metadata, timestamps, or source-zone information. This context can help distinguish software deployed through approved mechanisms from executables obtained through browsers, email attachments, or other external channels. Process priority and CPU utilization describe runtime behavior rather than file origin, while screen-lock duration is unrelated to executable provenance. Provenance should be combined with file hashes, digital signatures, download telemetry, and process execution records to build a stronger understanding of how an unfamiliar binary reached the system.

Question 294.

Why examine parent-child relationships during process hunting?

1. To calculate storage capacity
2. To identify unusual execution chains
3. To measure wireless signal strength
4. To verify monitor configuration

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

Parent-child process relationships reveal how one process initiated another. This lineage is valuable because legitimate applications usually create recognizable process chains, while suspicious activity may involve unexpected relationships. For example, an office application spawning a scripting interpreter or command shell may deserve investigation depending on organizational context. Process lineage can also reveal intermediary execution stages that would be missed when reviewing individual process records separately. Storage capacity, wireless signal strength, and monitor configuration do not provide meaningful process ancestry information. Therefore, examining parent-child relationships is an effective way to identify anomalous execution chains and investigate potentially suspicious process behavior.

Question 295.

Which evidence can confirm that a suspicious file was actually executed?

1. Process execution telemetry
2. DNS cache contents
3. Firewall policy version
4. User group membership

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

Process execution telemetry provides direct evidence that an executable or script was launched. Depending on the endpoint platform, it can include execution time, file path, process identifier, parent process, command-line arguments, and user context. This makes it more useful for confirming execution than merely finding the file on disk. DNS cache contents may show previous name resolution, firewall policy describes network controls, and group membership identifies authorization context. Those sources can contribute supporting evidence but do not directly establish that the suspicious file executed. Hunters should correlate execution telemetry with file metadata and surrounding events to strengthen the conclusion.

Question 296.

What helps determine whether unusual authentication was part of a broader event?

1. Browser history alone
2. Cross-source event correlation
3. Desktop wallpaper changes
4. Local screen brightness

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

Cross-source event correlation helps determine whether an unusual authentication event is connected to other suspicious activity. A hunter can compare identity events with endpoint processes, network connections, remote sessions, file access, and administrative changes occurring around the same time. This can reveal a sequence that is not apparent from authentication logs alone. Browser history, wallpaper changes, and screen brightness generally provide little security context for authentication investigations. Correlation across independent telemetry sources improves confidence by connecting related observations and helps establish whether an isolated authentication anomaly represents part of a larger activity chain.

Question 297.

Which network detail is especially useful when investigating service misuse?

1. Screen orientation
2. File icon appearance
3. Keyboard language
4. Destination service port

Correct Answer: 4

Explanation:

The destination service port provides useful context when investigating potential network-service misuse. It can help identify which service or protocol a connection appears to target and whether that communication matches the expected role of the destination system. Hunters can compare observed ports with approved service configurations, host roles, firewall policies, and historical communication patterns. Screen orientation, file-icon appearance, and keyboard language do not provide meaningful information about network service targeting. Port information should not be interpreted in isolation because applications can use nonstandard ports, but it is a valuable component of broader network-flow and connection analysis.

Question 298.

What is a useful purpose of maintaining hunt assumptions?

1. Preserve analytical reasoning
2. Increase monitor resolution
3. Reduce disk fragmentation
4. Change account passwords

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:

Maintaining hunt assumptions preserves the reasoning behind an investigation. Documenting what the hunter expected to observe, why certain data sources were selected, and which conditions could confirm or disprove the hypothesis makes the hunt easier to reproduce and review. It also helps prevent conclusions from being shaped only by observations discovered during the investigation. Monitor resolution, disk fragmentation, and account passwords do not address analytical documentation. Clear assumptions allow future hunters to understand the original investigative logic and improve the query or hypothesis when new evidence demonstrates that an assumption was incomplete or incorrect.

Question 299.

Which signal can indicate possible automated command-and-control communication?

1. Random file ownership
2. Unusual printer discovery
3. Regular connection intervals
4. Changing desktop themes

Correct Answer: 3

Explanation:

Regular connection intervals can indicate automated communication because malware may periodically contact an external system for instructions, status updates, or data exchange. A hunter can analyze connection timestamps, interval consistency, destination characteristics, initiating processes, and traffic volume to determine whether the pattern resembles expected application behavior. Regular timing alone does not prove command-and-control activity because legitimate services also communicate periodically. Additional evidence should therefore be considered before drawing conclusions. File ownership, printer discovery, and desktop themes generally do not provide comparable evidence of automated network beaconing. Timing analysis becomes more valuable when combined with endpoint and network telemetry.

Question 300.

What should follow validation of a confirmed malicious hunting finding?

1. Remove all telemetry
2. Document and improve detection
3. Ignore related endpoints
4. Reset every account

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:

After validating a confirmed malicious finding, the investigation should be documented and the resulting knowledge used to improve defensive detection. Documentation can capture the observed behavior, affected assets, relevant telemetry, investigative logic, and supporting evidence. The hunter can then convert reliable indicators or behavioral characteristics into appropriate detection logic, while considering false positives and environmental context. Removing telemetry would eliminate useful visibility, ignoring related endpoints could leave additional activity undiscovered, and resetting every account may be inappropriate without evidence supporting such broad action. Turning validated hunting results into durable detection improves the organization’s ability to identify similar activity in the future.