{"id":20308,"date":"2026-09-23T12:31:04","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:31:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/?p=20308"},"modified":"2026-09-23T12:31:04","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:31:04","slug":"fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part11-q201-220","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part11-q201-220\/","title":{"rendered":"Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps Part11 Q201-220"},"content":{"rendered":"

View Full <\/b>Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Exam Dumps<\/b><\/a> and Practice Test Dumps.<\/b><\/p>\n


\n<\/b>Q201. A SOC analyst discovers that a compromised user account accessed several internal systems using valid credentials. Which activity should be investigated MOST closely?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/b> Whether the user’s mailbox quota is full<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. <\/b> Whether the incident has enough comments<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. <\/b> Authentication patterns, privilege use, target systems, and evidence of lateral movement<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. <\/b> Whether FortiSIEM has enough disk space<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Correct Answer: 3. Authentication patterns, privilege use, target systems, and evidence of lateral movement<\/b><\/p>\n

    Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

    When valid credentials are used across multiple internal systems, the SOC should determine whether the activity represents legitimate administration or attacker lateral movement. Analysts should review source hosts, target systems, authentication methods, privileges, timing, remote-access protocols, and follow-on activity. Compromised credentials can allow attackers to move through an environment without generating obvious malware alerts. Correlating identity, endpoint, and network telemetry helps determine the true scope. Mailbox quotas and incident comments are unrelated to the security behavior, while SIEM storage capacity does not explain the suspicious use of the account.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Q202. What is the MOST appropriate reason to prioritize an incident involving a public-facing critical server?<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. <\/b> Compromise could directly affect an important business service and may provide an attacker with external access to internal resources<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. <\/b> Public-facing servers can never generate false positives<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. <\/b> Critical servers do not require investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. <\/b> The server automatically has the highest FortiSOAR queue number<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Correct Answer: 1. Compromise could directly affect an important business service and may provide an attacker with external access to internal resources<\/b><\/p>\n

      Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

      Incident priority should consider potential business impact, exposure, asset criticality, and evidence of malicious activity. A public-facing critical server may support essential services and is reachable from untrusted networks, so a compromise can create significant operational and security consequences. However, its importance does not mean every alert is automatically malicious. Analysts should still validate the evidence, determine scope, and assess whether sensitive systems or data are affected. FortiSOAR queue numbers or workflow details do not define technical risk; prioritization should reflect actual business and security context.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Q203. A suspicious process creates a scheduled task that launches after every reboot. Which adversary objective does this MOST strongly indicate?<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. <\/b> Reconnaissance<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. <\/b> Data normalization<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. <\/b> Incident closure<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. <\/b> Persistence<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Correct Answer: 4. Persistence<\/b><\/p>\n

        Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

        A scheduled task configured to execute after reboot can provide an attacker with continued access or code execution even after the initial compromise mechanism is no longer available. This is characteristic of persistence behavior. Investigators should determine who created the task, what command or binary it executes, whether similar tasks exist elsewhere, and whether the mechanism is authorized. Persistence is especially important during eradication because removing only the original malicious file may leave another access path intact. Reconnaissance occurs earlier in many attacks and does not describe maintaining continued execution.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Q204. Why should a SOC compare observed attacker actions with known adversary techniques?<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. <\/b> To automatically name the threat actor<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. <\/b> To understand the attack pattern and identify related behaviors that may require additional investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. <\/b> To eliminate the need for raw event review<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. <\/b> To make every incident Critical<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Correct Answer: 2. To understand the attack pattern and identify related behaviors that may require additional investigation<\/b><\/p>\n

          Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

          Mapping observed activity to known adversary techniques gives analysts a structured way to understand how an attack is progressing. If credential access and discovery behaviors are observed, the team may decide to hunt for persistence, lateral movement, command-and-control activity, or data collection. Technique mapping improves investigative completeness and can expose detection gaps. It does not automatically identify the attacker or determine incident severity. Analysts still need raw evidence and environmental context. Frameworks are most useful when they support analysis rather than replace it.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Q205. What is the PRIMARY benefit of testing a FortiSIEM incident rule with representative historical data before deploying it broadly?<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. <\/b> It helps determine whether the rule produces useful detections and whether tuning is needed before production use<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. <\/b> It guarantees the rule will never miss an attack<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. <\/b> It removes the need for future monitoring<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. <\/b> It permanently suppresses all false positives<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Correct Answer: 1. It helps determine whether the rule produces useful detections and whether tuning is needed before production use<\/b><\/p>\n

            Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

            Historical testing helps detection engineers understand how a proposed rule behaves against real organizational data. It can reveal whether thresholds are too sensitive, exclusions are required, grouping logic is incorrect, or the needed event fields are unavailable. Testing also helps estimate expected alert volume before exposing analysts to the new rule. No test can guarantee perfect future detection because attacker behavior and environments change. Production rules should still be monitored and tuned over time. Effective detection engineering is iterative and should balance coverage against operational noise.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Q206. A FortiSIEM rule should alert when one host communicates with more than 20 unique external destinations over a short period. Which rule concept is MOST relevant?<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. <\/b> Analyst ownership<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. <\/b> Queue membership<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. <\/b> Distinct counting of destination values grouped by the source host<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. <\/b> War-room participation<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Correct Answer: 3. Distinct counting of destination values grouped by the source host<\/b><\/p>\n

              Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

              The important characteristic is the number of different external destinations contacted by the same source host, not simply the total number of connections. Distinct counting allows the rule to measure unique destinations while grouping events around the source system. A short time window can further distinguish burst-like behavior from normal long-term activity. This technique can be useful for identifying scanning, beaconing patterns, automated malware activity, or unusual service behavior. Ownership, queues, and war rooms are FortiSOAR operational features and do not implement FortiSIEM event-correlation logic.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Q207. A FortiSIEM query returns several million records. What is the BEST next action?<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. <\/b> Delete the query<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. <\/b> Refine the search using meaningful time, entity, event-type, or asset filters<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. <\/b> Disable the underlying log sources<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. <\/b> Export every event before reviewing the criteria<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Correct Answer: 2. Refine the search using meaningful time, entity, event-type, or asset filters<\/b><\/p>\n

                Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                A query that returns an extremely large data set is difficult to investigate efficiently. The analyst should revisit the investigative question and add filters that preserve relevant evidence while excluding unrelated events. Useful criteria can include time ranges, users, hosts, IP addresses, event types, applications, or asset groups. Search refinement should be iterative; if the narrowed query reveals new relationships, the analyst can expand strategically. Disabling log sources or deleting data reduces visibility. The goal is to make the query precise enough to support analysis without prematurely excluding important evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

                Q208. Why is an exact time range useful when investigating a user-reported incident?<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. <\/b> It determines connector permissions<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. <\/b> It changes the original event timestamp<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. <\/b> It prevents the analyst from expanding the investigation later<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. <\/b> It reduces unrelated results and focuses analysis around the period when the reported behavior occurred<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Correct Answer: 4. It reduces unrelated results and focuses analysis around the period when the reported behavior occurred<\/b><\/p>\n

                  Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                  A known incident time gives analysts an efficient starting point for querying large event stores. Restricting the initial search to the relevant interval can dramatically reduce unrelated records and make correlations easier to see. Once evidence is identified, the analyst can expand backward or forward to reconstruct the full attack timeline. A time filter does not modify stored event timestamps or control connectors. It is simply an investigative tool for managing scope. FortiSIEM queries are most effective when search criteria closely reflect the question the analyst is trying to answer.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Q209. Why should analysts review raw events when a normalized FortiSIEM field appears inconsistent?<\/b><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. <\/b> Raw events can help determine whether the original source data or the parsing\/normalization process caused the inconsistency<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. <\/b> Raw logs always contain less information than normalized events<\/span><\/li>\n
                  3. <\/b> Reviewing raw data automatically fixes the parser<\/span><\/li>\n
                  4. <\/b> Normalized data should never be verified<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Correct Answer: 3. Raw events can help determine whether the original source data or the parsing\/normalization process caused the inconsistency<\/b><\/p>\n

                    Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                    Normalized fields depend on correct extraction and mapping from the original event. If a value appears wrong or missing, examining the raw source message can show whether the information was absent at the source or whether parsing failed to capture it. This distinction is important because the remediation differs: a source configuration problem requires one approach, while parser or normalization issues require another. Raw data does not automatically fix anything, but it provides evidence for troubleshooting. Detection rules and queries depend heavily on accurate normalized fields.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Q210. A FortiSIEM incident contains events that appear unrelated because they use different usernames but share one compromised endpoint. What should the analyst consider?<\/b><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. <\/b> The events cannot be related<\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. <\/b> Different usernames prove separate attackers<\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. <\/b> The endpoint should be ignored<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. <\/b> The compromised endpoint may be the common entity connecting otherwise different identities and activities<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correct Answer: 1. The compromised endpoint may be the common entity connecting otherwise different identities and activities<\/b><\/p>\n

                      Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                      Attackers can obtain or use multiple accounts from a single compromised system. If events share a common endpoint, process, source address, or session context, they may be part of one incident even when usernames differ. Analysts should evaluate host activity, credential use, process execution, network connections, and timing to determine whether the endpoint serves as the common pivot. Investigation should avoid assuming that different usernames automatically mean unrelated incidents. Security analysis frequently requires finding the shared entity that connects seemingly independent events.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Q211. What is the primary purpose of a threat-hunting data-source inventory?<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. <\/b> To replace the hunting hypothesis<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. <\/b> To identify what telemetry is available and what security questions each source can help answer<\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. <\/b> To disable unused playbooks<\/span><\/li>\n
                      4. <\/b> To assign incident severity automatically<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Correct Answer: 4. To identify what telemetry is available and what security questions each source can help answer<\/b><\/p>\n

                        Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                        Threat hunters need to understand which data sources are available before designing useful searches. An inventory can identify endpoint logs, authentication data, DNS records, firewall traffic, cloud activity, and other telemetry along with their retention and important fields. This helps hunters choose realistic hypotheses and recognize visibility gaps. A hypothesis cannot be tested effectively if the required evidence is not collected. The inventory does not replace the hypothesis or automatically determine severity. Instead, it connects hunting questions to the data needed to answer them.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Q212. A hunt finds suspicious DNS queries but no endpoint telemetry exists for the affected system. What is the BEST conclusion?<\/b><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. <\/b> The system is definitely compromised<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. <\/b> The evidence is incomplete, and the visibility limitation should be documented while additional data is sought if possible<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. <\/b> DNS evidence should be discarded<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. <\/b> The hunt must be classified as a false positive<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Correct Answer: 2. The evidence is incomplete, and the visibility limitation should be documented while additional data is sought if possible<\/b><\/p>\n

                          Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                          Security investigations often operate with incomplete evidence. Suspicious DNS behavior can justify further analysis, but without endpoint telemetry the analyst may not know which process generated the query or whether the activity was legitimate. The correct response is to document the limitation, use other available sources, and consider improving telemetry for future investigations. The absence of endpoint data does not prove or disprove compromise. Threat hunting should clearly distinguish confirmed findings from hypotheses and gaps rather than forcing a definitive conclusion unsupported by evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Q213. Why is maintaining an incident timeline useful in FortiSOAR?<\/b><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. <\/b> It helps analysts reconstruct key events, decisions, and response actions in chronological order<\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. <\/b> It increases connector permissions<\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. <\/b> It changes FortiSIEM rule severity<\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. <\/b> It removes the need for ownership<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Correct Answer: 1. It helps analysts reconstruct key events, decisions, and response actions in chronological order<\/b><\/p>\n

                            Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                            A timeline helps responders understand how an incident unfolded. It can include detection events, authentication changes, containment actions, analyst decisions, communications, and recovery milestones. This chronological context is useful during active response, shift handoffs, management updates, and post-incident review. It can also reveal delays or gaps in the response process. The timeline does not change external connector permissions or FortiSIEM rule configuration. It is a case-management aid that improves shared understanding and preserves a coherent record of what happened.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Q214. What is the BEST reason to use separate tasks for evidence collection and containment in a complex incident?<\/b><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. <\/b> To ensure different required activities can be assigned, tracked, and completed independently<\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. <\/b> To make the incident deliberately harder to manage<\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. <\/b> To disable playbook execution<\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. <\/b> To remove the need for a case owner<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Correct Answer: 4. To ensure different required activities can be assigned, tracked, and completed independently<\/b><\/p>\n

                              Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                              Complex incidents often involve parallel workstreams. One analyst may collect forensic evidence while another coordinates endpoint containment or account remediation. Separate tasks make responsibilities, deadlines, and completion status visible without forcing all activities into one unstructured note. This improves coordination and makes handoffs easier. Tasks complement incident ownership rather than replacing it. They can also be created or updated by playbooks where appropriate. Structured task management helps ensure important steps are not missed when several teams participate in the response.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Q215. A playbook needs to enrich a domain, an IP address, and a file hash using different services. What is the MOST important design consideration?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. <\/b> Ensure each indicator is sent to the connector action appropriate for its type and expected input format<\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. <\/b> Send every value to every connector<\/span><\/li>\n
                              3. <\/b> Convert all indicators into usernames<\/span><\/li>\n
                              4. <\/b> Ignore connector output types<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Correct Answer: 2. Ensure each indicator is sent to the connector action appropriate for its type and expected input format<\/b><\/p>\n

                                Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                Different enrichment services and actions expect different indicator types and formats. A domain reputation lookup may not accept a file hash, while a malware-analysis service may expect a specific hash algorithm. The playbook should identify or validate the indicator type, normalize the value, and send it to the correct connector action. Connector responses may also differ and require transformation before later conditions evaluate them. Good workflow design avoids unnecessary or invalid external calls and ensures that enrichment results remain meaningful for subsequent investigation or response steps.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Q216. Why might a FortiSOAR playbook store enrichment results in incident fields rather than only displaying them temporarily?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. <\/b> To preserve useful context for later analysts, conditions, reporting, or subsequent workflow steps<\/span><\/li>\n
                                2. <\/b> To increase external API rate limits<\/span><\/li>\n
                                3. <\/b> To modify FortiSIEM parsers<\/span><\/li>\n
                                4. <\/b> To avoid incident documentation<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Correct Answer: 3. To preserve useful context for later analysts, conditions, reporting, or subsequent workflow steps<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  Persisting enrichment results makes the information available beyond the immediate connector execution. Later playbook steps can evaluate the values, analysts can review them during the investigation, and reports or dashboards can potentially use the stored context. This also improves handoffs because subsequent analysts can see what enrichment already occurred. The field design should avoid unnecessary or sensitive data and should be updated consistently. Storing results does not affect external API rate limits or FortiSIEM parsing. It supports continuity and structured use of enrichment information.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  Q217. A connector credential is valid, but the external service endpoint URL is wrong. Which type of failure should be expected?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. <\/b> A connectivity or endpoint-related connector failure even though the credential itself may be correct<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  2. <\/b> A FortiSIEM rule syntax error<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  3. <\/b> Automatic incident closure<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  4. <\/b> A change to analyst shifts<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Correct Answer: 4. A connectivity or endpoint-related connector failure even though the credential itself may be correct<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    Connector operation depends on more than credentials. The endpoint address, DNS resolution, network reachability, TLS configuration, service availability, and authentication settings all must be correct. If the URL points to the wrong system or nonexistent path, authentication may never even be attempted successfully. Troubleshooting should separate connectivity, endpoint, authentication, authorization, and data-format problems. This structured approach reduces unnecessary credential changes when the true problem lies elsewhere. Fortinet explicitly includes connector configuration and playbook troubleshooting in the exam objectives.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Q218. A playbook action has been failing intermittently because an external service is temporarily unavailable. What is the BEST design improvement?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. <\/b> Mark every failed call successful<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. <\/b> Add controlled retry and failure-handling logic appropriate to the action<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. <\/b> Delete the incident after the first failure<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    4. <\/b> Disable all connector logging<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Correct Answer: 2. Add controlled retry and failure-handling logic appropriate to the action<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      Temporary external outages are normal integration risks. A resilient workflow should recognize transient failures and respond predictably. Depending on the operation, this may involve retrying after a delay, limiting the number of attempts, notifying an analyst, or creating a task for manual action. The playbook should not report success when no response action actually occurred. Retry behavior should also consider whether repeating the operation is safe. Connector failures and workflow troubleshooting are important parts of practical SOAR design because automation depends on systems outside FortiSOAR\u2019s direct control.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      Q219. What is the main purpose of versioning or documenting major playbook changes?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. <\/b> To understand what changed and support troubleshooting or rollback when new behavior causes problems<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. <\/b> To remove all previous execution history<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. <\/b> To guarantee every new version is correct<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. <\/b> To prevent testing<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Correct Answer: 1. To understand what changed and support troubleshooting or rollback when new behavior causes problems<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        Playbooks evolve as APIs, security processes, and response requirements change. Recording what was modified, why it changed, and what testing occurred makes future troubleshooting much easier. If a new version behaves incorrectly, the team can compare it with the prior design and potentially restore a known-good state. Documentation and version awareness also improve audits and team collaboration. They do not guarantee that a new version is error-free. Controlled changes should still include review, testing, and validation before broad production use.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Q220. After several incidents reveal that the same manual containment step repeatedly delays response, what is the BEST automation opportunity?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. <\/b> Remove the containment step entirely<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        2. <\/b> Automate or partially automate the repeatable step with appropriate validation, permissions, and safeguards<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        3. <\/b> Stop measuring response time<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        4. <\/b> Disable FortiSOAR playbooks<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Correct Answer: 3. Automate or partially automate the repeatable step with appropriate validation, permissions, and safeguards<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          Explanation:<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          Repeated manual actions are good candidates for automation when the process is well understood and the risk can be controlled. FortiSOAR may be able to perform the containment step through an appropriate connector, while conditions, asset context, or manual approval can provide safeguards for high-impact actions. Automation can reduce response time and analyst workload while improving consistency. The goal is not to automate blindly; the workflow should include error handling, auditing, rollback considerations, and least-privilege connector permissions. Effective SOAR adoption targets repeatable bottlenecks where automation provides measurable operational value.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          View Full Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps. Q201. A SOC analyst discovers that a compromised user account accessed several internal systems using valid credentials. Which activity should be investigated MOST closely? Whether the user’s mailbox quota is full Whether the incident has enough comments Authentication patterns, privilege use, target systems, and evidence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1648,1647],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20308"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20308"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20309,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20308\/revisions\/20309"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}