{"id":20318,"date":"2026-09-23T12:32:51","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:32:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/?p=20318"},"modified":"2026-09-23T12:32:51","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:32:51","slug":"fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part16-q301-320","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part16-q301-320\/","title":{"rendered":"Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps Part16 Q301-320"},"content":{"rendered":"

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


\n<\/b>Q301. Why is consistent event normalization important when FortiSIEM receives logs from different security products?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/b> It guarantees that all events generate incidents<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. <\/b> It prevents security devices from changing their log formats<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. <\/b> It maps similar information into consistent fields so cross-source searching and correlation are more reliable<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. <\/b> It eliminates the need for raw logs<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Correct Answer: 3. It maps similar information into consistent fields so cross-source searching and correlation are more reliable<\/b><\/p>\n

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

    Different security products can represent the same concept using different field names and formats. One product might label a username differently from another, while source addresses or event types can also vary. Normalization maps these values into a consistent structure that FortiSIEM can query and correlate more effectively. This enables rules to identify relationships across firewalls, identity systems, servers, endpoints, and other sources. Normalization does not guarantee that an event is malicious and does not make raw data useless. Raw events remain valuable when analysts need to verify parsing accuracy or investigate unusual field values.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Q302. A FortiSIEM incident rule depends on authentication logs from two domain controllers. One domain controller stops sending events. What is the PRIMARY risk?<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. <\/b> The rule may have incomplete visibility and fail to detect some activity<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. <\/b> FortiSOAR automatically stops functioning<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. <\/b> Every existing incident is deleted<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. <\/b> Authentication on the remaining controller stops<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Correct Answer: 1. The rule may have incomplete visibility and fail to detect some activity<\/b><\/p>\n

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

      Correlation rules can detect only behavior represented in the telemetry they receive. If one of two domain controllers stops sending authentication events, activity handled by that system may no longer be visible to the rule. This creates a detection blind spot and can also make investigations incomplete. Administrators should monitor source health and restore ingestion promptly. The loss of one data source does not automatically disable FortiSOAR or stop authentication elsewhere. Detection engineering therefore depends not only on rule logic but also on reliable data-source coverage and ingestion.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Q303. What is the BEST reason to assign unique names and descriptions to FortiSIEM incident rules?<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. <\/b> Rule names determine event retention<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. <\/b> Rule names increase parsing speed<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. <\/b> Descriptions automatically lower false positives<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. <\/b> Clear naming helps analysts understand the purpose and expected behavior of the detection**<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Correct Answer: 4. Clear naming helps analysts understand the purpose and expected behavior of the detection<\/b><\/p>\n

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

        A well-named rule makes incident triage easier because analysts can quickly understand what type of behavior caused the detection. Useful descriptions can explain the intended threat scenario, required data sources, grouping logic, thresholds, and known tuning considerations. This improves maintainability and makes it easier for future engineers to modify the rule safely. Naming does not change retention or parsing performance and does not reduce false positives by itself. Detection quality still depends on telemetry, logic, contextual conditions, and regular tuning.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Q304. A FortiSIEM rule should detect a source host connecting to more than 30 unique internal systems in five minutes. Which logic is MOST appropriate?<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. <\/b> Count every event without grouping<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. <\/b> Group by source host, count distinct destinations, and apply a five-minute window<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. <\/b> Group only by destination port<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. <\/b> Trigger on a single connection<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Correct Answer: 2. Group by source host, count distinct destinations, and apply a five-minute window<\/b><\/p>\n

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

          The suspicious behavior involves one source communicating with many different internal systems during a short period. The rule should therefore group events by the source host, count unique destination systems, and evaluate that count within five minutes. This could help identify scanning, automated discovery, or lateral-movement preparation. A simple total event count would not reveal how many different destinations were contacted. Effective FortiSIEM rules model the relevant relationship among entities, counts, and time rather than treating every event independently.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Q305. Why should a FortiSIEM analyst verify whether a suspicious source IP is assigned dynamically before relying heavily on historical ownership?<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. <\/b> Dynamic addresses never appear in security logs<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. <\/b> A dynamic IP always indicates malicious activity<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. <\/b> The same IP address may have belonged to different devices or users at different times<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. <\/b> Dynamic addressing prevents incident creation<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Correct Answer: 3. The same IP address may have belonged to different devices or users at different times<\/b><\/p>\n

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

            In environments using DHCP or other dynamic addressing, an IP address can be reassigned over time. A source address associated with one endpoint today may have belonged to another device earlier. Analysts should therefore correlate the IP with DHCP, asset, authentication, or endpoint records for the exact incident time. Otherwise, they risk attributing suspicious activity to the wrong system or user. The IP remains useful evidence, but it must be interpreted with temporal context. Reliable incident analysis often requires combining addressing information with identity and asset data.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Q306. A query finds repeated outbound connections but the destination field is blank in many results. What should the analyst investigate?<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. <\/b> Analyst queue ownership<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. <\/b> FortiSOAR shift schedules<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. <\/b> War-room configuration<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. <\/b> Whether the source events are being parsed and normalized correctly**<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Correct Answer: 4. Whether the source events are being parsed and normalized correctly<\/b><\/p>\n

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

              A missing destination value can indicate that the original log did not include the field, but it may also reveal a parser or normalization issue. The analyst should compare raw events with normalized fields and determine whether the expected destination information exists in the original message. If it does, the parsing configuration may need correction. Query accuracy and correlation rules depend on reliably populated fields. FortiSOAR workload-management settings do not affect how FortiSIEM extracts destination values from incoming security events.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Q307. Why is it useful to pivot from a suspicious hostname to all users who authenticated on that host?<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. <\/b> It can reveal which identities may have been exposed, misused, or involved in the suspicious activity<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. <\/b> It proves every user on the host is compromised<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. <\/b> It automatically resets all account passwords<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. <\/b> It removes the need for endpoint evidence<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Correct Answer: 1. It can reveal which identities may have been exposed, misused, or involved in the suspicious activity<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                A compromised host may expose credentials or be used by several accounts during the attack period. Pivoting from the host to associated users helps analysts determine whether privileged or sensitive identities were involved and whether those accounts later accessed other systems. This can uncover lateral movement or additional compromise. The presence of a login does not mean that every user is malicious or compromised, so the analyst should correlate authentication with process, network, and timing evidence. Pivoting expands the investigation using known relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n

                Q308. An analyst wants to search events for either of two malicious file hashes but only on Windows endpoints. Which Boolean structure is BEST?<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. <\/b> Hash-A AND Hash-B AND Windows<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. <\/b> Windows AND (Hash-A OR Hash-B)<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. <\/b> NOT Windows<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. <\/b> Hash-A OR every event<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Correct Answer: 2. Windows AND (Hash-A OR Hash-B)<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                  The query should restrict results to Windows endpoints while accepting either malicious hash. Grouping the two hash conditions with OR and combining that result with the Windows condition using AND expresses the requirement accurately. Poor Boolean grouping can return irrelevant data or exclude matching events. Queries are often easiest to validate incrementally by first testing each condition independently and then combining them. Precise query logic is important when analysts need to search large FortiSIEM data sets efficiently.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Q309. Why should analysts investigate event absence as well as suspicious event presence?<\/b><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. <\/b> Missing expected activity can sometimes indicate logging failure, disabled controls, tampering, or unusual system behavior<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. <\/b> Missing events always prove compromise<\/span><\/li>\n
                  3. <\/b> Event absence automatically creates FortiSOAR incidents<\/span><\/li>\n
                  4. <\/b> Every system must generate the same number of events<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Correct Answer: 4. Missing expected activity can sometimes indicate logging failure, disabled controls, tampering, or unusual system behavior<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                    Security monitoring usually focuses on events that appear, but disappearance of normally reliable telemetry can also be meaningful. A critical service suddenly producing no authentication or audit events may indicate a collection failure, configuration change, service outage, or deliberate tampering. Analysts should first verify normal operational explanations before treating the absence as malicious. Source-health monitoring and historical baselines can help determine whether the missing data is unusual. Event absence is therefore an investigative clue rather than automatic proof of compromise.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Q310. What is the BEST reason to correlate failed privilege-escalation attempts with later successful privilege changes?<\/b><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. <\/b> The sequence may indicate repeated attacker attempts followed by successful privilege escalation<\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. <\/b> Failed attempts are irrelevant once a success occurs<\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. <\/b> Privilege changes are always legitimate<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. <\/b> Correlation prevents future privilege changes<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correct Answer: 1. The sequence may indicate repeated attacker attempts followed by successful privilege escalation<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                      A sequence of failed privilege-escalation attempts followed by success can be much more suspicious than either event type alone. Correlation helps show that the successful action may have followed repeated experimentation or credential attempts. Analysts should review the involved user, host, process, command, time window, and resulting privileges. Legitimate administrators can also generate failures before success, so context remains necessary. Detection based on event sequence can often identify meaningful attacker behavior that single-event alerts miss.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Q311. What is the main purpose of a threat-hunting lead?<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. <\/b> To replace the hunt hypothesis<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. <\/b> To provide a starting clue, observation, or indicator that can guide deeper investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. <\/b> To automatically close related incidents<\/span><\/li>\n
                      4. <\/b> To disable SIEM detection rules<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Correct Answer: 3. To provide a starting clue, observation, or indicator that can guide deeper investigation<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                        A hunting lead is information that suggests an area worth exploring. It might come from threat intelligence, an unusual event, an incident, a new adversary technique, or a pattern observed by an analyst. The lead can then be converted into a hypothesis and investigated using relevant telemetry. A lead is not proof and should not automatically trigger containment. Threat hunters use leads to focus their searches while remaining open to evidence that supports, refines, or contradicts the initial idea.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Q312. Why should a threat hunt define its scope before analysts begin running broad queries?<\/b><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. <\/b> To prevent the hypothesis from changing<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. <\/b> To avoid documenting results<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. <\/b> To determine relevant systems, time periods, users, and data sources so the investigation remains manageable<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. <\/b> To guarantee malicious activity will be found<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Correct Answer: 2. To determine relevant systems, time periods, users, and data sources so the investigation remains manageable<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                          Threat hunts can become inefficient if analysts search every system and time period without a clear scope. Defining the systems, identities, time window, and data sources relevant to the hypothesis keeps the hunt focused and improves repeatability. The scope can expand later when evidence suggests a broader compromise. Scope definition does not prevent hypothesis refinement and does not guarantee a positive result. It simply provides a structured starting point and reduces unnecessary noise during the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Q313. A FortiSOAR incident is waiting for a business owner to approve server isolation. What is the BEST way to make the dependency visible?<\/b><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. <\/b> Create a clearly assigned pending task or workflow state tied to the incident<\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. <\/b> Delete the incident until approval arrives<\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. <\/b> Remove the server from asset inventory<\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. <\/b> Hide the incident from the SOC queue<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Correct Answer: 1. Create a clearly assigned pending task or workflow state tied to the incident<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                            External dependencies should remain visible so the SOC knows why an incident is not progressing. A task or workflow state can record who must act, what decision is required, and whether escalation is necessary if the response is delayed. This helps during shift handoffs and management review. Deleting or hiding the incident creates a risk that the request is forgotten. FortiSOAR workload-management features are intended to coordinate both technical and human actions throughout the incident lifecycle.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Q314. Why should analysts avoid storing sensitive connector credentials in war-room messages?<\/b><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. <\/b> War rooms cannot contain text<\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. <\/b> Credentials exposed in collaboration content could be viewed or copied by users who do not require access<\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. <\/b> War rooms automatically invalidate credentials<\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. <\/b> Connector credentials cannot be changed<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Correct Answer: 4. Credentials exposed in collaboration content could be viewed or copied by users who do not require access<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                              War rooms are designed for incident collaboration, not secret storage. API keys, passwords, tokens, and other credentials should be protected using approved secure mechanisms. Posting them in messages can expose powerful access to users who need incident context but do not need connector credentials. Secrets may also remain in case history longer than intended. Good SOAR security separates operational collaboration from credential management and applies least privilege to both human users and integration accounts.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Q315. A playbook receives multiple IP addresses and needs to enrich each one individually. What design is MOST appropriate?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. <\/b> Iterate over the collection and perform the enrichment action for each validated IP address<\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. <\/b> Concatenate all IPs into one invalid address<\/span><\/li>\n
                              3. <\/b> Use only the first IP and ignore the rest<\/span><\/li>\n
                              4. <\/b> Convert the IP list into incident severity<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Correct Answer: 2. Iterate over the collection and perform the enrichment action for each validated IP address<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                When an incident contains several indicators, the workflow should process each relevant value systematically. Iteration allows the playbook to validate each IP address, query the appropriate enrichment service, and collect the resulting context. The design should also consider deduplication, external API rate limits, error handling, and whether parallel or sequential execution is appropriate. Combining unrelated IPs into one value would produce an invalid lookup, while ignoring indicators can leave the incident under-enriched.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Q316. What is the benefit of applying Jinja filters before evaluating connector output in a conditional step?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. <\/b> They can normalize or extract data so the condition compares the intended value and data type<\/span><\/li>\n
                                2. <\/b> Jinja automatically fixes external API failures<\/span><\/li>\n
                                3. <\/b> Filters increase connector permissions<\/span><\/li>\n
                                4. <\/b> They replace conditional logic<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Correct Answer: 3. They can normalize or extract data so the condition compares the intended value and data type<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                  Connector output can contain nested objects, strings, lists, numbers, or null values. Conditions behave correctly only when the expected value is supplied in the correct format. Jinja expressions can extract a nested field, convert text to a number, trim whitespace, normalize case, or provide a default value. This reduces logic errors caused by mismatched data structures. Jinja does not fix connectivity or authorization problems and does not replace conditions; it prepares the data those conditions evaluate.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  Q317. Why should a playbook distinguish between a connector returning an empty legitimate result and a connector failing completely?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. <\/b> The workflow may need different actions for \u201cno data found\u201d versus \u201cintegration did not work\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  2. <\/b> Empty results always mean the indicator is benign<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  3. <\/b> Failed connectors should be treated as successful<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  4. <\/b> There is no operational difference<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Correct Answer: 4. The workflow may need different actions for \u201cno data found\u201d versus \u201cintegration did not work\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                    A successful query that returns no reputation information is fundamentally different from a request that fails because of timeout, authentication, or API error. An empty result may simply mean the external service has never seen the indicator. A failed request means the playbook cannot know the result at all. Treating both outcomes the same can lead to unsafe decisions. Robust playbooks preserve connector status and data separately so conditions and analysts can interpret the result accurately.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Q318. A playbook has a loop that never terminates because each update retriggers the same workflow. What should the developer change?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. <\/b> Increase connector privileges<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. <\/b> Add trigger or state conditions that prevent the playbook\u2019s own updates from repeatedly starting a new run<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. <\/b> Delete all incident history<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    4. <\/b> Disable FortiSIEM collection<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Correct Answer: 2. Add trigger or state conditions that prevent the playbook\u2019s own updates from repeatedly starting a new run<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                      Record-update triggers can create recursion if the playbook modifies the same field or record in a way that satisfies its own trigger conditions. The developer should add guard conditions, state markers, or other logic that distinguishes the initial event from updates produced by the automation itself. Execution history can confirm the loop pattern. Increasing permissions or deleting history does not address the trigger design. Preventing unwanted recursion is an important part of safe playbook development and troubleshooting.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      Q319. What is the BEST reason to include rollback instructions in playbook documentation for containment actions?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. <\/b> To ensure responders know how to restore legitimate access if containment must be reversed<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. <\/b> To guarantee containment never fails<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. <\/b> To avoid recording automated actions<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. <\/b> To eliminate the need for approval<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Correct Answer: 1. To ensure responders know how to restore legitimate access if containment must be reversed<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                        Containment can affect business operations, especially when a host is isolated, an account is disabled, or a network indicator is blocked. Documentation should explain how to reverse the action safely when the incident is resolved or a false positive is discovered. Rollback procedures should identify required validation and permissions and should preserve an audit trail. A rollback plan does not mean containment is unsafe; it makes recovery more controlled. Automation design should consider the complete lifecycle from detection through containment and eventual restoration.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Q320. A SOC wants to improve a playbook after several real incidents. Which information is MOST useful?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. <\/b> Only whether the playbook started<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        2. <\/b> Execution history, analyst feedback, connector errors, timing, and cases where manual intervention was required<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        3. <\/b> The playbook name only<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        4. <\/b> The number of users in the organization<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Correct Answer: 3. Execution history, analyst feedback, connector errors, timing, and cases where manual intervention was required<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                          Real incident experience provides valuable evidence about how automation performs under production conditions. Execution history shows technical behavior, while analyst feedback can reveal confusing steps, missing context, or unnecessary approvals. Connector errors identify unstable dependencies, and timing data can expose slow enrichment or response actions. Manual intervention points may indicate opportunities for safer additional automation. Improvement should be evidence-driven rather than based only on whether the workflow started. Fortinet explicitly includes debugging and troubleshooting FortiSOAR playbooks in the exam objectives.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          View Full Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps. Q301. Why is consistent event normalization important when FortiSIEM receives logs from different security products? It guarantees that all events generate incidents It prevents security devices from changing their log formats It maps similar information into consistent fields so cross-source searching and correlation are more […]<\/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\/20318"}],"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=20318"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20318\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20319,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20318\/revisions\/20319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}