{"id":20326,"date":"2026-09-23T12:34:04","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:34:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/?p=20326"},"modified":"2026-09-23T12:34:04","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:34:04","slug":"fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part20-q381-400","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/fortinet-nse7_soc_ar-7-6-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part20-q381-400\/","title":{"rendered":"Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps Part20 Q381-400"},"content":{"rendered":"

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


\n<\/b>Q381. Why is defining a clear SOC escalation matrix important during incident response?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/b> It ensures every incident is escalated directly to executive management<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. <\/b> It defines who should be contacted as incident severity, scope, or required expertise increases<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. <\/b> It replaces technical investigation procedures<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. <\/b> It prevents analysts from changing incident severity<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Correct Answer: 2. It defines who should be contacted as incident severity, scope, or required expertise increases<\/b><\/p>\n

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

    An escalation matrix provides analysts with a predefined path for transferring incidents when additional authority, expertise, or business coordination is required. For example, a Tier 1 analyst may escalate confirmed credential compromise to an identity-response team, while a large data-loss incident may also involve management, legal, or compliance personnel. Clear escalation criteria reduce delays and inconsistency during stressful incidents. Escalation does not mean every event must reach senior management, nor does it replace investigation. Instead, it ensures the right people become involved as risk and complexity increase.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Q382. A SOC wants to determine whether its detections cover important adversary techniques. What is the BEST approach?<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. <\/b> Count only the total number of SIEM rules<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. <\/b> Assume more alerts always mean better coverage<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. <\/b> Disable low-frequency detections<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. <\/b> Map available detection capabilities to relevant adversary behaviors and identify gaps**<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Correct Answer: 4. Map available detection capabilities to relevant adversary behaviors and identify gaps<\/b><\/p>\n

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

      Detection coverage is better evaluated by asking which adversary behaviors the SOC can observe and detect rather than simply counting rules. Mapping rules and telemetry to tactics and techniques can reveal areas with strong coverage, weak visibility, or no meaningful detection at all. Some behaviors may require additional endpoint, identity, cloud, or network telemetry before useful detection is possible. A large number of noisy rules does not necessarily provide better security. Coverage analysis helps the SOC prioritize new data sources, hunting efforts, and rule development based on realistic threat scenarios.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Q383. Which scenario BEST demonstrates defense in depth in a SOC architecture?<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. <\/b> Multiple preventive, detective, and response controls work together so failure of one control does not leave the environment unprotected<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. <\/b> One security product is responsible for every security function<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. <\/b> All detections depend on one log source<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. <\/b> Security monitoring is performed only after an incident occurs<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Correct Answer: 1. Multiple preventive, detective, and response controls work together so failure of one control does not leave the environment unprotected<\/b><\/p>\n

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

        Defense in depth uses multiple layers of security rather than relying on one control. Preventive technologies may block known threats, FortiSIEM can detect suspicious behavior that bypasses prevention, and FortiSOAR can coordinate investigation and response. Identity controls, segmentation, endpoint protection, network monitoring, and secure administration can all contribute. The objective is resilience: if one layer fails, another may still detect or limit the attack. Depending entirely on a single product or telemetry source creates a single point of failure and reduces the SOC’s ability to investigate complex incidents.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Q384. Why is it important to distinguish between containment and eradication?<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. <\/b> Containment permanently removes all malicious artifacts<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. <\/b> Eradication always occurs before detection<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. <\/b> Containment limits active risk, while eradication removes malicious artifacts and underlying causes<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. <\/b> They are two names for the same process<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Correct Answer: 3. Containment limits active risk, while eradication removes malicious artifacts and underlying causes<\/b><\/p>\n

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

          Containment is intended to stop an attacker from continuing to cause damage or spread while responders investigate. Examples include isolating a host or disabling a compromised account. Eradication occurs afterward and focuses on removing malware, persistence mechanisms, unauthorized accounts, and other artifacts while addressing vulnerabilities or weaknesses that enabled the compromise. A system should not be considered fully recovered merely because it is isolated. Understanding these phases helps responders avoid returning a compromised system to production before the underlying threat has actually been removed.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Q385. A FortiSIEM rule should detect a user who authenticates to more than eight unique systems within five minutes. Which logic is MOST suitable?<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. <\/b> Count every event from every user<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. <\/b> Group by user, count distinct destination systems, and apply a five-minute window<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. <\/b> Trigger only on failed DNS requests<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. <\/b> Group by analyst name<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

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

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

            The behavior of interest is one identity accessing many different systems rapidly. The rule should therefore group authentication events by user, count unique destination hosts, and evaluate the result over five minutes. This can help identify credential misuse or lateral movement while avoiding the mistake of combining unrelated users. Distinct counting is important because repeated access to the same legitimate server is different from access across many systems. Analysts should still consider authorized administrative activity and service accounts when tuning the rule to avoid unnecessary incidents.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Q386. What is the BEST reason to validate FortiSIEM parsing after onboarding a new data source?<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. <\/b> To confirm important fields are being extracted and normalized correctly for queries and rules<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. <\/b> To increase FortiSOAR queue capacity<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. <\/b> To change analyst permissions<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. <\/b> To guarantee every event creates an incident<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Correct Answer: 1. To confirm important fields are being extracted and normalized correctly for queries and rules<\/b><\/p>\n

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

              Receiving logs is only the first step in onboarding a security data source. FortiSIEM must correctly parse important values such as usernames, source and destination addresses, event types, actions, and timestamps so detection rules and searches can use them. Incorrect parsing can create missed detections or misleading investigation results even when raw events are present. Administrators should compare normalized fields with the original event content and test representative queries. Data quality directly affects correlation accuracy, threat hunting, and incident analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Q387. A FortiSIEM rule depends on endpoint events, but one endpoint group has stopped reporting. What should the SOC do?<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. <\/b> Assume the affected endpoints are clean<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. <\/b> Close any incidents related to the group<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. <\/b> Lower all rule severities<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. <\/b> Investigate and restore telemetry while recognizing the resulting detection blind spot**<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Correct Answer: 4. Investigate and restore telemetry while recognizing the resulting detection blind spot<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                Missing endpoint telemetry means the SOC cannot reliably determine whether expected behaviors are occurring on those systems. Rules that depend on process, authentication, or endpoint activity may silently lose coverage. Administrators should identify why reporting stopped, restore ingestion, and document the visibility gap during the affected period. The absence of events does not prove the systems are safe. Depending on the risk, analysts may also use alternative data sources such as network or authentication telemetry to partially compensate until endpoint visibility is restored.<\/span><\/p>\n

                Q388. Why should an analyst expand a FortiSIEM query gradually during an investigation rather than immediately searching all historical data?<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. <\/b> Historical events are never useful<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. <\/b> Broad queries cannot return security events<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. <\/b> Incremental expansion helps control noise while allowing the analyst to widen scope when evidence justifies it<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. <\/b> FortiSIEM does not support time ranges<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Correct Answer: 3. Incremental expansion helps control noise while allowing the analyst to widen scope when evidence justifies it<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                  Starting with a focused time period and known entities can make it easier to identify meaningful relationships without becoming overwhelmed by unrelated data. Once the analyst identifies useful indicators, users, hosts, or behaviors, the query can be expanded backward or forward to establish the full timeline and scope. Broad searches remain valuable, but running them too early can hide important patterns in excessive noise. An incremental approach provides structure while preserving the ability to widen the investigation as new evidence emerges.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Q389. What is the BEST reason to correlate authentication events with endpoint process events?<\/b><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. <\/b> It can connect an identity’s login with actions performed on the endpoint after authentication<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. <\/b> Authentication alone always reveals every executed process<\/span><\/li>\n
                  3. <\/b> Endpoint telemetry makes identity data unnecessary<\/span><\/li>\n
                  4. <\/b> The correlation automatically proves compromise<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Correct Answer: 1. It can connect an identity’s login with actions performed on the endpoint after authentication<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                    Authentication tells analysts which account gained access, while endpoint telemetry can show what happened afterward. Correlating the two can reveal that an unusual login was followed by suspicious script execution, credential access, system discovery, or another meaningful behavior. This relationship provides stronger context than either event source alone. It does not automatically prove that the user intentionally performed the action because credentials may have been stolen. Analysts should also review source systems, timing, privileges, and network activity to establish whether the behavior is legitimate or malicious.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Q390. A query reveals successful logins from a suspicious source but no failed attempts. What should the analyst consider?<\/b><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. <\/b> The activity cannot be malicious without failures<\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. <\/b> The attacker may already possess valid credentials, so successful authentication can still represent compromise<\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. <\/b> Every successful login should be ignored<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. <\/b> Password spraying is the only possible attack technique<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correct Answer: 4. The attacker may already possess valid credentials, so successful authentication can still represent compromise<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                      Credential compromise does not always produce failed logins. An attacker who obtained a password, token, or session credential elsewhere may authenticate successfully on the first attempt. Analysts should therefore examine source location, device, authentication method, user history, subsequent actions, and privilege use rather than relying only on failed attempts as an indicator of attack. Successful authentication from an unusual source followed by suspicious activity can provide strong evidence of credential misuse. Detection strategies should include both failed and successful authentication behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Q391. Why should threat hunters examine activity around newly registered domains?<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. <\/b> Newly registered domains are always malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. <\/b> They can sometimes be used for phishing, command-and-control, or short-lived attacker infrastructure and may warrant contextual investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. <\/b> Registration age proves who owns a domain<\/span><\/li>\n
                      4. <\/b> Older domains cannot be compromised<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Correct Answer: 2. They can sometimes be used for phishing, command-and-control, or short-lived attacker infrastructure and may warrant contextual investigation<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                        Attackers may register new domains for phishing campaigns, malware delivery, or command-and-control because newly created infrastructure has little historical reputation. However, legitimate organizations also register domains constantly, so domain age alone is insufficient evidence. Hunters should correlate the domain with endpoint processes, DNS activity, certificate information, reputation, user behavior, and network connections. A newly registered domain is best treated as contextual risk information that can strengthen or weaken a broader hypothesis rather than as automatic proof of malicious activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Q392. A threat hunter observes one account accessing unusual file shares across several servers. Which hypothesis is MOST appropriate?<\/b><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. <\/b> The activity may represent legitimate work or unauthorized discovery\/data collection and should be tested against historical behavior and role context<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. <\/b> File-share access is always malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. <\/b> The account must immediately be deleted<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. <\/b> No further investigation is needed<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Correct Answer: 3. The activity may represent legitimate work or unauthorized discovery\/data collection and should be tested against historical behavior and role context<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                          Unusual access to multiple file shares can indicate data discovery or collection, but legitimate business workflows can produce similar activity. The hunter should review the user’s role, normal systems, accessed files, timing, source endpoint, authentication method, and whether related privilege or network activity exists. A hypothesis should remain testable and acknowledge alternative explanations rather than assuming compromise. This evidence-driven approach reduces confirmation bias and helps the analyst determine whether additional response is justified.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Q393. What is the BEST purpose of recording evidence that disproves a threat-hunting hypothesis?<\/b><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. <\/b> It demonstrates why the hypothesis was rejected or refined and improves the credibility of the investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. <\/b> Contradictory evidence should always be deleted<\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. <\/b> Only evidence supporting compromise is useful<\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. <\/b> It automatically closes all related incidents<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Correct Answer: 4. It demonstrates why the hypothesis was rejected or refined and improves the credibility of the investigation<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                            Threat hunting should actively consider evidence that supports and contradicts a hypothesis. Recording contrary evidence reduces confirmation bias and helps other analysts understand why a conclusion was reached. For example, an unusual login may initially appear malicious, but an approved travel record and known managed device may explain it. Preserving that evidence makes the hunt reproducible and demonstrates disciplined reasoning. A rejected hypothesis can still provide useful lessons about normal behavior, telemetry quality, and future query design.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Q394. An incident moves from Tier 1 to a malware-analysis team. What information is MOST useful in the handoff?<\/b><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. <\/b> Only the incident title<\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. <\/b> A concise summary of findings, evidence, affected assets, actions already taken, and specific questions requiring specialist analysis<\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. <\/b> The analyst’s personal schedule<\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. <\/b> Unrelated closed incidents<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Correct Answer: 2. A concise summary of findings, evidence, affected assets, actions already taken, and specific questions requiring specialist analysis<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                              A good handoff allows the receiving team to continue from the current state rather than repeating the entire investigation. It should describe why escalation occurred, what evidence has been validated, which systems and users are involved, what containment has already taken place, and what specialist analysis remains necessary. Tasks, incident notes, and war-room information can preserve this context. Incomplete handoffs increase response time and can lead to duplicated work or contradictory actions. Clear transfer of context is essential in multi-tier SOC operations.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Q395. Why should FortiSOAR incident queues avoid relying only on incident age for prioritization?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. <\/b> Age alone does not reflect severity, business impact, confidence, or current containment status<\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. <\/b> Incident age is never useful<\/span><\/li>\n
                              3. <\/b> Older incidents are always benign<\/span><\/li>\n
                              4. <\/b> Queue priority cannot be changed<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Correct Answer: 1. Age alone does not reflect severity, business impact, confidence, or current containment status<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                An older low-risk incident may be less urgent than a newly created case involving confirmed privileged-account compromise on a critical server. Prioritization should therefore consider severity, confidence, affected assets, potential business impact, containment status, regulatory requirements, and time-based targets. Incident age remains useful for identifying stalled work and SLA risk, but it should not be the only factor. FortiSOAR queues and shifts are designed to support structured workload management that reflects operational priorities rather than simple first-in, first-out processing.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Q396. A playbook needs to enrich hundreds of indicators. What should the designer consider before launching connector requests?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. <\/b> API rate limits, duplicate values, batching capabilities, execution time, and failure handling<\/span><\/li>\n
                                2. <\/b> Only the incident title<\/span><\/li>\n
                                3. <\/b> Removing all connector authentication<\/span><\/li>\n
                                4. <\/b> Disabling playbook history<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Correct Answer: 3. API rate limits, duplicate values, batching capabilities, execution time, and failure handling<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                  Large indicator sets can create significant load on external enrichment services. The workflow should deduplicate values, validate indicator types, understand API quotas, use batching when supported, and handle partial failures or rate-limit responses. Parallel execution may improve speed but can also exceed service constraints. The playbook should clearly identify which indicators were successfully processed and which require retry or analyst attention. Scalable automation considers external system limits rather than assuming every connector can handle unlimited requests.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  Q397. Why should a Jinja transformation use a default value carefully?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. <\/b> A default can prevent runtime errors, but an inappropriate value could be mistaken for real data and influence later decisions<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  2. <\/b> Default values always represent verified information<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  3. <\/b> Defaults eliminate the need for data validation<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  4. <\/b> Jinja cannot handle missing values<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Correct Answer: 4. A default can prevent runtime errors, but an inappropriate value could be mistaken for real data and influence later decisions<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                    Defaults can make a playbook more resilient when optional fields are missing, but designers must distinguish between \u201cno data\u201d and a genuine value. For example, replacing a missing threat score with zero might cause a condition to treat an unknown indicator as benign. A safer default may be an explicit <\/span>unknown<\/span> state that routes to analyst review. Jinja should therefore be used to make data handling clearer, not to hide uncertainty. Downstream logic should understand whether a value was returned by the source or supplied by the workflow.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Q398. A containment action succeeds, but a later notification step fails. How should the incident reflect this?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. <\/b> Mark containment as failed because notification failed<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. <\/b> Record containment as successful while separately recording and handling the notification failure<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. <\/b> Undo containment automatically<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    4. <\/b> Delete the playbook execution<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Correct Answer: 2. Record containment as successful while separately recording and handling the notification failure<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                      Playbook steps can have different outcomes, and the incident record should reflect them accurately. If containment succeeded, analysts need to know the threat was actually restricted even if a later email, ticket, or messaging notification failed. The notification error can then follow its own retry or escalation path. Treating the entire workflow as one undifferentiated success or failure can create confusion. Good playbook design preserves step-level results so responders understand the true operational state of the incident.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      Q399. Why should playbook triggers be as specific as practical?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. <\/b> Specific triggers reduce unnecessary executions and lower the risk of automation running on unrelated records<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. <\/b> Specific triggers prevent all logic errors<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. <\/b> Broad triggers always improve security<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. <\/b> Trigger conditions replace workflow conditions completely<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Correct Answer: 1. Specific triggers reduce unnecessary executions and lower the risk of automation running on unrelated records<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                        A playbook that starts on every record update may consume resources or perform inappropriate actions on cases it was never designed to handle. Specific trigger criteria can limit execution to the relevant module, event, source, incident type, or state. Additional conditional logic can still refine behavior later in the workflow. Carefully designed triggers also reduce the risk of recursive execution when the playbook updates the same record that caused it to start. Trigger design is therefore an important part of safe and efficient automation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Q400. What is the BEST way to validate that an updated FortiSOAR playbook is ready for production?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. <\/b> Confirm only that it saves without syntax errors<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        2. <\/b> Test only the easiest success case<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        3. <\/b> Perform controlled testing of triggers, normal paths, decision branches, connector actions, data transformations, error paths, and recovery behavior<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        4. <\/b> Deploy immediately and use production incidents as the test environment<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Correct Answer: 3. Perform controlled testing of triggers, normal paths, decision branches, connector actions, data transformations, error paths, and recovery behavior<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                          A production playbook can perform powerful actions across external systems, so validation should cover more than basic syntax. Representative testing should confirm that triggers fire only when intended, variables contain expected data, Jinja transformations work, connector actions have correct permissions, decision branches handle different outcomes, failures are surfaced safely, and high-impact actions can be recovered when necessary. Test cases should include both expected and unexpected inputs. Fortinet explicitly includes playbook configuration, connector configuration, Jinja data manipulation, and debugging within the current exam objectives.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          View Full Fortinet NSE7_SOC_AR-7.6 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps. Q381. Why is defining a clear SOC escalation matrix important during incident response? It ensures every incident is escalated directly to executive management It defines who should be contacted as incident severity, scope, or required expertise increases It replaces technical investigation procedures It prevents analysts […]<\/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\/20326"}],"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=20326"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20326\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20327,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20326\/revisions\/20327"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}