{"id":20664,"date":"2026-09-24T06:42:51","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T06:42:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/?p=20664"},"modified":"2026-09-24T06:42:51","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T06:42:51","slug":"palo-alto-networks-xsiam-analyst-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part6-q101-120","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/palo-alto-networks-xsiam-analyst-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part6-q101-120\/","title":{"rendered":"Palo Alto Networks XSIAM-Analyst Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps Part6 Q101-120"},"content":{"rendered":"

View Full <\/b>Palo Alto Networks XSIAM-Analyst Exam Dumps<\/b><\/a> and Practice Test Dumps.<\/b><\/p>\n


\n<\/b>Q101. What is the BEST reason to investigate an incident\u2019s related identities in Cortex XSIAM?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/b> To automatically reset every related password<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. <\/b> To remove unrelated endpoint telemetry<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. <\/b> To determine vulnerability severity<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. <\/b> To understand whether user or service accounts are connected to suspicious activity across assets<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Correct Answer: 4. To understand whether user or service accounts are connected to suspicious activity across assets<\/b><\/p>\n

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

    Identity context can reveal how an incident extends beyond a single endpoint or alert. An analyst may discover that one account authenticated to multiple systems, executed suspicious processes, or appeared in related network activity. This can help identify credential misuse, lateral movement, or broader incident scope. The presence of an identity does not automatically prove compromise, because legitimate users and service accounts can appear in normal activity. Analysts should correlate identity information with assets, alerts, causality, historical behavior, and XQL results before deciding whether an account requires containment or additional investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Q102. What is the main benefit of examining an incident\u2019s key assets before taking response action?<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. <\/b> It proves which alert is malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. <\/b> It helps the analyst understand which systems are involved and the potential operational impact of response<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. <\/b> It automatically changes the incident score<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. <\/b> It eliminates the need for causality analysis<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Correct Answer: 2. It helps the analyst understand which systems are involved and the potential operational impact of response<\/b><\/p>\n

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

      Key assets provide critical context about the systems involved in an incident. A containment action that is appropriate for a user workstation may be far more disruptive when applied to a production server, identity system, or critical business application. Analysts should therefore consider asset role, ownership, importance, and related activity before isolating or remediating a system. Asset context does not prove malicious intent and should be evaluated together with alerts, causality, artifacts, user behavior, and vulnerability information. Palo Alto Networks specifically emphasizes analysis of key assets as part of XSIAM investigation training.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Q103. An analyst suspects that one user account is being used from multiple unusual endpoints. Which XQL approach is MOST useful?<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. <\/b> Filter on the user, then aggregate or count distinct endpoints associated with that identity<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. <\/b> Search only endpoint vulnerability data<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. <\/b> Remove username fields from the result set<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. <\/b> Query only incidents that are already closed<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Correct Answer: 1. Filter on the user, then aggregate or count distinct endpoints associated with that identity<\/b><\/p>\n

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

        If the investigation question concerns how broadly one identity is being used, the analyst should search telemetry for that user and summarize the distinct endpoints involved. This can help identify credential sharing, compromised credentials, or lateral movement. Time filtering can further determine whether the activity occurred in an unusually short period. The result still requires context because administrators or service accounts may legitimately access many systems. XQL is designed to support this kind of targeted querying and aggregation across security data during investigations and threat hunts.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Q104. What is the BEST reason to compare an XSIAM alert with activity immediately before and after it?<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. <\/b> Alerts contain no useful context on their own<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. <\/b> Later events are always more important than earlier events<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. <\/b> Nearby activity can reveal the sequence that led to the alert and what happened afterward<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. <\/b> Time correlation automatically proves root cause<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Correct Answer: 3. Nearby activity can reveal the sequence that led to the alert and what happened afterward<\/b><\/p>\n

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

          An alert often represents only one observable point within a larger attack sequence. Looking backward can reveal suspicious authentication, execution, or initial access, while looking forward can expose persistence, lateral movement, network communication, or response activity. This chronological context helps analysts determine whether an alert is isolated or part of a broader incident. Time proximity alone does not prove causation, so related assets, users, processes, artifacts, and causality should also be reviewed. Incident investigation is strongest when alerts are evaluated as part of a sequence rather than as independent records.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Q105. Why is distinguishing between a prevented action and a successful malicious action important during XSIAM analysis?<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. <\/b> Prevented activity should always be ignored<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. <\/b> A prevention event may show an attempted attack without proving that the attacker achieved the intended objective<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. <\/b> Prevention means the endpoint is definitely clean<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. <\/b> Successful attacks never generate prevention events<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Correct Answer: 2. A prevention event may show an attempted attack without proving that the attacker achieved the intended objective<\/b><\/p>\n

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

            Security controls can detect and block malicious actions before they succeed. An analyst should therefore distinguish between an attempted behavior that was prevented and evidence that malicious execution actually occurred. A blocked file or exploit may still justify investigation because related activity could exist elsewhere, but it should not automatically be treated as successful compromise. The analyst should review causality, process activity, network connections, related alerts, and historical telemetry to determine whether the prevention was complete or whether follow-on activity occurred through another path.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Q106. What is the BEST reason to inspect command-line parameters for common scripting engines during threat hunting?<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. <\/b> Every scripting engine is malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. <\/b> Scripts cannot be used legitimately<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. <\/b> Command-line data is useful only for compliance<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. <\/b> Attackers can abuse legitimate interpreters with suspicious parameters even when the executable itself is trusted<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Correct Answer: 4. Attackers can abuse legitimate interpreters with suspicious parameters even when the executable itself is trusted<\/b><\/p>\n

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

              PowerShell, command shells, Python, and other interpreters are widely used for legitimate administration, but attackers can also abuse them. Command-line parameters may reveal encoded content, suspicious downloads, credential access, remote execution, or other malicious behavior that the process name alone would not show. Analysts should compare command lines with parent processes, users, endpoints, network activity, and causality. Hunting for suspicious command usage is more useful than simply alerting on every interpreter execution, because broad detections can generate excessive false positives in normal enterprise environments.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Q107. An XQL query returns thousands of matching events. What should the analyst do NEXT?<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. <\/b> Delete the query<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. <\/b> Treat all results as malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. <\/b> Refine the query using relevant time, asset, user, process, or event filters<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. <\/b> Disable the data source<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Correct Answer: 3. Refine the query using relevant time, asset, user, process, or event filters<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                Large result sets can obscure useful patterns. The analyst should revisit the investigation question and narrow the query with criteria that directly support it, such as a known time range, affected asset, identity, process, artifact, or event category. Aggregation can also help reveal concentrations before drilling into individual records. Query refinement is an iterative process: the analyst can widen scope later if new evidence suggests a broader incident. XQL is most effective when queries are precise enough to reduce noise without excluding important evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

                Q108. Why might an analyst examine the absence of expected endpoint activity during an investigation?<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. <\/b> Missing expected telemetry can indicate a visibility gap, disabled collection, or unusual system behavior<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. <\/b> Missing data always proves tampering<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. <\/b> Absence of events means the endpoint is safe<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. <\/b> XSIAM cannot analyze missing telemetry<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Correct Answer: 1. Missing expected telemetry can indicate a visibility gap, disabled collection, or unusual system behavior<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                  Analysts often focus on suspicious events that appear, but expected events that disappear can also be informative. An endpoint that normally generates regular telemetry but suddenly goes silent may have an agent issue, collection problem, system outage, or deliberate interference. The absence of data should not automatically be classified as malicious, but it should be investigated when it creates an unexpected visibility gap. Analysts can use other telemetry sources, asset information, and historical behavior to determine whether the silence has a legitimate explanation or affects confidence in the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Q109. What is the BEST reason to review an alert\u2019s MITRE ATT&CK mapping when available?<\/b><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. <\/b> It automatically identifies the attacker<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. <\/b> It guarantees the alert is a true positive<\/span><\/li>\n
                  3. <\/b> It replaces technical investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
                  4. <\/b> It helps place the observed behavior into a structured adversary tactic or technique context<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Correct Answer: 4. It helps place the observed behavior into a structured adversary tactic or technique context<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                    ATT&CK mapping can help analysts understand what type of adversary behavior an alert may represent, such as execution, persistence, credential access, or lateral movement. This can guide additional searches and help analysts consider what related techniques might appear elsewhere in the incident. The mapping is contextual rather than definitive: it does not attribute the threat actor or guarantee the alert is malicious. Analysts should still examine causality, artifacts, users, assets, and telemetry to determine what actually happened and whether additional hunting is needed.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Q110. A suspicious file is signed by a trusted vendor. What should the analyst conclude?<\/b><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. <\/b> The signature is useful context, but the file\u2019s behavior and surrounding evidence still require analysis<\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. <\/b> The file is automatically benign<\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. <\/b> Signed files cannot be abused by attackers<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. <\/b> The incident should be closed immediately<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correct Answer: 1. The signature is useful context, but the file\u2019s behavior and surrounding evidence still require analysis<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                      A valid digital signature provides provenance information and can increase confidence that a file came from a known publisher, but it does not prove the file is safe in every context. Signed tools can be abused, certificates can be compromised, and legitimate applications can be used in malicious attack chains. Analysts should review the file hash, path, execution chain, user, command line, network activity, and causality before determining disposition. Signature information is supporting evidence rather than a substitute for behavioral analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Q111. What is the BEST purpose of a threat-hunting baseline in XSIAM?<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. <\/b> To permanently classify every deviation as malicious<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. <\/b> To establish what normal activity looks like so unusual behavior can be prioritized for investigation<\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. <\/b> To disable alerts for common processes<\/span><\/li>\n
                      4. <\/b> To replace XQL queries<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Correct Answer: 2. To establish what normal activity looks like so unusual behavior can be prioritized for investigation<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                        A baseline gives analysts a reference point for normal user, endpoint, process, or network behavior. Deviations from that baseline can provide useful hunting leads, such as an account logging in from a new location or a server launching a process it has never used before. Deviations are not automatically malicious, because normal business behavior changes over time. Baselines should therefore support prioritization rather than final conclusions. Analysts should use XQL and incident context to determine whether the deviation has a legitimate explanation or deserves escalation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Q112. An analyst suspects lateral movement using remote services. Which evidence combination is MOST useful?<\/b><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. <\/b> Only vulnerability severity<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. <\/b> Only the destination hostname<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. <\/b> Authentication activity, source and destination assets, remote-service usage, user context, and follow-on execution<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. <\/b> Only incident age<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Correct Answer: 3. Authentication activity, source and destination assets, remote-service usage, user context, and follow-on execution<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                          Lateral movement involves an adversary moving from one system to another after gaining initial access. Useful evidence includes who authenticated, where the connection originated, which destination was accessed, which remote protocol was used, and what processes or commands executed afterward. One event alone rarely proves lateral movement. Correlating identity, endpoint, and network context provides a much stronger picture. XSIAM\u2019s unified telemetry and causality capabilities are valuable because they allow analysts to connect these relationships across different security data sources within one investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Q113. Why should an analyst document a high-confidence benign explanation for suspicious activity?<\/b><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. <\/b> To support accurate disposition and help future analysts understand why similar behavior may be expected<\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. <\/b> Benign explanations should never be documented<\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. <\/b> Documentation automatically suppresses all future alerts<\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. <\/b> It prevents historical searching<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Correct Answer: 1. To support accurate disposition and help future analysts understand why similar behavior may be expected<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                            A well-documented benign finding can be valuable for future investigations and detection improvement. It should explain what activity occurred, why it was expected, what evidence supported that conclusion, and whether the behavior should influence future tuning. This reduces duplicated work when similar alerts recur and helps detection engineers distinguish legitimate patterns from genuine threats. Documentation should not automatically suppress all future alerts because the same behavior may become suspicious in a different context. Good incident records preserve both malicious and benign analytical conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Q114. What is the primary value of comparing vulnerability severity with actual asset exposure?<\/b><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. <\/b> Exposure is irrelevant if a vulnerability is Critical<\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. <\/b> Risk depends not only on vulnerability severity but also on whether and how the asset can be reached or exploited<\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. <\/b> Vulnerability severity automatically identifies compromise<\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. <\/b> Asset exposure determines the CVE identifier<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Correct Answer: 3. Risk depends not only on vulnerability severity but also on whether and how the asset can be reached or exploited<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                              A severe vulnerability on an isolated test system may represent less immediate risk than a somewhat lower-rated vulnerability on an Internet-facing critical application. Analysts and vulnerability teams should consider exploitability, exposure, asset importance, compensating controls, and active threat behavior when prioritizing remediation. Vulnerability severity remains useful, but context determines practical risk. Palo Alto Networks includes vulnerability assessment within the XSIAM Analyst certification because analysts need to understand how vulnerability information contributes to security posture and incident investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Q115. Why should an analyst be cautious before rerunning a response playbook that already completed once?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. <\/b> Playbooks can never be executed twice<\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. <\/b> Automation history is always unreliable<\/span><\/li>\n
                              3. <\/b> Repeating actions always closes the incident<\/span><\/li>\n
                              4. <\/b> Some response actions may be disruptive or create duplicate changes if executed again**<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Correct Answer: 4. Some response actions may be disruptive or create duplicate changes if executed again<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                Not every automation action is harmless when repeated. A second execution might duplicate a block rule, resend notifications, repeat remediation, or act on an asset whose state has already changed. Before rerunning a playbook, the analyst should review previous execution results, current incident context, and the actions the workflow performs. Enrichment steps may be safe to repeat, while containment actions deserve more caution. Automation should reduce manual effort without creating unintended state changes, especially when production systems or user access are affected.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Q116. What is the BEST reason to examine a process tree together with file artifacts?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. <\/b> It connects executable relationships with the actual files involved, improving understanding of how code entered and executed<\/span><\/li>\n
                                2. <\/b> File artifacts make process relationships irrelevant<\/span><\/li>\n
                                3. <\/b> Process trees automatically prove maliciousness<\/span><\/li>\n
                                4. <\/b> Files are useful only after remediation<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Correct Answer: 2. It connects executable relationships with the actual files involved, improving understanding of how code entered and executed<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                  Process trees show how execution flowed, while file artifacts provide additional information about the binaries or scripts involved. Combining the two can reveal that a document dropped a file, a script launched it, and the resulting process initiated suspicious network activity. File hash, path, signature, and reputation can strengthen or weaken the analyst\u2019s hypothesis. Neither view is complete by itself. XSIAM investigation training emphasizes both artifacts and causality because together they provide a more complete explanation of the attack sequence.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  Q117. An analyst sees one endpoint generating DNS requests to hundreds of never-before-seen domains. What should be investigated?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. <\/b> Whether the behavior is associated with malware, domain-generation activity, legitimate software, or another automated process<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  2. <\/b> Assume the endpoint is clean because DNS is normal<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  3. <\/b> Delete the DNS events<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  4. <\/b> Ignore the process responsible<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Correct Answer: 3. Whether the behavior is associated with malware, domain-generation activity, legitimate software, or another automated process<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                    A sudden burst of requests to many new domains can indicate suspicious automated behavior, including domain-generation algorithms used by malware, but some legitimate applications may also contact many unique domains. The analyst should identify the process generating the queries, examine domain reputation and registration patterns, review network connections, compare historical endpoint behavior, and determine whether other systems show the same pattern. Threat hunting is strongest when anomalies are used as leads and then validated with broader context instead of being treated as automatic proof of compromise.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Q118. Why is a failed automation action still valuable investigation information?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. <\/b> It can reveal what the platform attempted, why it failed, and what manual follow-up may be required<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. <\/b> Failed automation should always be hidden<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. <\/b> Failure proves the incident is benign<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    4. <\/b> Failed actions cannot be audited<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Correct Answer: 1. It can reveal what the platform attempted, why it failed, and what manual follow-up may be required<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                      Automation results are part of the operational history of an incident. If enrichment or containment fails, the analyst needs to know what action was attempted and whether the failure resulted from permissions, connectivity, missing data, or another cause. This prevents false assumptions that remediation succeeded. The analyst can then decide whether to retry, run an alternate playbook, or perform a manual response. Automation should increase visibility and consistency even when an action fails, rather than hiding incomplete response activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      Q119. What is the BEST reason to use XQL after an incident appears fully contained?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. <\/b> To search for persistence, recurring indicators, or related behavior that may exist outside the original incident scope<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. <\/b> XQL is useful only before containment<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. <\/b> Containment guarantees there are no related systems<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. <\/b> Querying after containment reopens every incident automatically<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Correct Answer: 2. To search for persistence, recurring indicators, or related behavior that may exist outside the original incident scope<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                        Containment limits current attacker activity but does not guarantee that every affected system or persistence mechanism has been identified. Analysts can use XQL after containment to search for the same file hashes, domains, users, command lines, processes, or techniques across broader telemetry. This helps validate the assumed scope and detect residual activity before the incident is considered fully resolved. Querying after containment is therefore a useful assurance step and can support eradication, recovery validation, and post-incident hunting.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Q120. What is the BEST overall approach when an XSIAM threat hunt reveals a behavior not covered by existing alerts?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. <\/b> Ignore it because no alert existed<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        2. <\/b> Investigate and validate the behavior, then consider improving future detection or monitoring if the pattern is reliable<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        3. <\/b> Automatically isolate every matching endpoint<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        4. <\/b> Delete the hunt results after review<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Correct Answer: 4. Investigate and validate the behavior, then consider improving future detection or monitoring if the pattern is reliable<\/b><\/p>\n

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

                                          One of the most valuable outcomes of threat hunting is discovering behavior that automated detections did not identify. Analysts should determine whether the finding is genuinely malicious, understand its scope and root cause, and then evaluate whether the behavior can be monitored more consistently in the future. A hunting result should not automatically trigger broad containment without validation. Threat hunting and automated detection complement one another: hunting discovers new patterns, while improved detections help the SOC identify similar behavior more efficiently the next time it appears.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          View Full Palo Alto Networks XSIAM-Analyst Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps. Q101. What is the BEST reason to investigate an incident\u2019s related identities in Cortex XSIAM? To automatically reset every related password To remove unrelated endpoint telemetry To determine vulnerability severity To understand whether user or service accounts are connected to suspicious activity across […]<\/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\/20664"}],"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=20664"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20664\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20665,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20664\/revisions\/20665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}