• Post author:
  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:3 mins read
  • Post last modified:June 12, 2024

What are two important reasons why the SOC analysts should not quickly formulate a conclusion that identifies the threat actor of the attack, based on a single IDS alert? (Choose two.)

  • The alert maybe a true positive alert.
  • A single alert usually can not provide enough conclusive evidence, and should be correlated with other event data.
  • If the threat actor is using a backdoor remote access trojan to access the compromised host, then the resulting alert may contain false source and destination IP address information.
  • The threat actor may be pivoting through another compromised device to obscure their true identity and location
Explanation & Hint:

Two important reasons why SOC (Security Operations Center) analysts should not quickly formulate a conclusion that identifies the threat actor of an attack based on a single IDS (Intrusion Detection System) alert are:

  1. A single alert usually cannot provide enough conclusive evidence, and should be correlated with other event data: IDS alerts are just one piece of the puzzle. A single alert may indicate suspicious activity, but it often lacks the context necessary to accurately identify a threat actor. Reliable attribution requires correlating data from multiple sources, analyzing patterns over time, and understanding the broader context of the network environment.
  2. The threat actor may be pivoting through another compromised device to obscure their true identity and location: Sophisticated attackers often use techniques like pivoting, where they move laterally through a network by compromising multiple systems. They may also use proxy servers, VPNs, or compromised systems in other networks to conceal their true location and identity. This means the source IP address in an IDS alert might not represent the actual attacker but could instead be a victim of the attacker’s pivot strategy.

The other options, while important considerations in security analysis, are not as directly relevant to the caution against premature attribution based on a single alert:

  • The possibility of an alert being a true positive is a reason for concern, but it doesn’t directly relate to the caution against hastily attributing an attack to a specific actor.
  • The scenario of a threat actor using a backdoor remote access trojan that falsifies source and destination IP addresses is a specific technique that, while possible, is less commonly a primary reason to avoid quick attribution based on a single alert. It’s more about the general caution that attackers use various methods to disguise their identity.

For more Questions and Answers:

Threat Investigation Post-Assessment | CBROPS

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments