Cisco Updated 300-215 Exam Questions and Answers by jayce

The XML (STIX/CybOX format) details an email-based threat indicator. Specifically:

The email address contains “@state.gov” (not exact match, so blocking all @state.gov would be overbroad).

The attachment is a PDF file with a specified MD5 hash: cf2b3ad32a8a4cfb05e9dfc45875bd70.

The attachment size is 87022 bytes.

From a threat mitigation perspective:

A is correct: Updating AV to block or flag files matching the malicious hash is a standard response.

D is correct: The email address context and hash together provide a precise rule for blocking—this prevents false positives.

Incorrect options:

B overreaches by blocking an entire domain without confirming threat context.

C would stop all PDFs, which is impractical.

E is incorrect; there is no indication that the hash appears in the subject line.

From the exhibit, the first artifact (PE32 executable from syracusecoffee.com) and the second artifact (HTML from qstride.com) suggest a staged malware delivery method. The executable and the HTML file are linked to different domains, often indicating redirection or multi-stage infection strategies, which is common in phishing or malvertising campaigns.

The Cisco guide explains this tactic as: “One file may appear benign but can initiate downloads or connections to external resources to fetch additional payloads or redirect users”. This pattern of domain redirection strongly supports Option B.

Process injection is a tactic where malicious code is inserted into the memory space of another process, enabling it to run with the privileges and context of a legitimate application. The Cisco study guide explains that this method allows malware to "hide in plain sight" within trusted processes and evade endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools.

It specifically notes: "Process injection techniques allow malware to execute within the memory space of a legitimate process, avoiding detection and taking advantage of the process's permissions.".

One of the primary concerns when gathering forensic evidence in public cloud environments is the issue of multitenancy. In a shared cloud infrastructure, multiple tenants (organizations or users) operate on the same physical hardware, using virtualization to logically separate resources. This architecture poses a significant challenge for forensic investigations because:

Forensic investigators must ensure that they do not inadvertently access or expose data belonging to other tenants while collecting evidence.

This can limit access to low-level system data or hardware-level logs that might be essential for a thorough forensic analysis, since providers must enforce strict data isolation policies.

This concern is recognized in industry practices and guidelines, including NIST SP 800-86, which underscores the need to collect data in a forensically sound and legally defensible manner—something made more complex in shared environments.

The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide emphasizes the challenges of evidence handling in cloud environments, stating that "gathering evidence in the cloud must be carefully performed to ensure compliance with legal standards and to respect the boundaries of other tenants' data".