ECCouncil Updated 312-39 Exam Questions and Answers by usman

The Incident Response Procedures contain the performance measures and proper project and time management details. These procedures are designed to guide the incident response team through each phase of incident management, ensuring that all activities are performed efficiently and effectively. They include specific steps to follow, roles and responsibilities, timelines, and performance metrics to measure the effectiveness of the response.

User action verification is the activity that directly answers “what did users do with the phishing message?” In SOC containment, you need to rapidly determine exposure: who opened the email, who clicked the URL, who opened an attachment, and who submitted credentials. This drives priority actions such as password resets, session revocation, MFA re-registration, endpoint isolation, URL/domain blocking, mailbox searches for similar messages, and targeted user notifications. Monitoring/containment validation confirms whether containment actions are effective (e.g., blocks are working, incidents aren’t spreading), but it does not specifically measure user interaction steps. Malware infection checks assess whether an endpoint is infected—useful if an attachment executed—but it comes after confirming interaction and is not the primary method to understand email engagement. Blocking C2 and email traffic is an active containment control, but it doesn’t provide the “who clicked/opened” understanding needed to scope impacted users. SOC analysts typically use email gateway telemetry, message trace, safe links/safe attachments logs, and identity sign-in logs to verify user actions. Because the question is explicitly about understanding user interactions, “User action verification” is the best match.

The first step should prioritize immediate containment to stop ongoing exfiltration and prevent further compromise. Isolating the workstation (network isolation or EDR containment) and revoking remote access (terminate sessions, block the suspicious IP, disable the user’s remote access methods) directly reduces the attacker’s ability to continue transferring sensitive data and limits lateral movement risk. In incident response, containment precedes deep forensics when active harm is likely; you preserve evidence while stopping the bleeding. Conducting full forensics first can delay containment and allow continued data theft. Disabling corporate VPN entirely is overly disruptive and does not target the specific compromised endpoint or account; it can also hinder business operations and incident response activity. Informing the department and waiting is inappropriate given the indicators of compromise and policy violation (unauthorized USB). After containment, the SOC should preserve volatile evidence if possible (RAM, active connections), collect relevant logs, assess data accessed, and coordinate with legal/HR due to insider threat implications. But the initial, highest-priority action is targeted containment of the affected workstation and access paths.

During the Analysis phase, one of the first SOC objectives is to validate that the alert reflects malicious activity rather than benign behavior. “Verify false positives” most directly captures this: analysts review alert evidence, confirm telemetry correctness, validate the triggering conditions, and look for corroborating artifacts (process lineage, file hashes, network connections, user actions) to decide whether the alert is a true positive. This prevents wasted effort and reduces disruption from unnecessary containment actions. “Verify generated logs” is too vague; log verification is a supporting activity, but the decision point is determining whether the detection is a false positive or a real incident. Scanning the enterprise and updating scope is typically done after initial validation confirms the threat, because scoping consumes resources and should be targeted. Root-cause analysis usually comes later, once you have confirmed the incident and stabilized containment, since RCA requires deeper investigation and often broader evidence collection. In SOC practice, validating false positives early improves response quality and ensures subsequent scoping and containment are justified and proportionate.