Free Cisco 300-215 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The root cause analysis report’s main goal is to identify what allowed the ransomware to successfully infect systems. The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide emphasizes the importance of uncovering and mitigating the actual vulnerabilities that were exploited during an incident. These could include outdated software, unpatched systems, or poor access control. While understanding the encryption technique or C2 server is helpful for threat intelligence, it does not address the root cause.

The guide states:

"Effective IR helps professionals to leverage the information collected from a security incident to better understand the intrusion and its functionality… this data helps the security team to be better prepared and equipped to handle future incidents".

Identifying the exploited vulnerabilities enables future prevention strategies such as patch management, configuration hardening, and reducing attack surfaces.

—

This Python script uses a combination of libraries (urllib,zlib,base64, andssl) to:

Disable SSL certificate verification (ssl.CERT_NONEandcheck_hostname=False).

Construct a custom HTTPS opener with the specified SSL context.

Add a forgedUser-Agentheader to mimic Internet Explorer 11.

Connect to the URLhttps://23.1.4.14:8443 .

Download and execute base64-encoded and zlib-compressed content from that URL using:

exec(zlib.decompress(base64.b64decode(...).read()))

This shows a classic example of:

Downloading payloads from a remote server (23.1.4.14:8443).

Avoiding detection by disabling SSL verification.

Executing the payload dynamically withexec()after decoding and decompressing.

The main goal is clearly to initiate a connection to a remote command-and-control (C2) server on port 8443 and download/execute additional code.

Hence, the correct answer is: A. Initiate a connection to 23.1.4.14 over port 8443.

The error logs indicate multiplePKCS12andASN.1 decodingerrors, such as:

PKCS12 routines:PKCS12_parse:mac verify failure

rsa routines:old_rsa_priv_decode:RSA lib

PKCS12 routines:PKCS12_key_gen_uni:malloc

These specific errors most commonly occur when:

Theprivate key does not correspondto the certificate being used.

There is amismatchbetween the public and private key pair required for SSL handshakes.

This is a well-documented condition in Apache SSL configuration issues and explicitly covered under TLS/SSL troubleshooting sections in cybersecurity operations contexts. The Cisco CyberOps guide also notes that SSL errors with key verification usually result from "improper key/certificate pairing" rather than file corruption or missing modules.

Thus, the correct answer is:

B. The private key does not match with the SSL certificate.

This STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) JSON snippet provides two key elements relevant for IOC (Indicator of Compromise) analysis:

The indicator pattern shows a suspicious URL:→ "pattern": "[url:value = 'http://x4z9rb.cn/4712/']" This is the actual IOC that can be used for detection.

The type of object that the indicator relates to:→ "type": "malware"→ "name": "x4z9arb backdoor"This indicates the nature of the threat associated with the IOC is malware.

Therefore, the threat is "malware" and the associated indicator (IOC) is the URL: http://x4z9rb.cn/4712/

Option A correctly captures both the IOC category ("malware") and the indicator value ("http://x4z9rb.cn/4712/").

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The log entry contains the following key elements:

The timestamp:(04/Jan/2022:20:18:06 +0000)

HTTP method and URI:"GET /%60%60%60%60%60%60/ HTTP/2.0"

HTTP status code:404

User-Agent:Mozilla/5.0 ... Firefox/95.0

The status code404indicates that the requested resource was not found on the server. This is a standard HTTP response that signifies the server could not locate the requested URI (in this case, likely due to a malformed or invalid path/\`````/, where%60is the URL-encoded form of the backtick character "").

There is no clear evidence of SQL injection, WAF detection, or redirection in this log. The use of encoded backticks may suggest probing behavior, but the log does not show a definitive attack signature.

Therefore, the correct interpretation is:

Answer: D. The requested page was not found.

The Wireshark output shows SMB protocol transactions, including NT Create AndX Response and Write AndX Response, indicating the transfer of files or objects. SMB (Server Message Block) is a protocol used for file sharing and printer access in Windows networks. The log does not indicate phishing or redirection behavior but rather normal SMB communication such as accessing files or shared resources.

—

The exhibit shows multipleARP reply packetswith the same IP addresses (192.168.51.105and192.168.51.201) being mapped todifferent MAC addresses, which triggers the message: "duplicate use of [IP] detected". This is a strong indicator of anARP spoofing(or poisoning) attack.

ARP spoofing occurs when a malicious actor sends falsified ARP messages to associate their MAC address with the IP address of another host. This misleads other devices on the network and allows interception or redirection of traffic.

The Cisco CyberOps Associate guide specifically recommendsconfiguring port securityon switches as a method tomitigate ARP spoofing, by limiting the number of MAC addresses allowed per port or statically assigning legitimate MAC addresses to switch ports.

The XML (STIX/CybOX format) details anemail-based threatindicator. Specifically:

Theemail addresscontains “@state.gov” (not exact match, so blocking all @state.gov would be overbroad).

Theattachment is a PDFfile with a specifiedMD5 hash: cf2b3ad32a8a4cfb05e9dfc45875bd70.

Theattachment sizeis 87022 bytes.

From a threat mitigation perspective:

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

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

Incorrect options:

Boverreaches by blocking an entire domain without confirming threat context.

Cwould stop all PDFs, which is impractical.

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

The string shown is long, alphanumeric, and includes both uppercase and lowercase letters with numbers—characteristics of Base64 encoding. This format is widely used to obfuscate payloads in malicious scripts, particularly in phishing or malware campaigns. Base64 encoding is also supported by Python and other platforms for data transformation.

—

The metadata in the exhibit reveals a strong indicator that this .LNK file (shortcut) is malicious:

The shortcut file is named "ds7002.pdf" but actually points to the execution of PowerShell:→ Full path: C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe

Arguments include:→ -noni -ep bypass $z = '...'; indicating an attempt to run a PowerShell script with execution policy bypassed (a known tactic for fileless malware delivery).

The file is masked as a PDF (common social engineering technique), and PowerShell execution via .LNK is a signature technique used by many malware families to initiate second-stage payloads or scripts.

Given this, the correct and safest course of action is to:

→ Open the .LNK file in a sandbox environment (D).

This enables safe behavioral analysis to observe what actions it attempts upon execution without endangering live systems.

Other options are inappropriate:

A (ignoring the threat due to extension) is dangerous — .LNKs can trigger code.

B (upload to virus engine) is only helpful for known malware and lacks behavioral context.

C (quarantine) is preventive but not investigative — sandboxing provides visibility.