Security-Operations-Engineer Google Cloud Certified - Professional Security Operations Engineer (PSOE) Exam Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option C. The primary constraints are to "streamline" the process, create a "new, functional playbook," get it "as soon as possible," and "use available tools in Google Security Operations."

Google Security Operations integrates Gemini directly into the SOAR platform to accelerate security operations. One of its key capabilities is generative playbook creation. This feature allows an analyst to describe their intended objectives in natural language (e.g., "Create a playbook to investigate and respond to a remote shell alert"). Gemini then generates a complete, logical playbook flow, including investigation, enrichment, containment, and eradication steps.

This generated playbook serves as a high-quality draft. The analyst can then add the necessary customizations (like specific tools, notification endpoints, or contacts for the e-commerce platform) and, most importantly, test the playbook to ensure it is functional and reliable for junior analysts to execute. This workflow directly meets all the prompt's requirements, especially "streamline" and "as soon as possible."

Option D (creating a custom playbook from scratch and using a red team) is the exact opposite of streamlined and fast. Option B involves patching an "outdated" playbook, not creating a new one. Option A incorrectly bundles a specific remediation action (filtering traffic) with the playbook creation process.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Gemini for Security Operations: Gemini in Google SecOps provides generative AI to assist analysts and engineers. Within the SOAR capability, Gemini can generate entire playbooks from natural language prompts.

Playbook Creation with Gemini: Instead of building a playbook manually, an engineer can describe the intended objectives of the response plan. Gemini will generate a new playbook with a logical structure, including relevant actions and conditional branches. This generated playbook serves as a strong foundation, which can then be refined. The engineer can add necessary customizations to tailor the playbook to the organization's specific environment, tools, and processes. Before deploying the playbook for use by the SOC, it is a best practice to test it against simulated alerts to validate its functionality and ensure it runs as expected.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

(Note: Per the instruction to "Correct any typing errors," "Google Ops Agent" (Option A) should be read as the "Google SecOps forwarder." The "Google Ops Agent" is the incorrect agent used for Cloud Monitoring/Logging, whereas the "Google SecOps forwarder" is the correct agent for SecOps (Chronicle) ingestion. The remainder of Option A's text accurately describes the function of the SecOps forwarder.)

The native, minimal-effort solution for ingesting on-premises Syslog data into Google Security Operations (SecOps) is to deploy the Google SecOps forwarder. This forwarder is a lightweight software component (Linux binary or Docker container) deployed within the on-premises environment.

For this use case, the SecOps forwarder is configured with a [syslog] input, causing it to run as a Syslog server that listens on a specified TCP or UDP port. The two on-premises firewalls are then configured to send their Syslog streams to the IP address and port of the machine running the SecOps forwarder. The forwarder acts as the Syslog destination on the local network, buffering, compressing, and securely forwarding the logs to the SecOps platform. Option C is a valid, but third-party, solution. Option A (when corrected) describes the native, Google-provided solution. Option B (Feed) is incorrect as feeds are for threat intel, not telemetry. Option D is incorrect as the SecOps platform does not accept raw Syslog traffic directly via its URL.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps data ingestion overview"; "Install and configure the SecOps forwarder"; "Forwarder configuration syntax - Syslog input")

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The most efficient and native solution is to use the Google Cloud operations suite. Google Security Operations (SecOps) automatically exports its own ingestion health metrics to Cloud Monitoring. These metrics provide detailed information about the logs being ingested, including log counts, parser errors, and event counts, and can be filtered by dimensions such as hostname.

To solve this, an engineer would navigate to Cloud Monitoring and create a new alert policy. This policy would be configured to monitor the chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/log_entry_count metric, filtering it for the specific hostname of the critical Windows server.

Crucially, Cloud Monitoring alerting policies have a built-in condition type for "metric absence." The engineer would configure this condition to trigger if no data points are received for the specified metric (logs from that server) for a duration of 30 minutes. When this condition is met, the policy will automatically send a notification to the desired channels (e.g., email, PagerDuty). This is the standard, out-of-the-box method for monitoring log pipeline health and requires no custom rules (Option B) or custom heartbeat configurations (Option C).

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps ingestion metrics and monitoring"; "Cloud Monitoring - Alerting on metric absence")

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The most direct and efficient method to "quickly gather more context and assess the reputation" of an unknown IP address is to check it against the platform's integrated threat intelligence. The **Alerts & IoCs page**, specifically the **IoC Matches** tab, is the primary interface for this.

Google Security Operations continuously and automatically correlates all ingested UDM (Universal Data Model) events against its vast, integrated threat intelligence feeds, which include data from Google Threat Intelligence (GTI), Mandiant, and VirusTotal. If the unfamiliar external IP address is a known malicious Indicator of Compromise (IoC)—such as a command-and-control (C2) server, malware distribution point, or known scanner—it will have already generated an "IoC Match" finding.

By searching for the IP on this page, an analyst can immediately confirm if it is on a blocklist and gain critical context, such as its threat category, severity, and the specific intelligence source that flagged it. While Option B (finding the user) and Option C (viewing the asset) are valid subsequent steps for understanding the internal scope of the incident, they do not provide the *external reputation* of the IP. Option D is a *response* action taken only *after* the IP has been assessed as malicious.

*(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "View alerts and IoCs"; "How Google SecOps automatically matches IoCs"; "Investigate an IP address")*

***

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The core of this problem is the unreliable data quality for the file hash. A robust detection strategy cannot depend on an unreliable data point. Options B and C are weak because they create a dependency on the SHA256 hash, which the prompt states is "not reliably captured." This would lead to missed detections. Option A is far too broad and would generate massive noise.

The best detection engineering practice is to use the reliable IoCs in a flexible and high-performance manner. The domain is a reliable IoC (from DNS logs), and the hash is still a valuable IoC, even if it's only intermittently available.

The standard Google SecOps method for this is to create a List (referred to here as a "data table") containing both static IoCs: the hash and the domain. An engineer can then write a single, efficient YARA-L rule that references this list. This rule would trigger if either a PROCESS_LAUNCH event is seen with a hash in the list or a NETWORK_DNS event is seen with a domain in the list (e.g., (event.principal.process.file.sha256 in %ioc_list) or (event.network.dns.question.name in %ioc_list)). This creates a resilient detection mechanism that provides two opportunities to identify the threat, successfully working around the unreliable data problem.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "YARA-L 2.0 language syntax"; "Using Lists in rules"; "Detection engineering overview")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option B. This question tests the advanced detection capabilities of YARA-L when using the Applied Threat Intelligence (ATI) Fusion Feed.

The key requirement is to find an IP that not only matches but has a documented relationship to APT41. The ATI Fusion Feed is not just a flat list of IOCs; it is a context-rich graph of indicators, malware, threat actors, and their relationships, managed by Google's threat intelligence teams.10

Option A is incorrect because it describes a manual, static list (data table) and cannot query the relationships in the live feed.

Option C is incorrect because it is too generic ("high confidence score," "any feed"). The requirement is specific to the ATI Fusion Feed and APT41.

Option D is incorrect because it describes a post-detection SOAR action. The question explicitly asks how to configure the YARA-L detection rule itself to perform this correlation.

Option B is the only one that describes the correct YARA-L 2.0 methodology. The rule must first define the live event (network connection). Then, it must define the context source (the ATI Fusion Feed). In the events section of the rule, a join is established between the event's external IP field and the IP indicator in the Fusion Feed. Finally, the rule filters the joined context data, looking for attributes such as threat.threat_actor.name = "APT41" or other related_indicators that link back to the specified threat group.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Applied Threat Intelligence Fusion Feed overview: The Applied Threat Intelligence (ATI) Fusion Feed is a collection of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs), including hashes, IPs, domains, and URLs, that are associated with known threat actors, malware strains, active campaigns, and finished intelligence reporti11ng.12

Write YARA-L rules with the ATI Fusion Feed: Writing YARA-L rules that use the ATI Fusion Feed follows a similar process to writing YARA-L rules that use other context entity sources.13 To write a rule, you filter the selected context entity graph (in this case, Fusion Feed).14

You can join a field from the context entity and UDM event field. In the following example, the placeholder variable ioc is used to do a transitive join between the context entity and the event.

Because this rule can match a large number of events, it is recommended that you refine the rule to match on context entities that have specific intelligence. This allows you to filter for explicit associations, such as a specific threat group or an indicator's presence in a compromised environment.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option A. The key requirement is to "improve" the previous manual "watchlist" process.

In Google Security Operations, "data tables" (mentioned in options C and D) are the modern equivalent of watchlists or reference lists.1 Using a data table would replicate the old, static process and would not be an improvement.

The superior method in Google SecOps is to ingest this data as Entity Context. This is a core feature where context data (like user information from AD or asset data from a CMDB) is ingested via a feed or the Context API. Google SecOps then uses this data to automatically enrich all incoming security events (UDM) in real-time.

When a log for john.doe is ingested, it is automatically enriched with the context data from AD, such as "John Doe," "Marketing Department," "Manager: Jane Smith," etc. This enriched information is then available for detection, hunting, and investigation. This is a significant improvement because it provides continuous, automatic enrichment at ingestion, rather than requiring a manual update of a static table or only enriching after an alert is generated (Option B).

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

UDM enrichment and aliasing overview: Google Security Operations (SecOps) supports aliasing and enrichment for assets and users.2 Aliasing enables enrichment.3 For example, using aliasing, you can find the job title and employment status associated with a user ID.4

How aliasing works: User aliasing uses the USER_CONTEXT event type for aliasing.5 This contextual data is stored as entities in the Entity Graph.6 When new Unified Data Model (UDM) events are ingested, enrichment uses this aliasing data to add context to the UDM event.7 For example, a UDM event might include principal.user.userid = "jdoe". 8The enrichment process populates the principal.user noun with the entity data, such as user.user_display_name = "John Doe" and user.department = "Marketing".

This is the recommended method for ingesting organizational context from sources like Microsoft Windows Active Directory, as it makes the contextual data available for all subsequent detection, search, and investigation activities.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option D. The problem is that a known, trusted principal (the backup tool's service account) is performing a legitimate action (storage.objects.list) that happens to look like the suspicious behavior the rule is designed to catch.

The most precise and effective way to reduce these false positives without weakening the rule's ability to catch malicious actors is to create an exception for the trusted principal.

By adding principal.user.email != "backup-bot@fcobaa.com" (or the equivalent principal.user.userid) to the events or condition section of the YARA-L rule, the rule will now only evaluate events where the actor is not the known-good backup bot.

Option A is incorrect because it just lowers the priority of the false positive; it doesn't stop it from being generated.

Option B is incorrect because the legitimate tool might also perform repeated calls, leading to the same false positive.

Option C is incorrect because api.service_name = "storage.googleapis.com" is less specific than api.operation = "storage.objects.list" and would likely increase the number of false positives by triggering on any storage API call.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Reduce false positives: When a detection rule generates false positives due to known-benign activity (e.g., from an administrative script or automation tool), the best practice is to add a not condition to the rule to exclude the trusted entity.8

You can filter on UDM fields to create exceptions. For example, to prevent a rule from firing on activity from a specific service account, you can add a condition to the events section such as:

and $e.principal.user.userid != "trusted-service-account@project.iam.gserviceaccount.com"

This technique, often called "allow-listing" or "suppression," improves the rule's accuracy by focusing only on unknown or untrusted principals.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The key requirement is to *automate* the extraction of data to *minimize analyst effort*. This is a core function of Google Security Operations SOAR (formerly Siemplify). The **Siemplify integration** provides the foundational playbook actions for case management and entity manipulation.

The **`Create Entity`** action is designed to programmatically add new entities (like users, IPs, or domains) to the active case. To make this action automatic, the playbook developer must use the **Expression Builder**. The Expression Builder is the tool used to parse the JSON output from a previous action (the UDM query) and dynamically map the results (the list of usernames) into the parameters of a subsequent action.

By using the Expression Builder to configure the `Entities Identifier` parameter of the `Create Entity` action, the playbook automatically extracts all `principal.user.userid` fields from the UDM query results and adds them to the case. These new entities can then be automatically passed to the next playbook step, such as "Reset Password."

Options A and C are incorrect because they are **manual** actions. They require an analyst to intervene, which does *not* minimize effort. Option D is incorrect as it creates multiple, unnecessary cases, flooding the queue instead of enriching the single, original phishing case.

*(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps SOAR Playbooks overview"; "Using the Expression Builder"; "Marketplace and Integrations")*

***

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The Google Security Operations (SecOps) platform provides an integrated, zero-impact workflow for developing and testing detections. The standard method is to use the "Test Rule" feature, which is built directly into the Rules Editor.

After the detection engineer has defined the complete YARA-L logic (including events, match, and condition sections), they can click the "Test Rule" button. This function performs a historical search (a retrohunt) against a specified time range of UDM data (e.g., last 24 hours, last 7 days). The platform then returns a list of all events that would have triggered the detection, without creating any live alerts, cases, or impacting production.

This allows the engineer to "ensure that the detections are accurate" by reviewing the historical matches, identifying potential false positives, and refining the rule's logic. This iterative "develop and test" cycle within the editor is the primary method for validating a rule before it is enabled. While UDM search (Option A) is useful for testing the events section logic, it cannot test the full match and condition logic of the rule. Setting a rule to "live but not alerting" (Option D) is a valid, later step, but the "Test Rule" feature is the correct initial development and testing tool.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Create and manage rules using the Rules Editor"; "Test a rule")

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

This is a standard Identity and Access Management (IAM) permission issue. When Google Security Operations (SecOps) exports data, it uses its own service account (often named service-@gcp-sa-bigquerydatatransfer.iam.gserviceaccount.com or a similar SecOps-specific principal) to perform the write operation. The user account that schedules the report (Option C) is only relevant for the scheduling action, not for the data transfer itself. For the export to succeed, the Google SecOps service account principal must have explicit permission to write data into the target BigQuery dataset.

The predefined IAM role roles/bigquery.dataEditor grants the necessary permissions to create, update, and delete tables and table data within a dataset. By granting this role to the Google SecOps service account on the specific dataset, you authorize the service to write the report results and populate the tables. Option A (serviceAccountUser) is incorrect as it's used for service account impersonation, not for granting data access. Option B (retention period) is a data lifecycle setting and has no impact on the ability to write new data. The most common cause for this exact scenario—a successful job run with no data appearing—is that the service account lacks the required bigquery.dataEditor permissions on the destination dataset.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Troubleshoot transfer configurations"; "Control access to resources with IAM"; "BigQuery predefined IAM roles")

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The correct mechanism for achieving logical data segregation for different customers in a Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR multi-tenant environment is by using Environments. The documentation explicitly states that "you can define different environments and environment groups to create logical data segregation." This separation applies to most platform modules, including cases, playbooks, and dashboards.

This feature is specifically designed for this use case: "This process is useful for businesses and Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) who need to segment their operations and networks. Each environment...can represent a separate customer." When an analyst is associated with a specific environment, they can only see the cases and data relevant to that customer, ensuring strict logical separation.

While permission groups (Option C) and roles (Option A) are used to control what a user can do within the platform (e.g., view cases, edit playbooks), they do not provide the primary data segregation. Environments are the top-level containers that separate one customer's data and cases from another's. Playbooks (Option B) are automation workflows and are not a mechanism for logical separation.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Control access to the platform using SOAR permissions"; "Support multiple instances [SOAR]")