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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option D. The goal is to exclude events (i.e., stop false positives) when the principal.ip field contains any IP from the trusted 192.168.2.0/24 subnet.

The principal.ip field in UDM is a repeated field, meaning it can hold an array of values (e.g., ["1.2.3.4", "192.168.2.5"]). YARA-L provides the any and all quantifiers to handle repeated fields.9

any $e.principal.ip: This checks if at least one IP in the array meets the condition.

all $e.principal.ip: This checks if every IP in the array meets the condition.

The function net.ip_in_range_cidr(...) returns true if an IP is in the specified range.

Therefore, the logic we need is: "do not trigger this rule if any of the IPs in the principal.ip field are in the 192.168.2.0/24 range."

This translates directly to the YARA-L syntax: not net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "192.168.2.0/24")

Option B would only find events from that subnet.

Option A would only find events where all associated IPs are in that subnet.

Option C is the logical inverse of A and would incorrectly filter out events that might be malicious (e.g., ["1.2.3.4", "192.168.2.5"] would not be excluded because all IPs are not in the range).

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

YARA-L 2.0 language syntax > Repeated fields and boolean expressions: When a boolean expression, such as a function call, is applied to a repeated field, you can use the any or all keywords to specify how the expression should be evaluated.10

any : The expression evaluates to true if it is true for at least one of the values in the repeated field.

all : The expression evaluates to true only if it is true for all of the values in the repeated field.

Functions > net.ip_in_range_cidr: The net.ip_in_range_cidr function is useful to bind rules to specific parts of the network.11 To exclude all private netblocks as defined in RFC1918, you can add a not to the start of the criteria:

and not (net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "10.0.0.0/8") or net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "172.16.0.0/12") or net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "192.168.0.0/16"))

The correct answer is A. The most effective and reliable method for a security engineer to "find reliable IoCs and malware behaviors" is to use Google Threat Intelligence (GTI). When a known indicator like a file hash is identified, the primary workflow is threat enrichment. Google Threat Intelligence, which is a core component of the Google SecOps platform and incorporates intelligence from Mandiant and VirusTotal, is the dedicated tool for this. Searching the hash in GTI provides a comprehensive report on the malware variant, including all associated reliable IoCs (e.g., C2 domains, IP addresses, related file hashes) and malware behaviors (TTPs, attribution, and context). This directly fulfills the user's need.

In contrast, Option D (UDM search) is the subsequent step. A UDM search is used to hunt for indicators within your own organization's logs. An engineer would first use GTI to gather the full list of IoCs and behaviors, and then use UDM search to hunt for all of those indicators across their environment. Option B (Web Search) is unreliable for professional operations, and Option C (manual analysis) is too slow for a "common malware variant" and the need to act "quickly."

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google Threat Intelligence overview"; "Investigating threats using Google Threat Intelligence"; "View IOCs using Applied Threat Intelligence")

This YARA-L rule is designed to correlate a real-time event (a DNS query, $dns) with known-bad indicators stored in the Google SecOps entity graph ($ioc). The code must correctly filter the entity graph to find the specific indicators from the custom MISP feed.

Two filters are required:

$ioc.graph.metadata.entity_type = "DOMAIN_NAME": This line is essential to filter the entity graph for IoCs that are domains. The rule is trying to match a DNS query ($dns_query) to a known C2 domain, so the entity type must be DOMAIN_NAME.

$ioc.graph.metadata.source_type = "ENTITY_CONTEXT": This is the key differentiator. The Google SecOps entity graph has multiple context sources. GLOBAL_CONTEXT (Option B) is for threat intelligence provided by Google (e.g., Google Threat Intelligence, Mandiant). DERIVED_CONTEXT (Option C) is for context inferred from UDM events. The prompt explicitly states the IoC feed is the organization's own "threat intelligence feed... ingested... with... MISP." This type of customer-provided, third-party intelligence is classified as ENTITY_CONTEXT. Adding this line ensures the rule only uses the custom MISP feed for its IoC data, as intended.

The other lines in the $ioc block, such as product_name = "MISP", further refine this ENTITY_CONTEXT search.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "YARA-L 2.0 language syntax"; "Context-aware detections with entity graph"; "Populate the entity graph")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct actions are C and D, as they represent the standard, parallel process for incident response: technical investigation and procedural/communicative response.

Technical Investigation (Option D): The immediate priority is to understand the alert. An analyst must review the Container Threat Detection finding in Security Command Center (SCC) to understand what was detected. This is followed by investigating the affected pod, its container, the node it's running on, and any associated service accounts to determine the initial blast radius and gather forensic data. Researching the binary and related TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) helps contextualize the attack.

Procedural Response (Option C): Concurrently, the organizational response plan must be activated. This involves notifying the business-critical workload owner (stakeholder communication), initiating the formal, documented incident response playbook, and escalating to specialized teams, like threat hunting, for deeper root cause analysis that goes beyond the initial triage.

Option A is incorrect because deleting the pod immediately is a premature remediation step that destroys critical forensic evidence. Option B is incorrect because "keeping the cluster and pod running" without any containment is reckless and could allow an attacker to pivot. Option E is incorrect because an unauthorized binary execution in a critical workload is a high-severity event, not a low-severity finding to be silenced.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Responding to Container Threat Detection findings: When a Container Threat Detection finding is generated, it indicates a potential security issue that requires investigation. The first step is to review the finding details in Security Command Center (SCC) to understand the nature of the threat, such as K8S_BINARY_EXECUTED.

The recommended workflow involves:

Investigate: Examine the affected Kubernetes resources, such as the Pod, Container, and Node. Use tools like kubectl to inspect the pod configuration, running processes, and network connections. Research the associated attack and response methods to understand the threat actor's TTPs.

Respond: Follow the organization's incident response playbook. This includes notifying the workload owner and relevant stakeholders. Contain the threat by isolating the pod or node, but avoid deleting resources immediately to preserve evidence for forensic analysis.

Escalate: For complex incidents, engage the threat hunting or forensics team to conduct a thorough investigation, identify the root cause, and determine the full scope of the compromise.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option A. This question is about entity context enrichment and aliasing.

Endpoint telemetry from EDR and Windows Event Logs (like 4624) identifies users by their Windows Security Identifier (SID) (e.g., S-1-5-21-12345...). However, detection rules are more effective when they match on a human-readable and consistent identifier, like an email address or username, which is stored in principal.user.userid.

To "connect the dots" between the SID found in endpoint events and the userid, Google SecOps must ingest an authoritative user context data source. In a modern Windows environment, this source is Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) or on-premises Active Directory.

Ingesting Entra ID logs as a USER_CONTEXT feed populates the SecOps entity graph. This allows the platform to automatically alias the SID from an endpoint log to the corresponding userid (e.g., jsmith@company.com) at ingestion time. This ensures the principal.user.userid field is correctly populated, allowing the detection rules to match.

Options B, C, and D are all additional event sources (like EDR) and would provide more SIDs, but they do not provide the central directory data needed to perform the aliasing.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

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

How aliasing works: User aliasing uses the USER_CONTEXT event type for aliasing. This contextual data is stored as entities in the Entity Graph. When new Unified Data Model (UDM) events are ingested, enrichment uses this aliasing data to add context to the UDM event. For example, an EDR log might contain a principal.windows_sid. The enrichment process queries the entity graph (populated by your Active Directory or Entra ID feed) and populates the principal.user.userid and other fields in the principal.user noun.

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]")

The most efficient and reliable method to proactively search for a specific indicator (like a domain) in Google Security Operations is to perform a Universal Data Model (UDM) search. All ingested telemetry, including DNS logs and proxy logs, is parsed and normalized into the UDM. This allows an analyst to run a single, high-performance query against a specific, indexed field.

To search for a domain, an analyst would query a field such as network.dns.question.name or network.http.hostname. Option B correctly identifies this as querying the "DNS section of the network noun." This approach is vastly superior to a raw log search (Option C), which is slow, inefficient, and does not leverage the normalized UDM data.

Option D (IOC Search/Matches) is a passive feature that shows automatic matches between your logs and Google's integrated threat intelligence. While it's a good place to check, a UDM search is the active, analyst-driven process for hunting for a new IoC that may have come from an external feed. Option A is a UI feature for grouping search results and is not the search method itself.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps UDM Search overview"; "Universal Data Model noun list - Network")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The prompt specifies two critical, simultaneous requirements: immediate containment and preservation of forensic data.

Immediate Containment: The server is actively scanning the network, so it must be taken offline to prevent lateral movement and further compromise.

Forensic Preservation: The suspicion of persistence mechanisms means a full investigation is required. This investigation relies on volatile data (running processes, memory, active network connections) that must not be destroyed.

Option C is the only action that satisfies both requirements. Using a Google SecOps SOAR playbook to trigger the EDR integration's "quarantine" action instructs the EDR agent on the server to block all its network connections. This immediately contains the threat. However, the server itself remains running, which preserves all volatile forensic data for the investigation.

Option B (reboot) is incorrect because it is an eradication step that would destroy all volatile forensic evidence. Options A and D are incomplete containment or investigation steps that do not fully isolate the compromised host.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Incident Response and Containment: When a critical asset is compromised, the first priority is containment. Google SecOps SOAR playbooks integrate with Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools to automate this step.

EDR Integration Actions: The most common containment action is "Quarantine Host" or "Isolate Asset." This action instructs the EDR agent on the endpoint to block all network communications, effectively isolating it from the rest of the network. This step immediately stops the threat from spreading or communicating with a C2 server. A key benefit of this approach, as opposed to a shutdown or reboot, is that the host remains powered on, which preserves volatile memory and process data for forensic investigation.

The primary investigation tool for exploring relationships and historical activity in Google Security Operations is the UDM (Universal Data Model) search. The platform's curated views, such as the "User View," are built on top of this search capability.

To find all assets a user has interacted with, an analyst would perform a UDM search for the specific user (e.g., principal.user.userid = "suspicious_user") over the specified time range. The search results will include all UDM events associated with that user. Within these events, the analyst can examine all populated asset fields, such as principal.asset.hostname, principal.ip, target.resource.name, and target.user.userid (for interactions with service accounts).

This UDM search allows the analyst to pivot from the user entity to all related asset entities, directly answering the question of "what assets the user has interacted with." While the wording of Option A is slightly backward (it's more efficient to query for the user and find the hostnames), it is the only option that correctly identifies the UDM search as the tool used to find user-to-asset (hostname) relationships. Options B (Retrohunt), C (Raw Log Scan), and D (Ingestion Report) are incorrect tools for this investigative task.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps UM Search overview"; "Investigate a user"; "Universal Data Model noun list")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option C. Google SecOps SOAR has a specific feature designed for this exact use case: Advanced Reports.

The standard "SOAR Reports" (Option A) are pre-canned dashboard-style reports (e.g., Management - SOC Status). However, the "Advanced Reports" feature (built on Looker) provides a powerful, flexible interface for building highly customized, tabular reports based on case data. This allows an administrator to specifically query for case resolutions and SLA metrics, and filter them by priority = High OR Critical.

Most importantly, the Advanced Reports feature has a built-in scheduler. This scheduler can be configured to run the report at a specific cadence (e.g., "Weekly on Monday at 9:00 AM"), send it to a list of email recipients, and attach the data in the required format, including CSV and as a zipped file.

Option B is incorrect because detection rules create alerts, they don't report on case metrics. Option D is incorrect because it mixes the SIEM search function with a SOAR job, which is an overly complex and unnecessary way to query case data that is already structured within the SOAR module.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Explore advanced SOAR reports: The default advanced SOAR reports are a set of dashboards and reports to help track SOC performance, case handling, analyst workload, and automation efficiency. These reports provide both high-level and detailed insights across your environments.1

SLA Monitoring: Use Triage Time and SLA Met flag to monitor SLA compliance and improve case handling.

Manage advanced reports: You can create, edit, duplicate, share, download, and delete advanced reports.

Schedule a report:

Select the report you want to schedule.

Select the Scheduler tab and click Add.

In the New Schedule dialog, click the Enable toggle to turn on scheduling and enter the required information (e.g., weekly, Monday, email recipients).

You can select the delivery format, including CSV and ZIP attachments.

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")*

***

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:

To execute a playbook on a fixed schedule (once every day) with minimal maintenance, the standard method in Google SecOps SOAR is to utilize a Scheduled Connector (often referred to as a Cron Connector or "Simulate Alert" mechanism).

According to Google Security Operations SOAR documentation, playbooks are primarily triggered by alerts/cases. To run a playbook without an external security event, you must generate a synthetic alert on a schedule. The Cron connector allows you to "configure a schedule (using Cron syntax) to ingest a dummy alert."

You then configure a Playbook Trigger to match this specific dummy alert. When the connector fires at the scheduled time, it creates a case, which matches the trigger, and executes the playbook containing the necessary actions.

This solution is more efficient than Option A (Custom Job) or Option D (External Script) because it utilizes native "No-Code" configuration features, avoids managing external infrastructure, and keeps the logic within the visible Playbook visual editor rather than hidden in IDE code, complying with the "minimizes maintenance overhead" requirement.

The correct solution is to create an Event Threat Detection (ETD) custom module. ETD is the Security Command Center (SCC) service designed to analyze logs for active threats, anomalies, and malicious behavior. The user's requirement is to use a list of known Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) and external signals, which directly aligns with the purpose of ETD.

In contrast, Security Health Analytics (SHA), mentioned in options A and B, is a posture management service. SHA custom modules are used to detect misconfigurations and vulnerabilities in resource settings, not to analyze log streams for threat activity based on IoCs.

Event Threat Detection provides pre-built templates for creating custom modules to simplify the detection engineering process. The "Configurable Bad IP" template is specifically designed for this exact use case. It allows an organization to upload and maintain a list of known malicious IP addresses (a common form of external IoC). ETD will then continuously scan relevant log sources, such as VPC Flow Logs, Cloud DNS logs, and Cloud NAT logs. If any activity to or from an IP address on this custom list is detected, ETD automatically generates a CONFIGURABLE_BAD_IP finding in Security Command Center for review and response. This approach is the native, efficient, and supported method for integrating IP-based IoCs into SCC, unlike option D which requires building a complex, manual pipeline.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Overview of Event Threat Detection custom modules"; "Using Event Threat Detection custom module templates")

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.