Cisco Conducting Threat Hunting and Defending using Cisco Technologies for Cybersecurity 300-220 CBRTHD 300-220 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (February 2026)

The correct answer isit indicates disciplined and methodical tradecraft. Attribution relies on understandingattacker behavior patterns, not just tools or infrastructure.

Consistent operational discipline—such as cautious discovery, avoidance of noisy actions, and deliberate escalation—reflectshuman decision-making, which is difficult to change and often persists across campaigns.

Options A, B, and D focus on artifacts or infrastructure, which attackers frequently rotate. Behavioral patterns, however, form atradecraft fingerprint.

Cisco-aligned threat hunting usesMITRE ATT&CK technique mappingand behavioral consistency to support attribution, making this observation highly valuable.

Thus,Option Cis correct.

The correct answer isendpoint process ancestry tracking. Credential harvesting attacks frequently rely onfileless executionand living-off-the-land techniques.

When no files are written to disk, hash-based detection (Option A) is ineffective. Email sandboxing (Option C) and URL filtering (Option D) may detect initial delivery but provide little visibility into post-execution behavior.

Cisco Secure Endpoint provides detailed telemetry on:

Parent-child process relationships

Unexpected process spawning

Abnormal command-line arguments

Memory-resident execution

By analyzing process ancestry, hunters can identify suspicious chains such as:

Office applications spawning scripting engines

Browsers spawning credential-harvesting processes

Legitimate binaries launching unexpected child processes

This capability directly supportsMITRE ATT&CK Credential Access and Defense Evasion techniquesand is explicitly covered in theCBRTHD exam objectivesrelated to endpoint-based threat hunting.

Thus,Option Bis the most accurate and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer issmall, periodic outbound connections to a rare destination. Beaconing is a hallmark of command-and-control (C2) communication, particularly in stealthy malware campaigns.

Attackers design C2 channels to:

Minimize bandwidth usage

Blend into normal traffic

Avoid triggering threshold-based alerts

As a result, beaconing traffic often consists oflow-volume, regular intervalsconnecting to the same external destination. Cisco Secure Network Analytics is purpose-built to detect this type ofbehavioral anomalyusing NetFlow and telemetry analysis.

Option A suggests data exfiltration rather than beaconing. Option B is too broad and unspecific. Option D relates to denial-of-service or scanning activity, not C2.

This hunting technique aligns withMITRE ATT&CK – Command and Controland is explicitly covered in theCBRTHD blueprintunder network-based threat hunting. Detecting beaconing behavior forces attackers to significantly alter their communication strategy, increasing their operational cost.

Therefore,Option Cis the correct and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer isExploit public-facing application. The log excerpt in the exhibit clearly shows amalicious HTTP GET requesttargeting aWordPress plugin PHP filewith a craftedSQL injection payload:

UNION ALL SELECT CONCAT(...)

This syntax is a classic indicator ofSQL injection, a well-documented attack technique used to exploit insufficient input validation in web applications. According to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, this behavior maps to theInitial Access tactic (TA0001)and the techniqueExploit Public-Facing Application (T1190). The attacker is directly interacting with a publicly accessible web service and abusing a vulnerability in the application code to gain unauthorized access.

From a threat hunting and forensic standpoint, this is a textbook example of how attackers commonly achieve initial access to web servers. The attacker did not authenticate via remote services (such as SSH or RDP), nor did they rely on user interaction (as in a drive-by compromise). Instead, they sent a specially crafted request to a vulnerable endpoint exposed to the internet. This makes option B incorrect becauseExternal Remote Servicesrequires legitimate service access mechanisms. Option C is also incorrect becauseCommand and Scripting Interpreteris typically usedafterinitial access, once code execution is already achieved. Option D does not apply because there is no evidence of malicious content being delivered to end users.

The forensic team’s actions—isolating the server, cloning the disk, and analyzing logs—are standard post-incident procedures to reconstruct the attack chain. Web server access logs are especially valuable in these cases, as they often reveal malicious payloads, attacker IP addresses, targeted endpoints, and timestamps.

For defenders and threat hunters, this scenario reinforces the importance of monitoring web logs for anomalous query strings, enforcing secure coding practices, conducting regular vulnerability scans, and promptly patching third-party plugins. Public-facing applications remain one of themost exploited initial access vectors, making this technique a critical focus area in modern threat hunting programs.

The correct answer isauthentication and remote execution logs. Lateral movement using legitimate tools relies heavily oncredential use and remote management protocols, not malware execution.

Attackers commonly use:

RDP

SMB administrative shares

WinRM

WMI

SSH

These techniques generateauthentication events, remote logons, and service execution logsrather than malware alerts. Antivirus tools are ineffective here because no malicious binaries are involved.

Option A is ineffective against living-off-the-land attacks. Option B is unrelated to lateral movement. Option D may show some activity but lacks the necessary depth to identify privilege misuse or session hopping.

Authentication telemetry enables hunters to detect anomalies such as:

Logons between non-associated systems

Sudden administrative access

Credential reuse across hosts

Abnormal session timing and frequency

This data is foundational forcredential-based attack detection, which remains one of the most common breach paths today. It also aligns withMITRE ATT&CK Lateral Movement and Credential Access tactics.

Thus, optionCis the correct answer.

The correct answer isIndicators of attack (IOAs). Unstructured threat hunting is typically triggered byweak signals, anomalies, or suspicious behaviorsthat do not yet meet the threshold of confirmed compromise. These early signals are best described as indicators of attack rather than indicators of compromise.

To understand this distinction, it’s important to separateIOAsfromIOCs. Indicators of compromise (Option A) include confirmed artifacts such as malicious hashes, known bad IP addresses, or identified malware. When IOCs are present, the organization is already reacting to a known or validated threat, which aligns more closely withstructured threat huntingor incident response—not unstructured hunting.

Unstructured threat hunting is exploratory in nature. It is often initiated when analysts notice something “off,” such as unusual login behavior, abnormal process execution, unexpected network traffic patterns, or deviations from baseline behavior. These observations suggestattacker intent or activity in progress, but without definitive proof of compromise. That uncertainty is precisely what drives unstructured hunts.

Option B (tactics, techniques, and procedures) is incorrect because TTPs are typically used to formhypothesis-driven, structured huntsbased on known adversary behavior frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK. Option C (customized threat identification) is vague and not a recognized trigger within professional threat hunting models.

From a SOC and threat hunting maturity perspective, unstructured hunting commonly occurs inlower to mid maturity environments, where hunters rely on intuition, experience, and anomaly detection rather than predefined hypotheses. It often serves as thestarting pointfor discovering new attack patterns, which can later be formalized into structured hunts and detection logic.

In short, unstructured threat hunting begins when defenders detectindicators of attack—signals that something malicious may be happening, even if there is no confirmed compromise yet. This makesOption Dthe correct and professionally accurate answer.

The correct answer isit reflects the attacker’s operational preferences. Attribution relies on understandinghow attackers operate, not just what tools they use.

Operational preferences—such as avoiding PowerShell logging, disabling AMSI, and favoring WMI—arebehavioral signatures. These patterns often persist across campaigns and are documented in threat intelligence reports associated with specific adversaries.

Option A is incorrect because malware families change frequently. Option B is unreliable due to infrastructure rotation. Option D is unrelated to post-access tradecraft.

Professional attribution focuses on:

Execution methods

Defensive evasion choices

Tooling preferences

Workflow consistency

Mapping these behaviors toMITRE ATT&CK techniquesenables analysts to compare findings against known threat actor profiles. This provides higher confidence attribution than artifact-based indicators.

Thus, optionCis the correct answer.

The correct answer isanalyzing authentication behavior anomalies across users and devices. Credential abuse is one of the most common and effective techniques used by modern attackers because it allows them to blend in with legitimate activity and bypass malware-based defenses.

Options A and B rely on malware indicators, which are often absent in credential-based attacks. Option D addresses only one potential delivery or command-and-control vector and does not detect misuse of valid credentials.

By analyzing authentication behavior, threat hunters can detect:

Impossible travel scenarios

Abnormal login times

Excessive failed logins followed by success

Logins from unusual devices or locations

Cisco tools such asCisco Secure Network Analytics, VPN telemetry, and identity logs provide rich data sources for this type of hunting. This approach focuses onIndicators of Attack (IOAs)rather than Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), pushing detection higher on thePyramid of Pain.

Within theCBRTHD blueprint, hunting for credential misuse is a core competency, especially in cloud and remote-access environments. Detecting these behaviors early significantly reduces attacker dwell time and limits the blast radius of compromise.

Therefore,Option Cis the most effective and Cisco-aligned answer.

The correct answer isit highlights consistent attacker tradecraft. Attribution depends on recognizingbehavioral patternsthat persist across campaigns.

Attackers frequently change malware, infrastructure, and exploits, but they are far less likely to changehow they prefer to operate. Consistent use of SMB for lateral movement and deliberate avoidance of PowerShell reflect conscious operational choices.

Option A is unrelated to lateral movement behavior. Option B assumes malware development, which may not exist. Option D addresses impact, not attribution.

Cisco-aligned threat hunting usesMITRE ATT&CK technique mappingto correlate observed behaviors with known threat actor profiles. These behavioral fingerprints provide far stronger attribution confidence than low-level indicators.

Therefore,Option Cis the correct answer.

The correct answer isreduction in attacker dwell time. Dwell time measures how long an attacker remains undetected after initial compromise.

As threat hunting maturity increases:

Behavioral coverage improves

Detection occurs earlier in the attack lifecycle

Attackers are identified before achieving objectives

Options A and C measure activity, not effectiveness. Option D measures inputs, not outcomes.

Cisco’sCBRTHD blueprintemphasizes outcome-driven metrics. Reduced dwell time directly correlates with lower business impact, reduced data loss, and improved resilience.

Therefore,Option Bis the most meaningful and Cisco-aligned metric.