Fortinet FCSS - Security Operations 7.4 Analyst FCSS_SOC_AN-7.4 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (October 2025)

Role of a Threat Hunter:

A threat hunter proactively searches for cyber threats that have evaded traditional security defenses. This role is crucial in identifying sophisticated and stealthy adversaries that bypass automated detection systems.

Key Responsibilities:

Proactive Threat Identification:

Threat hunters use advanced tools and techniques to identify hidden threats within the network. This includes analyzing anomalies, investigating unusual behaviors, and utilizing threat intelligence.

Understanding FortiAnalyzer Fabric Deployment:

FortiAnalyzer Fabric deployment involves a hierarchical structure where the Fabric root (supervisor) coordinates with multiple Fabric members (collectors and analyzers).

This setup ensures centralized log collection, analysis, and incident response across geographically distributed locations.

Analyzing the Exhibit:

FAZ1-Supervisoris located at AMER HQ and acts as the Fabric root.

FAZ2-Analyzeris a Fabric member located in EMEA.

FAZ3-CollectorandFAZ4-Collectorare Fabric members located in EMEA and APAC, respectively.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A:The statement indicates that the AMER HQ SOC team cannot run automation playbooks from the Fabric supervisor. This is true because automation playbooks and certain orchestration tasks typically require local execution capabilities which may not be fully supported on the supervisor node.

Option B:High availability (HA) configuration for the supervisor node is a best practice for redundancy but is not directly inferred from the given architecture.

Option C:The EMEA SOC team having access to historical logs only is not correct since FAZ2-Analyzer provides full analysis capabilities.

Option D:The APAC SOC team has access to FortiView and other reporting functions through FAZ4-Collector, but this is not explicitly detailed in the provided architecture.

Conclusion:

The most accurate observation about this FortiAnalyzer Fabric deployment architecture is that the AMER HQ SOC team cannot run automation playbooks from the Fabric supervisor.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiAnalyzer Fabric Deployment.

Best Practices for FortiAnalyzer and Automation Playbooks.

Understanding the Playbook Configuration:

The "Malicious File Detect" playbook is designed to create an incident when a malicious file detection event is triggered.

The playbook includes tasks such asAttach_Data_To_Incident,Create Incident, andGet Events.

Analyzing the Playbook Execution:

The exhibit shows that theCreate Incidenttask has failed, and theAttach_Data_To_Incidenttask has also failed.

TheGet Eventstask succeeded, indicating that it was able to retrieve event data.

Reviewing Raw Logs:

The raw logs indicate an error related to parsing input in theincident_operator.pyfile.

The error traceback suggests that the task was expecting a specific input format (likely a name or number) but received an incorrect data format.

Identifying the Source of the Failure:

TheCreate Incidenttask failure is the root cause since it did not proceed correctly due to incorrect input format.

TheAttach_Data_To_Incidenttask subsequently failed because it depends on the successful creation of an incident.

Conclusion:

The primary reason for the playbook execution failure is that theCreate Incidenttask received an incorrect data format, which was not a name or number as expected.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on Playbook and Task Configuration.

Error handling and debugging practices in playbook execution.

Understanding the MITRE ATT&CK Framework:

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a comprehensive matrix of tactics and techniques used by adversaries to achieve their objectives.

It is widely used for understanding adversary behavior, improving defense strategies, and conducting security assessments.

Analyzing the Options:

Option A:The framework provides detailed technical descriptions of adversary activities, including specific techniques and subtechniques.

Option B:The framework includes information about mitigations and detections for each technique and subtechnique, providing comprehensive guidance.

Option C:MITRE ATT&CK covers a wide range of attack vectors, including those targeting user endpoints, network devices, and servers.

Option D:Some techniques or subtechniques do indeed fall under multiple tactics, reflecting the complex nature of adversary activities that can serve different objectives.

Conclusion:

The statement that best describes the MITRE ATT&CK framework is that it contains some techniques or subtechniques that fall under more than one tactic.

References:

MITRE ATT&CK Framework Documentation.

Security Best Practices and Threat Intelligence Reports Utilizing MITRE ATT&CK.

Understanding the Playbook Configuration:

The playbook "FortiMail Sender Blocklist" is designed to manually input email addresses or IP addresses and add them to the FortiMail block list.

The playbook uses a FortiMail connector with the actionADD_SENDER_TO_BLOCKLIST.

Analyzing the Playbook Execution:

The configuration and actions provided show that the playbook is straightforward, starting with anON_DEMAND STARTERand proceeding to theADD_SENDER_TO_BLOCKLISTaction.

The action description indicates it is intended to block senders based on email addresses or domains.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A:UsingGET_EMAIL_STATISTICSis not required for the task of adding senders to a block list. This action retrieves email statistics and is unrelated to the block list configuration.

Option B:The primary reason for failure could be the requirement for a fully qualified domain name (FQDN). FortiMail typically expects precise information to ensure the correct entries are added to the block list.

Option C:The trust level of the client-side browser with FortiAnalyzer's self-signed certificate does not impact the execution of the playbook on FortiMail.

Option D:Incorrect connector credentials would result in an authentication error, but the problem described is more likely related to the format of the input data.

Conclusion:

The FortiMail Sender Blocklist playbook execution is failing because FortiMail is expecting a fully qualified domain name (FQDN).

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiMail Connector Actions.

Best Practices for Configuring FortiMail Block Lists.

Understanding FortiAnalyzer Data Policy and Disk Utilization:

FortiAnalyzer uses data policies to manage log storage, retention, and disk utilization.

The Data Policy section indicates how long logs are kept for analytics and archive purposes.

The Disk Utilization section specifies the allocated disk space and the proportions used for analytics and archive, as well as when alerts should be triggered based on disk usage.

Analyzing the Provided Exhibit:

Keep Logs for Analytics:60 Days

Keep Logs for Archive:120 Days

Disk Allocation:300 GB (with a maximum of 441 GB available)

Analytics: Archive Ratio:30% : 70%

Alert and Delete When Usage Reaches:90%

Potential Problems Identification:

Disk Space Allocation:The allocated disk space is 300 GB out of a possible 441 GB, which might not be insufficient if the log volume is high, but it is not the primary concern based on the given data.

Analytics-to-Archive Ratio:The ratio of 30% for analytics and 70% for archive is unconventional. Typically, a higher percentage is allocated for analytics since real-time or recent data analysis is often prioritized. A common configuration might be a 70% analytics and 30% archive ratio. The misconfigured ratio can lead to insufficient space for analytics, causing issues with real-time monitoring and analysis.

Retention Periods:While the retention periods could be seen as lengthy, they are not necessarily indicative of a problem without knowing the specific log volume and compliance requirements. The length of these periods can vary based on organizational needs and legal requirements.

Conclusion:

Based on the analysis, the primary issue observed is theanalytics-to-archive ratiobeing misconfigured. This misconfiguration can significantly impact the effectiveness of the FortiAnalyzer in real-time log analysis, potentially leading to delayed threat detection and response.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiAnalyzer Data Policies and Disk Management.

Best Practices for FortiAnalyzer Log Management and Disk Utilization.

Understanding FortiAnalyzer Features:

FortiAnalyzer includes several features for log analytics, monitoring, and incident response.

The SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) database is used to store and analyze log data, providing advanced analytics and insights.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Threat hunting

Threat hunting involves proactively searching through log data to detect and isolate threats that may not be captured by automated tools.

This feature leverages the SIEM database to perform advanced log analytics, correlate events, and identify potential security incidents.

Option B: Asset Identity Center

This feature focuses on asset and identity management rather than advanced log analytics.

Option C: Event monitor

While the event monitor provides real-time monitoring and alerting based on logs, it does not specifically utilize advanced log analytics in the way the SIEM database does for threat hunting.

Option D: Outbreak alerts

Outbreak alerts provide notifications about widespread security incidents but are not directly related to advanced log analytics using the SIEM database.

Conclusion:

The feature that uses the SIEM database for advanced log analytics and monitoring in FortiAnalyzer isThreat hunting.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiAnalyzer Features and SIEM Capabilities.

Security Best Practices and Use Cases for Threat Hunting.

Understanding the Requirements:

The objective is to create an incident and generate a report based on malicious attachment events detected by FortiAnalyzer from FortiSandbox analysis.

The endpoint hosts are protected by FortiClient EMS, which is integrated with FortiSandbox. All logs are sent to FortiAnalyzer.

Key Components:

FortiAnalyzer: Centralized logging and analysis for Fortinet devices.

FortiSandbox: Advanced threat protection system that analyzes suspicious files and URLs.

FortiClient EMS: Endpoint management system that integrates with FortiSandbox for endpoint protection.

Playbook Analysis:

The playbook in the exhibit consists of three main actions:GET_EVENTS,RUN_REPORT, andCREATE_INCIDENT.

EVENT_TRIGGER: Starts the playbook when an event occurs.

GET_EVENTS: Fetches relevant events.

RUN_REPORT: Generates a report based on the events.

CREATE_INCIDENT: Creates an incident in the incident management system.

Selecting the Correct Connector:

The correct connector should allow fetching events related to malicious attachments analyzed by FortiSandbox and facilitate integration with FortiAnalyzer.

Connector Options:

FortiSandbox Connector:

Directly integrates with FortiSandbox to fetch analysis results and events related to malicious attachments.

Best suited for getting detailed sandbox analysis results.

Selected as it is directly related to the requirement of handling FortiSandbox analysis events.

FortiClient EMS Connector:

Used for managing endpoint security and integrating with endpoint logs.

Not directly related to fetching sandbox analysis events.

Not selected as it is not directly related to the sandbox analysis events.

FortiMail Connector:

Used for email security and handling email-related logs and events.

Not applicable for sandbox analysis events.

Not selected as it does not relate to the sandbox analysis.

Local Connector:

Handles local events within FortiAnalyzer itself.

Might not be specific enough for fetching detailed sandbox analysis results.

Not selected as it may not provide the required integration with FortiSandbox.

Implementation Steps:

Step 1: Ensure FortiSandbox is configured to send analysis results to FortiAnalyzer.

Step 2: Use the FortiSandbox connector in the playbook to fetch events related to malicious attachments.

Step 3: Configure theGET_EVENTSaction to use the FortiSandbox connector.

Step 4: Set up theRUN_REPORTandCREATE_INCIDENTactions based on the fetched events.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiSandbox Integration FortiSandbox Integration Guide

Fortinet Documentation on FortiAnalyzer Event Handling FortiAnalyzer Administration Guide

By using the FortiSandbox connector, the analyst can ensure that the playbook accurately fetches events based on FortiSandbox analysis and generates the required incident and report.

Understanding the FortiAnalyzer Fabric:

The FortiAnalyzer Fabric provides centralized log collection, analysis, and reporting for connected FortiGate devices.

Devices in a FortiAnalyzer Fabric can be organized into different Administrative Domains (ADOMs) to separate logs and management.

Analyzing the Exhibit:

FAZ-SiteAandFAZ-SiteBare FortiAnalyzer devices in the fabric.

FortiGate-B1andFortiGate-B2are shown under theSite-B-Fabric, indicating they are part of the same Security Fabric.

FAZ-SiteAhas multiple entries under it:SiteAandMSSP-Local, suggesting multiple ADOMs are enabled.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A:FortiGate-B1 and FortiGate-B2 are underSite-B-Fabric, indicating they are indeed part of the same Security Fabric.

Option B:The presence of FAZ-SiteA and FAZ-SiteB as FortiAnalyzers does not preclude the existence of collectors. However, there is no explicit mention of a separate collector role in the exhibit.

Option C:Not all FortiGate devices are directly registered to the supervisor. The exhibit shows hierarchical organization under different sites and ADOMs.

Option D:The multiple entries underFAZ-SiteA(SiteA and MSSP-Local) indicate that FAZ-SiteA has two ADOMs enabled.

Conclusion:

FortiGate-B1 and FortiGate-B2 are in a Security Fabric.

FAZ-SiteA has two ADOMs enabled.

References:

Fortinet Documentation on FortiAnalyzer Fabric Topology and ADOM Configuration.

Best Practices for Security Fabric Deployment with FortiAnalyzer.