Google Google Cloud Certified - Professional Security Operations Engineer (PSOE) Exam Security-Operations-Engineer Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (December 2025)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The incident description makes it clear that endpoint containment (by EDR) was insufficient, as the attacker successfully pivoted to privileged service accounts and began post-compromise activities (credential dumping, scheduled tasks).

The goal is to automate containment and minimize dwell time.

Option A is an enrichment/investigation action, not a containment action.

Option B is the opposite of automation; adding a manual approval step increases dwell time and response time.

Option D is a detection engineering task (creating a YARA-L rule), not a SOAR playbook (response) action.

Option C is the only true automated containment action that directly addresses the new threat. The anomalous behavior of the privileged accounts would raise their Entity Risk Score within Google SecOps. A modern SOAR playbook can be configured to automatically trigger on this high-risk score and execute an identity-based containment action. Revoking tokens and suspending sessions for the compromised high-privilege accounts is the most effective way to immediately stop the attacker's lateral movement and malicious activity, thereby accelerating containment and minimizing dwell time.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

SOAR Playbooks and Automation: Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR enables the orchestration and automation of security responses. Playbooks are designed to execute a series of automated steps to respond to an alert.

Identity and Access Management Integrations: SOAR playbooks can integrate directly with Identity Providers (IdPs) like Google Workspace, Okta, and Microsoft Entra ID. A critical automated containment action for compromised accounts is to revoke active OAuth tokens, suspend user sessions, or disable the account entirely. This action immediately logs the attacker out of all active sessions and prevents them from re-authenticating.

Entity Risk: Detections and anomalous activities contribute to an entity's (e.g., a user or asset) risk score. Playbooks can be configured to use this risk score as a trigger. For example, if a high-privilege account's risk score crosses a critical threshold, the playbook can automatically execute identity containment actions.

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 150 to 200 words of Explanation From Exact Extract Google Security Operations Engineer documents:

The key requirement is to hunt for unknown C2 nodes. This implies that the indicators will not exist in any current threat intelligence feed. Therefore, Option C is incorrect as it only hunts for known IoCs. Option A is also incorrect as Security Health Analytics (SHA) is a posture management tool, not a threat hunting tool.

Option D describes a classic and effective hypothesis-driven threat hunt. Attackers frequently use Newly Registered Domains (NRDs) for their C2 infrastructure, as these domains have no established reputation and are not yet on blocklists.

Google Security Operations (SecOps) allows an engineer to write a YARA-L rule that joins real-time event data (UDM network traffic) with contextual data (the entity graph or a custom lookup). An engineer can ingest WHOIS data or a feed of NRDs as context. The YARA-L rule would then compare outbound network connections against this context, looking for any communication with domains registered within the last 30-90 days. By executing this rule as a retrohunt, the engineer can scan all historical data to "generate a list of potential matches" for this high-risk, anomalous behavior, which is a strong indicator of unknown C2 activity.

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

The Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR platform provides a native feature to enforce data collection at the end of an incident's lifecycle. The most effective and standard method to ensure analysts "must be categorized" is to customize the Close Case dialog.

This built-in feature allows an administrator to modify the pop-up window that appears when an analyst clicks the "Close Case" button in the UI. For this use case, the administrator would add a new custom field, such as a dropdown list titled "DLP Root Cause." This field would then be populated with the "five DLP event types" as the selectable options.

Crucially, this new field can be marked as mandatory. This configuration forces the analyst to select one of the five predefined root causes before the case can be successfully closed. This method ensures 100% compliance with the requirement, captures structured data for later reporting and metrics, and is the standard, low-maintenance solution. Using tags (Option B) is not mandatory and is prone to human error. Customizing the case name (Option A) is not a structured data field and is not enforceable.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps SOAR overview"; "Customize case closure reasons"; "Case and Alert Customizations")

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")

The key requirements are to "proactively hunt," "prioritize investigative actions," and identify "lateral movement" paths before deep log analysis. This is the primary use case for Security Command Center (SCC) Enterprise. SCC aggregates all findings from Google Cloud services and correlates them with assets. By filtering on the GKE cluster, the analyst can see all associated findings (e.g., from Event Threat Detection) which may contain initial IoCs.

More importantly, SCC's attack path simulation feature is specifically designed to "prioritize investigative actions" by modeling how an attacker could move laterally. It visualizes the chain of exploits—such as a misconfigured GKE service account with excessive permissions, combined with a public-facing service—that an attacker could use to pivot from the development cluster to high-value production systems. Each path is given an attack exposure score, allowing the hunter to immediately focus on the most critical risks.

Option C is too narrow, as it only checks for malware on nodes, not the lateral movement path. Option B is a later step used to enrich IoCs after they are found. Option D is an automated response (SOAR), not a proactive hunting and prioritization step.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Security Command Center overview"; "Attack path simulation and attack exposure scores")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The question asks for the immediate action to remediate the existing compliance drift, which is the VM that already has an external IP address.

Option C (Remediate): Reconfiguring the VM's network interface to remove the external IP directly fixes the identified misconfiguration. This action brings the resource back into compliance, which will cause the Security Command Center finding to be automatically set to INACTIVE on its next scan.2

Option A (Prevent): Applying the organization policy constraints/compute.vmExternalIpAccess is a preventative control.3 It will stop new VMs from being created with external IPs, but it is not retroactive and does not remove the external IP from the already existing VM. Therefore, it does not remediate the current finding.

Option B (Mask): Removing the tag simply hides the resource from the posture scan. This is a violation of compliance auditing; it masks the problem instead of fixing it.

Option D (Ignore): Marking a finding as fixed without actually fixing the underlying issue is incorrect and will not resolve the compliance drift. The finding will reappear as ACTIVE on the next scan.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Finding deactivation after remediation: After you remediate a vulnerability or misconfiguration finding, the Security Command Center service that detected the finding automatically sets the state of the finding to INACTIVE the next time the detection service scans for the finding.4 How long Security Command Center takes to set a remediated finding to INACTIVE depends on the schedule of the scan that detects the findin5g.

Organization policy constraints: If enforced, the constraint constraints/compute.vmExternalIpAccess will deny the creation or update of VM instances with IPv4 external IP addresses.6 This constraint is not retroactive and will not restrict the usage of external IPs on existing VM instances. To remediate an existing VM, you must modify the instance's network interface settings and remove the external IP.

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 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.

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

The requirement is to identify internal entities and label them with a network name across alerts from "multiple connectors." This is a global environment configuration task, not a per-playbook task.

In Google SecOps SOAR, you achieve this by configuring the Networks (or Environments) settings. The documentation states: "You can define your internal network ranges... When an entity is ingested, the system checks if the entity value falls within any of the defined ranges. If it does, the entity is marked as internal."

Furthermore, you can assign a Network Name to these ranges. When an entity matches the range, it is automatically enriched with that network context. This allows you to set up Playbook Triggers based on the "Network Name" field, satisfying the requirement. Option D (Enrichment step) is inefficient because it would require adding the step to every single playbook, whereas Option A solves it globally for the platform.