Question 280
During a planned service expansion at Aster Mutual, engineers say that they resolved this finding: An incident response team sees encrypted traffic but cannot identify the affected application or host. Which result provides the STRONGEST acceptance evidence?
Explanation
Correct Answer
The investigation maps the suspicious flow to a device and application without exposing protected payloads. This is the decisive evidence for the original problem: An incident response team sees encrypted traffic but cannot identify the affected application or host. It verifies that the intended corrective control—Correlate encrypted-flow metadata with endpoint identity, DNS, and allowed TLS telemetry—works in the relevant environment; a completed change ticket alone would not prove the outcome at Aster Mutual.
Incorrect Answers
Events from multiple devices order correctly within defined clock tolerance. This would be relevant evidence for a different failure: Several security devices record events with unrelated local clocks, preventing reliable timeline reconstruction, usually addressed by Synchronize clocks using authenticated NTP and capture normalized timestamps centrally. It does not demonstrate that the current problem at Aster Mutual was resolved. The specific required evidence is: The investigation maps the suspicious flow to a device and application without exposing protected payloads.
Analysts retrieve an event chain by identity and time while unauthorized users are denied. This would be relevant evidence for a different failure: Network telemetry exports all events but has no retention, access control, or searchable context, usually addressed by Centralize logs with controlled schema, index, least-privilege access, and retention. It does not demonstrate that the current problem at Aster Mutual was resolved. The specific required evidence is: The investigation maps the suspicious flow to a device and application without exposing protected payloads.
A short controlled test flow is represented and long-term exporter utilization stays acceptable. This would be relevant evidence for a different failure: A collector receives flow summaries but sampling is so aggressive that short suspicious connections are missed, usually addressed by Tune sampling and flow export parameters against detection goals and collector capacity. It does not demonstrate that the current problem at Aster Mutual was resolved. The specific required evidence is: The investigation maps the suspicious flow to a device and application without exposing protected payloads.