Q: 4
An organization's automated security monitoring tool generates an excessively large amount of falsq
positives. Which of the following is the BEST method to optimize the monitoring process?
Options
Discussion
I don’t think C fits since it’s more about what gets logged, not directly reducing false positives in the alerting logic. B.
B like the official ISACA guides say. Adjusting thresholds is a common fix for alert overload, saw similar recommendations in practice resources.
B imo. Adjusting reporting thresholds helps reduce false positives at the source, which is more effective than just filtering alerts by timeframe like D. Pretty sure C and A don’t really address the root problem.
B or D? I think B is better since changing thresholds directly reduces the number of false positives at the source. D only limits when you see them, doesn’t really fix the spam. Not 100% though, anyone disagree?
Probably D. Saw something close to this in a practice test and D seemed right to me.
Not A, B. Adjusting thresholds is the standard way to cut down false positives.
B/C? Threshold change directly tunes sensitivity, but if logging config is the real culprit and not just thresholds, C could matter. Pretty sure B is what ISACA expects though, correct me if anyone's seen an edge case on this.
D? I remember seeing something in the official guide and a few practice exams about focusing on timeframes.
Doesn't C make sense if logs are what's causing alert noise? What if reconfiguring recording filters out low-value events?
I don't think it's B. I had something like this in a mock and picked D.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 4 of 35