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
Option B
I'd pick A here. Reporting only critical alerts seems like it would cut down on noise fast, which is what the question asks. I get why B is picked a lot but still think A makes more sense if you're just trying to make monitoring easier right away. Anyone else think so?
B edges it for me-changing reporting thresholds actually tackles why there are so many false positives instead of just hiding them. A might be tempting but you risk ignoring useful alerts. Could also depend on how the environment is set up, but B seems safest.
B here, changing reporting thresholds is what actually tunes out the false positives.
Its B, had something like this in a mock. Adjusting thresholds is classic for too many false positives.
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.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 4 of 35