Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 350-201 Topic 8 Question 79 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 350-201 exam
Question #: 79
Topic #: 8
[All 350-201 Questions]

A SOC team is investigating a recent, targeted social engineering attack on multiple employees. Cross- correlated log analysis revealed that two hours before the attack, multiple assets received requests on TCP port 79. Which action should be taken by the SOC team to mitigate this attack?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B, D

Contribute your Thoughts:

Vannessa
1 months ago
Fingers crossed the answer is D! I can't imagine anyone actually using the Finger service these days, it's gotta be a relic from the 80s.
upvoted 0 times
Lorrie
4 days ago
Disabling the Finger service sounds like a good plan to mitigate the attack.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheldon
13 days ago
I think we should disable the Finger service on the affected devices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paola
14 days ago
I agree, the Finger service is definitely outdated.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Armando
1 months ago
Wait, is the Finger service actually a real thing? I thought that was just a joke from The IT Crowd! Either way, better disable it just in case.
upvoted 0 times
Carlota
2 days ago
We should definitely disable it on the affected devices to prevent further attacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joye
3 days ago
Yes, the Finger service is real and can be exploited by attackers.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Janessa
2 months ago
Disabling BIND forwarding could work, but that feels like a bandaid solution. Isolating the affected assets seems like the most thorough approach to me.
upvoted 0 times
Marylin
22 days ago
C: We should also consider configuring devices to disable the Finger service to prevent future attacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hyun
23 days ago
B: I agree, but isolating the affected assets for further investigation might be more effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
1 months ago
A: I think disabling BIND forwarding could help stop the attack.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ula
2 months ago
But wouldn't it be better to isolate the affected assets for further investigation?
upvoted 0 times
...
Chery
2 months ago
I agree with Charlesetta, it will help prevent further reconnaissance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlesetta
2 months ago
I think we should disable BIND forwarding from the DNS server.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kelvin
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure disabling NETRJS is the right move here. Wouldn't that just bring more attention to the issue? I'd go with option D to be safe.
upvoted 0 times
In
1 months ago
Yeah, I think that would be a good choice to mitigate the attack.
upvoted 0 times
...
Krystina
1 months ago
I agree, disabling the Finger service seems like a safer option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kindra
1 months ago
Yeah, I think that would be a good choice to mitigate the attack.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilda
2 months ago
I agree, disabling the Finger service seems like a safer option.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Therese
2 months ago
But what about isolating the affected assets for investigation?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimbery
2 months ago
The Finger service sounds like a very suspicious protocol. Disabling it seems like the best way to address this attack!
upvoted 0 times
Geoffrey
1 months ago
We should also configure affected devices to disable the NETRJS protocol.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ivette
1 months ago
Yes, isolating them would help prevent further damage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elfriede
2 months ago
But should we also isolate the affected assets for further investigation?
upvoted 0 times
...
My
2 months ago
I agree, disabling the Finger service is a good idea.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Karina
2 months ago
I agree with Ryann, it will help prevent further reconnaissance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ryann
2 months ago
I think we should disable BIND forwarding from the DNS server.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77