Google Security-Operations-Engineer Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option D. The problem is that a known, trusted principal (the backup tool's service account) is performing a legitimate action (storage.objects.list) that happens to look like the suspicious behavior the rule is designed to catch.

The most precise and effective way to reduce these false positives without weakening the rule's ability to catch malicious actors is to create an exception for the trusted principal.

By adding principal.user.email != "backup-bot@fcobaa.com" (or the equivalent principal.user.userid) to the events or condition section of the YARA-L rule, the rule will now only evaluate events where the actor is not the known-good backup bot.

Option A is incorrect because it just lowers the priority of the false positive; it doesn't stop it from being generated.

Option B is incorrect because the legitimate tool might also perform repeated calls, leading to the same false positive.

Option C is incorrect because api.service_name = "storage.googleapis.com" is less specific than api.operation = "storage.objects.list" and would likely increase the number of false positives by triggering on any storage API call.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Reduce false positives: When a detection rule generates false positives due to known-benign activity (e.g., from an administrative script or automation tool), the best practice is to add a not condition to the rule to exclude the trusted entity.8

You can filter on UDM fields to create exceptions. For example, to prevent a rule from firing on activity from a specific service account, you can add a condition to the events section such as:

and $e.principal.user.userid != "trusted-service-account@project.iam.gserviceaccount.com"

This technique, often called "allow-listing" or "suppression," improves the rule's accuracy by focusing only on unknown or untrusted principals.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option C. The primary constraints are to "streamline" the process, create a "new, functional playbook," get it "as soon as possible," and "use available tools in Google Security Operations."

Google Security Operations integrates Gemini directly into the SOAR platform to accelerate security operations. One of its key capabilities is generative playbook creation. This feature allows an analyst to describe their intended objectives in natural language (e.g., "Create a playbook to investigate and respond to a remote shell alert"). Gemini then generates a complete, logical playbook flow, including investigation, enrichment, containment, and eradication steps.

This generated playbook serves as a high-quality draft. The analyst can then add the necessary customizations (like specific tools, notification endpoints, or contacts for the e-commerce platform) and, most importantly, test the playbook to ensure it is functional and reliable for junior analysts to execute. This workflow directly meets all the prompt's requirements, especially "streamline" and "as soon as possible."

Option D (creating a custom playbook from scratch and using a red team) is the exact opposite of streamlined and fast. Option B involves patching an "outdated" playbook, not creating a new one. Option A incorrectly bundles a specific remediation action (filtering traffic) with the playbook creation process.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Gemini for Security Operations: Gemini in Google SecOps provides generative AI to assist analysts and engineers. Within the SOAR capability, Gemini can generate entire playbooks from natural language prompts.

Playbook Creation with Gemini: Instead of building a playbook manually, an engineer can describe the intended objectives of the response plan. Gemini will generate a new playbook with a logical structure, including relevant actions and conditional branches. This generated playbook serves as a strong foundation, which can then be refined. The engineer can add necessary customizations to tailor the playbook to the organization's specific environment, tools, and processes. Before deploying the playbook for use by the SOC, it is a best practice to test it against simulated alerts to validate its functionality and ensure it runs as expected.

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

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")