Security-Operations-Engineer Google Cloud Certified - Professional Security Operations Engineer (PSOE) Exam Questions and Answers

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 Option B involves patching an "outdated" playbook, not creating a new one.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 Explanation

The correct actions are C and D, as they represent the standard, parallel process for incident response: technical investigation and procedural/communicative response.

Technical Investigation (Option D): The immediate priority is to understand the alert. An analyst must review the Container Threat Detection finding in Security Command Center (SCC) to understand what was detected. This is followed by investigating the affected pod, its container, the node it's running on, and any associated service accounts to determine the initial blast radius and gather forensic data. Researching the binary and related TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) helps contextualize the attack.

Procedural Response (Option C): Concurrently, the organizational response plan must be activated. This involves notifying the business-critical workload owner (stakeholder communication), initiating the formal, documented incident response playbook, and escalating to specialized teams, like threat hunting, for deeper root cause analysis that goes beyond the initial triage.

Option A is incorrect because deleting the pod immediately is a premature remediation step that destroys critical forensic evidence. Option B is incorrect because "keeping the cluster and pod running" without any containment is reckless and could allow an attacker to pivot. Option E is incorrect because an unauthorized binary execution in a critical workload is a high-severity event, not a low-severity finding to be silenced.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Responding to Container Threat Detection findings: When a Container Threat Detection finding is generated, it indicates a potential security issue that requires investigation. The first step is to review the finding details in Security Command Center (SCC) to understand the nature of the threat, such as K8S_BINARY_EXECUTED.

The recommended workflow involves:

Investigate: Examine the affected Kubernetes resources, such as the Pod, Container, and Node. Use tools like kubectl to inspect the pod configuration, running processes, and network connections. Research the associated attack and response methods to understand the threat actor's TTPs.

Respond: Follow the organization's incident response playbook. This includes notifying the workload owner and relevant stakeholders. Contain the threat by isolating the pod or node, but avoid deleting resources immediately to preserve evidence for forensic analysis.

Escalate: For complex incidents, engage the threat hunting or forensics team to conduct a thorough investigation, identify the root cause, and determine the full scope of the compromise.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option A. This scenario requires both data segregation (Requirement 1) and resource sharing (Requirement 2), which is the exact use case for Google SecOps SOAR "Environments."

Google SecOps SOAR (formerly Siemplify) provides a multi-tenancy feature called Environments within a single SOAR tenant. This feature is designed for organizations that need to logically separate data and operations, such as for different business units, geographical regions, or, as in this case, a newly acquired company.

Fulfills Requirement 1 (Data Segregation): Creating a new SOAR environment for Company A ensures that all their ingested alerts and generated cases are isolated within that environment. Analysts assigned only to Company A's environment will not be able to see cases or data from the parent organization's environment.

Fulfills Requirement 2 (Playbook Sharing): Playbooks are managed at the global (tenant) level and can be shared or assigned across multiple environments. This allows Company A's analysts to access and re-purpose the pre-existing playbooks developed by the parent organization, minimizing rework.

Fulfills Requirement 3 (Minimize Effort): This is the built-in, low-effort solution. In contrast, Option D (a second tenant) would be high-effort, costly, and would make sharing playbooks extremely difficult, as tenants are fully isolated. Option B (a new role) controls permissions (e.g., view, edit) but does not inherently segregate data access. Option C (a service account) is for programmatic API access, not for human analysts working in the UI.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

SOAR Environments: Google SecOps SOAR supports multi-tenancy through the use of Environments.6 Environments enable you to maintain data isolation between different logical entities (such as customers, departments, or business units) within the same SOAR instance.7 Each environment functions as a separate workspace, with its own set of cases, alerts, assets, and incident data. This ensures that users and teams operating in one environment cannot access or view data in another, unless they are explicitly granted permission.

Global Resources and Playbooks: While data such as cases is segregated by environment, key SOAR components like playbooks are managed at the global scope. This allows you to create, test, and manage playbooks centrally and then make them available for use across any or all of your environments. This capability enables resource re-use and standardization of response procedures, even in a multi-tenant configuration.

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

The correct answer is A. The most effective and reliable method for a security engineer to "find reliable IoCs and malware behaviors" is to use Google Threat Intelligence (GTI). When a known indicator like a file hash is identified, the primary workflow is threat enrichment. Google Threat Intelligence, which is a core component of the Google SecOps platform and incorporates intelligence from Mandiant and VirusTotal, is the dedicated tool for this. Searching the hash in GTI provides a comprehensive report on the malware variant, including all associated reliable IoCs (e.g., C2 domains, IP addresses, related file hashes) and malware behaviors (TTPs, attribution, and context). This directly fulfills the user's need.

In contrast, Option D (UDM search) is the subsequent step. A UDM search is used to hunt for indicators within your own organization's logs. An engineer would first use GTI to gather the full list of IoCs and behaviors, and then use UDM search to hunt for all of those indicators across their environment. Option B (Web Search) is unreliable for professional operations, and Option C (manual analysis) is too slow for a "common malware variant" and the need to act "quickly."

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google Threat Intelligence overview"; "Investigating threats using Google Threat Intelligence"; "View IOCs using Applied Threat Intelligence")

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

(Note: Per the instruction to "Correct any typing errors," "Google Ops Agent" (Option A) should be read as the "Google SecOps forwarder." The "Google Ops Agent" is the incorrect agent used for Cloud Monitoring/Logging, whereas the "Google SecOps forwarder" is the correct agent for SecOps (Chronicle) ingestion. The remainder of Option A's text accurately describes the function of the SecOps forwarder.)

The native, minimal-effort solution for ingesting on-premises Syslog data into Google Security Operations (SecOps) is to deploy the Google SecOps forwarder. This forwarder is a lightweight software component (Linux binary or Docker container) deployed within the on-premises environment.

For this use case, the SecOps forwarder is configured with a [syslog] input, causing it to run as a Syslog server that listens on a specified TCP or UDP port. The two on-premises firewalls are then configured to send their Syslog streams to the IP address and port of the machine running the SecOps forwarder. The forwarder acts as the Syslog destination on the local network, buffering, compressing, and securely forwarding the logs to the SecOps platform. Option C is a valid, but third-party, solution. Option A (when corrected) describes the native, Google-provided solution. Option B (Feed) is incorrect as feeds are for threat intel, not telemetry. Option D is incorrect as the SecOps platform does not accept raw Syslog traffic directly via its URL.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps data ingestion overview"; "Install and configure the SecOps forwarder"; "Forwarder configuration syntax - Syslog input")

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

The most direct and efficient method to "quickly gather more context and assess the reputation" of an unknown IP address is to check it against the platform's integrated threat intelligence. The **Alerts & IoCs page**, specifically the **IoC Matches** tab, is the primary interface for this.

Google Security Operations continuously and automatically correlates all ingested UDM (Universal Data Model) events against its vast, integrated threat intelligence feeds, which include data from Google Threat Intelligence (GTI), Mandiant, and VirusTotal. If the unfamiliar external IP address is a known malicious Indicator of Compromise (IoC)—such as a command-and-control (C2) server, malware distribution point, or known scanner—it will have already generated an "IoC Match" finding.

By searching for the IP on this page, an analyst can immediately confirm if it is on a blocklist and gain critical context, such as its threat category, severity, and the specific intelligence source that flagged it. While Option B (finding the user) and Option C (viewing the asset) are valid subsequent steps for understanding the internal scope of the incident, they do not provide the *external reputation* of the IP. Option D is a *response* action taken only *after* the IP has been assessed as malicious.

*(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "View alerts and IoCs"; "How Google SecOps automatically matches IoCs"; "Investigate an IP address")*

***

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option B. This question requires a low-latency (5 minutes) notification for a silent source.

The other options are incorrect for two main reasons:

Dashboards vs. Notifications: Options C and D are incorrect because dashboards (both in Looker and Google SecOps) are for visualization, not active, real-time alerting. They show you the status when you look at them but do not proactively notify you of a failure.

Metric-Absence vs. Metric-Value: Google SecOps streams all its ingestion health metrics to Google Cloud Monitoring, which is the correct tool for real-time alerting. However, Option A is monitoring the "total ingested log count." This metric would require a threshold (e.g., count < 1), which can be problematic. The specific and most reliable method to detect a "silent source" (one that has stopped sending data entirely) is to use a metric-absence condition. This type of policy in Cloud Monitoring triggers only when the platform stops receiving data for a specific metric (grouped by collector_id) for a defined duration (e.g., five minutes).

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Use Cloud Monitoring for ingestion insights: Google SecOps uses Cloud Monitoring to send the ingestion notifications. Use this feature for ingestion notifications and ingestion volume viewing... You can integrate email notifications into existing workflows.

Set up a sample policy to detect silent Google SecOps collection agents:

In the Google Cloud console, select Monitoring.

Click Create Policy.

Select a metric, such as chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/log_count.

In the Transform data section, set the Time series group by to collector_id.

Click Next.

Select Metric absence and do the following:

Set Alert trigger to Any time series violates.

Set Trigger absence time to a time (e.g., 5 minutes).

In the Notifications and name section, select a notification channel.

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")

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

The IOC Matches page is the central location in Google Security Operations (SecOps) for reviewing all IoCs that have been automatically correlated against your organization's UDM data. This page is populated by the Applied Threat Intelligence service, which includes feeds from Google, Mandiant, and VirusTotal.

When security exercises (like red teaming or penetration testing) are conducted, they often use known malicious tools or infrastructure that will correctly trigger IoC matches, creating "noise" and contributing to alert fatigue. The platform provides a specific function to manage this: muting.

An analyst can navigate to the IOC Matches page, use filters (such as time, as mentioned in Option B) to identify the specific IoCs associated with the red team exercise, and then select the Mute action for those IoCs. Muting is the correct operational procedure for suppressing known-benign or exercise-related IoCs. This action prevents them from appearing in the main view and contributing to noise, while preserving the historical record of the match. Option D is a prioritization technique, not a suppression one.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "View IoCs using Applied Threat Intelligence"; "View alerts and IoCs"; "Mute or unmute IoC")

Here is the formatted answer as requested.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option C. Google SecOps SOAR has a specific feature designed for this exact use case: Advanced Reports.

The standard "SOAR Reports" (Option A) are pre-canned dashboard-style reports (e.g., Management - SOC Status). However, the "Advanced Reports" feature (built on Looker) provides a powerful, flexible interface for building highly customized, tabular reports based on case data. This allows an administrator to specifically query for case resolutions and SLA metrics, and filter them by priority = High OR Critical.

Most importantly, the Advanced Reports feature has a built-in scheduler. This scheduler can be configured to run the report at a specific cadence (e.g., "Weekly on Monday at 9:00 AM"), send it to a list of email recipients, and attach the data in the required format, including CSV and as a zipped file.

Option B is incorrect because detection rules create alerts, they don't report on case metrics. Option D is incorrect because it mixes the SIEM search function with a SOAR job, which is an overly complex and unnecessary way to query case data that is already structured within the SOAR module.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Explore advanced SOAR reports: The default advanced SOAR reports are a set of dashboards and reports to help track SOC performance, case handling, analyst workload, and automation efficiency. These reports provide both high-level and detailed insights across your environments.1

SLA Monitoring: Use Triage Time and SLA Met flag to monitor SLA compliance and improve case handling.

Manage advanced reports: You can create, edit, duplicate, share, download, and delete advanced reports.

Schedule a report:

Select the report you want to schedule.

Select the Scheduler tab and click Add.

In the New Schedule dialog, click the Enable toggle to turn on scheduling and enter the required information (e.g., weekly, Monday, email recipients).

You can select the delivery format, including CSV and ZIP attachments.

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

The most reliable, automated, and low-maintenance solution is to use the native Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR capabilities. A playbook block is a reusable, automated workflow that can be attached to other playbooks, such as the standard case closure playbook.

This block would be configured with a conditional action. This action would check a case field (e.g., case.escalation_status == "escalated"). If the condition is true, the playbook automatically proceeds down the "Yes" branch, which would use an integration action (like "Send Email" for Gmail or Outlook) to send the case details to the director. After the email action, it would proceed to the "Close Case" action. If the condition is false (the case was not escalated), the playbook would proceed down the "No" branch, which would skip the email step and immediately close the case.

This method ensures the process is "reliably sent" and "automatic," as it's built directly into the case management logic. Options C and D are incorrect because they rely on manual analyst actions, which are not reliable and violate the "automatic" requirement. Option A is a custom, external solution that adds unnecessary complexity and maintenance overhead compared to the native SOAR playbook functionality.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps SOAR Playbooks overview"; "Playbook blocks"; "Using conditional logic in playbooks")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option B. This question tests the advanced detection capabilities of YARA-L when using the Applied Threat Intelligence (ATI) Fusion Feed.

The key requirement is to find an IP that not only matches but has a documented relationship to APT41. The ATI Fusion Feed is not just a flat list of IOCs; it is a context-rich graph of indicators, malware, threat actors, and their relationships, managed by Google's threat intelligence teams.10

Option A is incorrect because it describes a manual, static list (data table) and cannot query the relationships in the live feed.

Option C is incorrect because it is too generic ("high confidence score," "any feed"). The requirement is specific to the ATI Fusion Feed and APT41.

Option D is incorrect because it describes a post-detection SOAR action. The question explicitly asks how to configure the YARA-L detection rule itself to perform this correlation.

Option B is the only one that describes the correct YARA-L 2.0 methodology. The rule must first define the live event (network connection). Then, it must define the context source (the ATI Fusion Feed). In the events section of the rule, a join is established between the event's external IP field and the IP indicator in the Fusion Feed. Finally, the rule filters the joined context data, looking for attributes such as threat.threat_actor.name = "APT41" or other related_indicators that link back to the specified threat group.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Applied Threat Intelligence Fusion Feed overview: The Applied Threat Intelligence (ATI) Fusion Feed is a collection of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs), including hashes, IPs, domains, and URLs, that are associated with known threat actors, malware strains, active campaigns, and finished intelligence reporti11ng.12

Write YARA-L rules with the ATI Fusion Feed: Writing YARA-L rules that use the ATI Fusion Feed follows a similar process to writing YARA-L rules that use other context entity sources.13 To write a rule, you filter the selected context entity graph (in this case, Fusion Feed).14

You can join a field from the context entity and UDM event field. In the following example, the placeholder variable ioc is used to do a transitive join between the context entity and the event.

Because this rule can match a large number of events, it is recommended that you refine the rule to match on context entities that have specific intelligence. This allows you to filter for explicit associations, such as a specific threat group or an indicator's presence in a compromised environment.