Security-Operations-Engineer Google Cloud Certified - Professional Security Operations Engineer (PSOE) Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

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

The most efficient and reliable method to proactively search for a specific indicator (like a domain) in Google Security Operations is to perform a Universal Data Model (UDM) search. All ingested telemetry, including DNS logs and proxy logs, is parsed and normalized into the UDM. This allows an analyst to run a single, high-performance query against a specific, indexed field.

To search for a domain, an analyst would query a field such as network.dns.question.name or network.http.hostname. Option B correctly identifies this as querying the "DNS section of the network noun." This approach is vastly superior to a raw log search (Option C), which is slow, inefficient, and does not leverage the normalized UDM data.

Option D (IOC Search/Matches) is a passive feature that shows automatic matches between your logs and Google's integrated threat intelligence. While it's a good place to check, a UDM search is the active, analyst-driven process for hunting for a new IoC that may have come from an external feed. Option A is a UI feature for grouping search results and is not the search method itself.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps UDM Search overview"; "Universal Data Model noun list - Network")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The key requirement is to programmatically build a data structure to query the connections (i.e., a graph) between resources. Security Command Center (SCC) Enterprise is built upon the data provided by Cloud Asset Inventory (CAI).1

Cloud Asset Inventory provides two primary types of data: resources (the "nodes" of a graph) and relationships (the "edges" of a graph).2

Option B is incorrect because it focuses on the resource table. While the resource table contains the assets themselves, it is the relationship table that specifically stores the connections between them (e.g., a compute.googleapis.com/Instance is ATTACHED_TO a compute.googleapis.com/Network).

Option A (attack path simulation) is a feature that consumes this graph data; it is not the method used to build the data structure for programmatic querying.

Option C (Bash script) is a manual, inefficient, and incomplete method that would fail to capture the complex relationships that CAI tracks automatically.

Option D is the correct solution. The Cloud Asset Inventory relationship table is the precise source for all resource connections. To effectively query these connections as an entity data structure (a graph), the ideal destination is a graph database. Spanner Graph is Google Cloud's managed graph database service, designed specifically for storing and querying highly interconnected data, making it the perfect tool for analyzing resource relationships and potential attack paths.3

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Relationships in Cloud Asset Inventory: Cloud Asset Inventory (CAI) provides relationship data, which allows you to understand the connections between your Google Cloud resources.4 CAI models relationships as a graph. You can export this relationship data for analysis. The relationship service stores information about the relationships between resources. For example, a Compute Engine instance might have a relationship with a persistent disk, or an IAM policy binding might have a relationship with a project.

Spanner Graph: Spanner Graph is a graph database built on Cloud Spanner that lets you store and query your graph data at scale.5 It is suitable for use cases that involve complex relationships, such as security analysis, fraud detection, and recommendation engines. By ingesting the Cloud Asset Inventory relationship table into Spanner Graph, you can programmatically execute graph queries to explore connections, identify high-risk assets, and model potential lateral movement paths.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option A. The key to this question is that the vulnerability is a zero-day (the CVE is not yet released). Therefore, you cannot hunt for known signatures, and tools that rely on public intelligence are useless. The only way to find it is to hunt for the behavior or TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) of its exploitation.

A critical XSS attack can often be used to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE). The logical TTP for this would be:

An external inbound connection to the web server (the exploit delivery).

This connection causes the web server process to spawn a new subprocess (the payload, e.g., a reverse shell, whoami, or powershell.exe).

Option A perfectly describes a behavioral YARA-L rule to detect this exact time-ordered series of events. By correlating an inbound NETWORK_CONNECTION with a subsequent PROCESS_LAUNCH from the same server and checking if that process is anomalous ("previously not seen"), you are effectively hunting for the post-exploitation behavior.

Option B is incorrect: WSS is a vulnerability scanner that looks for known classes of vulnerabilities. It will not find a specific, unknown zero-day.

Option C is incorrect: Gemini relies on public threat intelligence. If the CVE is not released, Gemini will not know about the vulnerability.

Option D is incorrect: This is a generic C2 detection and is less specific than Option A. An exploit would also likely use low-prevalence or unusual binaries, not "high-prevalence" ones.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

YARA-L 2.0 language overview: YARA-L 2.0 is a computer language used to create rules for searching through your enterprise log data... A typical multiple event rule will have the following: A match section which specifies the time range over which events need to be grouped. A condition section specifying what condition should trigger the detection and checking for the existence of multiple events.

This allows an analyst to hunt for specific TTPs by correlating a time-ordered series of events. For example, a rule can be written to join a NETWORK_CONNECTION event (e.g., an external inbound connection) with a subsequent PROCESS_LAUNCH event on the same host... By enriching this with entity context, the detection can be scoped to trigger only when the spawned process is anomalous or previously not seen in the environment, indicating a likely post-exploitation activity, such as a web shell or remote code execution resulting from an exploit.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option D. This approach correctly uses the integrated Google Cloud-native tools for both monitoring and alerting.

Google Security Operations (SecOps) automatically streams all ingestion metrics to Google Cloud Monitoring. This includes metrics for throughput (e.g., chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/event_count, chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/byte_count), parsing errors (e.g., chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/parse_error_count), and the health of collection agents (e.g., chronicle.googleapis.com/ingestion/last_seen_timestamp).

Receive a notification (15 minutes): The Data Ingestion and Health dashboard (Option A) is for visualization, and its "reports" are scheduled summaries, not real-time alerts. The only way to get a 15-minute notification is to use Cloud Monitoring. An alerting policy can be configured to trigger when a "metric absence" is detected for a specific collection agent's last_seen_timestamp, fulfilling the "silent source" requirement.

Visualize metrics: Cloud Monitoring also provides a powerful dashboarding service. A Cloud Monitoring dashboard can be built to graph all the necessary metrics—throughput, parsing errors, and agent status—in one place.

Option C is incorrect because it suggests using the Bindplane Observability Pipeline, which is a separate product. Option B is incorrect as Risk Analytics is for threat detection (UEBA), not platform health.

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.

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

In the Google Cloud console, select Monitoring.

Click Create Policy.

On the Select a metric page, select Chronicle Collector > Ingestion > Total ingested log count.

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

Click Next.

Select Metric absence and set the Trigger absence time (e.g., 15 minutes).

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

You can also create custom dashboards in Cloud Monitoring to visualize any of the exported metrics, such as Total ingested log size or Total record count (for parsing).

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 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.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The incident description makes it clear that endpoint containment (by EDR) was insufficient, as the attacker successfully pivoted to privileged service accounts and began post-compromise activities (credential dumping, scheduled tasks).

The goal is to automate containment and minimize dwell time.

Option A is an enrichment/investigation action, not a containment action.

Option B is the opposite of automation; adding a manual approval step increases dwell time and response time.

Option D is a detection engineering task (creating a YARA-L rule), not a SOAR playbook (response) action.

Option C is the only true automated containment action that directly addresses the new threat. The anomalous behavior of the privileged accounts would raise their Entity Risk Score within Google SecOps. A modern SOAR playbook can be configured to automatically trigger on this high-risk score and execute an identity-based containment action. Revoking tokens and suspending sessions for the compromised high-privilege accounts is the most effective way to immediately stop the attacker's lateral movement and malicious activity, thereby accelerating containment and minimizing dwell time.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

SOAR Playbooks and Automation: Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR enables the orchestration and automation of security responses. Playbooks are designed to execute a series of automated steps to respond to an alert.

Identity and Access Management Integrations: SOAR playbooks can integrate directly with Identity Providers (IdPs) like Google Workspace, Okta, and Microsoft Entra ID. A critical automated containment action for compromised accounts is to revoke active OAuth tokens, suspend user sessions, or disable the account entirely. This action immediately logs the attacker out of all active sessions and prevents them from re-authenticating.

Entity Risk: Detections and anomalous activities contribute to an entity's (e.g., a user or asset) risk score. Playbooks can be configured to use this risk score as a trigger. For example, if a high-privilege account's risk score crosses a critical threshold, the playbook can automatically execute identity containment actions.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answers are B and D, as they accurately describe the two primary functions of a modern SecOps platform: SIEM (Detection) and SOAR (Response).

Option B: (Detection Strategy) A SIEM's fundamental purpose is to perform detection. To do this, it must first ingest telemetry (logs) as events. This is the foundational step for any detection and response strategy. Logs from all sources—on-premises (e.g., firewalls, Active Directory) and multi-cloud (e.g., AWS CloudTrail, Azure Activity Logs)—are ingested into Google SecOps, normalized into the Unified Data Model (UDM), and stored as events. This is what allows detection rules to run. (Option C is incorrect as logs are events, not entities).

Option D: (Response Strategy) A SOAR's fundamental purpose is to orchestrate and automate the response to a detection. A key part of this response is event enrichment (or more specifically, observable enrichment). When an alert is ingested by the SOAR, a playbook runs. This playbook uses integrations (e.g., with Mandiant or VirusTotal, which are part of GTI) to query for real-time context on the observables (IPs, hashes, domains) in the alert. This enrichment helps an analyst make a decision or allows the playbook to automate a containment action.

Option A is incorrect because GTI is ingested as context (in the entity graph and Fusion Feed), not as events. Option E is incorrect because "entity enrichment" (e.g., adding user data from AD) happens at the SIEM ingestion level, whereas SOAR integrations perform on-demand enrichment for alerts/events.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Google SecOps data ingestion: Google Security Operations ingests customer logs, normalizes the data, and detects security alerts. Google SecOps ingests data using... Forwarders, Bindplane agent, Ingestion APIs, Google Cloud. Parsers convert logs from customer systems into a Unified Data Model (UDM) events.

Integrate Mandiant Threat Intelligence with Google SecOps: This document provides guidance on how to integrate Mandiant Threat Intelligence with Google Security Operations (Google SecOps). After you configure an integration instance, you can use it in playbooks.

Actions:

Enrich Entities: Use the Enrich Entities action to enrich entities using the information from Mandiant Threat Intelligence. This action runs on the following Google SecOps entities: Hostname, IP Address, URL, File Hash.

Enrich IOCs: Use this action to enrich indicators of compromise.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct solution is Option D. The goal is to exclude events (i.e., stop false positives) when the principal.ip field contains any IP from the trusted 192.168.2.0/24 subnet.

The principal.ip field in UDM is a repeated field, meaning it can hold an array of values (e.g., ["1.2.3.4", "192.168.2.5"]). YARA-L provides the any and all quantifiers to handle repeated fields.9

any $e.principal.ip: This checks if at least one IP in the array meets the condition.

all $e.principal.ip: This checks if every IP in the array meets the condition.

The function net.ip_in_range_cidr(...) returns true if an IP is in the specified range.

Therefore, the logic we need is: "do not trigger this rule if any of the IPs in the principal.ip field are in the 192.168.2.0/24 range."

This translates directly to the YARA-L syntax: not net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "192.168.2.0/24")

Option B would only find events from that subnet.

Option A would only find events where all associated IPs are in that subnet.

Option C is the logical inverse of A and would incorrectly filter out events that might be malicious (e.g., ["1.2.3.4", "192.168.2.5"] would not be excluded because all IPs are not in the range).

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

YARA-L 2.0 language syntax > Repeated fields and boolean expressions: When a boolean expression, such as a function call, is applied to a repeated field, you can use the any or all keywords to specify how the expression should be evaluated.10

any : The expression evaluates to true if it is true for at least one of the values in the repeated field.

all : The expression evaluates to true only if it is true for all of the values in the repeated field.

Functions > net.ip_in_range_cidr: The net.ip_in_range_cidr function is useful to bind rules to specific parts of the network.11 To exclude all private netblocks as defined in RFC1918, you can add a not to the start of the criteria:

and not (net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "10.0.0.0/8") or net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "172.16.0.0/12") or net.ip_in_range_cidr(any $e.principal.ip, "192.168.0.0/16"))

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:

Google Security Operations (SecOps) SOAR is designed to natively measure and report on key SOC performance metrics, including MTTR. This calculation is automatically derived from playbook case stages.

As a case is ingested and processed by a SOAR playbook, it moves through distinct, customizable stages (e.g., "Triage," "Investigation," "Remediation," "Closed"). The SOAR platform automatically records a timestamp for each of these stage transitions. The time deltas between these stages (e.g., the time from when a case entered "Triage" to when it entered "Remediation") are the raw data used to calculate MTTR and other KPIs.

This data is then aggregated and visualized in the built-in SecOps SOAR reporting and dashboarding features. This is the standard, out-of-the-box method for capturing these metrics. Option C describes a manual, redundant process of what case stages do automatically. Option D describes where the data might be viewed (Looker), but Option B describes the underlying mechanism for how the MTTR data is captured in the first place, which is the core of the question.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps SOAR overview"; "Manage playbooks"; "Get insights from dashboards and reports")

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The core task is to evaluate a new tool for fast, low-customization deployment across the entire Google SecOps platform (SIEM and SOAR). This requires checking the two main integration points: data ingestion (SIEM) and automated response (SOAR).

SIEM Ingestion (Option B): To minimize customization for the SIEM, you must verify that Google SecOps can ingest and understand the tool's logs out-of-the-box. This is achieved by checking the Google SecOps documentation for a default parser for that specific tool. If a default parser exists, the logs will be automatically normalized into the Unified Data Model (UDM) upon ingestion, requiring zero custom development.

SOAR Orchestration (Option C): To minimize customization for SOAR, you must verify that pre-built automated actions exist. The Google SecOps Marketplace contains all pre-built SOAR integrations (connectors). By finding the tool in the Marketplace, you can verify which actions (e.g., "Quarantine Host," "Get Process List") are supported, confirming that response playbooks can be built quickly without custom scripting.

Options D and E describe high-effort, custom integration paths, which are the exact opposite of the "minimize customization for faster deployment" requirement.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Default parsers: Google Security Operations (SecOps) provides a set of default parsers that support many common security products. When logs are ingested from a supported product, SecOps automatically applies the correct parser to normalize the raw log data into the structured Unified Data Model (UDM) format. This is the fastest method to begin ingesting and analyzing new data sources.

Google SecOps Marketplace: The SOAR component of Google SecOps includes a Marketplace that contains a large library of pre-built integrations for common third-party security tools, including EDR, firewalls, and identity providers. Before purchasing a new tool, an engineer should verify its presence in the Marketplace and review the list of supported actions to ensure it meets the organization's automation and orchestration workflow requirements.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The prompt asks for the most efficient and automated solution for handling SCCE findings and integrating with a ticketing system. This is the primary use case for Google Security Operations SOAR.

The native workflow is as follows:

SCCE detects a finding.

The finding is automatically ingested into Google SecOps SIEM, which creates an alert.

The alert is automatically sent to SecOps SOAR, which creates a case.

The SOAR case automatically triggers a playbook.

Option C describes this process perfectly. An administrator would disable the default playbook and enable a specific playbook that uses a pre-built integration (from the Marketplace) for the organization's ticketing system (e.g., ServiceNow, Jira). This playbook would contain an automated step to generate a ticket, thus fulfilling the requirement efficiently.

Option B is a manual process. Options A and D describe complex, custom-built data engineering pipelines, which are far less efficient than using the built-in SOAR capabilities.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

SOAR Playbooks and Integrations: Google SecOps SOAR is designed to automate and orchestrate responses to alerts. When an alert from a source like Security Command Center (SCC) is ingested and creates a case, it can be configured to automatically trigger a playbook.

Ticketing Integration: A common playbook use case is integration with an external ticketing system. Using a pre-built integration from the SOAR Marketplace, an administrator can add a step to the playbook (e.g., Create Ticket). This action will automatically generate a ticket in the external system and populate it with details from the alert, such as the finding, the affected resources, and the recommended remediation steps. This provides a seamless, automated workflow from detection to ticketing.

This YARA-L rule is designed to correlate a real-time event (a DNS query, $dns) with known-bad indicators stored in the Google SecOps entity graph ($ioc). The code must correctly filter the entity graph to find the specific indicators from the custom MISP feed.

Two filters are required:

$ioc.graph.metadata.entity_type = "DOMAIN_NAME": This line is essential to filter the entity graph for IoCs that are domains. The rule is trying to match a DNS query ($dns_query) to a known C2 domain, so the entity type must be DOMAIN_NAME.

$ioc.graph.metadata.source_type = "ENTITY_CONTEXT": This is the key differentiator. The Google SecOps entity graph has multiple context sources. GLOBAL_CONTEXT (Option B) is for threat intelligence provided by Google (e.g., Google Threat Intelligence, Mandiant). DERIVED_CONTEXT (Option C) is for context inferred from UDM events. The prompt explicitly states the IoC feed is the organization's own "threat intelligence feed... ingested... with... MISP." This type of customer-provided, third-party intelligence is classified as ENTITY_CONTEXT. Adding this line ensures the rule only uses the custom MISP feed for its IoC data, as intended.

The other lines in the $ioc block, such as product_name = "MISP", further refine this ENTITY_CONTEXT search.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "YARA-L 2.0 language syntax"; "Context-aware detections with entity graph"; "Populate the entity graph")