Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Palo Alto Networks Exam PSE-Endpoint Topic 2 Question 69 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's PSE-Endpoint exam
Question #: 69
Topic #: 2
[All PSE-Endpoint Questions]

An Administrator has identified an EPM-triggered false positive and has used the Create Rule button from within the relevant entry in the Security Events > Preventions > Exploits tab. What is the result of the created rule?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Marisha
4 months ago
This question is like a game of whack-a-mole. You fix one issue, and another pops up! I hope the right answer is in there somewhere.
upvoted 0 times
Viki
3 months ago
D) The new rule will include the EPM that raised the prevention, the process that triggered the prevention, the machine on which the prevention was triggered, and a descriptive name for the rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Art
4 months ago
B) The new rule stops all EPM injection into processes on the machine on which the prevention was triggered.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kayleigh
4 months ago
A) The new rule stops all EPM injection into the faulted process.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tarra
5 months ago
I think it might be option B, as it mentions stopping EPM injection into processes on the machine.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenneth
5 months ago
Okay, I'm leaning towards A. If the admin is trying to address a false positive, they probably want to stop all EPM injection into the faulted process, right?
upvoted 0 times
Beatriz
4 months ago
I agree with Beatriz. A seems like the most logical option in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
4 months ago
I see your point, but I still believe it's A. Stopping all EPM injection into the faulted process makes sense to address the false positive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salley
4 months ago
I think it's actually D. The new rule will include all the necessary details for the specific prevention.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Hyman
5 months ago
But option D mentions including specific details in the rule, which seems more comprehensive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
5 months ago
I'm going with D. The rule should include all the relevant details like the EPM, process, machine, and a descriptive name. Seems like the most comprehensive option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmen
5 months ago
Hmm, I think the answer is B. The new rule should stop all EPM injection into processes on the machine where the prevention was triggered, not just the faulted process.
upvoted 0 times
Tran
4 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Mel
4 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Cassandra
5 months ago
I disagree, I believe it is option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hyman
5 months ago
I think the result of the created rule is option D.
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