The Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis is a framework that describes the relationship between four components of a cyberattack: adversary, capability, infrastructure, and victim. It helps analysts understand the behavior and motivation of threat actors, as well as the tools and methods they use to compromise their targets12. References: Main Analytical Frameworks for Cyber Threat Intelligence, section 4; Strategies, tools, and frameworks for building an effective threat intelligence team, section 3.

Risk Acceptance means acknowledging a risk and choosing not to take further action because the cost of mitigation may outweigh the benefits.

It is the last resort when:

The risk is low impact or unlikely to occur.

Other options (mitigation, transfer, avoidance) are not feasible.

Why Not Other Options?

A (Transfer) → Moving risk to a third party (e.g., insurance).

C (Mitigation) → Implementing security controls to reduce risk.

D (Avoidance) → Eliminating the risk entirely (e.g., discontinuing a service).

Adding the SHA-256 hash of a legitimate Microsoft-signed binary like svchost.exe to detection signatures would result in the indicator firing on the majority of Windows devices. Svchost.exe is a common and legitimate system process used by Windows, and using its hash as an indicator ofcompromise (IOC) would generate numerous false positives, as it would match the legitimate instances of svchost.exe running on all Windows systems.

Registry artifacts and EDR data are two data sources that can provide valuable information about the root cause of a malware outbreak. Registry artifacts can reveal changes made by the malware to the system configuration, such as disabling security services, modifying startup items, or creating persistence mechanisms1. EDR data can capture the behavior and network activity of the malware, such as the initial infection vector, the command and control communication, or the lateral movement2. These data sources can help the analyst identify the malware family, the attack technique, and the threat actor behind the outbreak.

This scenario describes a strictgovernance policyrequiring multiple approvals for high-risk security group changes.Organizational governancerefers to policies that enforce security controls and approval workflows​.

Option B (MOU - Memorandum of Understanding)refers to agreements between parties, not internal security processes.

Option C (SLA - Service Level Agreement)refers to service guarantees, not security governance.

Option D (Business process interruption)might be a consequence, but it is not the primaryinhibitor to remediationin this case.

Thus,A is correct, as governance rules are restricting remediation speed.

The most likely attack that was performed is CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery). This is an attack that forces a user to execute unwanted actions on a web application in which they are currently authenticated1. If the user has several tabs open in the browser, one of them might contain a malicious link or form that sends a request to the web application to change the user’s password, email address, or other account settings. The web application will not be able to distinguish between the legitimate requests made by the user and the forged requests made by the attacker. As a result, the user will lose access to their account.

To prevent CSRF attacks, web applications should implement some form of anti-CSRF tokens or other mechanisms that validate the origin and integrity of the requests2. These tokens are unique and unpredictable values that are generated by the server and embedded in the forms or URLs that perform state-changing actions. The server will then verify that the token received from the client matches the token stored on the server before processing the request. This way, an attacker cannot forge a valid request without knowing the token value.

Some other possible attacks that are not relevant to this scenario are:

RFI (Remote File Inclusion) is an attack that allows an attacker to execute malicious code on a web server by including a remote file in a script. This attack does not affect the user’s browser or account settings.

LFI (Local File Inclusion) is an attack that allows an attacker to read or execute local files on a web server by manipulating the input parameters of a script. This attack does not affect the user’s browser or account settings.

XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) is an attack that injects malicious code into a web page that is then executed by the user’s browser. This attack can affect the user’s browser or account settings, but it requires the user to visit a compromised web page or click on a malicious link. It does not depend on having several tabs open in the browser.

The best option to safeguard PII during an incident is to ensure permissions are limited in the investigation team and encrypt the data. This is because limiting permissions reduces the risk of unauthorized access or leakage of sensitive data, and encryption protects the data from being read or modified by anyone who does not have the decryption key. Option A is not correct because closing the data may hinder the investigation process and prevent collaboration with other parties who may need access to the data. Option C is not correct because deleting data that is no longer needed may violate legal or regulatory requirements for data retention, and may also destroy potential evidence for the incident. Option D is not correct because opening permissions to the company may expose the data to more people than necessary, increasing the risk of compromise or misuse.