Free Practice Questions for Google Security-Operations-Engineer Exam

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation

This scenario describes a common configuration task where authorization is failing despite successful authentication. The problem stems from the fact that Google SecOps uses a dual-authorization model: one for the main platform (SIEM/Chronicle) and a separate one for the SOAR module. The SOC team needs both.

The prompt states admins already have access, which confirms that prerequisite steps like linking the project (Option A) and configuring Workforce Identity Federation (Option B) are already complete. The problem is specific to the new SOC team's group.

Fixing Instance Access (Option D):

The error "not getting authorized to access the instance" refers to the primary Google Cloud-level authorization. Access to the Google SecOps application itself is controlled by Google Cloud IAM roles on the linked project.1 The SOC team's group, which is federated from the third-party IdP, is represented as a principalSet in IAM. This principalSet must be granted an IAM role to allow sign-in. The roles/chronicle.viewer role is the minimum predefined role required to grant this application access.

Fixing SOAR Access (Option E):

Simply granting the IAM role (Option D) is not enough for the SOC team to perform its job. That role only gets them into the main SIEM interface. The SOAR module (for case management and playbooks) has its own internal role-based access control system. An administrator must also navigate within the SecOps platform to the SOAR Advanced Settings > Users & Groups and grant the SOC team's federated group a SOAR-specific permission, like "Basic" or "Analyst."

Both steps are required to fully "fix the issue" and provide the SOC team with functional access to the platform.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Identity and Access Management: Access to a Google SecOps instance using a third-party IdP relies on Workforce Identity Federation, but authorization is configured in two distinct locations.

Google Cloud IAM: Authorization to the main SecOps instance (including the SIEM interface) is controlled by Google Cloud IAM.2 The federated identities (groups) from the third-party IdP are mapped to a principalSet. This principalSet must be granted an IAM role on the Google Cloud project linked to the SecOps instance. The roles/chronicle.viewer role is the minimum predefined role required to grant sign-in access.

Google SecOps SOAR: Authorization for the SOAR module (for case management and playbooks) is managed independently.3 An administrator must navigate to the SOAR Advanced Settings > Users & Groups and assign a SOAR-specific role (e.g., 'Basic' or 'Analyst') to the same federated IdP group.

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

The key requirement is to *automate* the extraction of data to *minimize analyst effort*. This is a core function of Google Security Operations SOAR (formerly Siemplify). The **Siemplify integration** provides the foundational playbook actions for case management and entity manipulation.

The **`Create Entity`** action is designed to programmatically add new entities (like users, IPs, or domains) to the active case. To make this action automatic, the playbook developer must use the **Expression Builder**. The Expression Builder is the tool used to parse the JSON output from a previous action (the UDM query) and dynamically map the results (the list of usernames) into the parameters of a subsequent action.

By using the Expression Builder to configure the `Entities Identifier` parameter of the `Create Entity` action, the playbook automatically extracts all `principal.user.userid` fields from the UDM query results and adds them to the case. These new entities can then be automatically passed to the next playbook step, such as "Reset Password."

Options A and C are incorrect because they are **manual** actions. They require an analyst to intervene, which does *not* minimize effort. Option D is incorrect as it creates multiple, unnecessary cases, flooding the queue instead of enriching the single, original phishing case.

*(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Google SecOps SOAR Playbooks overview"; "Using the Expression Builder"; "Marketplace and Integrations")*

***

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.

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

This is a standard Identity and Access Management (IAM) permission issue. When Google Security Operations (SecOps) exports data, it uses its own service account (often named service-@gcp-sa-bigquerydatatransfer.iam.gserviceaccount.com or a similar SecOps-specific principal) to perform the write operation. The user account that schedules the report (Option C) is only relevant for the scheduling action, not for the data transfer itself. For the export to succeed, the Google SecOps service account principal must have explicit permission to write data into the target BigQuery dataset.

The predefined IAM role roles/bigquery.dataEditor grants the necessary permissions to create, update, and delete tables and table data within a dataset. By granting this role to the Google SecOps service account on the specific dataset, you authorize the service to write the report results and populate the tables. Option A (serviceAccountUser) is incorrect as it's used for service account impersonation, not for granting data access. Option B (retention period) is a data lifecycle setting and has no impact on the ability to write new data. The most common cause for this exact scenario—a successful job run with no data appearing—is that the service account lacks the required bigquery.dataEditor permissions on the destination dataset.

(Reference: Google Cloud documentation, "Troubleshoot transfer configurations"; "Control access to resources with IAM"; "BigQuery predefined IAM roles")

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 Explanation

The correct answer is Option C. The question asks for the immediate action to remediate the existing compliance drift, which is the VM that already has an external IP address.

Option C (Remediate): Reconfiguring the VM's network interface to remove the external IP directly fixes the identified misconfiguration. This action brings the resource back into compliance, which will cause the Security Command Center finding to be automatically set to INACTIVE on its next scan.2

Option A (Prevent): Applying the organization policy constraints/compute.vmExternalIpAccess is a preventative control.3 It will stop new VMs from being created with external IPs, but it is not retroactive and does not remove the external IP from the already existing VM. Therefore, it does not remediate the current finding.

Option B (Mask): Removing the tag simply hides the resource from the posture scan. This is a violation of compliance auditing; it masks the problem instead of fixing it.

Option D (Ignore): Marking a finding as fixed without actually fixing the underlying issue is incorrect and will not resolve the compliance drift. The finding will reappear as ACTIVE on the next scan.

Exact Extract from Google Security Operations Documents:

Finding deactivation after remediation: After you remediate a vulnerability or misconfiguration finding, the Security Command Center service that detected the finding automatically sets the state of the finding to INACTIVE the next time the detection service scans for the finding.4 How long Security Command Center takes to set a remediated finding to INACTIVE depends on the schedule of the scan that detects the findin5g.

Organization policy constraints: If enforced, the constraint constraints/compute.vmExternalIpAccess will deny the creation or update of VM instances with IPv4 external IP addresses.6 This constraint is not retroactive and will not restrict the usage of external IPs on existing VM instances. To remediate an existing VM, you must modify the instance's network interface settings and remove the external IP.

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 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.