Recommending changes to improve threat hunt efficiency can include: (Choose two)

The correct answer is A. Increasing the signal-to-noise ratio in alerting C. Streamlining communication channels. A (Increasing the signal-to-noise ratio) is correct because threat hunters waste significant time chasing false positives; fewer irrelevant alerts mean analysts spend more time on genuine threats. C (Streamlining communication channels) is correct because efficient hunts depend…

Threat Hunting Processes

Question

Options

AIncreasing the signal-to-noise ratio in alerting
BAdding more steps to the incident response process
CStreamlining communication channels
DExpanding the scope of data collection indiscriminately

How the community answered

(25 responses)

A
80% (20)
B
12% (3)
D
8% (2)

Explanation

A (Increasing the signal-to-noise ratio) is correct because threat hunters waste significant time chasing false positives; fewer irrelevant alerts mean analysts spend more time on genuine threats. C (Streamlining communication channels) is correct because efficient hunts depend on rapid coordination - bottlenecked or fragmented communication slows response and introduces errors.

B is wrong because adding more steps to incident response creates bureaucratic overhead, the opposite of efficiency. D is wrong because indiscriminate data collection floods analysts with irrelevant data, worsening the very noise problem that option A aims to solve - more data without purpose is a liability, not an asset.

Memory tip: Think "cut the clutter, clear the path" - good threat hunting efficiency means cutting signal noise (A) and clearing communication paths (C). Both distractors (B and D) add unnecessary bulk, which is always the wrong direction for efficiency.

Topics

#Signal-to-noise ratio#Alert tuning#Communication efficiency#Threat hunting optimization

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full 300-220 Practice