Palo Alto Networks PCDRA Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions

Question 1:

Which pair of MITRE ATT&CK tactics best categorizes the use of phishing techniques by adversaries?

A. Initial Access, Persistence
B. Persistence, Command and Control
C. Reconnaissance, Persistence
D. Reconnaissance, Initial Access

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

Phishing is one of the most frequently used tactics by attackers attempting to infiltrate systems, and it is primarily associated with the Initial Access and Reconnaissance tactics in the MITRE ATT&CK framework. These tactics represent the early stages of a cyberattack where adversaries work to gather data about their targets and establish an initial point of entry into the environment.

In the Reconnaissance stage, attackers aim to collect information that helps them plan and execute more effective attacks. This may involve scanning public-facing assets, gathering email addresses, or researching employee structures through social media. Phishing can play a supportive role during this phase. For instance, attackers may send preliminary emails to test which users open them or respond, helping refine future attack strategies.

However, phishing is most directly aligned with the Initial Access tactic. Here, attackers use deceptive emails, messages, or websites to trick users into clicking malicious links or downloading harmful attachments. Once the victim engages with the content, attackers may gain access to the user’s credentials or install malware, such as remote access trojans (RATs), effectively breaching the system's defenses.

The main objective of phishing is to exploit human trust and social engineering to bypass technical security controls. This makes it a quintessential Initial Access technique. Once access is obtained, attackers may pivot to other tactics like privilege escalation, lateral movement, or data exfiltration.

Options like Persistence, Command and Control, and Reconnaissance and Persistence are less accurate because phishing is not directly used to maintain long-term access or establish command channels—those are subsequent steps. Instead, phishing helps attackers start the process.

In summary, phishing plays a dual role by supporting Reconnaissance efforts and acting as a critical method in the Initial Access phase. This dual function places it firmly within the context of Reconnaissance and Initial Access in the MITRE ATT&CK model.

Question 2:

An organization leader wants to track how quickly incidents are being resolved. Which built-in dashboard should they use to monitor Mean Time to Resolution (MTTR)?

A. Security Manager Dashboard
B. Data Ingestion Dashboard
C. Security Admin Dashboard
D. Incident Management Dashboard

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

Mean Time to Resolution (MTTR) is a critical metric that measures how long it takes, on average, for an organization to fully resolve an incident after it has been detected. This key performance indicator (KPI) is essential for executives and decision-makers who want to understand how efficiently their teams are handling disruptions, whether they are system failures, service outages, or cybersecurity incidents.

The Incident Management Dashboard is specifically designed to provide a consolidated view of all active and resolved incidents. It offers detailed tracking of incident lifecycle phases, including detection, acknowledgment, assignment, investigation, and resolution. This dashboard typically includes graphs, time-based metrics, categorization by severity, and filters by team or system, which are all necessary for analyzing MTTR trends.

By using this dashboard, executives can pinpoint recurring issues that extend resolution times, identify resource constraints, and evaluate the effectiveness of response strategies. Tracking MTTR helps uncover performance gaps and informs decisions around staffing, training, and process improvements.

Let’s review why the other dashboards are less appropriate:

• Security Manager Dashboard focuses on high-level security data, threat detection, and response activities. While useful for security events, it does not provide a comprehensive view of MTTR across all incident types.

• Data Ingestion Dashboard centers on monitoring the flow and processing of data from various sources. It is not concerned with incident resolution metrics and therefore lacks MTTR visibility.

• Security Admin Dashboard is intended for managing security policies, access controls, and system configurations. It does not offer detailed insights into incident tracking or resolution times.

In conclusion, the Incident Management Dashboard is the best option for executives who want to track MTTR. It offers targeted data visualizations and metrics that highlight how efficiently issues are resolved, enabling continuous improvement in service reliability and operational responsiveness.

Question 3:

Which two actions are performed by the Cortex XDR Windows Malware Profile's “Respond to Malicious Causality Chains” feature? (Select two answers.)

A. Closes network connections linked to malicious behavior
B. Ends processes responsible for malicious actions
C. Stops individual threads executing malicious operations
D. Blocks IP addresses involved in suspicious activity

Correct Answers: A, B

Explanation:

The “Respond to Malicious Causality Chains” functionality within Cortex XDR’s Windows Malware Profile is a proactive defense mechanism aimed at identifying and disrupting a series of related malicious events—commonly referred to as a causality chain. These chains represent a sequence of processes, scripts, and network communications that, when connected, reveal a broader attack pattern such as malware deployment, lateral movement, or data exfiltration.

One of the main objectives of this feature is to automatically terminate any processes found to be responsible for malicious actions (Option B). These processes may include malware payloads, ransomware encryption routines, or backdoors used by attackers. Shutting down such processes in real time stops the threat from continuing its activities and minimizes potential damage to the endpoint.

In addition, the feature is designed to close any active network connections associated with those malicious processes (Option A). This is particularly important in preventing data theft, halting command-and-control (C2) communication, and blocking the attacker’s remote access. Disconnecting network connections breaks the operational control of external actors and can stop ongoing exfiltration or propagation efforts.

Options C and D, although useful in other contexts, are not the primary focus of this feature. Stopping threads (C) might mitigate very specific components of malware, but it’s generally less effective than terminating entire processes. Blocking IP addresses (D) can be part of broader threat intelligence responses, but it doesn't directly address the active processes or their interlinked behaviors that define a causality chain.

In conclusion, the “Respond to Malicious Causality Chains” feature plays a crucial role in automating incident response by disrupting entire chains of malicious actions—primarily by ending harmful processes and disconnecting their communications. This approach ensures more comprehensive containment of multi-stage attacks.

Question 4:

How can a user save a custom XQL query from a dashboard directly into the Widget Library?

A. Use the three-dot menu on the widget and choose “Save” to store it in the Widget Library
B. This feature isn’t available inside the dashboard; the user must go to the Widget Library separately
C. Select “Save to Action Center” and input a name and description
D. Click “Save to Widget Library” in the dashboard, then provide a name and description

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

When building a dashboard using Extended Query Language (XQL) within Cortex XDR, users often need to save custom queries for repeated use or sharing across dashboards. The platform provides a streamlined way to accomplish this through the Widget Library, a central repository for reusable query widgets.

The correct and most efficient method for saving a custom query is to click the “Save to Widget Library” option directly within the dashboard interface (Option D). Upon doing so, users are prompted to assign a name and provide a short description. This ensures the query is easily identifiable and retrievable for future use or by other team members.

This method eliminates the need to exit the dashboard or manually copy-paste the query elsewhere. Instead, it allows seamless workflow continuity, especially during interactive dashboard creation or modification.

Let’s clarify why the other options are incorrect:

• Option A incorrectly suggests that saving via the widget’s three-dot menu will add the query to the Widget Library. While the menu may offer basic save options, it doesn’t support direct saving to the Widget Library.

• Option B incorrectly claims that users must leave the dashboard and access the Widget Library separately to save queries. This is outdated or misinformed, as the saving function is embedded in the dashboard itself.

• Option C references the “Save to Action Center” feature, which serves a different purpose—typically related to incident management—not saving reusable widgets or queries.

In summary, if a user wants to preserve their custom XQL query for repeated use across dashboards, the correct process is to click “Save to Widget Library” from the dashboard. This user-friendly design promotes better organization, faster deployment, and enhanced collaboration across security operations teams.

Question No. 5:

Which Cortex XDR license type is required to collect and analyze logs from external security solutions provided by different vendors?

A. Cortex XDR Pro per Endpoint
B. Cortex XDR Vendor Agnostic Pro
C. Cortex XDR Pro per TB
D. Cortex XDR Cloud per Host

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

In a modern enterprise security setup, organizations often utilize a variety of tools and platforms from multiple third-party vendors. These tools generate large volumes of logs that must be ingested, correlated, and analyzed to detect potential threats efficiently. To accommodate this requirement within the Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR platform, the Cortex XDR Vendor Agnostic Pro license is essential.

This license is specifically tailored for environments where external log sources need to be integrated into Cortex XDR. Unlike other license types that focus on endpoints or volume-based ingestion, this option enables a vendor-agnostic ingestion model, meaning logs from any compatible vendor can be ingested without being restricted to predefined formats or devices. This flexibility is critical in multi-vendor security architectures where centralizing data is crucial for incident response and security analytics.

For example, logs from firewalls, SIEM systems, cloud platforms, and third-party threat intelligence feeds can be brought into Cortex XDR under this license type. Once ingested, these logs can be processed through Cortex XDR’s advanced analytics and detection engines, allowing for broader visibility and faster detection of anomalies across the entire environment.

Let’s look briefly at the other options:

• A. Cortex XDR Pro per Endpoint: This is designed for endpoint protection and behavior analytics at the device level. It doesn’t support broad external log ingestion.

• C. Cortex XDR Pro per TB: This model is based on the amount of data ingested and is typically tied to internal data rather than offering unlimited vendor compatibility.

• D. Cortex XDR Cloud per Host: This pertains to host-based cloud workload protection and is not focused on third-party log ingestion.

In summary, Cortex XDR Vendor Agnostic Pro is the most suitable and flexible option for organizations that need to collect and analyze logs from a range of external vendors, enabling holistic and scalable security monitoring.

Question 6:

If an attacker tries to exploit macOS by loading malicious dynamic libraries from untrusted directories, which Cortex XDR protection feature is designed to block this threat?

A. DDL Security
B. Hot Patch Protection
C. Kernel Integrity Monitor (KIM)
D. Dylib Hijacking

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

On macOS systems, applications frequently use dynamic libraries—commonly referred to as .dylib files—to access shared code. These libraries are loaded at runtime from various locations as dictated by the system’s library loading sequence. Unfortunately, this behavior opens a door for attackers to exploit it using a technique called Dylib Hijacking.

Dylib Hijacking involves placing a malicious dynamic library in a directory that is searched by the system before the legitimate version is found. If successful, the application unknowingly loads the attacker’s library, which can then execute arbitrary or malicious code with the privileges of the compromised application. This is a common tactic in macOS-focused attacks, especially when attackers gain limited access and seek to escalate privileges or persist in the system stealthily.

Cortex XDR includes a dedicated module for detecting and blocking dylib hijacking attacks. This module monitors application behavior and enforces rules about which libraries can be loaded and from where. It ensures only trusted and signed libraries are executed, thereby preventing malicious or unauthorized dylibs from being injected into legitimate processes.

Here’s why the other options are not applicable:

• A. DDL Security: The term "DDL" typically refers to Dynamic Link Libraries on Windows systems, not macOS. Since the attack described is specific to macOS, this option is not relevant.

• B. Hot Patch Protection: This module protects against runtime memory modifications but does not specifically address the issue of loading malicious libraries from disk.

• C. Kernel Integrity Monitor (KIM): While KIM is valuable for preventing low-level system tampering, it’s focused on the integrity of the kernel rather than application-level library loading behavior.

In conclusion, Dylib Hijacking protection is the right defense mechanism within Cortex XDR for mitigating threats where attackers exploit the dynamic library loading process in macOS, making it a vital component in securing Apple-based environments.

Question 7:

What is the main role of the Unit 42 team within Palo Alto Networks?

A. Managing automation and orchestration of security products
B. Tuning and optimizing the Cortex XDR server configuration
C. Conducting threat intelligence, malware analysis, and proactive threat hunting
D. Deploying Cortex XDR agents quickly across environments

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

Unit 42 serves as the threat intelligence and research division at Palo Alto Networks, specializing in advanced cybersecurity investigations. The team's primary responsibilities include conducting deep threat research, performing malware analysis, and engaging in threat hunting activities. Their mission is to uncover emerging cyber threats and adversarial behaviors by analyzing cyberattacks, deconstructing malware, and tracking threat actor tactics.

Unlike teams responsible for technical implementation or product deployment—such as automation engineers or system administrators—Unit 42 operates at a strategic, investigative level. Their work involves dissecting how sophisticated attacks are carried out, identifying indicators of compromise, and developing intelligence that informs broader cybersecurity strategies. They often use reverse engineering techniques and behavioral analytics to detect and understand unknown threats.

Unit 42 plays a pivotal role in shaping Palo Alto Networks' threat prevention technologies. The intelligence they generate feeds directly into Palo Alto’s security products, strengthening detection capabilities across platforms like Cortex XDR, Prisma Cloud, and next-gen firewalls. Moreover, their findings are frequently published in threat reports, advisories, and research blogs, benefiting not only Palo Alto customers but the entire cybersecurity community.

In addition to analyzing malware and breaches, Unit 42 is also involved in tracking Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups, uncovering zero-day vulnerabilities, and contributing to public threat intelligence sharing. This makes them instrumental in helping organizations stay proactive rather than reactive when facing cyber risks.

It’s important to distinguish Unit 42’s role from other operational functions such as configuring Cortex XDR, automating tasks, or rolling out agents. Those responsibilities are typically handled by other departments or administrators focused on deployment and maintenance.

In summary, Unit 42’s core function is centered around identifying, analyzing, and mitigating cybersecurity threats through in-depth research, making them a vital asset in the global battle against cybercrime.

Question 8:

Within the Cortex XDR platform, which of the following can be used as a valid Indicator of Compromise (IOC) to detect potential malicious activity?

A. Destination Port
B. E-mail Address
C. Full File Path
D. App-ID

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

In Cortex XDR, Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) are key components used to detect suspicious or malicious activity across endpoints and other data sources. Among the valid IOC types that Cortex XDR supports, the Full Path is particularly effective in identifying specific files or directories associated with known threats.

A full path IOC refers to the absolute file location on a system—such as C:\Users\Public\malicious.exe. This allows security analysts to track files that might be placed in well-known or suspicious locations as part of malware campaigns. By setting a full path as an IOC, the Cortex XDR engine can alert security teams if a file appears or executes from that location. It can also trigger automated responses like process termination, file quarantine, or endpoint isolation.

Using full path IOCs is especially helpful in identifying recurring threats where malware consistently installs itself in the same directory or executes from a known path. This tactic enhances the platform’s ability to rapidly recognize and neutralize threats without waiting for behavioral detection or other heuristics.

The other options listed, while relevant in different cybersecurity contexts, are not supported as IOC types within Cortex XDR. For instance, destination port and App-ID are primarily used for network traffic analysis and application-level control, respectively. E-mail address is more applicable to email gateway solutions and phishing detection platforms but not recognized as an IOC in Cortex XDR’s endpoint-focused detection framework.

Cortex XDR is optimized to detect threats using file hashes, IP addresses, domain names, file names, and full paths—artifacts that directly tie into how malware operates on endpoints. When these IOCs are matched, they help reduce the response time to active threats and provide clear evidence of compromise.

Therefore, among the given choices, Full Path is a valid and powerful IOC in Cortex XDR for enhancing detection and automating response mechanisms against known threats.

Question 9:

When a new incident is initially detected and displayed in Cortex, what is the default entry shown in the "Assigned To" field before any manual assignment occurs?

A Pending
B It is blank
C Unassigned
D New

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

In the Cortex platform, when an incident is first generated and appears in the system, the "Assigned To" field is automatically set to "Unassigned." This is a standard default behavior designed to indicate that no specific analyst or response team has taken ownership of the incident yet.

The purpose of the "Assigned To" field is to define responsibility. Until someone is explicitly assigned to investigate or resolve the incident, it remains unallocated. This approach ensures that incidents are visible to the broader team and can be triaged appropriately based on severity, type, or priority. Leaving the incident Unassigned also prevents confusion, as it clearly signals that the case still needs an owner.

Security operation centers (SOCs) often rely on this unassigned state to help facilitate workflows and decision-making. During triage, an analyst or incident manager will review unassigned incidents and allocate them according to workload or specialization. Cortex supports this workflow by enabling manual or automated assignment during incident processing.

Let’s review the incorrect options for clarity:

• A. Pending: This is typically a status used during the incident lifecycle when the case is waiting on additional data, user input, or third-party response. It is not used in the "Assigned To" field.

• B. It is blank: Although some platforms might display a blank field initially, Cortex specifically uses the value "Unassigned" to indicate the lack of an owner. This helps maintain clarity in incident queues.

• D. New: This reflects the status of the incident itself, not who is assigned to handle it. While an incident may be marked as "New," this doesn't relate to the assignment field.

In summary, for newly detected incidents in Cortex, the "Assigned To" field defaults to Unassigned, highlighting that the case still needs to be allocated to an individual or team for further action.

Question 10:

Which Palo Alto Networks tool provides automated detection, investigation, and response capabilities by ingesting alerts and logs from multiple sources to streamline threat analysis?

A Cortex XDR
B Prisma Cloud
C Panorama
D WildFire

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

Cortex XDR (Extended Detection and Response) is Palo Alto Networks’ advanced security operations platform designed to unify detection, investigation, and response across various data sources. It enables security analysts to ingest alerts, logs, and telemetry data from endpoints, networks, firewalls, and cloud resources. This holistic approach helps reduce alert fatigue and accelerates threat hunting and root cause analysis.

What makes Cortex XDR a key focus of the PCDRA exam is its ability to automatically correlate data from multiple security layers. Instead of handling siloed alerts from different security products, Cortex XDR links related activities together to show a comprehensive picture of the threat. It uses behavioral analytics and machine learning to identify suspicious patterns, such as lateral movement or credential abuse, that traditional systems might miss.

One of its standout capabilities is automated response. When a threat is detected, Cortex XDR can trigger pre-configured playbooks or actions, such as isolating an endpoint, terminating a malicious process, or generating a ServiceNow ticket. These features are crucial in reducing dwell time — the period a threat remains in a system undetected.

Let’s break down the incorrect options:

• B. Prisma Cloud is Palo Alto’s cloud-native security platform, focused on cloud infrastructure and workloads, not unified threat detection and response.
  
  

• C. Panorama is used for centralized management of Palo Alto Networks firewalls. It helps configure and monitor devices but doesn’t provide threat correlation or automated investigation.

• D. WildFire is a cloud-based malware analysis service. It can identify and block zero-day malware but doesn't provide full incident correlation or automated response.

In summary, Cortex XDR is central to Palo Alto’s detection and remediation framework and is a core component tested in the PCDRA certification. Understanding its architecture and automation capabilities is essential for anyone preparing for the exam.