CrowdStrike CCFA-200b - CrowdStrike Falcon Certification Program

A list of hosts that have not communicated with the CrowdStrike cloud is found in Inactive Sensors . The Inactive Sensors report identifies sensors that have not reported within a given timeframe and is intended for deployment coverage and operational health review. Host Groups organize systems for policy assignment but are not the report for cloud communication gaps. The Activity Dashboard focuses on detections, incidents, and security activity rather than sensor check-in status. Sensor Report provides an overview of active sensors, while Inactive Sensors specifically addresses hosts that have stopped reporting. CCFA dashboard and report guidance identifies Inactive Sensors as the report administrators use to locate endpoints that may be powered off, decommissioned, disconnected, or experiencing communication problems.

The correct answer is LMHosts and Windows Base Filtering Engine . The Windows sensor depends on certain Windows services being installed and running. The course guide identifies required services including LMHosts, Network Store Interface, Windows Base Filtering Engine, and Windows Power Service, with additional services depending on proxy and network configuration. Among the answer choices, LMHosts and BFE are both explicitly listed required services. Windows firewall and cloud connectivity are important connectivity considerations, but the question asks what services should be verified as installed and running. Network Store Interface is required, but Network List Service is not the documented pair in the provided option. Therefore, option A is the best match.

The primary concern with Windows RFM is that sensors do not have full visibility into all events occurring on the host. In Windows RFM, the sensor continues operating at reduced capacity and can still report events and trigger detections, but it temporarily unhooks from some kernel elements. Without those kernel elements, some detection patterns and a small number of preventions may not trigger. The host is not necessarily offline, powered off, or unable to communicate with the cloud. RFM is also not the same as an operating system crash; it is a protective compatibility state. The CCFA sensor deployment topic emphasizes that RFM reduces visibility and prevention coverage, which is why administrators should identify and remediate RFM hosts promptly.

The default role that allows viewing all analyst session details is Falcon Administrator . RTR-specific roles allow users to perform or view their own RTR activities according to their level, but the Falcon Administrator has broader administrative visibility across the CID, including all RTR session details. The RTR Administrator role has elevated RTR execution and script/file capabilities, but the course guide distinguishes complete administrative session visibility from RTR execution authority. Falcon Security Lead and RTR Read-Only Analyst do not provide all analyst session detail visibility. This separation is important because Falcon uses roles to distinguish operational response permissions from audit and administrative oversight. The correct default role for all-session visibility is Falcon Administrator.

The recommended approach is to minimize the number of groups while still meeting policy and operational requirements. Host groups are central to policy assignment, sensor updates, prevention tuning, containment workflows, and response policies. Excessive or overlapping groups make precedence difficult to reason about and increase the chance that hosts receive unexpected policies. Department-based or IP-only grouping may be useful in specific cases, but they should not be used indiscriminately. CCFA best practice is to design groups around clear policy intent, stable attributes, and operational need. Dynamic groups should be preferred when membership can be defined reliably by attributes such as OS, OU, tags, or host type. A smaller, well-governed group model is easier to audit and maintain.

Because the alert is triggering on a specific Falcon IOA, the correct remediation is to create an IOA exclusion scoped to the relevant file path or behavior. IOA exclusions are specifically intended to reduce false-positive behavioral detections and preventions. A generic file exclusion may be too broad or may not suppress the behavioral IOA. A Custom IOC Allow is more appropriate for hash or indicator-based decisions, not a behavior-based detection. Creating a separate host group with a less restrictive policy weakens protection across development systems and is unnecessarily broad. CCFA guidance favors the narrowest effective exception, applied to the specific detection logic and path involved. Therefore, an IOA exclusion is the correct administrative control.

The No Action option is assigned when an administrator wants to save the IOC for future use but does not want Falcon to take an enforcement or detection action at that time. In IOC Management, hash indicators can be assigned actions such as Block, Detect Only, Allow, or None/No Action. Block prevents the hash and can show it as a detection when the required prevention policy setting is enabled. Detect Only generates a detection but takes no prevention action. Allow adds the hash to the allowlist and suppresses detection for that indicator. No Action is different from all three: it retains the indicator in IOC Management without blocking it, allowing it, or generating a detection. This is useful when an indicator is being staged, tracked, reviewed, or retained for future activation after validation. It is not an allowlist or blocklist action. Reference topics: Rule Configuration, Custom IOCs, IOC Management Actions, Hash Indicator Handling.

When a Linux sensor enters RFM, it stops processing both events and detections, but it continues sending basic status information such as SensorHeartBeat events to indicate that the sensor is installed. Linux RFM is more restrictive than Windows RFM. On Windows, the sensor may still monitor and report at reduced capacity, but on Linux, unsupported kernel or user-mode requirements can result in no detections or process events. The course guide explains that Linux sensors in RFM do not have detections or process events but continue to send heartbeat status. Therefore, the correct answer is that event and detection processing stop, while basic status continues.

The correct report is the Sensor Report . Falcon’s Sensors reporting area contains reports used by administrators to manage sensor deployment and coverage. The Sensor Report provides an overview of active sensors in the environment and is the correct high-level view for reviewing sensor deployment posture. It supports operational review of host-related attributes such as platform, operating system information, device or host type, domain, and sensor version, making it useful for quickly understanding sensor coverage and endpoint distribution. The Sensor Policy Daily Report is different: it is used to review groups and policies assigned to a host and is updated once per day, so it is not the best answer for a filterable environment-wide sensor overview. “Sensor Status Report” and “Sensor Overview Report” are not the named report options in the official report list. Reference topics: Dashboards and Reports, Sensors Reports, Sensor Report, Sensor Policy Daily Report.

The new sensor update policy must be enabled and placed at a higher precedence than the broader policy assigned to all Windows servers. Falcon policy resolution is precedence-based when a host belongs to multiple host groups. In this scenario, each test Windows server belongs to both groups: the narrow “test Windows servers” group and the broad “all Windows servers” group. If the test policy has lower precedence, the broader Windows server policy wins and the test servers will not receive the new sensor update configuration. Falcon policy precedence uses ranking order where precedence 1 is higher than precedence 2, and the highest-ranking applicable policy becomes active on the host. This allows safe staged testing by making the narrow pilot policy outrank the general production policy while affecting only hosts in the test group. Manual installation or uninstallation is not required and would bypass Falcon’s managed sensor update workflow. Reference topics: Sensor Deployment, Sensor Update Policies, Host Groups, Policy Precedence.