The lack of data visibility needed to detect the attack is caused by the threat actor gaining access to the system by known credentials. This means that the threat actor either obtained the employee's username and password through phishing, social engineering, or other means, or used a compromised account that had legitimate access to the system. This would explain why there were no suspicious logs, alerts, or failed login attempts, as the threat actor appeared to be a normal user. References: https://learningnetworkstore.cisco.com/on-demand- e-learning/understanding-cisco-cybersecurity-operations-fundamentals-cbrops-v1-0/CSCU-LP-CBROPS-V1-
028093.html (Module 2, Lesson 2.1.2)

The source IP address from an audit log that indicates a session which may have exploited a vulnerability is considered corroborative evidence. This type of evidence supports other evidence that suggests a security breach occurred. In the context of cybersecurity, corroborative evidence can help establish that an attack was carried out and can be used in conjunction with other data points to build a case during an investigation.
References := The Understanding Cisco Cybersecurity Operations Fundamentals (CBROPS) training material discusses the types of data needed to investigate security incidents, which includes understanding the role of different types of evidence in building a security incident case1.

Explanation:
A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

The screenshot shows multiple POP requests with the command PASS, which is typically used for password entry. The rapid succession and variation of these requests suggest an attempt to guess the password, characteristic of a brute-force attack. Remember, always verify with additional data or context when possible, as packet captures can contain vast amounts of information and may require thorough analysis for accurate interpretation.