Option A: Configuring policies directly in the cloud provider's IAM service bypasses CIEM's centralized management capabilities, reducing visibility and control over entitlements.
Synchronization with CIEM is typically used for monitoring, not primary configuration.
Option B: Deactivating all other policies is not a scalable or secure approach. It can inadvertently disrupt other users' workflows and does not utilize CIEM's ability to manage entitlements effectively.
Option C: CIEM enables you to define and assign policies targeting specific groups, such as
"Finance," and map them to roles and permissions for services like cloud storage. This approach ensures policies are aligned with organizational requirements and avoids over-provisioning.
Option D: While assigning policies at the cloud provider level is possible, it is not the recommended approach when using CIEM. CIEM provides granular control, allowing you to manage permissions based on groups or roles rather than applying blanket policies.

Option A: Patching orchestration is not part of Falcon Horizon's functionality. It focuses on remediation rather than workload discovery or runtime protection.
Option B: While lightweight monitoring agents can provide visibility, this contradicts the requirement of finding workloads without deploying a Falcon sensor. Falcon Horizon's agentless approach eliminates this dependency.
Option C: Real-time behavioral monitoring is a feature of Falcon modules like Falcon Prevent or Falcon Insight, which require sensors to monitor and analyze workload behavior. This is not applicable to environments without sensor deployment.
Option D: Falcon Horizon uses API-driven cloud workload discovery to analyze the state of resources in the cloud environment. By leveraging APIs provided by cloud service providers, Falcon Horizon gathers data on running workloads, exposed services, and misconfigurations without needing to deploy agents or sensors on individual workloads. This approach is efficient and does not require intrusive installation processes.

Option A: Deleting and recreating the rule is inefficient and could lead to downtime or loss of historical data. The rule should be edited instead.
Option B: There is no CLI functionality for modifying IOM rules in Falcon Cloud Security. All IOM rule management is handled through the console.
Option C: Falcon Cloud Security provides a straightforward interface for editing existing custom IOM rules, including modifying IP ranges or other parameters.
Option D: AWS Security Groups are not a replacement for Falcon Cloud Security's IOM rules.
Security Groups are limited to network-level access control and do not offer the runtime detection capabilities of IOM rules.

Option A: The CrowdStrike Container Sensor is deployed as a DaemonSet to ensure it runs on all nodes, but it does not need a pod per namespace. This misunderstanding could lead to resource waste and unnecessary complexity.
Option B: The sensor itself requires elevated privileges to monitor workloads, but it does not enforce privilege elevation on all other containers in the cluster.
Option C: The CrowdStrike Container Sensor requires connectivity to the CrowdStrike Falcon cloud for registration, telemetry, and updates. Without a direct internet connection or a properly configured proxy, the sensor cannot communicate with the Falcon platform, leading to deployment failures. Ensuring network connectivity is one of the first troubleshooting steps.
Option D: While the Admission Controller relies on external admission plugins, the Container Sensor itself does not require this configuration. This is unrelated to sensor registration.

Option A: Integrating with external systems ensures that individuals receive real-time notifications about automated remediation actions. Platforms like Slack or email allow the security team to stay informed promptly and collaborate efficiently on follow-up actions.
Option B: Terminating the workflow immediately after remediation would skip the notification step, preventing the team from being informed. Notifications are critical for tracking and transparency.
Option C: Detection history provides useful insights but does not proactively notify individuals.
Relying solely on it may result in delayed responses or missed alerts.
Option D: While webhooks are useful for integrating with external systems, failing to specify recipients or channels makes the notification less actionable. Clear communication pathways are necessary.