The alert from the Cisco ASA device and the numerous activity logs are examples of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion of fact, such as a security incident or an attack. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact in question, but rather suggests or implies it. In this case, the alert and the logs indicate that a TCP connection attempt was denied by an access group, but they do not directly prove that an attack occurred or who was behind it. There could be other explanations for the denied connection, such as a misconfiguration, a network error, or a legitimate request. Therefore, this type of evidence is circumstantial and requires further investigation and analysis to confirm or rule out the possibility of an attack. References := Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia; Circumstantial Evidence - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes; Understanding Cisco Cybersecurity Operations Fundamentals (CBROPS) - Cisco, page 92.
Contribute your Thoughts:
Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). You can switch to a simple comment. It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Submit