CrowdStrike · CCFH
The CCFH validates a cyber threat analyst's ability to perform deep detection analysis and response, machine timelining, insider-threat investigations, and proactive threat hunting using the CrowdStrike Falcon platform.
Practice Questions
599
≈ 9 practice exams
Duration
90 minutes
Passing Score
Pass/Fail
Difficulty
ProfessionalLast Updated
Aug 2026
Use this CCFH practice exam to prepare for CrowdStrike Certified Falcon Hunter (CCFH) with realistic questions, detailed explanations, and focused study modes. The practice bank includes 599 questions for CrowdStrike CCFH, so you can review the exam steadily instead of relying on one long cram session.
As you practice, pay extra attention to recurring topics such as Cyber Threat Hunting, Detection Analysis and Response, Machine Timelining, Insider Threat Investigation, and Event Search and Query. Start with short sessions to identify weak areas, then move into timed quizzes once your accuracy is consistent.
The explanations are especially useful when you want to connect exam wording to the responsibilities and scenarios described in the official certification guidance. Use the free preview first, then unlock the full question bank when you are ready to build a complete study routine.
The CrowdStrike Certified Falcon Hunter (CCFH) is a professional-level certification that validates a cyber threat analyst's ability to leverage the CrowdStrike Falcon platform for advanced threat detection, investigation, and proactive hunting operations. The exam evaluates deep competency across detection analysis and response, machine timelining, insider-threat investigations, event-related search queries using CrowdStrike Query Language (CQL), and structured threat hunting methodologies. It is administered through Pearson VUE and reflects real-world adversarial investigation scenarios tied to industry frameworks such as the MITRE ATT&CK matrix and the cyber kill chain.
The CCFH credential demonstrates mastery of the Falcon platform's investigative toolset, including Host Timeline, Process Timeline, Advanced Event Search, Real Time Response, and built-in hunting analytics. Certified professionals are expected to operationalize threat intelligence, conduct outlier analysis, build hunting hypotheses, and generate actionable reports — skills critical to identifying threats that evade automated detection. The certification was last updated in February 2026, with the current exam code being CCFH-202b.
The CCFH is designed for investigative analysts who perform in-depth detection analysis and response work, particularly those operating within security operations centers (SOCs), threat intelligence teams, or dedicated threat hunting units. It is well-suited for Tier 2 and Tier 3 analysts, incident responders, and threat hunters who use the CrowdStrike Falcon platform daily and need to validate their ability to go beyond alert triage into proactive adversary pursuit.
Professionals targeting roles such as Threat Hunter, Senior SOC Analyst, Detection Engineer, or Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst will benefit most from this credential. It is not intended for entry-level users; candidates should already be comfortable navigating the Falcon console and performing basic investigations before pursuing this certification.
CrowdStrike does not enforce formal prerequisites for the CCFH exam, but strongly recommends that candidates complete the Falcon Hunter training courses available through CrowdStrike University before attempting the exam. These courses are aligned to the exam domains and provide hands-on familiarity with the platform features tested.
Beyond formal training, CrowdStrike recommends a minimum of six months of hands-on experience working with the Falcon platform in a production environment. Candidates should be comfortable with CrowdStrike Query Language (CQL), the Falcon Investigate module, timeline analysis, and the core features of the Insight and OverWatch interfaces. Familiarity with MITRE ATT&CK and the cyber kill chain is also expected. Candidates must review and accept the CrowdStrike University Certification Agreement prior to registering for the exam.
The CCFH exam consists of 60 scored questions and must be completed within a 90-minute time limit. Questions are scenario-based and assess practical knowledge gained through direct experience with the Falcon platform, not purely theoretical understanding. The exam is delivered through Pearson VUE, with candidates able to choose between online proctored testing via OnVUE or in-person testing at an authorized Pearson Vue Testing Center (PVTC).
The passing score is 80%, and results are reported as a pass or fail. The exam fee is $250 USD. The current exam version is CCFH-202b. CrowdStrike does not publish the exact number of unscored pretest items, if any. Candidates should review the official CCFH Certification Exam Guide PDF available from CrowdStrike University before scheduling, as it outlines the knowledge domains, objectives, and exam policies in full.
Earning the CCFH signals to employers that a practitioner can operate at the advanced investigative tier of the Falcon platform — a distinction valued by MSSPs, enterprise SOC teams, and organizations with CrowdStrike OverWatch or Falcon Complete deployments. Job roles directly aligned to this certification include Threat Hunter, Senior SOC Analyst, Incident Responder, and Detection Engineer. Professionals holding this credential are well-positioned to command salaries in the $100,000–$140,000+ range in the US market, depending on experience and geography, as proactive threat hunting remains a high-demand, low-supply specialization.
The CCFH complements broader security credentials such as SANS GIAC certifications (e.g., GCIA, GCIH) or the eCTHP, but is unique in its platform-specific depth on CrowdStrike Falcon. For organizations standardized on CrowdStrike, the CCFH is often a preferred or required qualification for senior analyst roles. It also serves as a differentiator for security professionals seeking to move from reactive alert-handling into proactive hunting programs, a growing priority as adversaries increasingly operate under detection thresholds.
5 sample questions with answers and explanations. The full bank has 599 questions, enough for 9 full-length practice exams.
Preview — answers shown1. A Falcon hunter at Northwind Energy is reviewing NetworkConnectIP4 events for a production Windows server. The hunter observes that svchost.exe is making outbound connections to an external IP address at precisely 60-second intervals, with each connection lasting 2 to 3 seconds before terminating. The pattern has persisted consistently for the past six hours. Which explanation best describes this activity, and what should the hunter's immediate next step be? (Select one!)
Explanation
Regular, periodic outbound connections at precise time intervals — such as exactly every 60 seconds — with consistent short connection durations are a documented behavioral indicator of command-and-control beaconing. Adversaries implement beaconing as a keep-alive mechanism so compromised endpoints check in with attacker-controlled infrastructure for new commands on a defined schedule. The machine-precise regularity of the interval sustained over six hours is what distinguishes this from benign service traffic. Legitimate Windows update traffic from svchost.exe is not synchronized to exact second-level intervals and does not connect to arbitrary external IPs on that schedule. The appropriate next step is to investigate the specific svchost.exe process instance — examining its loaded DLL module count is critical, because a legitimate svchost.exe instance hosts a defined service group and loads many expected modules, while a svchost.exe used for beaconing via process injection typically has fewer than 10 loaded modules. Injecting into svchost.exe is a common adversary technique for blending malicious C2 traffic with normal Windows process activity to evade casual inspection.
2. A Falcon hunter at Northwind Aerospace is mapping a confirmed intrusion to the MITRE ATT&CK framework. The intrusion began when a targeted email containing a macro-enabled document was delivered to a financial analyst. The analyst opened the attachment and the macro executed, downloading and running a stager payload from an adversary-controlled server. Which two MITRE ATT&CK tactics describe the first observable phases of this intrusion as captured in Falcon telemetry? (Select two!)
Multiple correct answersExplanation
Initial Access (TA0001) encompasses techniques adversaries use to gain an entry point into a target environment. Delivering a malicious macro-enabled document via a targeted email maps directly to the spearphishing attachment technique within this tactic. Execution (TA0002) encompasses techniques that result in adversary-controlled code running on a local or remote system. The macro executing within the document and causing the stager payload to download and run on the host maps to user execution of a malicious file and scripting interpreter techniques within this tactic. These two tactics represent what is observable in Falcon endpoint telemetry from the described events. Reconnaissance (TA0043) and Resource Development (TA0042) are pre-attack preparation phases that occurred before the observed intrusion began — gathering information about the target and establishing attack infrastructure respectively — and are not reflected in endpoint telemetry generated during the intrusion itself. Privilege Escalation (TA0004) describes attempts to gain higher-level permissions than initially obtained; standard macro execution does not inherently constitute privilege escalation, and the scenario contains no indication that the macro requested or obtained elevated privileges beyond the analyst's existing user context.
3. A Falcon hunter at Fabrikam Aerospace is reviewing process metadata on a suspected compromised endpoint. The Process Timeline shows an instance of explorer.exe with only 6 loaded DLL modules. The hunter also notes that the explorer.exe instance has no living parent process visible in the process tree. Which statement CORRECTLY interprets these two observations? (Select one!)
Explanation
Legitimate explorer.exe instances load a large number of DLL modules to support the full Windows shell environment — shell extensions, COM objects, thumbnail handlers, and integrated components collectively produce a module list far exceeding single digits. A compromised explorer.exe targeted by process injection techniques such as process hollowing typically displays an abnormally low module count, often fewer than 10 loaded modules, because the injection creates a stripped-down process that bypasses normal shell initialization. Observing only 6 loaded DLLs in an explorer.exe instance is a recognized behavioral indicator of process injection warranting immediate investigation. The absence of a living parent process is not suspicious and does not indicate compromise: userinit.exe legitimately spawns explorer.exe during Windows logon and then terminates, leaving explorer.exe without a living parent in process tree views. The correct Windows shell startup sequence is winlogon.exe launching userinit.exe, which launches explorer.exe and then exits — winlogon.exe is the grandparent of explorer.exe, not its direct parent. Windows 10 did not reduce explorer.exe's default module footprint; a 6-module count remains anomalous regardless of operating system version and warrants investigation as a potential injection indicator.
4. A Falcon hunter at Northwind Technology is performing outlier analysis to identify statistically rare process execution patterns across a Windows enterprise fleet. The hunter wants to surface process binaries that execute on only a very small number of hosts, as these represent the most likely candidates for adversary tooling or compromised software. Which analytical approach in CQL best identifies these execution outliers? (Select one!)
Explanation
Outlier analysis for process execution rarity aggregates ProcessRollup2 events by process image filename using groupby() and then sorts the resulting counts in ascending order to surface binaries appearing on the fewest hosts in the environment. Processes executing across many hosts are typically common system utilities or standard enterprise software and are statistically less suspicious; binaries appearing on only one or two systems — especially sensitive servers or executive endpoints — warrant investigation as statistical outliers relative to the environmental baseline. Using match() against a known-good allowlist is a valid complementary technique but addresses allowlist-based comparison rather than discovering statistically rare processes not yet catalogued in any list. DNS request aggregation identifies outlier network communication behavior, which is a different investigation objective from process execution prevalence analysis. Sorting network connections in descending count order targets high-volume beaconing behavior rather than process rarity across the fleet, addressing a fundamentally different adversary pattern.
5. A Falcon hunter at Northwind Energy is building a CQL query to detect PowerShell invocations regardless of how an adversary may have altered the capitalization of the process name — for example, using POWERSHELL.EXE, Powershell.exe, or powershell.exe — to evade case-sensitive detection rules. Which CQL filter syntax correctly matches all capitalization variants of the process name? (Select one!)
Explanation
CQL supports regular expression matching using forward-slash delimiters with optional modifier flags following the closing slash. The /i flag enables case-insensitive mode, causing the pattern to match all capitalization variants. The backslash before the period escapes it to match a literal dot rather than the regex any-character metacharacter, ensuring the filter matches the full file extension rather than any single character. This makes /powershell\.exe/i the correct filter for matching powershell.exe, POWERSHELL.EXE, Powershell.exe, and all other capitalization combinations. CQL string matching using double quotes is case-sensitive by default — FileName="powershell.exe" will not match capitalized variants. Wildcard matching using asterisk patterns also does not override CQL case-sensitive behavior, so FileName=*powershell* would miss capitalized variants. There is no tilde prefix operator for case-insensitive string comparison in CQL; this syntax does not exist in the language.
$17.99
One-time access to this exam