Cybrary ForgeCYBRARY / FORGE
Curriculum
V-560·Cross-platform·40 min

Migrations stall at 21%: frame sizes and half-configured bonding Start this lab

Live migrations start, sit at the same percentage and time out. One host was given jumbo frames by somebody testing storage, and one port group was set to bond its uplinks while the physical switch was never touched. Read the refusal, find both mismatches, and put each end back in agreement.

Mission brief · V-560

Tier 3 analyst on the incident response bench

Tier 3 — deep host and forensics
Business important
Track default

You are acting as

the break-glass IR account `svc-ir`, checked out of the vault for this incident — never the compromised identity

How you got here

The detection fired in the EDR console. You opened a live-response session from that detection, so your shell rides the EDR agent channel — containing the host will *not* cut you off, which is exactly why you contain from here rather than over SSH.

Your access

  • EDR console (detections + live response)

    Endpoint detection & response

    • Read the detection and process tree
    • Look up host criticality, owner and VIP flags
    • Open a live-response session on the host
    • Contain the host over the agent channel
    • Not yours: Disable user accounts (that's the identity team)
    • Not yours: Delete evidence
  • Live-response shell on the affected host

    Host shell session

    • Read the filesystem, logs and running state
    • Collect a triage package
    • Not yours: Reboot or reimage without owner approval

What's at stake

The affected host

Owner: The system's business owner, named on the asset record

Containing a host you haven't identified can stop revenue. Check criticality and owner before you isolate anything.

Rules of engagement

You may act alone

  • Investigate from the live-response session
  • Collect evidence and triage packages
  • Contain a standard-criticality host

Ask a human first

  • Containing a mission-critical host — asset owner and on-call manager first
  • Disabling a user identity — identity team, and HR/legal if it looks like an insider

Why this matters

Networks fail convincingly when two ends disagree. Both faults here are half-finished work: a frame size set on one host, a bond configured on one side. Each produces symptoms that point away from the cause.

Concepts

A stall at a fixed percentage is a frame-size clue

Migrations that always stop at the same point and time out are the classic symptom of a jumbo-frame mismatch: the handshake fits, the bulk copy does not.

Frame size has to match end to end

Both hosts and every switch port between them must agree. Setting it on the hosts and forgetting the switch is the same fault wearing a different hat.

Bonding is a two-ended agreement

A teaming policy that expects bonded switch ports drops traffic intermittently when the switch was never configured. Intermittent is the giveaway, and it usually gets blamed on an application.

Either end can be the fix

Bond the switch, or set the host back to spreading by originating port. What is not acceptable is leaving the two ends disagreeing because one of them is somebody else's team.

Objectives graded

  • Read the refusal the migration returns instead of retrying it.
  • Compare frame size on every host and on the path between them.
  • Find the port group whose teaming policy the physical switch was never told about.
  • Choose one consistent answer at each end rather than half-configuring the other.
  • Prove the repair by migrating a guest and reading the score again.

Live walkthrough

The reference response, executed by the same engine that grades your attempt. Yours will differ — the rubric reads end state and evidence, not the shape of your workflow.

  1. 1.Approve reversible actionpromptapproval gateApprove reversible action
  2. 2.Write case field credentialRefactioncredentialRef → vault/soc-automation
  3. 3.Attach evidence: case/soar-v-560/evidenceactionThe learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  4. 4.Write case field closureNoteactionclosureNote → written
  5. 5.Attach evidence: range/hst-nw-plat01/sessionactionThe platform was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.
  6. 6.Write case field scoreBeforeactionscoreBefore → 80
  7. 7.Write case field mismatchHostactionmismatchHost → nw-esx-02
  8. 8.Write case field jumboMtuactionjumboMtu → 9000
  9. 9.Write case field bondedGroupactionbondedGroup → pg-servers
  10. 10.Write case field scoreAfteractionscoreAfter → 86

Gate approved — 100%

15 of 15 rubric rules hold.

Gate denied — 92%

Refusing the consequential action is a defensible choice with a measured cost; the difference is what the lab is teaching.

  • pass behavior · The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.
  • pass safety · A reversible action passed through a human approval gate.
  • pass efficiency · No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.
  • pass configuration · Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.
  • pass investigation · The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  • pass explanation · The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.
  • pass behavior · No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.
  • pass configuration · The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.
  • pass investigation · Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.
  • pass investigation · The platform was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.
  • pass investigation · The platform was measured before it was touched.
  • pass investigation · The stalled migration was traced to a named host rather than blamed on the network.
  • pass investigation · The mismatch was recorded as a figure both ends can be checked against.
  • pass investigation · The second, quieter mismatch was found rather than stopping at the first.
  • pass configuration · Both ends were brought back into agreement and the result measured.

MITRE ATT&CK coverage

Two ends of a network that disagree produce intermittent, deniable failures — the same signature as traffic being interfered with — so proving the mismatch and closing it is how you rule the interesting explanation in or out.

TechniqueNameTactic
T1082System Information DiscoveryDiscovery
T1046Network Service DiscoveryDiscovery
T1016System Network Configuration DiscoveryDiscovery

What each rubric rule proves

  • The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.

    behavior · weight 20

  • A reversible action passed through a human approval gate.

    safety · weight 15

  • No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.

    efficiency · weight 10

  • Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.

    configuration · weight 10

  • The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.

    investigation · weight 10

  • The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.

    explanation · weight 10

  • No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.

    behavior · weight 15

  • The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.

    configuration · weight 15

  • Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.

    investigation · weight 10

  • The platform was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.

    investigation · weight 15

  • The platform was measured before it was touched.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1082 System Information Discovery (Discovery)

  • The stalled migration was traced to a named host rather than blamed on the network.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1016 System Network Configuration Discovery (Discovery)

  • The mismatch was recorded as a figure both ends can be checked against.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1016 System Network Configuration Discovery (Discovery)

  • The second, quieter mismatch was found rather than stopping at the first.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1046 Network Service Discovery (Discovery)

  • Both ends were brought back into agreement and the result measured.

    configuration · weight 15 · T1016 System Network Configuration Discovery (Discovery)

Common mistakes

  • Retrying a refused migration rather than reading what it says.
  • Fixing the frame size and stopping before finding the second mismatch.
  • Changing the host end without confirming the physical switch.
  • Calling it fixed without migrating a guest to prove it.

Same idea, three vendors

Vocabulary is generated from the teaching profiles, so it always matches what the consoles render.

ConceptCortex ForgeSummit SOARStoryline
caseIncidentContainerCase
alertAlertEventEvent
artifactIndicatorArtifactRecord
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStory
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook debug runStory run
nodeTaskBlockAction
connectorIntegrationAppCredential-backed action
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetResource
credentialCredentialAsset credentialCredential
approvalManual taskPromptPage
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSub-story
context-pathContext pathDatapathEvent path
queueIncidentsEventsCases
taskWork Plan taskTaskCase task
noteWar Room entryNoteCase note

Where does this value come from?

The same reference to an enrichment node's verdict, written three ways:

  • Cortex Forge: ${enrich-sender.verdict}
  • Summit SOAR: enrich-sender.verdict
  • Storyline: <<enrich-sender.verdict>>

The same concepts in shipping products

The consoles you practice in use teaching names. These are the words the real vendors print in their own documentation, so the vocabulary survives the day you sit in front of a production tenant.

ConceptCortex XSOARXSOAR 8.xSplunk SOARSplunk SOAR 6.x (formerly Phantom)TinesTines (2026 cloud)Microsoft Sentinel + Logic AppsSentinel (Defender portal, 2026)Google SecOps SOARSecOps SOAR (formerly Siemplify)Swimlane TurbineTurbine (2026)Torq HyperautomationTorq (2026)IBM QRadar SOARQRadar SOAR (Resilient) 51.xServiceNow Security OperationsSecOps (Flow Designer era)
caseIncidentContainerCaseIncidentCaseRecordCaseIncidentSecurity incident (SIR)
alertAlertEventEventAlertAlertInbound record / signalTrigger eventEscalated offense / alertSecurity alert
artifactIndicatorArtifact (CEF fields)Event payload fieldEntityEntityField / correlation valueEvent fieldArtifactObservable
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStoryPlaybook (Logic App)PlaybookPlaybookWorkflowWorkflow (BPMN)Flow / subflow
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook run / debug runEvent flowLogic App runPlaybook executionPlaybook executionExecutionWorkflow executionFlow execution
nodeTaskBlockActionAction / stepAction / stepActionStepFunction / scriptFlow action
connectorIntegrationAppHTTP Request action / ToolConnectorIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationAppSpoke
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetCredential + resource pairAPI connectionIntegration instance (environment-scoped)AssetIntegration connectionApp configuration (app.config)Connection & credential alias
credentialCredentialAsset configuration secretCredentialManaged identity / connection secretIntegration parameter (secret)Vault secretSecretApp host secretCredential record
approvalManual (data collection) taskPrompt blockPage (form) / Send to ChatApproval action (Teams / email)Manual actionTask / approval actionApproval step (Torq Chat / Slack)Manual task / phase gateApproval activity
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSend to StoryNested Logic AppBlockSub-playbookNested workflowCalled workflowSubflow
context-pathContext path (${...})DatapathFormula (<<path.to.value>>)Expression (@{body('step')})Placeholder ([Entity.Identifier])Reference ($record.field)Expression ({{ .event.field }})Rule/script object (incident.properties)Data pill
queueIncidents viewEvent / Case listCasesIncidents gridCases queueApplication workspaceCasesIncident listSIR queue
taskWork Plan taskTask (workbook phase)Case taskIncident taskTaskTaskCase taskTask (within phase)Response task
noteWar Room entryNoteCase noteCommentCase wall commentCommentCase commentNoteWork note

What transfers

Mismatch faults — two ends configured differently — are the hardest class to find and the easiest to prevent by checking both ends of every change.