Pass ISC CISSP Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

This is an advantage of another design (Harden management plane, remove defaults and restrict access to an isolated administration network.), not the particular flaw of Keep an 'allow all internal traffic' policy because a public edge firewall exists.

This is a limitation elsewhere: A network device ships with default management credentials and internet-facing administrative services. It does not explain the deficiency of the specified proposed approach.

This explains a later shift in requirements (An autoscaling application adds ephemeral instances each hour.), not the failure of the current proposal.

An approved change without an executed test cannot prove operating effectiveness. The needed evidence is Flow tests confirm only documented service connections work among workloads.

This demonstrates controls in another circumstance: An enterprise access switch cannot distinguish approved laptops from unauthorized devices plugged into open meeting rooms.

This other observation is relevant to: A company uses unmanaged USB network adapters that create secondary connections bypassing standard host firewall policy.

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: Flow tests confirm only documented service connections work among workloads.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: Coarse membership creates lateral reachability not justified by business function. It does not directly meet the new condition.

This remains inappropriate: Edge-only filtering cannot contain compromise within the cloud environment.

Logical multiplicity does not remove a shared hardware failure point. The proposal would not be defensible for this case.

This is appropriate for a later condition (A third site is added and must retain segregated financial routing.), but it does not directly resolve the initial need. Resilient multi-site connectivity must also preserve least-privilege reachability.

This response addresses a different condition: A network device ships with default management credentials and internet-facing administrative services. The present case requires the measure described by Design diverse fault domains and redundant routing that meets business availability objectives.

This is a limitation elsewhere: An enterprise access switch cannot distinguish approved laptops from unauthorized devices plugged into open meeting rooms. It does not explain the deficiency of the specified proposed approach.

This explains a later shift in requirements (A third site is added and must retain segregated financial routing.), not the failure of the current proposal.

This is an advantage of another design (Deploy identity-aware network access control with compliant endpoint posture and guest quarantine.), not the particular flaw of Configure two virtual interfaces on the same lone physical router and call the network fault tolerant.

This demonstrates controls in another circumstance: A security architect has no assurance that a branch router's running configuration matches the approved hardened template.

This other observation is relevant to: A cloud firewall allows east-west traffic from any security group member regardless of workload purpose.

An approved change without an executed test cannot prove operating effectiveness. The needed evidence is Failure injection verifies traffic converges over an independent path within agreed time.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: A common building or device failure can disable multiple apparently redundant links. It does not directly meet the new condition.

This remains inappropriate: Logical multiplicity does not remove a shared hardware failure point.

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: Failure injection verifies traffic converges over an independent path within agreed time.

Unrestricted third-party routing exposes unrelated assets and increases supply-chain attack reach. The rejected action is: Give the supplier a broad routed VPN into every corporate subnet.

This is useful evidence after implementation, rather than the FIRST recommended decision for this objective. Tests from supplier identities reach only approved API endpoints and generate access logs for denied lateral requests.

This addresses a distinct subsequent requirement: The supply contract is terminated and all partner access must cease immediately. Offboarding requires removing established trust paths, not merely reducing the initial API scope.

Approval alone cannot fix the specific weakness: Unrestricted third-party routing exposes unrelated assets and increases supply-chain attack reach.

The subsequent circumstance is separate and does not explain why this proposed action fails the initial case. Offboarding requires removing established trust paths, not merely reducing the initial API scope.

Destroying records would weaken oversight and cannot remedy the immediate technical or governance flaw: Unrestricted third-party routing exposes unrelated assets and increases supply-chain attack reach.

An unexecuted future plan does not prove current effectiveness for the stated 4.3 objective. The evidence should include: Tests from supplier identities reach only approved API endpoints and generate access logs for denied lateral requests.

Absence of reported incidents is not a controlled validation of the requirement. A stronger proof is: Tests from supplier identities reach only approved API endpoints and generate access logs for denied lateral requests.

Discussion of a different design does not demonstrate the deployed control. Offboarding requires removing established trust paths, not merely reducing the initial API scope.

Incorrect — it fails the original constraint. Shared open remote access increases intrusion and credential guessing risk.

Incorrect — the measure Use mutually authenticated secure messaging with freshness and message-level integrity checks. addresses a different case: A supplier EDI connection exchanges purchase orders over a shared link, but no party validates message origin or replay.

Incorrect — this evidence applies to another case: A supplier EDI connection exchanges purchase orders over a shared link, but no party validates message origin or replay. The specified requirement here is An outsourcing partner remotely supports servers through an unmanaged consumer remote desktop gateway.