Exam SY0-601 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the SY0-601 exam

Exam SY0-601 topic 1 question 382 discussion

Actual exam question from CompTIA's SY0-601

Question #: 382
Topic #: 1

As part of annual audit requirements, the security team performed a review of exceptions to the company policy that allows specific users the ability to use USB storage devices on their laptops. The review yielded the following results:

• The exception process and policy have been correctly followed by the majority of users.
• A small number of users did not create tickets for the requests but were granted access.
• All access had been approved by supervisors.
• Valid requests for the access sporadically occurred across multiple departments.
• Access, in most cases, had not been removed when it was no longer needed.

Which of the following should the company do to ensure that appropriate access is not disrupted but unneeded access is removed in a reasonable time frame?

A. Create an automated, monthly attestation process that removes access if an employee’s supervisor denies the approval.
B. Remove access for all employees and only allow new access to be granted if the employee’s supervisor approves the request.
C. Perform a quarterly audit of all user accounts that have been granted access and verify the exceptions with the management team.
D. Implement a ticketing system that tracks each request and generates reports listing which employees actively use USB storage devices.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C 🗳️

by pmmg at Feb. 6, 2023, 10:30 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

ApplebeesWaiter1122

Highly Voted 2 years ago

Selected Answer: C

Performing a quarterly audit allows the company to review all user accounts that have been granted access to USB storage devices and verify the validity of the exceptions. By involving the management team in the verification process, the company ensures that access is properly authorized and aligned with business needs. The audit helps identify any unneeded access that should be removed, ensuring that access privileges are maintained appropriately. This approach provides a balance between maintaining necessary access and removing access that is no longer required, based on periodic reviews and validations.

upvoted 6 times

...

shady23

Most Recent 1 year, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: D

D. Implement a ticketing system that tracks each request and generates reports listing which employees actively use USB storage devices. Implementing a ticketing system that tracks each request and generates reports is an effective way to ensure that appropriate access is not disrupted but unneeded access is removed in a reasonable time frame. This would enable the organization to keep track of all requests for USB access and ensure that access is only granted for approved requests. Reports generated by the ticketing system would also allow the organization to identify any instances of unauthorized access and take appropriate action.

upvoted 1 times

...

Nemish71

1 year, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: C

quarterly audit

upvoted 1 times

...

johnabayot

1 year, 4 months ago

Selected Answer: A

This option would allow the company to maintain a regular and consistent review of the exceptions to the USB storage device policy, and ensure that only authorized users have access to the devices. It would also reduce the risk of data loss, system infection, or unauthroized access for users who no longer need it.

upvoted 2 times

...

MortG7

1 year, 5 months ago

" Access, in most cases, had not been removed when it was no longer needed" this hint gives it away. You MUST perform an audit...C

upvoted 2 times

...

32d799a

1 year, 9 months ago

Selected Answer: A

Monthly is a reasonable time frame.

upvoted 2 times

...

rline63

1 year, 9 months ago

I was confused until people started mentioning that A relies on the employee's supervisor. Supervisors are always going to want the least obstacles to a typical workday for their subordinates. They aren't concerned with security and just want efficiency. That means giving as many permissions as they possibly can. If there is a security breach as a result, the security team gets punished, not the supervisor.

upvoted 1 times

...

stevin

1 year, 10 months ago

Definitely c most security audits are done at least twice a year

upvoted 3 times

...

Gamsje

1 year, 11 months ago

Selected Answer: A

A quarterly audit is not acceptable because it is not a frequent audit. I choose A.

upvoted 1 times

...

justauser

2 years, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: A

[GPT-4] There is a case to be made for C, as performing a quarterly audit of all user accounts that have been granted access and verifying the exceptions with the management team can help identify instances where access is no longer needed. However, this approach relies on manual intervention and is less frequent than the monthly attestation process suggested in Answer A. Creating an automated, monthly attestation process (Answer A) is a more efficient and proactive solution to ensure that unneeded access is removed in a reasonable time frame while minimizing the potential for human error or oversight. Therefore, I stand by my choice of Answer A as the most effective approach to address the issue.

upvoted 2 times

...

RobbieT

2 years, 2 months ago

(A) would be best if the supervisors didn't just approve everything that comes in front of them. Seeing that we can't trust them, C is the answer by default even though the frequency of review is less than that of A.

upvoted 2 times

...

tutita

2 years, 2 months ago

Selected Answer: C

I agree, C is the only one making sense here

upvoted 1 times

...

brewoz404sd

2 years, 3 months ago

Selected Answer: C

C is the only one that makes sense. Can't be A, relies on manager denying access. It does nothing to audit current state. C performs a current audit then sends to mgmt for approval / denial for usb access. C is the only answer that makes sense imo.

upvoted 3 times

...

ganymede

2 years, 3 months ago

Selected Answer: C

C. That was my assessment. I checked chatgpt and it agrees. Based on the information provided, option C seems to be the most appropriate solution to ensure that appropriate access is not disrupted but unneeded access is removed in a reasonable time frame. This would involve performing a quarterly audit of all user accounts that have been granted access and verifying the exceptions with the management team. This would allow the company to identify any accounts that no longer require USB access and remove access accordingly.

upvoted 3 times

...

medulan

2 years, 4 months ago

Selected Answer: C

revoking old accounts access = Auditing

upvoted 3 times

...

i_luv_stoneface

2 years, 4 months ago

Selected Answer: A

Semi trust

upvoted 2 times

...

Ranaer

2 years, 4 months ago

Selected Answer: C

Im leaning towards C. C combines the good parts from both A and D. In the audit you get to see if the person who has been granted those exceptional rights is using them, and then you collaborate this with their management.

upvoted 3 times

...

Load full discussion...