You save $69.98
At a supply depot, the campus network lead has remote employees connecting individually to a protected corporate network over the internet. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
Remote-access VPNs establish protected sessions from individual devices to an enterprise gateway.
DHCP does not encrypt remote traffic.
Fixed gateway tunnels are not automatically per-user access VPNs.
Open access bypasses remote VPN security.
At a public library, the branch support lead needs to distinguish IPsec encryption/authentication from ordinary IP reachability across a routed network. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
IPsec tunnel state requires matching cryptographic and policy parameters, and traffic must match the protected selectors.
IP reachability does not prove that the intended traffic is matched by an established IPsec SA and encrypted.
Descriptions do not establish cryptographic protection.
A peer can be reachable without any encrypted child SA.
At a manufacturing plant, the migration lead must prevent the VPN gateway from accepting clients without valid credentials. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
Encryption without trusted user/device authentication cannot distinguish authorized from unauthorized clients.
Encryption protects traffic but does not automatically establish the authorized user identity; the VPN must enforce approved client authentication.
Ethernet MAC aging is unrelated to IPsec user identity.
Publishing a common secret defeats authentication.
At a hotel, the security and networking lead needs to distinguish protected user packets from IKE negotiation used by an IPsec tunnel. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
IKE negotiates keys and security associations; ESP can protect the user traffic selected by the policy.
TLS and IPsec are different security mechanisms.
DHCP offers addresses and is not IKE.
IKE negotiation typically uses UDP/500 or 4500 and ESP is protocol 50; a policy must distinguish control negotiation and protected payload.
At a municipal utility, the migration lead must protect traffic between two site routers across an untrusted internet service. During review, someone proposes: "Use an open HTTP proxy alone as the VPN cipher." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
A plain proxy does not create IPsec SAs or encrypted tunnels. The effective remedy is to use an appropriately configured IPsec site-to-site tunnel with security associations and protected traffic selectors.
CDP is not a routed VPN. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
IPsec can provide confidentiality/integrity for traffic between two gateway peers over an untrusted path. The statement addresses a different mechanism. Here the engineer specifically proposed use an open http proxy alone as the vpn cipher; the decisive limitation is that a plain proxy does not create IPsec SAs or encrypted tunnels.
802.1Q tags are not cryptographic key material. This observation would apply to another device or feature, not the proposed use an open http proxy alone as the vpn cipher. For this scenario, a plain proxy does not create IPsec SAs or encrypted tunnels is the direct cause.
At a payment processor, a network administrator has remote employees connecting individually to a protected corporate network over the internet. During review, someone proposes: "Build only a site-to-site tunnel between fixed branch routers and treat each laptop as a branch router." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
Fixed gateway tunnels are not automatically per-user access VPNs. The effective remedy is to use a remote-access VPN with authenticated per-user sessions and controlled route access.
Remote-access VPNs establish protected sessions from individual devices to an enterprise gateway. The statement addresses a different mechanism. Here the engineer specifically proposed build only a site-to-site tunnel between fixed branch routers and treat each laptop as a branch router; the decisive limitation is that fixed gateway tunnels are not automatically per-user access VPNs.
DHCP does not encrypt remote traffic. This observation would apply to another device or feature, not the proposed build only a site-to-site tunnel between fixed branch routers and treat each laptop as a branch router. For this scenario, fixed gateway tunnels are not automatically per-user access VPNs is the direct cause.
Open access bypasses remote VPN security. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
At a research campus, a network administrator needs to distinguish IPsec encryption/authentication from ordinary IP reachability across a routed network. During review, someone proposes: "Assume an ICMP ping to the public peer proves payload encryption." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
A peer can be reachable without any encrypted child SA. The effective remedy is to validate negotiated IPsec SAs, encapsulation and traffic selectors rather than only pinging the peer.
DNS resolution provides an IP endpoint but cannot prove encryption; the selected issue instead concerns using peer ping as proof of IPsec protection.
Descriptions do not establish cryptographic protection. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
IPsec tunnel state requires matching cryptographic and policy parameters, and traffic must match the protected selectors. The statement addresses a different mechanism. Here the engineer specifically proposed assume an icmp ping to the public peer proves payload encryption; the decisive limitation is that a peer can be reachable without any encrypted child SA.
At a logistics provider, the on-call technician must prevent the VPN gateway from accepting clients without valid credentials. During review, someone proposes: "Set a public shared password in all client documentation." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
Publishing a common secret defeats authentication. The effective remedy is to require approved identity authentication in the remote-access VPN negotiation.
Ethernet MAC aging is unrelated to IPsec user identity. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
Encryption without trusted user/device authentication cannot distinguish authorized from unauthorized clients. The statement addresses a different mechanism. Here the engineer specifically proposed set a public shared password in all client documentation; the decisive limitation is that publishing a common secret defeats authentication.
VLAN classification does not authenticate external users. This observation would apply to another device or feature, not the proposed set a public shared password in all client documentation. For this scenario, publishing a common secret defeats authentication is the direct cause.
At a distribution center, the infrastructure lead needs to distinguish protected user packets from IKE negotiation used by an IPsec tunnel. During review, someone proposes: "Treat DHCP Discover as IPsec key exchange." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
DHCP offers addresses and is not IKE. The effective remedy is to recognize IKE establishes/authenticates SAs while IPsec ESP protects permitted data packets.
OSPF LSAs carry routing state and are not ESP records. That distinction is technically relevant elsewhere, but it does not identify the failure of the proposed treat dhcp discover as ipsec key exchange. The actual issue is that dHCP offers addresses and is not IKE.
TLS and IPsec are different security mechanisms. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
IKE negotiates keys and security associations; ESP can protect the user traffic selected by the policy. A true general network fact is not necessarily the direct diagnosis. The named change was treat dhcp discover as ipsec key exchange, whose relevant defect is that dHCP offers addresses and is not IKE.
At a hotel, the on-call technician needs standard IPv4 ACL 15 to permit source subnet 10.90.160.128/26 before applying an implicit deny. Which ACE matches the requested source range?
The wildcard 0.0.0.63 is the bitwise inverse of subnet mask 255.255.255.192, matching all sources in 10.90.160.128/26. A standard ACL matches source IPs rather than destination TCP ports.
This wildcard 0.0.0.255 selects a different address set than 10.90.160.128/26; the zeros/ones in the wildcard control which bits must match.
Even with a correctly sized source range, deny blocks the required hosts rather than permitting them.
The subnet mask 255.255.255.192 is not the wildcard; entering it in an IOS access-list match can select the opposite bits.
At an insurance company, the on-call technician must permit only TCP connections from 10.119.60.92 to service 192.168.51.107 destination port 443 using extended ACL 172. Which ACE expresses that exact flow?
This extended ACE matches source 10.119.60.92, destination 192.168.51.107, transport tcp, and destination port 443; it permits precisely the stipulated flow.
An ip ACE is broader than the required tcp destination port 443; it would permit unrelated protocols and ports.
This reverses source and destination and describes the opposite direction of traffic. Extended ACL addresses are ordered source then destination.
The fields match the flow but deny is the wrong action when the requirement is to allow it.
or Guarantee your success by buying the full version which covers the full latest pool of questions. (760 Questions, Last Updated on Nov 4, 2026)
Please check your mailbox for a message from support@examlabs.com and follow the directions.
