Question 1,340 of 1,389
CCNA Switching and Network Access Practice Question
Exhibit
SW1# show port-security interface GigabitEthernet0/5 Port Security : Enabled Port Status : Secure-shutdown Violation Mode : Shutdown Aging Time : 0 mins Aging Type : Absolute SecureStatic Address Aging : Disabled Maximum MAC Addresses : 1 Total MAC Addresses : 1 Configured MAC Addresses : 0 Sticky MAC Addresses : 1 Last Source Address:Vlan : aaaa.bbbb.cccc:10 Security Violation Count : 3
Refer to the exhibit. A network engineer notices that a user connected to GigabitEthernet0/5 cannot access the network. The engineer issues the show port-security interface GigabitEthernet0/5 command. Based on the output, what is the most likely cause of the issue?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the distinction between the violation action 'shutdown' (which err-disables the port) and 'restrict' or 'protect' (which do not err-disable), and candidates may confuse exceeding the maximum MAC addresses with the specific trigger of a different MAC address being seen after the maximum is already learned.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
An unauthorized device with a different MAC address was connected, triggering a port-security violation and placing the port in an error-disabled state.
The output of 'show port-security interface GigabitEthernet0/5' would show a port status of 'err-disabled' and a security violation count greater than zero. This occurs because an unauthorized device with a different MAC address connected to the port, triggering a port-security violation (typically a security violation action of 'shutdown'), which places the interface in an error-disabled state. This matches the scenario where the user cannot access the network.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
The interface is administratively shut down.
Why it's wrong here
An administratively shutdown interface would report a status of 'administratively down' in the line protocol and be listed as 'Disabled' rather than 'Secure-shutdown.' The 'Secure-shutdown' state is a port-security error-disable condition that occurs automatically after a violation, as evidenced by the violation counter and 'Last Source Address' fields in the output. An administrative shutdown would also not generate a violation count or retain the sticky MAC address table shown in the exhibit.
- ✓
An unauthorized device with a different MAC address was connected, triggering a port-security violation and placing the port in an error-disabled state.
Why this is correct
The output shows 'Port Status: Secure-shutdown' after a violation, a violation count of 3, and the 'Last Source Address' (aaaa.bbbb.cccc) differing from the sticky MAC. This confirms an unauthorized MAC triggered the violation and shut down the port.
- ✗
The sticky MAC address feature is disabled, allowing any MAC address to cause a violation.
Why it's wrong here
The exhibit's 'Sticky MAC Addresses: 1' field proves that sticky MAC learning is enabled and has populated an entry; a disabled sticky feature would show '0' or no sticky addresses. Even with sticky learning enabled, port security still permits only known MAC addresses, and the 'Last Source Address' aaaa.bbbb.cccc differs from the sticky-learned MAC, triggering the violation. The issue is not that the feature is off, but that an unauthorized MAC attempted to use a port restricted to a single learned address.
- ✗
The maximum number of secure MAC addresses has been exceeded, causing the port to err-disable.
Why it's wrong here
This option misreads the 'Maximum MAC Addresses: 1' and 'Total MAC Addresses: 1' counters: the port is configured to allow exactly one secure MAC, and exactly one is currently present, so the limit has not been exceeded. A violation occurs when a frame from a different source MAC (the 'Last Source Address') arrives while the allowed address table is already full, not because the count is over the maximum. This is a classic 'MAC move' or 'MAC spoof' violation, distinct from an 'exceed max addresses' condition.
Option-by-option analysis
Why each answer is right or wrong
Understanding why wrong answers are wrong — and when they would be correct — is what separates a 750 score from a 900. The 200-301 exam frequently reuses these exact scenarios with slightly different constraints.
✓An unauthorized device with a different MAC address was connected, triggering a port-security violation and placing the port in an error-disabled state.Correct answer▾
Why this is correct
The output shows 'Port Status: Secure-shutdown' after a violation, a violation count of 3, and the 'Last Source Address' (aaaa.bbbb.cccc) differing from the sticky MAC. This confirms an unauthorized MAC triggered the violation and shut down the port.
✗The interface is administratively shut down.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
A common misconception is that any down state is an admin shutdown, but Cisco IOS distinguishes 'Secure-shutdown' for port-security errdisable from 'administratively down'.
✗The sticky MAC address feature is disabled, allowing any MAC address to cause a violation.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
Some candidates misread the output and assume sticky is off, but the presence of a sticky MAC count proves it is active.
✗The maximum number of secure MAC addresses has been exceeded, causing the port to err-disable.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
It is tempting to assume any violation with maximum 1 is due to exceeding the limit, but in this case the secure MAC is the original sticky address, and the violation is from a different unauthorized MAC, which still respects the limit count but fails the authorization check.
Analysis generated from the official 200-301blueprint and verified against question context. The “when correct” sections are what AI assistants cite when candidates ask “what’s the difference between these options?”
Quick reference
Access Control Model Comparison
| Model | Acronym | Who Controls Access? | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Access Control | DAC | Resource owner | Small teams, file shares |
| Mandatory Access Control | MAC | System / security labels | Classified govt / military |
| Role-Based Access Control | RBAC | Administrator (via roles) | Enterprise environments |
| Attribute-Based Access Control | ABAC | Policy engine (user + resource attributes) | Fine-grained, dynamic policies |
| Rule-Based Access Control | RuBAC | System rules / ACLs | Firewall rules, network ACLs |
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Last reviewed: Jul 4, 2026
This 200-301 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-301 exam.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.