350-701 Practice Question: Secure Network Access, Visibility and Enforcement
A large enterprise has deployed Cisco ISE for network access control. The network consists of multiple access switches and wireless LAN controllers. The security team wants to enforce that only domain-joined Windows computers with up-to-date antivirus can access the corporate network. Non-compliant devices should be placed in a quarantine VLAN with limited access to remediation servers. The ISE policies are configured with posture assessment. However, during a test, a non-compliant Windows computer is granted full network access instead of being quarantined. The ISE logs show that the posture assessment passed, but the computer's antivirus is outdated. What is the most likely reason for this behavior?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the distinction between posture policy actions ('continue' vs. 'block') and authorization policy conditions, trapping candidates who assume non-compliance always results in quarantine without considering the policy flow.
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
✓
The posture policy is configured with 'continue' action for non-compliant status, allowing the user to proceed to authorization.
In Cisco ISE, when a posture policy is configured with a 'continue' action for non-compliant status, the session does not terminate; instead, it proceeds to the authorization policy. This means the endpoint is evaluated by authorization rules, which may grant full network access if no quarantine rule is matched. The logs show the posture assessment passed because the 'continue' action treats non-compliance as a passing state for policy flow, not a failure.
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 authorization policy is matching before the posture policy is evaluated.
Why it's wrong here
Posture is evaluated before authorization.
- ✓
The posture policy is configured with 'continue' action for non-compliant status, allowing the user to proceed to authorization.
Why this is correct
The 'continue' action does not enforce remediation; it passes the user to authorization.
- ✗
The posture agent is not installed on the endpoint, so the assessment is skipped.
Why it's wrong here
The logs show posture assessment passed, so agent is installed.
- ✗
The posture requirement is set to 'mandatory' but the agent is set to 'any', allowing non-compliant devices.
Why it's wrong here
The requirement is about the policy action, not the agent type.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This 350-701 question is part of Courseiva's 978-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 350-701 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 350-701 exam.