Secure Network Access, Visibility and Enforcement →hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

ISE Authorization Policy Condition Logic: Why Quarantine Fails to Apply

Exhibit

Refer to the exhibit.

! Cisco ISE Policy Set
Condition: EndPointCompliant EQUALS No OR DeviceType NOT_IN ["Windows", "Mac", "Linux"]
Result: VLAN_Quarantine (VLAN 999)

! Syslog message
ISE: Authentication failed for user 'guest' from MAC 0011.2233.4455. Reason: Invalid username or password.

An endpoint with MAC 0011.2233.4455 and user 'guest' authenticates but fails. However, the device is not assigned to quarantine. Which policy condition is most likely responsible for the unexpected behavior?

Quick Answer

The answer is that the device is compliant and the device type is in the allowed list, which causes the quarantine rule to fail to apply. In Cisco ISE authorization policy condition logic, a quarantine rule typically triggers only when an endpoint is non-compliant or its device type is not in an allowed list; if both conditions are false—meaning the device passed posture and its type is permitted—the quarantine condition evaluates as false, so the rule is skipped and a default permit rule takes over. On the Cisco SCOR / CCNP Security Core 350-701 exam, this tests your understanding of compound condition evaluation in ISE policies, where AND/OR logic can produce unexpected results. A common trap is assuming any authentication failure leads to quarantine, but here the user authenticated successfully; the issue is the policy condition itself. Remember the memory tip: “Compliant and allowed? Quarantine is disallowed.”

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 device is compliant and the device type is in the allowed list

The condition requires either 'EndPointCompliant EQUALS No' OR device type not in the list. If the device is compliant (posture passed) and the device type is in the list, the condition is false, so the quarantine rule is not applied, and a default permit rule might apply instead. Option A is incorrect because authentication failure would show 'Failed' and not reach authorization. Option B is incorrect because MAB is not in use here. Option D is incorrect because if the device were in quarantine, it would have been assigned.

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 authentication failure overrides authorization
Why it's wrong here
Authentication failure means the device is unauthorized, but the exhibit shows authentication failed, so authorization is not processed.
✗
The quarantine VLAN is not configured on the switch
Why it's wrong here
VLAN 999 is shown as result.
✓
The device is compliant and the device type is in the allowed list
Why this is correct
Condition false, so quarantine not applied.
✗
The device is authenticated via MAB, bypassing posture
Why it's wrong here
MAB not mentioned; user 'guest' authenticated.

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

Go deeper

1 more way this is tested on 350-701

These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.

Variation 1. A company has deployed Cisco ISE for network access control. After a recent upgrade, the operations team notices that some users are being assigned incorrect authorization profiles. The ISE logs show that the users are being matched to the correct identity group, but the authorization result is different from expected. What is the most likely cause?

hard

A.The passive identity feature is overriding the user's group assignment.
✓ B.The authorization policy rules are not in the correct order, causing a different rule to match first.
C.The network device group assignment has changed, causing the device to be in a different group.
D.The authentication policy is misconfigured, causing users to be placed in the wrong identity group.

Why B: In Cisco ISE, authorization policies are evaluated in top-down order, and the first matching rule is applied. Even if users are correctly assigned to an identity group, a higher-priority authorization policy rule that matches on other conditions (e.g., endpoint profile, device type, or time condition) can override the expected result. This is the most likely cause when authentication and group assignment are correct but the authorization result is unexpected.

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.