mediumMultiple Choice
200-201 Emergency change request Practice Question
A change management policy requires that all network configuration changes be approved by a change advisory board (CAB) before implementation. An urgent security vulnerability requires an immediate firewall rule change to block an active exploit. What should the network administrator do?
⚠ Common exam trap
200-201 often tests the application of change management principles in urgent situations, where candidates might rigidly adhere to pre-approval processes, not realizing that emergency changes allow for post-approval to mitigate immediate threats.
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
✓
Apply the change immediately and then submit an emergency change request for post-approval
In an urgent security situation where an active exploit must be blocked immediately, the network administrator should apply the change immediately and then submit an emergency change request for post-approval. This aligns with ITIL change management practices, which allow for emergency changes to be implemented first and documented/approved afterward to address critical incidents.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Convene an emergency CAB meeting before making the change
Why it's wrong here
Convening an emergency CAB still inserts approval latency before the rule is deployed, leaving the exploit unblocked during that window. It is tempting because it appears to honour both policy and urgency; emergency change procedures instead permit immediate implementation with retrospective CAB review and documentation.
- ✓
Apply the change immediately and then submit an emergency change request for post-approval
Why this is correct
Emergency change procedures exist precisely for active exploits, where delay causes ongoing harm. Applying the firewall rule immediately contains the threat, then submitting an emergency change request for retrospective CAB approval satisfies the policy's governance intent without waiting for a convened board. This preserves both incident response speed and documented change accountability.
- ✗
Ignore the vulnerability until the next scheduled CAB meeting
Why it's wrong here
Deferring to the scheduled CAB leaves the active exploit unmitigated for the whole interval, directly contradicting the urgent security requirement. It is tempting because it strictly honours the standard approval gate; emergency change procedures instead authorise immediate implementation, with CAB ratification and documentation afterwards.
- ✗
Wait for CAB approval to ensure compliance with policy
Why it's wrong here
Waiting leaves the exploit unblocked for the CAB cycle, so the vulnerability stays active while policy compliance is preserved. It is tempting because standard changes genuinely require prior CAB approval; emergency changes instead follow the documented expedited path, with the change implemented immediately and reviewed retrospectively.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This 200-201 question is part of Courseiva's 968-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 and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Cisco exam blueprint
This 200-201 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 200-201 exam.