200-201 Security Concepts Practice Question
A security analyst is examining a log file and notices that the hash value of a configuration file does not match the expected value. Which security goal has been violated?
⚠ Common exam trap
200-201 often tests the confusion between integrity and non-repudiation, tricking candidates into selecting non-repudiation when the scenario involves detecting unauthorized modification via hashes rather than proving who performed an action.
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
✓
Integrity
A hash mismatch indicates that the file's contents have been altered from their expected state, which directly violates the integrity security goal. Integrity ensures data has not been modified in an unauthorized or accidental way, and cryptographic hashes are the standard mechanism for verifying it. Confidentiality, non-repudiation, and availability are unrelated to detecting unauthorized modification.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Integrity
Why this is correct
A mismatched hash directly evidences unauthorised modification of the configuration file, violating integrity. Hashing detects any alteration to data, so comparing the computed digest against the expected baseline value confirms the file's contents changed. Confidentiality and availability remain unaffected, as neither the file's secrecy nor its accessibility is implicated by the discrepancy.
- ✗
Confidentiality
Why it's wrong here
A hash mismatch reveals that file contents were altered, which is an integrity failure; confidentiality concerns unauthorised disclosure of data, not modification. Confidentiality would be the violated goal if the configuration file had been exposed to someone without clearance.
- ✗
Non-repudiation
Why it's wrong here
Non-repudiation concerns proving that a specific party performed an action, typically through signatures or audit trails; a hash mismatch shows the file changed, not who changed it or whether they can deny it. Non-repudiation would be the goal if a signed action were later disputed.
- ✗
Availability
Why it's wrong here
Availability concerns whether data or systems remain accessible when needed; a changed hash does not indicate the file became unreachable. Availability would be the correct goal if the configuration file had been deleted, encrypted by ransomware or otherwise made unusable.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 968 original 200-201 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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.