Quick Answer
The answer is separation of duties. This security principle is correctly identified because requiring two administrators to approve firewall rule changes ensures that no single individual has unchecked authority over critical network security configurations, thereby reducing the risk of unauthorized modifications, insider threats, or errors through mandatory independent review. On the Cisco CyberOps Associate 200-201 exam, this concept often appears in questions about change management and access control models, testing your ability to distinguish separation of duties from principles like least privilege or defense in depth; a common trap is confusing it with dual control, which is a specific implementation of this principle. To remember it, think of the phrase “two keys to open the firewall gate”—separation of duties splits power to prevent a single point of failure or abuse.
This 200-201 practice question tests your understanding of security policies and procedures. Match the stated requirement to the specific cloud service, access model, or configuration option — many options are valid in isolation but not for this scenario. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
A security policy requires that all changes to firewall rules be approved by two administrators. This is an example of which security principle?
Need to know
Why wrong: Need to know restricts information access.
Defense in depth
Why wrong: Defense in depth uses multiple security controls.
Separation of duties
Two-person rule prevents unauthorized changes.
Least privilege
Why wrong: Least privilege restricts permissions, not approval process.
Answer choices
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
Separation of duties
The requirement that two administrators must approve firewall rule changes enforces separation of duties, a security principle that prevents any single individual from having exclusive control over a critical operation. This reduces the risk of unauthorized or malicious rule modifications by ensuring collusion or independent review is required. In firewall management, this is often implemented via change management workflows with distinct approval and implementation roles.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
Need to know
Why it's wrong here
Need to know restricts information access.
Defense in depth
Why it's wrong here
Defense in depth uses multiple security controls.
Separation of duties
Why this is correct
Two-person rule prevents unauthorized changes.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Least privilege
Why it's wrong here
Least privilege restricts permissions, not approval process.
Common exam traps
Cisco often tests separation of duties by contrasting it with least privilege, where candidates mistakenly think limiting who can change rules is the same as limiting what they can access, but the key difference is that separation of duties focuses on dividing critical tasks among multiple people to prevent fraud or error.
Detailed technical explanation
Separation of duties in firewall management typically maps to distinct roles such as 'rule author' and 'rule approver', often enforced through a change management system (e.g., Tufin, FireMon) that logs and requires digital signatures from two administrators before the rule is committed. Under the hood, this prevents a single compromised admin from inserting a backdoor rule (e.g., allowing any-source to any-destination on port 443) without peer review. In real-world scenarios, this principle is mandated by compliance frameworks like PCI DSS (Requirement 10.2.1.3) for firewall rule changes.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
A junior network technician can log in to a core router but cannot reach the enable prompt or configuration mode. The AAA server is authenticating the login — but the authorisation policy only grants privilege level 1, not 15. Authentication (who you are) is working; authorisation (what you can do) is not.
What to study next
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Security Policies and Procedures — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
Security Policies and Procedures practice questions
Targeted practice on this topic area only
All 200-201 questions
507 questions across all exam domains
Cisco CyberOps Associate 200-201 study guide
Full concept coverage aligned to exam objectives
200-201 practice test guide
How to use practice tests most effectively before exam day
Related practice questions
Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to Security Policies and Procedures.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to Security Concepts.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to Security Monitoring.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to Host-Based Analysis.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to Network Intrusion Analysis.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to 200-201 fundamentals.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to 200-201 scenario.
Practise 200-201 questions linked to 200-201 troubleshooting.
Practice this exam
Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.
FAQ
Security Policies and Procedures — This question tests Security Policies and Procedures — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
The correct answer is: Separation of duties — The requirement that two administrators must approve firewall rule changes enforces separation of duties, a security principle that prevents any single individual from having exclusive control over a critical operation. This reduces the risk of unauthorized or malicious rule modifications by ensuring collusion or independent review is required. In firewall management, this is often implemented via change management workflows with distinct approval and implementation roles.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
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: Jun 11, 2026
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.
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.