The answer is to pin dependency versions to specific hashes, use a private registry for container images with vulnerability scanning, and sign all artifacts with cryptographic signatures. Pinning dependencies with integrity attributes, such as sha256 checksums in package-lock.json or requirements.txt, ensures that only verified content is downloaded, blocking substitution attacks even if version tags match. On the Cisco DevNet Associate 200-901 exam, this topic tests your understanding of supply chain attack prevention within a CI/CD pipeline, often appearing as a multi-select question where common traps include choosing “use the latest tag” or “disable signature verification.” Remember the memory tip: “Hash, scan, sign” — each measure locks down a different attack vector, from dependency integrity to image safety to artifact authenticity.
200-901 Application Deployment and Security Practice Question
This 200-901 practice question tests your understanding of application deployment and security. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. 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.
Which THREE security measures should be implemented in a CI/CD pipeline to protect against supply chain attacks? (Choose three.)
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Pin dependency versions to specific hashes.
Option B is correct because pinning dependency versions to specific hashes (e.g., using `integrity` attributes in npm’s package-lock.json or `sha256` checksums in pip’s requirements.txt) ensures that only the exact, verified content is downloaded. This prevents an attacker from substituting a malicious version of a dependency, even if the version tag remains the same, by validating the cryptographic hash of the artifact against a known good value.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
✗
Enable verbose logging for all build steps to detect anomalies.
Why it's wrong here
Verbose logging may expose sensitive information and does not directly prevent supply chain attacks.
✓
Pin dependency versions to specific hashes.
Why this is correct
Version pinning prevents accidental introduction of malicious updates.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Sign all build artifacts with a GPG key.
Why it's wrong here
Signing verifies the integrity of the artifact itself but does not protect against compromised dependencies.
✓
Verify checksums of downloaded dependencies.
Why this is correct
Checksum verification ensures that dependencies have not been tampered with.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✓
Use a private registry for container images with vulnerability scanning.
Why this is correct
Private registries control which images are used and scanning identifies known vulnerabilities.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
Cisco often tests the distinction between artifact signing (which protects authenticity after build) and dependency integrity verification (which protects against supply chain attacks during the build), causing candidates to mistakenly select signing as a supply chain defense.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Under the hood, pinning to a hash (e.g., `sha256` in a Dockerfile’s `FROM` instruction or `subresource integrity` in web assets) forces the package manager to compute the hash of the downloaded file and compare it to the pinned value; a mismatch aborts the build. In real-world scenarios, this thwarts attacks like the `event-stream` npm incident (2018), where a malicious package with the same version number was published to steal bitcoins, because the hash would not match the original.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A practitioner preparing for the 200-901 exam encounters this exact type of scenario on the job. The correct answer here is not the most general option — it is the best answer for the specific constraint described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Real exam questions reward reading the full scenario before eliminating options, because the constraint defines which answer fits.
What to study next
Got this wrong? Here's your next step.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Application Deployment and Security — This question tests Application Deployment and Security — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Pin dependency versions to specific hashes. — Option B is correct because pinning dependency versions to specific hashes (e.g., using `integrity` attributes in npm’s package-lock.json or `sha256` checksums in pip’s requirements.txt) ensures that only the exact, verified content is downloaded. This prevents an attacker from substituting a malicious version of a dependency, even if the version tag remains the same, by validating the cryptographic hash of the artifact against a known good value.
What should I do if I get this 200-901 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
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 →
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.
This 200-901 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 200-901 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.