This CKS practice question tests your understanding of cluster hardening. 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 cluster has a PodSecurityPolicy that requires 'RunAsAny' for the user. An administrator wants to enforce that all pods in namespace 'production' must run with a specific seccomp profile. Which approach is recommended given PSP is deprecated?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Enable PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' policy in enforce mode
Option A is correct because PodSecurity admission (the replacement for PSP) allows enforcing a 'restricted' policy that mandates a seccomp profile (e.g., RuntimeDefault) at the namespace level. This directly meets the requirement without relying on deprecated PSPs, and the 'enforce' mode ensures pods violating the policy are rejected.
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 PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' policy in enforce mode
Why this is correct
Enforces seccomp as part of the restricted policy.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Create a new PSP with seccomp profile and assign it to the namespace
Why it's wrong here
PSP is deprecated and not recommended.
✗
Set seccomp profile in the kubelet configuration
Why it's wrong here
Kubelet sets default, but does not enforce per namespace.
✗
Use a mutating admission webhook to add seccomp profile
Why it's wrong here
Does not enforce; some pods could still run without it.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
CNCF often tests the deprecation of PSP and the shift to PodSecurity admission; the trap here is that candidates may still choose a PSP-based option (B) or overcomplicate with webhooks (D), missing the built-in, recommended replacement.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
PodSecurity admission implements the Pod Security Standards (PSS) with three policies (privileged, baseline, restricted). The 'restricted' policy requires seccomp to be set to 'RuntimeDefault' or 'localhost/*' for all containers, enforced via the 'seccompProfile.type' field in the security context. This admission controller operates at the namespace level using labels (e.g., 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted'), making it a direct replacement for PSP without custom webhooks.
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 CKS 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.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this CKS question in full detail.
Cluster Hardening — This question tests Cluster Hardening — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Enable PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' policy in enforce mode — Option A is correct because PodSecurity admission (the replacement for PSP) allows enforcing a 'restricted' policy that mandates a seccomp profile (e.g., RuntimeDefault) at the namespace level. This directly meets the requirement without relying on deprecated PSPs, and the 'enforce' mode ensures pods violating the policy are rejected.
What should I do if I get this CKS 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 CKS practice question is part of Courseiva's free CNCF 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 CKS 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.