- A
Deploy OPA Gatekeeper and create constraints to enforce read-only root filesystem, no privilege escalation, and non-root user, with exceptions via label selectors
Why wrong: OPA Gatekeeper works but adds complexity compared to native PodSecurity profiles.
- B
Keep the current 'privileged' profile and rely on runtime security tools like Falco to detect violations
Why wrong: This does not enforce the CISO mandates proactively.
- C
Use PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' profile for most namespaces by labeling them with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', and create a separate namespace with 'baseline' profile for legacy apps that require hostNetwork/hostPID, after reviewing and approving each exception
This uses native Kubernetes features, enforces the mandates, and allows controlled exceptions.
- D
Change the PodSecurity profile to 'restricted' cluster-wide and require all legacy apps to be rewritten to not need hostNetwork/hostPID
Why wrong: This is disruptive and may not be feasible for legacy apps.
Using PodSecurity Admission for Pod Hardening
This CKS practice question tests your understanding of system hardening. 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.
You are a security engineer for a large e-commerce company. The Kubernetes cluster runs on-premises and hosts critical payment processing applications. Recently, a security scan revealed that several pods are running with privileged escalation enabled, and some have a writable root filesystem. The cluster uses Kubernetes v1.26 with PodSecurity admission controller enabled but currently set to 'privileged' profile for all namespaces. The development teams require flexibility for some legacy applications that need to run with hostNetwork or hostPID. However, the security team wants to enforce a restricted profile for most namespaces while allowing exceptions. The CISO has mandated that no pod should run as root, and all pods must have read-only root filesystem and privilege escalation disabled. Additionally, any pod that requires hostNetwork or hostPID must be explicitly approved and placed in a separate namespace. You need to design a solution that meets these requirements with minimal operational overhead. What is the best course of 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
Use PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' profile for most namespaces by labeling them with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', and create a separate namespace with 'baseline' profile for legacy apps that require hostNetwork/hostPID, after reviewing and approving each exception
Option C is correct because PodSecurity admission (PSA) is the native Kubernetes mechanism for enforcing pod security standards with minimal operational overhead. By labeling most namespaces with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', you enforce the CISO's mandates (non-root, read-only root filesystem, no privilege escalation) automatically. Creating a separate namespace with the 'baseline' profile allows legacy apps requiring hostNetwork/hostPID to run after explicit approval, while still blocking privileged escalation and other dangerous capabilities.
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.
- ✗
Deploy OPA Gatekeeper and create constraints to enforce read-only root filesystem, no privilege escalation, and non-root user, with exceptions via label selectors
Why it's wrong here
OPA Gatekeeper works but adds complexity compared to native PodSecurity profiles.
- ✗
Keep the current 'privileged' profile and rely on runtime security tools like Falco to detect violations
Why it's wrong here
This does not enforce the CISO mandates proactively.
- ✓
Use PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' profile for most namespaces by labeling them with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', and create a separate namespace with 'baseline' profile for legacy apps that require hostNetwork/hostPID, after reviewing and approving each exception
Why this is correct
This uses native Kubernetes features, enforces the mandates, and allows controlled exceptions.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✗
Change the PodSecurity profile to 'restricted' cluster-wide and require all legacy apps to be rewritten to not need hostNetwork/hostPID
Why it's wrong here
This is disruptive and may not be feasible for legacy apps.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
CNCF often tests the misconception that OPA Gatekeeper is always required for fine-grained policy enforcement, when in fact PodSecurity admission with 'baseline' and 'restricted' profiles can handle common exceptions like hostNetwork/hostPID without additional tooling.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
PodSecurity admission uses three profiles: 'privileged' (no restrictions), 'baseline' (minimal restrictions, allows hostNetwork/hostPID but blocks privileged escalation), and 'restricted' (strictest, enforces non-root user, read-only root filesystem, and no privilege escalation). The 'baseline' profile is ideal for legacy apps needing hostNetwork/hostPID because it permits these while still blocking dangerous capabilities like CAP_SYS_ADMIN. In Kubernetes v1.26, PSA is stable and can be enforced per-namespace via labels, making it the most efficient choice for this scenario.
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 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
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.
- →
System Hardening — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
- →
System Hardening practice questions
Targeted practice on this topic area only
- →
All CKS questions
997 questions across all exam domains
- →
Certified Kubernetes Security Specialist CKS study guide
Full concept coverage aligned to exam objectives
- →
CKS practice test guide
How to use practice tests most effectively before exam day
Related practice questions
Related CKS practice-question pages
Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.
Monitoring Logging and Runtime Security practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Monitoring Logging and Runtime Security.
Cluster Setup and Hardening practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Cluster Setup and Hardening.
System Hardening practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to System Hardening.
Minimize Microservice Vulnerabilities practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Minimize Microservice Vulnerabilities.
Supply Chain Security practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Supply Chain Security.
Monitoring, Logging and Runtime Security practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Monitoring, Logging and Runtime Security.
Cluster Setup practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Cluster Setup.
Cluster Hardening practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to Cluster Hardening.
CKS fundamentals practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to CKS fundamentals.
CKS scenario practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to CKS scenario.
CKS troubleshooting practice questions
Practise CKS questions linked to CKS troubleshooting.
Practice this exam
Start a free CKS practice session
Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.
FAQ
Questions learners often ask
What does this CKS question test?
System Hardening — This question tests System Hardening — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Use PodSecurity admission with 'restricted' profile for most namespaces by labeling them with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', and create a separate namespace with 'baseline' profile for legacy apps that require hostNetwork/hostPID, after reviewing and approving each exception — Option C is correct because PodSecurity admission (PSA) is the native Kubernetes mechanism for enforcing pod security standards with minimal operational overhead. By labeling most namespaces with 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=restricted', you enforce the CISO's mandates (non-root, read-only root filesystem, no privilege escalation) automatically. Creating a separate namespace with the 'baseline' profile allows legacy apps requiring hostNetwork/hostPID to run after explicit approval, while still blocking privileged escalation and other dangerous capabilities.
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 →
Same concept, more angles
2 more ways this is tested on CKS
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. A cluster is running Kubernetes 1.24. The security team wants to enforce that all pods run with a read-only root filesystem. Which approach is most effective?
medium- A.Use OPA Gatekeeper to deny pods without readOnlyRootFilesystem
- B.Enable PodSecurityPolicy with readOnlyRootFilesystem: true
- ✓ C.Enable PodSecurity admission controller with restricted profile
- D.Set --read-only-port=0 in kubelet
Why C: Option C is correct because in Kubernetes 1.24, PodSecurityPolicy (PSP) is deprecated but still functional. The PodSecurity admission controller with the restricted profile is the built-in, forward-looking replacement that enforces a read-only root filesystem for all pods. The restricted profile sets `securityContext.readOnlyRootFilesystem: true` by default, ensuring compliance without external tools, whereas PSP will be removed in 1.25 and is no longer the recommended approach.
Variation 2. A pod manifest is shown. What security issue remains in this configuration?
medium- A.The container runs as root (user 0)
- ✓ B.The container has a writable root filesystem
- C.The container has dangerous capabilities
- D.The container can escalate privileges
Why B: Option B is correct because the pod manifest does not set `readOnlyRootFilesystem: true` in the container's security context. Without this setting, the container's root filesystem is writable by default, allowing an attacker who compromises the container to modify binaries, configuration files, or write malicious scripts to persistent storage, thereby increasing the attack surface and potentially enabling persistence or privilege escalation.
Keep practising
More CKS practice questions
- Which flag is used to restrict the kubelet's ability to modify node status and pods?
- A Falco rule has priority `WARNING` and output: `Sensitive file opened (user=%user.name command=%proc.cmdline file=%fd.n…
- Falco detects a shell being opened inside a container. Which Falco rule field is used to specify the syscall condition f…
- A security audit reveals that a ServiceAccount named 'monitor' has a ClusterRoleBinding to the cluster-admin role. What…
- Match each Kubernetes security component to its description.
- Match each Kubernetes certificate type to its usage.
Last reviewed: Jun 30, 2026
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.