- A
Split the workflow into separate creator and approver roles.
Separating creator and approver responsibilities implements separation of duties and prevents one person from completing the full fraud-prone action alone. This preserves the workflow while requiring a second trusted person to review and approve the batch. It is a classic access architecture control for payment and procurement systems.
- B
Require the approver to be a different authenticated user before release.
A distinct authenticated approver ensures the system verifies that a second person performs the release step. This design supports accountability and makes it much harder for a single insider to both create and authorize a payment. It is practical because the business process still works, but the high-risk step gains independent review.
- C
Grant all finance users local administrator rights to speed up exception handling.
Why wrong: Local administrator rights are unrelated to payment approval and would broaden privilege far beyond the business need. This would increase endpoint and application risk without addressing fraud controls. The problem is authorization separation, not lack of desktop permissions.
- D
Store the payment password in a shared mailbox so the team can continue when someone is absent.
Why wrong: Sharing passwords or secrets breaks accountability and makes it impossible to know who approved a transaction. It also violates least privilege and creates a single point of compromise. The scenario needs independent approval, not credential sharing.
- E
Remove approval steps entirely and rely on log reviews after payment runs.
Why wrong: Detecting fraud after the fact is not a substitute for preventing it through workflow design. Log reviews are useful, but they do not stop an unauthorized payment from being released. The audit finding calls for a structural access change, not a retrospective check only.
Quick Answer
The correct answer is to require the approver to be a different authenticated user before release, paired with splitting the payment batch creation and approval into distinct roles. This directly addresses the audit finding by enforcing separation of duties in the payment workflow, ensuring that no single employee can both create and approve a transaction in the same session. By requiring two different authenticated users for these sequential steps, the fraud risk is reduced because collusion is now necessary to execute a fraudulent payment, while the process remains fully functional. On the Security+ SY0-701 exam, this concept tests your understanding of access control principles and how to apply them to real-world workflows; a common trap is confusing separation of duties with dual control, but remember that SoD splits tasks across roles, not just requires two approvals. A helpful memory tip is “two hands, two roles” — think of it as the “maker-checker” principle where one person creates and another checks before release.
SY0-701 Security Architecture Practice Question
This SY0-701 practice question tests your understanding of security architecture. 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.
A finance workflow currently lets one employee create a payment batch and approve it in the same session. Audit findings say the design increases fraud risk. Which two access architecture changes best reduce that risk while keeping the process functional? Select two.
Clue words in this question
Noticing these words before you look at the options changes how you read each choice.
Clue:
"best"Why it matters: Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.
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
Split the workflow into separate creator and approver roles.
Option A is correct because implementing separation of duties (SoD) by splitting the payment batch creation and approval into distinct roles ensures that no single user can both create and approve a transaction. This directly mitigates the fraud risk identified in the audit by requiring collusion between two users to execute a fraudulent payment. The process remains functional because the workflow is simply reordered into two sequential steps performed by different users.
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.
- ✓
Split the workflow into separate creator and approver roles.
Why this is correct
Separating creator and approver responsibilities implements separation of duties and prevents one person from completing the full fraud-prone action alone. This preserves the workflow while requiring a second trusted person to review and approve the batch. It is a classic access architecture control for payment and procurement systems.
Clue confirmation
The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✓
Require the approver to be a different authenticated user before release.
Why this is correct
A distinct authenticated approver ensures the system verifies that a second person performs the release step. This design supports accountability and makes it much harder for a single insider to both create and authorize a payment. It is practical because the business process still works, but the high-risk step gains independent review.
Clue confirmation
The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
- ✗
Grant all finance users local administrator rights to speed up exception handling.
Why it's wrong here
Local administrator rights are unrelated to payment approval and would broaden privilege far beyond the business need. This would increase endpoint and application risk without addressing fraud controls. The problem is authorization separation, not lack of desktop permissions.
- ✗
Store the payment password in a shared mailbox so the team can continue when someone is absent.
Why it's wrong here
Sharing passwords or secrets breaks accountability and makes it impossible to know who approved a transaction. It also violates least privilege and creates a single point of compromise. The scenario needs independent approval, not credential sharing.
- ✗
Remove approval steps entirely and rely on log reviews after payment runs.
Why it's wrong here
Detecting fraud after the fact is not a substitute for preventing it through workflow design. Log reviews are useful, but they do not stop an unauthorized payment from being released. The audit finding calls for a structural access change, not a retrospective check only.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates may confuse 'functional efficiency' with 'security best practices' and incorrectly choose option C, thinking that local admin rights will speed up exception handling, when in fact it violates least privilege and separation of duties.
Trap categories for this question
Scenario analysis trap
Sharing passwords or secrets breaks accountability and makes it impossible to know who approved a transaction. It also violates least privilege and creates a single point of compromise. The scenario needs independent approval, not credential sharing.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Separation of duties is a core internal control mechanism often enforced through Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) in enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems like SAP or Oracle. Under the hood, this requires distinct user accounts with unique privileges mapped to specific transaction codes (e.g., FPB1 for payment creation and FPB2 for approval), and the system enforces that the same user ID cannot appear in both roles for the same batch. In a real-world scenario, a financial auditor would verify that the application logs show different user SIDs for the creator and approver fields in the payment batch table.
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 security analyst at a medium-sized enterprise encounters this scenario during an investigation or architecture review. The correct answer reflects best practice for the specific threat or control described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Security exam questions test whether you can match controls to threats in context — not just recall definitions.
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.
- →
Security Architecture — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
- →
Security Architecture practice questions
Targeted practice on this topic area only
- →
All SY0-701 questions
1,152 questions across all exam domains
- →
Security+ SY0-701 study guide
Full concept coverage aligned to exam objectives
- →
SY0-701 practice test guide
How to use practice tests most effectively before exam day
Related practice questions
Related SY0-701 practice-question pages
Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.
General Security Concepts practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to General Security Concepts.
Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations.
Security Architecture practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Architecture.
Security Operations practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Operations.
Security Program Management and Oversight practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security Program Management and Oversight.
Security+ social engineering questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ social engineering questions.
Security+ cryptography practice questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ cryptography.
Security+ IAM questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ IAM questions.
Security+ risk management questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ risk management questions.
Security+ incident response questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ incident response questions.
Security+ malware questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ malware questions.
Security+ vulnerability management questions
Practise SY0-701 questions linked to Security+ vulnerability management questions.
Practice this exam
Start a free SY0-701 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 SY0-701 question test?
Security Architecture — This question tests Security Architecture — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Split the workflow into separate creator and approver roles. — Option A is correct because implementing separation of duties (SoD) by splitting the payment batch creation and approval into distinct roles ensures that no single user can both create and approve a transaction. This directly mitigates the fraud risk identified in the audit by requiring collusion between two users to execute a fraudulent payment. The process remains functional because the workflow is simply reordered into two sequential steps performed by different users.
What should I do if I get this SY0-701 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Are there clue words in this question I should notice?
Yes — watch for: "best". Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.
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 →
Last reviewed: Jun 11, 2026
This SY0-701 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA 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 SY0-701 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.