mediummultiple choiceObjective-mapped

A vulnerability scan reports that a Windows file share has SMB signing disabled and anonymous read access is permitted to one directory containing payroll exports. No exploitation has been observed yet. Which action best reduces exposure with minimal business impact?

Question 1mediummultiple choice
Full question →

A vulnerability scan reports that a Windows file share has SMB signing disabled and anonymous read access is permitted to one directory containing payroll exports. No exploitation has been observed yet. Which action best reduces exposure with minimal business impact?

Answer choices

Why each option matters

Good practice is not just finding the correct option. The wrong answers often show the exact trap the exam wants you to fall into.

A

Distractor review

Remove all backup jobs until the scan is cleared.

Backup jobs are unrelated to the file share exposure and removing them would create an unnecessary recovery risk.

B

Distractor review

Disable the file server and rebuild it from scratch immediately.

A full rebuild is disruptive and excessive when a targeted configuration change can address the specific exposure.

C

Best answer

Enable SMB signing and remove anonymous access to the share.

This is the best targeted remediation because it directly addresses both weaknesses identified by the scan. SMB signing helps protect integrity for SMB traffic, and removing anonymous read access prevents unauthorized users from viewing sensitive payroll data. Together, these changes reduce exposure without taking the entire server offline. In vulnerability management, the best choice is often a precise configuration fix that closes the finding while preserving business continuity and avoiding more disruptive action than necessary.

D

Distractor review

Increase the directory quota so the share cannot overflow.

Quota changes manage storage consumption, but they do not address weak authentication or unauthorized disclosure of payroll files.

Common exam trap

Common exam trap: authentication is not authorization

Logging in proves the user can authenticate. It does not automatically mean the user is allowed to enter privileged or configuration mode. Watch for AAA authorization, privilege level and command authorization details.

Technical deep dive

How to think about this question

This kind of question is testing the difference between identity and permission. A user may successfully log in to a router because authentication is working, but still fail to enter configuration mode because authorization is missing, misconfigured or mapped to a lower privilege level.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • Authentication checks who the user is.
  • Authorization controls what the user is allowed to do after login.
  • Privilege levels affect access to EXEC and configuration commands.
  • AAA, TACACS+ and RADIUS can separate login success from command access.

TExam Day Tips

  • Do not assume successful login means full administrative access.
  • Look for words such as cannot enter configuration mode, privilege level, authorization or command access.
  • Separate login problems from permission problems before choosing the answer.

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.

More questions from this exam

Keep practising from the same exam bank, or move into a focused topic page if this question exposed a weak area.

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this SY0-701 question test?

Authentication checks who the user is.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Enable SMB signing and remove anonymous access to the share. — Enabling SMB signing and removing anonymous access is the best choice because it directly mitigates the risks identified by the scan. The report shows both a transport integrity concern and an authorization failure. Correcting those configurations reduces the likelihood of tampering and unauthorized viewing without a large operational impact. In practical vulnerability management, a focused hardening change is preferred over a disruptive rebuild when the issue can be fixed at the service level. Why others are wrong: Removing backups would create a new resilience problem without addressing the vulnerability. Rebuilding the server is far more disruptive than necessary for a configuration issue that can be corrected in place. Increasing the directory quota solves a storage-management concern, not insecure access or message integrity. The vulnerability findings point to access-control and protocol-hardening changes, so those are the proper fixes.

What should I do if I get this SY0-701 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.

Discussion

Loading comments…

Sign in to join the discussion.