mediummultiple choiceObjective-mapped

Exhibit

Packet Capture Summary
Host 10.20.30.44 sends repeated ARP replies:
  "10.20.30.1 is at 00:11:22:33:44:55"
  "10.20.30.1 is at 00:11:22:33:44:55"
Switch logs:
  DHCP snooping: disabled
  ARP inspection: disabled
Users report intermittent gateway connectivity and traffic sent to the wrong MAC address.

Based on the exhibit, which control should be enabled to mitigate this issue?

Question 1mediummultiple choice
Full question →

Based on the exhibit, which control should be enabled to mitigate this issue?

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

DNSSEC, because it validates DNS records and would stop local address-to-MAC spoofing.

DNSSEC protects DNS data integrity, but this incident is about forged ARP replies on a local subnet. ARP operates below DNS and is used to resolve IP addresses to MAC addresses. DNSSEC would not stop the bad ARP mappings shown in the capture.

B

Distractor review

Port forwarding, because it can direct traffic to the correct internal host more reliably.

Port forwarding is a routing or NAT convenience mechanism, not a protection against forged Layer 2 address resolution. The problem here is that clients are learning a fake MAC address for the gateway. Forwarding does not validate ARP or stop spoofed replies.

C

Distractor review

Load balancing, because it would distribute traffic and reduce the impact of connectivity issues.

Load balancing improves availability for services, but it does not detect or prevent ARP poisoning on a local broadcast domain. The exhibit shows hosts being tricked into using the wrong MAC address, which must be addressed with a Layer 2 security control.

D

Best answer

Dynamic ARP inspection with DHCP snooping, because it validates ARP replies against trusted bindings.

Dynamic ARP inspection is designed to block forged ARP messages by checking them against trusted information, usually built from DHCP snooping bindings. Since the switch logs show both DHCP snooping and ARP inspection disabled, enabling these controls is the most appropriate mitigation for the poisoning behavior described.

Common exam trap

Common exam trap: usable hosts are not the same as total addresses

Subnetting questions often tempt you into counting all addresses. In normal IPv4 subnets, the network and broadcast addresses are not usable host addresses.

Technical deep dive

How to think about this question

Subnetting questions test whether you can identify the network, broadcast address, usable range, mask and correct subnet. Slow down enough to calculate the block size correctly.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • CIDR notation defines the prefix length.
  • Block size helps identify subnet boundaries.
  • Network and broadcast addresses are not usable hosts in normal IPv4 subnets.
  • The required host count determines the smallest suitable subnet.

TExam Day Tips

  • Write the block size before choosing the subnet.
  • Check whether the question asks for hosts, subnets or a specific address range.
  • Do not confuse /24, /25, /26 and /27 host counts.

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?

CIDR notation defines the prefix length.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Dynamic ARP inspection with DHCP snooping, because it validates ARP replies against trusted bindings. — Dynamic ARP inspection with DHCP snooping is the best mitigation. The exhibit shows repeated ARP replies claiming the gateway IP belongs to a specific MAC address, which is classic ARP poisoning behavior. DAI uses trusted DHCP snooping bindings to verify whether an ARP message is legitimate before it is allowed on the network. That prevents an attacker from redirecting traffic to the wrong device. Why others are wrong: DNSSEC protects DNS records, not ARP cache poisoning on a local subnet. Port forwarding does not validate Layer 2 address resolution and would not stop the attack. Load balancing addresses service availability, not spoofed ARP replies. The scenario needs a Layer 2 anti-spoofing control, not a routing or resiliency feature.

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.