hardMultiple Choice
ISC2 CC Accountability Practice Question
A security engineer is designing a system that must ensure that any changes to a configuration file are logged with the identity of the person who made the change. Which principle is being implemented?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many exam-takers confuse accountability with non-repudiation — candidates see 'identity of the person' and jump to non-repudiation, but non-repudiation requires cryptographic proof, while plain identity logging is accountability.
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
✓
Accountability
Accountability means that every action can be traced back to a specific identity, so a person can be held responsible for their changes. Logging configuration changes with the identity of the person who made them is the textbook implementation of accountability — it links actions to actors.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Accountability
Why this is correct
Accountability binds each configuration change to a verified identity through logging, so any modification can be traced to the specific person responsible. This directly satisfies the requirement that changes are recorded alongside the actor's identity, distinguishing it from authentication, which merely verifies identity at access time.
- ✗
Non-repudiation
Why it's wrong here
Non-repudiation prevents a party denying an action they performed, typically via digital signatures, but does not by itself record each change with the changer's identity in an audit trail. It is tempting because signed changes prove authorship, and would be correct if the goal were denying false claims of authorship.
- ✗
Confidentiality
Why it's wrong here
Confidentiality restricts who can read data through encryption and access controls; it does not record who altered a file. It is tempting because logging and access restriction often appear together, and would be correct if the requirement were preventing unauthorised disclosure of the configuration contents.
- ✗
Integrity
Why it's wrong here
Integrity ensures data is not altered undetected, using hashes or checksums, but does not identify who made a change. It is tempting because change logging protects the file, and would be correct if the requirement were detecting unauthorised modification rather than attributing it.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CC question is part of Courseiva's 989-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISC2 exam blueprint
This CC practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISC2 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 CC exam.