CISSP Identity and Access Management Practice Question
A security analyst is performing an access review. Which THREE of the following are best practices for user access recertification? (Choose three.)
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is the 'no response = approve' option, which sounds convenient but violates least-privilege principles; CISSP candidates must recognize that silence should never be treated as consent in access reviews.
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
✓
Managers confirm that employees still need their current access
Option A is correct because the core of user access recertification is having managers (or resource owners) explicitly attest that each user still requires their current entitlements; this human validation catches stale or excessive privileges that automated tools cannot infer. Option C is correct because recertification must occur on a defined, recurring schedule—at least annually, and more frequently for privileged, sensitive, or high-risk access—so that access does not drift out of policy over time. Option D is correct because reviews must compare each user's granted access against their current job role and responsibilities, ensuring the principle of least privilege and separation of duties are maintained. Option B is not a best practice because removing all access and re-provisioning from scratch is disruptive, error-prone, and unnecessary when targeted review can revoke only inappropriate entitlements. Option E is not a best practice because auto-approving access when a reviewer does not respond defeats the purpose of recertification and allows unjustified access to persist; non-response should trigger escalation or revocation, not approval.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Managers confirm that employees still need their current access
Why this is correct
Managers are uniquely positioned to confirm the ongoing business necessity of an employee's access privileges, as they possess direct insight into daily job functions and responsibilities. This crucial step ensures that access rights align with the principle of least privilege, preventing the accumulation of unnecessary permissions and reducing the overall attack surface within the organization. This verification is fundamental to maintaining a secure access posture.
- ✗
Remove all access and re-provision as needed
Why it's wrong here
Removing all access for every user during a routine access review is an excessively disruptive and impractical approach to privilege management. Such a drastic measure would severely impede business operations, cause significant productivity loss, and generate immense administrative overhead for re-provisioning, making it an unsustainable strategy for regular security maintenance. It's not a standard or recommended recertification practice.
- ✓
Perform recertification annually or more frequently
Why this is correct
Implementing access recertification on an annual basis, or even more frequently for high-risk systems or sensitive data, is a critical best practice for maintaining robust security. This periodic review mechanism ensures that access privileges remain current, accurately reflecting evolving job roles and organizational changes, thereby proactively mitigating the risks associated with stale accounts and privilege creep.
- ✓
Review access against job roles and responsibilities
Why this is correct
A fundamental aspect of an effective access review involves meticulously comparing each user's granted permissions against their officially defined job roles and responsibilities. This process is essential for enforcing the principle of least privilege, identifying any discrepancies where access exceeds operational requirements, and ensuring that entitlements are precisely aligned with legitimate business functions.
- ✗
Automatically approve access if no response
Why it's wrong here
Automatically approving access when a designated reviewer fails to respond to a recertification request is a critical security vulnerability. This practice undermines the entire purpose of an access review, allowing potentially excessive or unnecessary privileges to persist unchecked, thereby significantly increasing the organization's exposure to insider threats and compliance violations. Non-response should trigger escalation or access revocation.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Identity and Access Management (IAM)
Key term
Access control
Access control is the security practice of determining who or what is allowed to view, use, or enter a resource, and under what conditions.
Key term
Policy
A policy is a set of rules or guidelines that defines how an organization manages, secures, and operates its IT systems and services.
About these practice questions
One of 816 original CISSP practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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 CISSP 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 CISSP exam.