hardMultiple Choice
SSCP Practice Question: A DevOps team implements a CI/CD pipeline for a…
A DevOps team implements a CI/CD pipeline for a web application. Which security control is BEST to ensure that only properly reviewed code reaches production?
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
✓
Require a manual approval gate before deployment
Requiring a manual approval gate ensures a human has reviewed the code before deployment, which is the best way to ensure only properly reviewed code reaches production. Option A is wrong because SAST (static application security testing) is automated and may miss logic flaws or business logic issues that require human review. Option C is wrong because automated unit and integration tests verify functionality but do not constitute a code review; they can pass even if the code has logic errors or security issues not covered by tests. Option D is wrong because code signing ensures the integrity and authenticity of artifacts but does not involve reviewing the code content for correctness or security.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Run static application security testing (SAST) in the pipeline
Why it's wrong here
SAST scans source code for vulnerabilities; it does not verify that a human reviewed and approved the change before merge. It is tempting because SAST genuinely applies when the objective is detecting insecure coding patterns early, which is the correct choice when the concern is code quality rather than review enforcement.
- ✓
Require a manual approval gate before deployment
Why this is correct
A manual approval gate inserts human review between build and deployment, ensuring unreviewed code cannot reach production. This satisfies the stem's requirement that only properly reviewed code is deployed, which automated scanning alone cannot guarantee.
- ✗
Run automated unit tests and integration tests
Why it's wrong here
Unit and integration tests verify functional behaviour, not human review; they cannot enforce that a peer approved a change. They are tempting because they gate merges on code quality, and would suit a pipeline needing regression protection. Only a mandatory pull-request approval gate blocks unreviewed code reaching production.
- ✗
Implement code signing for all artifacts
Why it's wrong here
Code signing verifies artifact integrity and publisher identity after build; it does not confirm that a peer reviewed the change before merge. It is tempting because signing genuinely applies when the requirement is proving artifacts were not tampered with in transit, which is the correct choice for supply-chain integrity rather than review gating.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every SSCP question from scratch — 971 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This SSCP 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 SSCP exam.