Question 805 of 1,000
hardMultiple SelectObjective-mapped

SSCP Practice Question: Which THREE of the following are valid methods…

This SSCP practice question tests your understanding of sscp exam topics. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.

Which THREE of the following are valid methods for enforcing separation of duties in an IT environment? (Select the three best answers.)

Clue words in this question

Noticing these words before you look at the options changes how you read each choice.

  • Clue: "best"

    Why it matters: Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.

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

Implementing a two-person rule for critical changes

Option C is correct because the two-person rule requires two authorized individuals to perform a critical change, ensuring that no single person has both the authority and the ability to execute a high-risk action. This directly enforces separation of duties by dividing the task into two distinct roles, such as one person approving and another implementing the change, which prevents fraud or errors from a single compromised account.

Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • Sharing administrative passwords among team members

    Why it's wrong here

    Sharing passwords violates separation of duties as it allows one person to act as another.

  • Having the same person approve and implement a change

    Why it's wrong here

    This violates separation of duties.

  • Implementing a two-person rule for critical changes

    Why this is correct

    The two-person rule requires approval from a second person, enforcing separation.

    Clue confirmation

    The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.

    Related concept

    Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

  • Monitoring and logging all privileged actions

    Why this is correct

    Logging provides an audit trail but does not directly enforce separation; however, it is a detective control that supports separation by allowing review.

    Clue confirmation

    The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.

    Related concept

    Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

  • Using role-based access control (RBAC) to assign permissions

    Why this is correct

    RBAC can enforce separation by ensuring that no one role includes conflicting permissions.

    Clue confirmation

    The clue word "best" in the question point toward this answer.

    Related concept

    Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

Common exam traps

Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword

The trap here is that candidates may confuse monitoring and logging (Option D) as a direct enforcement method rather than a detective control, or think that RBAC (Option E) alone enforces separation of duties without considering that RBAC must be combined with workflow rules to prevent role conflicts.

Detailed technical explanation

How to think about this question

Separation of duties in IT environments is often implemented through dual-control mechanisms, such as requiring two distinct accounts (e.g., an approver and an implementer) with different RBAC roles to complete a change request. In practice, this is enforced via change management systems that use workflow rules to prevent the same user from being assigned both the 'approve' and 'implement' tasks, and logging systems like syslog or Windows Event Log capture each action for non-repudiation. A real-world scenario is in financial systems where a transaction requires one person to create it and another to authorize it, preventing embezzlement.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
  • Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
  • Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.

TExam Day Tips

  • Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
  • Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.

Key takeaway

Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.

Real-world example

How this comes up in practice

A security analyst at a medium-sized enterprise encounters this scenario during an investigation or architecture review. The correct answer reflects best practice for the specific threat or control described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Security exam questions test whether you can match controls to threats in context — not just recall definitions.

Related practice questions

Related SSCP practice-question pages

Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.

Practice this exam

Start a free SSCP practice session

Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this SSCP question test?

Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Implementing a two-person rule for critical changes — Option C is correct because the two-person rule requires two authorized individuals to perform a critical change, ensuring that no single person has both the authority and the ability to execute a high-risk action. This directly enforces separation of duties by dividing the task into two distinct roles, such as one person approving and another implementing the change, which prevents fraud or errors from a single compromised account.

What should I do if I get this SSCP question wrong?

Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.

Are there clue words in this question I should notice?

Yes — watch for: "best". Signals that multiple options may be partially correct. Choose the option that most directly solves the exact problem described, not the one that sounds most complete.

What is the key concept behind this question?

Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

About these practice questions

Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

Keep practising

More SSCP practice questions

Last reviewed: Jun 25, 2026

Question Discussion

Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.

Loading comments…

Sign in to join the discussion.

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.