EX200 Manage security Practice Question
An administrator runs 'getenforce' and sees 'Enforcing'. They then run 'setenforce 0' but SELinux still denies access to a custom application. What is the most likely reason?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many exam-takers assume any denial after `setenforce 0` must still be SELinux-related, overlooking that traditional Linux permissions (DAC) operate independently and can block access even when SELinux is permissive.
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
✓
The issue is due to file permissions or ACLs, not SELinux.
`setenforce 0` switches SELinux to permissive mode, which logs but does not enforce denials. If access is still denied after this command, the issue is not caused by SELinux enforcement but by traditional Linux file permissions (DAC) or ACLs. The administrator should check `ls -l` and `getfacl` to verify the file's ownership and permissions.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
SELinux is in enforcing mode and the policy is misconfigured.
Why it's wrong here
Running getenforce and seeing 'enforcing' only confirms SELinux is active, not that it is the cause of a denial. If SELinux policy were truly misconfigured and blocking access, switching the system into permissive mode with setenforce 0 would stop all SELinux enforcement and the application would no longer be denied. Since the problem persists in permissive mode (as implied by the correct answer), a misconfigured policy cannot be responsible, because permissive mode logs but does not deny SELinux faults.
- ✗
The application's SELinux context is incorrect and needs relabeling.
Why it's wrong here
A wrong SELinux context (type or label) would still only produce denials while SELinux is in enforcing mode. In permissive mode, SELinux does not enforce type enforcement and will allow access even if the application or target is mislabeled; it merely records an AVC denial in the audit log. Therefore, an incorrect context cannot explain a failure that survives setenforce 0, and relabeling would not remove a denial caused by ordinary file permissions or ACLs.
- ✓
The issue is due to file permissions or ACLs, not SELinux.
Why this is correct
Because the administrator has already switched SELinux to permissive mode and the access is still refused, the remaining blocker must be from Linux's discretionary access control (DAC) layer — the classic Unix permissions (owner/group/others) or POSIX ACLs. SELinux is a mandatory access control (MAC) system layered on top of DAC, so it can only deny what DAC would otherwise permit; in permissive mode it adds no denials. Inspect ls -l, getfacl, and ownership to find the real permission or ACL problem.
- ✗
The change requires a reboot to take effect.
Why it's wrong here
setenforce 0 is an immediate runtime switch; it changes the current SELinux mode without requiring a reboot, so no reboot is needed for the test. A reboot would only be necessary to load a new SELinux state after editing /etc/selinux/config, or to re-enable SELinux after a 'disabled' mode, but that has nothing to do with a denial that persists in permissive mode. Since permissive mode already takes effect instantly, any remaining failure cannot be attributed to a pending reboot.
Quick reference
Access Control Model Comparison
| Model | Acronym | Who Controls Access? | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Access Control | DAC | Resource owner | Small teams, file shares |
| Mandatory Access Control | MAC | System / security labels | Classified govt / military |
| Role-Based Access Control | RBAC | Administrator (via roles) | Enterprise environments |
| Attribute-Based Access Control | ABAC | Policy engine (user + resource attributes) | Fine-grained, dynamic policies |
| Rule-Based Access Control | RuBAC | System rules / ACLs | Firewall rules, network ACLs |
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every EX200 question from scratch — 427 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 EX200 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Red Hat 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 EX200 exam.