Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

HP Exam HPE7-A01 Topic 8 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for HP's HPE7-A01 exam
Question #: 23
Topic #: 8
[All HPE7-A01 Questions]

Your Director of Security asks you to assign AOS-CX switch management roles to new employees based on their specific job requirements. After the configuration was complete, it was noted that a user assigned with the auditors role did not have the appropriate level of access on the switch.

The user was not allowed to perform firmware upgrades and a privilege level of 15 was not assigned to their role. Which default management role should have been assigned for the user?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

The correct answer is B. sysops.

The sysops user role is a predefined role that allows users to perform system operations on the switch, such as backup, restore, upgrade, or reboot. The sysops user role also has access to the PUT and POST methods for REST API, which can be used to modify the switch configuration. The sysops user role has a privilege level of 15, which is the highest level of access on the switch1.

The other options are incorrect because:

A) sysadmin: The sysadmin user role is a predefined role that allows users to view and modify the switch configuration using the CLI or the Web UI. The sysadmin user role does not have access to the REST API methods, and cannot perform firmware upgrades1.

C) administrators: The administrators user role is a predefined role that has full access to all switch configuration information and all REST API methods. This role is more than what the Director of Security requires1.

D) config: The config user role is a predefined role that allows users to view and modify the switch configuration using the CLI or the Web UI. The config user role does not have access to the REST API methods, and cannot perform firmware upgrades1.


by Monroe at Jul 12, 2024, 06:22 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium HPE7-A01 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Temeka
4 months ago
I'm going with C) administrators. Seems like the auditors role should have had all the necessary permissions. Though I can't help but wonder if the Director of Security is secretly a movie villain, cackling over their poorly designed access controls.
upvoted 0 times
Nickolas
3 months ago
Maybe the Director of Security needs to review the access controls again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
3 months ago
Yeah, it's strange that they couldn't perform firmware upgrades with that role.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anisha
3 months ago
I think C) administrators should have been assigned for the auditors role.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Pearline
4 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'd go with C) administrators, but maybe the Director of Security needs to rethink their role assignments. Whoever set this up must have been sleeping on the job!
upvoted 0 times
Zona
2 months ago
Definitely, it's important to ensure that users have the appropriate access levels for their job requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Latanya
2 months ago
Maybe the Director of Security should review the role assignments to avoid this issue in the future.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
2 months ago
Yeah, it seems like the user needed a higher privilege level for firmware upgrades.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizette
3 months ago
I think C) administrators would have been the correct role for the user.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lon
4 months ago
D) config sounds like it could be the right choice. Isn't that the role for basic configuration tasks? Though I wonder if the auditors role should have been something more powerful.
upvoted 0 times
Kenneth
3 months ago
D) config sounds like it could be the right choice. Isn't that the role for basic configuration tasks? Though I wonder if the auditors role should have been something more powerful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josphine
3 months ago
D) config
upvoted 0 times
...
Herminia
3 months ago
C) administrators
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernadine
3 months ago
B) sysops
upvoted 0 times
...
Ming
3 months ago
A) sysadmin
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Katy
4 months ago
Hmm, I'm not so sure. The question mentions the user wasn't allowed to perform firmware upgrades, so maybe B) sysops would have been a better fit?
upvoted 0 times
Lawana
3 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think sysadmin might have been too high of a privilege level for the user.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiffiny
3 months ago
But wouldn't sysadmin also have the necessary privileges for firmware upgrades?
upvoted 0 times
...
Germaine
4 months ago
I think you're right, sysops would have been the better choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Delsie
4 months ago
I think the correct answer is C) administrators. The auditors role should have granted the user full access to manage the switch, including firmware upgrades and a privilege level of 15.
upvoted 0 times
Amos
3 months ago
Yes, we should let them know to avoid similar problems in the future.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chi
3 months ago
Should we inform the Director of Security about this issue?
upvoted 0 times
...
Yen
3 months ago
Yes, you are correct. The administrators role would have provided the necessary access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noel
4 months ago
I think the correct answer is C) administrators.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jennifer
5 months ago
I believe administrators would have been the best choice, as it is a default role with necessary privileges.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizette
5 months ago
But isn't sysops also a high-level role? Maybe that could have been the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregoria
5 months ago
I agree with Lera, sysadmin has the highest level of access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lera
5 months ago
I think the correct role should have been sysadmin.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77