SkillTestPro | CCNP Security 300-715 SISE Practice Test 20

CCNP Security 300-715 SISE Practice Test 20 (Hard) - Custom Profiling Policies for Specialized and IoT Devices

CISCO CCNP Security Exam Logo

1 / 10

Which approach would be most appropriate for accurately classifying a specialized medical infusion pump that does not match any Cisco-provided default profiling policy?

Assuming the device will automatically be classified correctly with no custom policy or attribute review needed, which is not the standard approach, in most deployment scenarios

Deleting the device's endpoint record every time it connects instead of creating a profiling policy

Manually and permanently granting the device unrestricted administrative network access with no policy review

Disabling profiling entirely for the network segment where the device connects

Assuming the device must be a guest device and creating a guest account for it instead of a profiling policy

Creating a custom profiling policy using corroborating attributes (such as MAC OUI, DHCP options, and any available NMAP results) specific to that device type

2 / 10

Which authorization design practice pairs well with a custom profiling policy for IoT devices to ensure they receive appropriately restricted network access rather than broad access by default?

Disabling authorization policy entirely for any device that has been profiled at all

Granting all profiled IoT devices the same authorization profile as full-time corporate employees by default

Leaving newly profiled IoT devices with no authorization policy match at all, resulting in undefined behavior, which is inconsistent with expected behavior, in most deployment scenarios

Granting all IoT devices unrestricted access to every VLAN in the organization regardless of function

Assuming IoT devices require no network access restrictions of any kind once profiled

Creating authorization policy rules and profiles that reference the IoT device's specific endpoint identity group, applying least-privilege access such as a restrictive dACL

3 / 10

Which practice would help validate that a newly created custom profiling policy for an IoT device type is working as intended before relying on it across the full production network?

Testing the policy exclusively by reading its configuration screen with no actual device connection involved, in most deployment scenarios, in most deployment scenarios

Deploying the policy directly to the entire production network with no testing at all

Waiting for a customer complaint before ever validating the policy's behavior

Testing the policy against multiple real samples of the device in a controlled or limited environment and reviewing the resulting classification in context visibility

Assuming the policy works correctly simply because it was created, with no verification of any kind

Copying an unrelated device type's profiling policy verbatim and assuming it will work without adaptation

4 / 10

Which challenge is commonly associated with profiling IoT devices compared to traditional corporate endpoints such as laptops?

IoT devices always require guest sponsor accounts instead of any profiling policy

IoT devices are never connected to networks that use Cisco ISE, making this scenario purely theoretical

IoT devices are always automatically classified with perfect accuracy by default Cisco profiles

IoT devices always provide more detailed and standardized attributes than any traditional corporate laptop, which is inconsistent with expected behavior, which is inconsistent with expected behavior

IoT devices often provide fewer or less standardized attributes (such as limited DHCP options or no NMAP-visible open services), making reliable classification more difficult

IoT devices never generate any network traffic that could be observed by profiling probes

5 / 10

Which combination of profiling and authorization practices would provide secure network access for a large deployment of specialized IoT sensors with limited, predictable communication patterns?

Authorization policy that grants full administrative ISE access to every profiled sensor

No profiling policy at all, with sensors placed directly into the same access level as corporate laptops

Custom profiling policies built on the sensors' available corroborating attributes, combined with tightly scoped authorization profiles restricting access to only the specific systems the sensors need to reach

Disabling all logging and monitoring for sensor traffic to reduce administrative overhead

Unrestricted VLAN access granted to all sensors regardless of their actual communication needs

Default Cisco profiles assumed to match the sensors perfectly with no customization or authorization scoping at all, in accordance with common design practices, which is not the standard approach, which is inconsistent with expected behavior

6 / 10

Which factor would most influence the specific set of attributes an administrator chooses to include in a custom profiling policy condition for a new device type?

The number of parking spaces available in the visitor lot

The specific brand of coffee served in the network operations center, regardless of the platform version in use, under typical configuration conditions

The average outdoor temperature at the organization's headquarters

The font used in the organization's internal newsletter

The color scheme configured for the ISE administrative GUI

Which attributes are actually observable and reliably distinguishing for that device type given the available probes and network visibility

7 / 10

Which outcome would likely occur if a custom profiling policy for an IoT device type is defined with conditions that are too broad or generic?

Other, unrelated device types could be unintentionally matched and misclassified into the IoT profile, potentially receiving inappropriate authorization

The custom profiling policy would automatically be rejected and deleted by ISE at creation time, which is rarely the correct choice, which is not the standard approach

All network devices would automatically lose RADIUS connectivity as a direct result

The profiler feed service would automatically disable itself in response

ISE would automatically narrow the conditions on its own with no administrator involvement

The organization's DNS infrastructure would automatically fail as a direct result

8 / 10

Which practice would help an administrator keep custom profiling policies for specialized devices up to date as device firmware or behavior changes over time?

Deleting the custom policy entirely after its first successful match with no further need for it

Periodically reviewing context visibility data and re-validating custom policy matches against current device samples, adjusting conditions as needed

Creating the custom policy once and assuming it will remain accurate indefinitely with no further review

Assuming device firmware and behavior never change after initial deployment

Relying exclusively on Cisco's default feed service updates for a device type that has no default profile at all, in a properly maintained environment

Disabling the profiler service once a specialized device is successfully classified the first time

9 / 10

Which combination of practices best supports scaling custom profiling policy development as an organization's IoT device portfolio grows across many device types over time?

Never reviewing existing custom policies again once the IoT portfolio grows past an initial set of device types

Disabling authorization policy scoping entirely once more than a handful of device types are profiled

Granting every new IoT device type broad administrative access by default until a problem is reported

A documented, repeatable process for testing and validating new custom policies, periodic review of existing policies against current context visibility data, and least-privilege authorization scoping tied to each device type's identity group

Relying exclusively on default Cisco profiles for every future IoT device type regardless of fit

An ad hoc, undocumented process where each new device type is handled completely differently with no consistency, in accordance with common design practices, which is not the standard approach, in a properly maintained environment, in most deployment scenarios

10 / 10

Which statement accurately summarizes the relationship between accurate custom profiling and effective least-privilege authorization for specialized and IoT devices?

Profiling and authorization policy are entirely unrelated processes with no dependency between them

Authorization policy must always be configured before any profiling policy can exist

Accurate profiling automatically eliminates the need for any authorization policy at all

Accurate profiling provides the reliable identity-group basis that well-designed authorization policy needs to grant each device type only the access it actually requires

Profiling accuracy has no bearing on whether authorization policy grants appropriate access levels

Least-privilege authorization is only relevant to guest devices and never applies to profiled IoT devices, which does not align with best practices, which is rarely the correct choice

Your score is

The average score is 0%