The best methods for hardening end user devices are Full Disk Encryption (FDE) and Endpoint Protection. FDE (A) protects data at rest on laptops and workstations, ensuring that data remains unreadable if devices are lost or stolen—an explicit best practice in Security+ SY0-701.
Endpoint protection (D), including EDR/anti-malware, hardens devices by preventing, detecting, and responding to malicious activity at the host level. Together, these controls provide strong baseline protection for confidentiality and threat prevention.
Group-level permissions (B) and account lockout (C) are important access controls but do not comprehensively harden devices against malware and data exposure. Proxy servers (E) and segmentation (F) are network controls rather than endpoint hardening measures.
Therefore, the correct selections are A: Full disk encryption and D: Endpoint protection.
Explanation (Security+ SY0-701 aligned):
Deception technologies—such as honeypots, honeynets, honeyfiles, and honeytokens—are designed to intentionally lure attackers into controlled, monitored environments. Their primary purpose is not to block attacks outright or replace preventive controls, but to observe attacker behavior, techniques, and tools in a safe way. This allows organizations to collect high-value threat intelligence without exposing real production systems or sensitive data.
In the Security+ SY0-701 objectives (General Security Concepts), deception and disruption technologies are highlighted as tools that increase attacker cost and uncertainty while improving defender visibility. When an attacker interacts with a honeypot or accesses a honeyfile, it generates a strong indicator of malicious intent because legitimate users should never touch these resources. This makes deception technologies extremely valuable for early detection and analysis of attacks.
Why the other options are incorrect:
A. Preventing malware installation is the role of endpoint protection platforms (EPP/EDR), not deception technologies.
B. Blocking all external traffic before it reaches critical systems describes perimeter defenses like firewalls or gateways, not deception.
D. Detecting insider threats by monitoring privileged accounts is handled by IAM controls, logging, and UEBA, not deception systems.
In short, deception technologies are proactive detection and intelligence-gathering tools. They don’t stop attackers at the gate; instead, they trick attackers into revealing themselves and their methods, giving defenders insight that strengthens the overall security strategy.
Explanation (Security+ SY0-701 aligned):
To ensure an organization can review the controls and performance of a service provider or vendor, it should include a right-to-audit clause in its contract. A right-to-audit clause explicitly grants the customer the legal authority to inspect, assess, or audit the vendor’s security controls, processes, and compliance posture. This is a key concept under Security Program Management and Oversight, particularly within third-party risk management.
In the SY0-701 objectives, third-party risk management emphasizes the importance of contractual controls that allow organizations to verify that vendors are meeting security, privacy, and compliance obligations. A right-to-audit clause enables activities such as reviewing policies, examining control effectiveness, validating compliance with standards (for example, SOC reports), and confirming that agreed-upon safeguards are actually in place. Without this clause, the organization may have no formal mechanism to independently verify vendor claims.
Why the other options are incorrect:
A. Service-level agreement (SLA): SLAs define performance metrics like uptime, response time, and availability. They do not usually grant audit authority over security controls.
B. Memorandum of agreement (MOA): An MOA outlines general responsibilities and cooperation between parties but typically lacks enforceable audit rights.
D. Supply chain analysis: This is a risk assessment activity, not a contractual mechanism that provides audit access.
From a Security+ perspective, the right-to-audit clause is the most effective and direct way to ensure ongoing visibility and assurance over vendor security controls and performance.
