Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Netskope Exam NSK300 Topic 6 Question 18 Discussion

Actual exam question for Netskope's NSK300 exam
Question #: 18
Topic #: 6
[All NSK300 Questions]

You deployed Netskope Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) using pre-defined benchmark rules to monitor your cloud posture in AWS, Azure, and GCP. You are asked to assess if you can extend the Netskope CSPM solution by creating custom rules for each environment.

Which statement is correct?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

The issue is likely caused by a missing group name in the SAML response (A). When access to Microsoft 365 from unmanaged devices is not blocked as expected, despite having a policy in place, it often indicates that the SAML assertion is not correctly identifying the user as a member of the restricted group. In this case, the ''marketing-users'' group name should be present in the SAML response to enforce the policy that blocks login activity for this group. If the group name is missing, the policy will not apply, and users will not be blocked as intended.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Lynda
1 months ago
Ah, the cloud security dance! Let's see who can keep up with Netskope's fancy footwork. Maybe they'll even throw in a few juggling tricks for good measure!
upvoted 0 times
Herschel
13 days ago
A
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lai
1 months ago
Custom rules, huh? Sounds like a job for a wizard! Or maybe just a really good cloud security expert. Option D it is for me!
upvoted 0 times
Oneida
4 days ago
I agree, custom rules can really help tailor the security posture to our specific needs.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Geraldo
1 months ago
Well, well, well, looks like we've got a cloud security showdown here! I'm feeling lucky, so I'm gonna go with option D. Let's see if Netskope can handle the big three!
upvoted 0 times
Louvenia
7 days ago
User 3: Option D seems like the best bet. Let's see if Netskope can handle AWS, Azure, and GCP with custom rules.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylou
23 days ago
User 2: I think D is the right choice as well. Fingers crossed for full coverage!
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlene
1 months ago
User 1: I'm going with option D too. Let's hope Netskope can cover all the bases.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sylvie
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm not too sure about this one. I'd probably go with option C, just to be on the safe side. Can't go wrong with AWS and Azure, but GCP might be a bit trickier.
upvoted 0 times
Bette
1 months ago
I agree, let's stick with option C for now. It's better to be cautious when it comes to custom rules for GCP.
upvoted 0 times
...
Freeman
1 months ago
I think option C is the safest bet. AWS and Azure should be covered, but GCP might have limitations.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Valentin
2 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think B could also be a possibility since it mentions aligning rules with Google Workspace.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaleesa
2 months ago
I agree with Verda, D makes sense because it allows custom rules for all cloud environments.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lachelle
2 months ago
Ooh, this is a tricky one! I think I'll go with option D - custom rules for all three cloud providers. Netskope's got to be pretty powerful to handle that, right?
upvoted 0 times
Abel
20 days ago
I'm glad we're on the same page. Netskope CSPM seems like a robust solution for cloud security posture management.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rex
1 months ago
Definitely, having that level of customization would be very beneficial for monitoring cloud security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mi
1 months ago
I think so too. It would be great to have custom rules for all three cloud providers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alberto
2 months ago
I agree, option D seems like the best choice. Netskope must have some advanced capabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Verda
3 months ago
I think the answer is D.
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