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

VMware Exam 5V0-61.22 Topic 8 Question 22 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 5V0-61.22 exam
Question #: 22
Topic #: 8
[All 5V0-61.22 Questions]

An administrator of iOS supervised devices has noticed that devices are checking in regularly but are failing the Last Compromised Scan compliance policy. The administrator is fine with having slight disruptions to users but does not want any interaction from the user to be required.

The administrator decides to use an action in the Last Compromised Scan compliance policy that would force the device to report back the compromised status without requiring user input.

Which action m the Last Compromised Scan compliance policy should be used?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Leonie
2 months ago
Option D is the way to go, man. Compliance profiles are like the Swiss Army knife of iOS management - they can do it all!
upvoted 0 times
Esteban
9 days ago
Definitely, using a compliance profile with a single app payload for the Hub application will solve the issue without requiring any user interaction.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willodean
19 days ago
I agree, compliance profiles are very versatile. They make managing iOS devices much easier.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nell
21 days ago
Option D is the way to go, man. Compliance profiles are like the Swiss Army knife of iOS management - they can do it all!
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jerry
2 months ago
I'd go with option B. Requesting a device check-in is like asking your dog to fetch the newspaper - it just works. No muss, no fuss!
upvoted 0 times
...
Heike
2 months ago
Option A seems like the most straightforward approach. Assigning a sensor to the device should do the job without any fuss. Simple and effective!
upvoted 0 times
Pok
14 days ago
Definitely, assigning a sensor to the device is the way to go. It's a proactive approach that doesn't require any user interaction.
upvoted 0 times
...
Benedict
17 days ago
I agree, using a sensor to request the compromised status is a good idea. It's a seamless way to ensure compliance without bothering the users.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ammie
24 days ago
Option A seems like the most straightforward approach. Assigning a sensor to the device should do the job without any fuss. Simple and effective!
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Felice
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm leaning towards option D. Assigning a compliance profile with a single app payload could be the way to go. Might as well kill two birds with one stone, right?
upvoted 0 times
Allene
13 days ago
It's important to minimize disruptions to users while still ensuring compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alease
26 days ago
Definitely, that way the device can report back the compromised status without any user interaction.
upvoted 0 times
...
William
28 days ago
I agree, assigning a compliance profile with a single app payload seems like the most efficient option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zita
1 months ago
I think option D is a good choice. It would streamline the process.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lavonna
2 months ago
But wouldn't assigning a sensor to the device be more effective in this situation?
upvoted 0 times
...
Yoko
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is C) Assign a push notification to the device to request the compromised status.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tommy
2 months ago
Option C looks like the easiest solution. A push notification to the device to get the status? Sounds like a breeze!
upvoted 0 times
Twanna
1 months ago
User 2: Yeah, that would definitely be the least disruptive way to handle it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Orville
1 months ago
User 1: Option C does seem like the simplest choice. Just send a push notification and get the status.
upvoted 0 times
...
Olive
1 months ago
User 2: Agreed, a push notification would definitely be the simplest way to get the compromised status.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nadine
1 months ago
User 1: Option C does seem like the most convenient choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Denny
3 months ago
I think option B is the way to go. Requesting a device check-in should do the trick without any user interaction. Nice and efficient!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonna
3 months ago
I think the answer is B) Assign the command to Request Device Check-In.
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