Visit here for our full Cisco 300-715 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 181:
How does Cisco ISE determine final authorization when a wired 802.1X client successfully authenticates with EAP-TLS, but the device posture module indicates the presence of unauthorized software flagged as high-risk under the corporate compliance policy?
A) ISE grants full access because the certificate authentication was strong
B) ISE applies a posture-noncompliant authorization profile with restricted access
C) ISE denies all network access immediately
D) ISE places the endpoint in guest mode until software is removed
Answer: B
Explanation:
Although EAP-TLS provides strong identity assurance based on certificate validation, authorization decisions in Cisco ISE are not determined by identity alone. Modern NAC frameworks incorporate posture assessment to determine device health, security risk, and compliance status. Even a fully authenticated and trusted device can pose a major security threat if it is running prohibited or malicious software. For this reason, posture checks operate independently from authentication, giving ISE the ability to downgrade or restrict authorization after identity is confirmed.
When the posture module identifies unauthorized software—such as keyloggers, packet sniffers, unapproved VPN clients, remote administration tools, unsigned executables, or malware-like binaries—ISE evaluates the configured posture policy to determine whether the device is considered noncompliant. If the software is classified as high-risk by the organization, the posture state becomes noncompliant, even if all other posture categories pass. This triggers Cisco ISE to apply a posture-noncompliant authorization profile.
This behavior makes option B correct. ISE sends a Change of Authorization (CoA) to the switch, enforcing a restricted dACL or VLAN. The device may be allowed access only to remediation servers or internal security portals to fix compliance issues. This ensures the endpoint cannot interact with sensitive internal systems while in a compromised state.
Option A is incorrect because certificate authentication, while secure, does not override posture requirements. Zero Trust dictates that authentication and authorization must be continuously validated and adjusted based on risk.
Option C is incorrect because full denial of access would disrupt operations unnecessarily. Cisco ISE typically provides controlled remediation rather than immediate disconnection.
Option D is incorrect because guest mode is unrelated to posture workflows; guest access is for unauthenticated or temporary users, not for corporate devices that fail compliance checks.
This adaptive authorization approach ensures that even trusted identities cannot bypass device health checks. Network access remains conditional, dynamic, and risk-aware. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Question 182:
How does Cisco ISE determine access when a wireless client authenticates with PEAP-MSCHAPv2, but the WLC receives profiling data identifying the device as a gaming console not permitted on the corporate SSID?
A) ISE gives full access because a valid user logged in
B) ISE overrides authentication and applies a restricted authorization based on device profile
C) ISE disconnects the session permanently
D) ISE reassigns the device to the guest SSID automatically
Answer: B
Explanation:
Profiling plays a crucial role in NAC environments by validating device identity beyond user authentication. PEAP-MSCHAPv2 only validates user credentials, not the device itself. A user could log in using personal credentials on a device type that violates network policy, such as a gaming console, streaming device, or consumer entertainment platform. Allowing such devices onto corporate networks poses risks, including noncompliance with security controls, inability to receive patches, and lateral movement vulnerabilities.
Cisco ISE continually monitors profiling attributes such as DHCP fingerprint, MAC OUI, HTTP agent strings, CDP/LLDP information, and traffic signatures. If profiling classifies the device as a gaming console, this classification takes precedence over user authentication because the organization may prohibit such devices on secure SSIDs. Therefore, option B is correct. ISE updates authorization based on profiling results by issuing a CoA to the WLC, applying restricted access or complete network isolation depending on policy.
Option A is incorrect because user authentication alone cannot override device-type policy restrictions.
Option C is incorrect because ISE does not permanently disconnect devices; enforcement is handled through authorization profiles, not permanent bans.
Option D is incorrect because devices cannot be automatically migrated to guest SSIDs; SSID selection is a user action, not an ISE enforcement capability.
Profiling-based overrides ensure that only allowed devices can access corporate wireless networks. Thus, B is correct.
Question 183:
How does Cisco ISE determine final authorization when TEAP EAP-chaining succeeds for both user and machine, but the user belongs to a privileged AD group while the device belongs to a restricted machine group?
A) ISE grants full access because privileged users override all device policies
B) ISE applies the most restrictive rule that matches either machine or user identity
C) ISE denies all access due to conflicting identity attributes
D) ISE gives machine-level access only, ignoring the user identity
Answer: B
Explanation:
TEAP chaining provides the ability to validate both the machine and user identity within the same secure session. This allows Cisco ISE to consider both aspects when determining authorization. When the user belongs to a privileged group, but the machine belongs to a restricted or high-risk AD OU, the authorization policy must reconcile conflicting privilege levels.
Option B is correct because Cisco ISE always applies the most restrictive matching authorization rule. Device risk takes priority over user privilege, meaning a restricted or quarantined device cannot receive elevated privileges simply because a privileged user logs in. This ensures a compromised or untrusted device cannot escalate access.
Option A is incorrect because user identity does not override machine identity in Zero Trust architectures.
Option C is incorrect because the situation does not create a policy conflict requiring denial.
Option D is incorrect because ISE considers both identities, not just the machine identity, but applies the stricter result.
This prevents privilege escalation and enforces device-aware access control. Thus, B is correct.
Question 184:
How does Cisco ISE determine appropriate enforcement when an EAP-FAST client’s PAC becomes invalid due to server-side key rotation and the client attempts to authenticate using the outdated PAC?
A) ISE accepts the old PAC and grants network access
B) ISE rejects the authentication attempt and triggers PAC renewal
C) ISE falls back to MAB authentication
D) ISE forces the client to fail over to PEAP
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a client attempts to authenticate using EAP-FAST with an expired PAC, Cisco ISE does not accept the old PAC. A PAC is a critical part of establishing the protected tunnel used by EAP-FAST, and once it expires, it is no longer considered valid or secure. Because of this, ISE rejects the authentication attempt rather than allowing the session to continue with an outdated credential.
ISE does not fall back to MAC Authentication Bypass, because MAB is only used when the client does not attempt 802.1X at all. An expired PAC still results in an 802.1X exchange, so the switch continues attempting EAP-FAST rather than invoking MAB. ISE also does not force the client to shift to PEAP automatically, since failover to a different EAP type must be configured on the client and server; it is not triggered automatically by PAC expiration.
When the authentication attempt is rejected due to an expired PAC, the standard behavior is for the client to request a new PAC. This renewal process allows the endpoint to obtain a fresh PAC and retry authentication successfully. This is the expected workflow in any properly configured EAP-FAST environment.
Therefore, the correct behavior is that ISE rejects the authentication attempt and triggers PAC renewal.
Question 185:
How does Cisco ISE determine enforcement when a device initially authenticates with MAB but later sends EAPOL frames indicating readiness for 802.1X authentication?
A) ISE keeps MAB authorization permanently
B) ISE triggers full 802.1X reauthentication and applies new authorization
C) ISE marks the device as misbehaving and blocks access
D) ISE forces the device into guest mode
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device transitions from MAC Authentication Bypass to sending valid 802.1X credentials, Cisco ISE does not keep the MAB authorization permanently. MAB is only a fallback mechanism used when no 802.1X activity is detected. As soon as the device begins a proper 802.1X exchange, the switch treats this as a higher-security authentication method and restarts the authentication process using 802.1X.
ISE does not mark the device as misbehaving or block it, because this behavior is normal for many endpoint boot processes. Devices such as phones, thin clients, and some laptops may begin with MAB while their 802.1X supplicant initializes.
ISE also does not force the device into guest mode. Guest workflows are unrelated to authentication transitions and require explicit guest portal interaction.
Instead, the correct behavior is that the switch initiates full 802.1X reauthentication, and ISE evaluates the new authentication attempt as a fresh session. Once the 802.1X authentication succeeds, ISE assigns the appropriate authorization profile based on the stronger identity information.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
ISE triggers full 802.1X reauthentication and applies new authorization.
Question 186:
How does Cisco ISE determine posture state when the AnyConnect posture module reports a failing condition for one required check even though all other checks pass?
A) ISE considers the device compliant
B) ISE marks the endpoint noncompliant because posture uses AND-logic
C) ISE averages results
D) ISE ignores failing checks during partial compliance
Answer: B
Explanation:
In Cisco ISE posture assessment, all required checks must pass for the device to be considered compliant. Posture evaluation uses strict AND-logic, meaning every required module must report a healthy state. If even one required condition fails—such as antivirus being off, firewall disabled, or patches missing—ISE marks the entire posture result as noncompliant.
ISE does not mark the device compliant when only some checks pass, and it does not average the results. Allowing partial compliance would weaken the security model and undermine the point of posture enforcement. Likewise, ISE does not ignore failing checks during partial compliance; any failed required check results in noncompliant status.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
ISE marks the endpoint noncompliant because posture uses AND-logic.
Question 187:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when a wireless client fails onboarding redirection due to DNS misconfiguration and cannot reach the onboarding portal?
A) ISE grants full access because redirection failed
B) ISE keeps the session in redirect mode until the user completes onboarding
C) ISE disconnects the client permanently
D) ISE upgrades the session to full trust
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device enters an onboarding workflow in Cisco ISE, it is placed into a redirect authorization state that gives the client only limited network access. This restricted access is intentional, allowing the endpoint to reach the onboarding portal while preventing it from accessing internal or sensitive network resources. If the client fails to complete the onboarding process, Cisco ISE does not upgrade the session, nor does it grant full trust simply because the redirect workflow has stalled. Instead, the device remains in the same restricted authorization state until it successfully completes the required steps.
ISE does not grant full access when redirection fails because doing so would create a security gap. The purpose of onboarding is to validate the device, provision certificates, or install necessary agents before allowing it into the production network. If a device could not finish onboarding yet received unrestricted access, unauthorized or unprepared endpoints could enter the network without proper validation. This would bypass certificate enrollment, posture setup, and identity verification. Therefore, full access is never provided solely because the user fails to finish the onboarding portal.
ISE also does not permanently disconnect the client. Disconnecting the session would make it impossible for the user to retry the onboarding workflow, especially if the failure was due to a temporary issue, missing driver, or browser pop-up block. The onboarding process is designed to be resilient, allowing the user to attempt the portal steps multiple times without losing connectivity. Maintaining the redirect state ensures the device can still reach the portal for troubleshooting or retrying the workflow at any point.
Upgrading the session to full trust is also not an option. Trust in ISE is achieved through successful authentication with the intended method—typically certificate-based EAP-TLS for fully onboarded devices. If the onboarding workflow is not completed, the device does not possess the required certificates or attributes, so the session cannot be elevated.
Instead, ISE keeps the device in redirect mode with limited access until the onboarding process is fully completed. The authorization remains restrictive, typically allowing only DNS, DHCP, portal access, and any supporting services required for onboarding. Once the user finishes the workflow—whether it involves registering the device, downloading profiles, or obtaining certificates—ISE updates the session and assigns the full-access authorization profile using a Change of Authorization. Until that moment, the device stays in the restricted redirect state.
Therefore, the correct outcome is that ISE keeps the session in redirect mode until the user completes onboarding.
Question 188:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when a switch in multi-domain authentication mode receives two 802.1X authentications—one from a phone and one from a workstation?
A) Only one authentication is permitted
B) ISE assigns independent authorization to voice and data domains
C) ISE blocks the workstation
D) ISE merges both sessions
Answer: B
Explanation:
In a multi-domain authentication scenario, a single switchport supports two logical authentication spaces: the voice domain for an IP phone and the data domain for a workstation connected behind that phone. Because these two domains serve different purposes and often involve different authentication methods, Cisco ISE does not restrict the port to a single authentication. Multi-domain operation is specifically designed so that both devices can authenticate independently without interfering with each other.
ISE also does not block the workstation simply because a voice device is present. Both endpoints are expected to authenticate: the phone typically using MAB or 802.1X, and the workstation using 802.1X, PEAP, EAP-TLS, or sometimes MAB if necessary. Blocking the workstation would defeat the intention of multi-domain support and severely limit functionality in environments where desk phones and computers share the same cabling.
Likewise, ISE does not merge both sessions into one. Each authentication domain generates its own session ID, policy evaluation, and authorization result. The voice device often receives a voice VLAN assignment, along with QoS and signaling-related permissions. The workstation receives an entirely separate authorization outcome based on user credentials, machine identity, posture state, or certificate-based authentication. Because the needs of a phone and a workstation are completely different, combining these sessions would produce incorrect authorization results and violate best practice security segmentation.
What ISE actually does is evaluate and authorize each domain independently. The phone receives a voice-specific authorization profile, and the workstation receives a data-specific one. The switch enforces both simultaneously, maintaining two separate active sessions on the same physical port. This structure ensures accurate access control, proper segmentation, and correct policy application for each connected device.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
ISE assigns independent authorization to voice and data domains.
Question 189:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when a device fails EAP-TLS due to certificate expiration but then successfully authenticates with MAB?
A) ISE gives same access as EAP-TLS
B) ISE applies low-trust MAB access
C) ISE blocks MAB due to prior 802.1X failure
D) ISE forces certificate renewal
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device fails 802.1X authentication and the switch falls back to MAC Authentication Bypass, Cisco ISE does not treat the resulting MAB session with the same level of trust as an 802.1X EAP-TLS session. Certificate-based authentication provides a strong, cryptographically validated identity tied to a known machine or user. By contrast, MAB relies only on a MAC address, which is easily spoofed and offers no reliable identity assurance.
Because of this, ISE never grants the same access to a MAB-authenticated session as it would to an EAP-TLS session. Full or high-trust access requires strong identity proof, and a MAC address alone cannot provide that. ISE also does not block MAB simply because 802.1X failed earlier. MAB is intentionally designed as a fallback for devices that either cannot perform 802.1X or are not yet ready to begin it. As long as MAB is enabled on the switchport, the authentication attempt is forwarded to ISE and processed normally.
ISE likewise does not force certificate renewal during a MAB event. Certificate lifecycle management is handled through onboarding or client provisioning workflows, not triggered automatically when a device falls back to MAB. A device may end up using MAB because its certificate is missing, expired, or misconfigured, but ISE does not push a renewal process without an explicit onboarding or remediation flow.
What actually happens is that ISE assigns the low-trust authorization profile associated with MAB. This typically results in very limited access such as a restricted VLAN, minimal ACL permissions, or a remediation network. The idea is to give the device only enough connectivity to perform updates or resolve configuration issues without providing access to the broader network.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
ISE applies low-trust MAB access.
Question 190:
How does Cisco ISE determine final enforcement when a WPA3-Enterprise EAP-TLS client attempts to access a resource denied by its SGT-to-SGT matrix mapping?
A) Authentication overrides matrix restrictions
B) The SGT matrix enforces the final decision
C) ISE grants temporary access
D) ISE ignores TrustSec policies
Answer: B
Explanation:
Authentication can override matrix restrictions when identity-based access systems assign privileges dynamically after a successful authentication. In these scenarios, the SGT or authorization result delivered by the authentication process can supersede default restrictions defined in the Security Group Tag (SGT) matrix. This happens because authentication reveals the verified identity, posture, or role of a device or user, which allows the system to elevate or adjust access beyond what static matrix rules might prescribe. In this sense, authentication becomes a higher-priority source of truth, enabling more flexible and adaptive access control than fixed policies alone.
The SGT matrix, however, still acts as the ultimate policy enforcement mechanism in TrustSec-enabled networks. After authentication assigns an SGT, the corresponding traffic between that SGT and others is evaluated against the global SGT-to-SGT matrix. Each pair has predefined rules—permit, deny, or service-specific permissions—that determine what communication is allowed. Even if authentication grants a certain identity or privilege, actual data-plane communication remains bound by the matrix. Enforcement occurs at TrustSec-capable devices, ensuring consistent and scalable policy decisions across the network. Thus, while authentication may influence the tag, the matrix enforces the final traffic outcome.
Cisco ISE can grant temporary access in several operational scenarios, especially during onboarding, posture assessment, or guest workflows. For example, a device may initially be placed into a remediation or limited-access segment while ISE evaluates posture compliance. Guest users often receive time-limited credentials or sponsored access that automatically expires. Unknown or profiling-in-progress devices may also receive provisional access until ISE fully classifies them. This controlled, temporary access ensures users can reach required resources—such as remediation servers or login portals—without exposing the network to unnecessary risk.
The idea that ISE ignores TrustSec policies is inaccurate. ISE is actually the central policy authority for TrustSec, responsible for defining SGT assignments, managing the SGT matrix, and distributing policies to enforcement points. While enforcement devices such as switches and firewalls apply the rules, the policies themselves originate from ISE. Only in cases of misconfiguration, unsupported platforms, or fallback authorization states might it appear as though TrustSec policies are not being followed. Under normal conditions, ISE fully participates in TrustSec policy orchestration rather than ignoring it.
Question 191:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when an 802.1X EAP-TLS client attempts to authenticate using a certificate issued by a trusted CA, but the certificate’s Subject Alternative Name does not match the required corporate identity format?
A) ISE grants full access because the certificate is trusted
B) ISE rejects the authentication because SAN validation fails
C) ISE bypasses SAN and trusts CN only
D) ISE falls back to MAB automatically
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cisco ISE performs multiple levels of certificate validation during EAP-TLS authentication. While verifying the issuing CA is essential, identity validation goes deeper than trust chain checks. The Subject Alternative Name (SAN) extension is a critical component because organizations require strict identity controls to prevent certificate misuse or spoofing. Many enterprises mandate that the SAN contains the user principal name, machine FQDN, or other identity attributes that must match specific naming conventions. When a certificate’s SAN does not align with required corporate formatting, ISE determines that identity cannot be reliably trusted.
This makes option B correct. The SAN mismatch causes authentication failure even when the issuing CA is valid. The certificate does not meet policy, and therefore ISE rejects the authentication attempt. This prevents situations where rogue certificates, personal certificates, or improperly enrolled devices attempt to use otherwise valid CAs to bypass identity controls.
Option A is incorrect because trust in the issuing CA alone does not guarantee identity integrity. Many organizations deploy intermediate or third-party CAs that issue certificates for various purposes; enterprise NAC must confirm that the certificate belongs to an enrolled and approved corporate identity.
Option C is incorrect because modern certificate validation requires SAN, and Cisco ISE explicitly prioritizes SAN fields over CN. CN-based matching is deprecated and insufficient for securing large enterprise identity environments.
Option D is incorrect because ISE does not automatically fall back to MAB when certificate fields fail validation. Instead, the 802.1X failure triggers standard reauthentication logic, leaving fallback to MAB only if the switch configuration explicitly allows it.
In Zero Trust NAC environments, identity must be fully validated using all certificate extensions. A mismatched SAN makes the identity unverifiable, forcing ISE to reject the request. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Question 192:
How does Cisco ISE determine enforcement when a wired endpoint authenticates successfully using 802.1X, but the switch reports DHCP snooping evidence suggesting MAC address spoofing during the same session?
A) ISE maintains the original authorization because authentication succeeded
B) ISE triggers Adaptive Network Control quarantine due to spoofing behavior
C) ISE ignores DHCP snooping data because profiling is incomplete
D) ISE immediately blocks the switch port permanently
Answer: B
Explanation:
MAC address spoofing is a serious security concern, especially in environments using identity-based access. Even if a device successfully authenticates using 802.1X, Cisco ISE relies on multiple data sources to detect anomalous behavior that could indicate compromise. DHCP snooping is particularly important because it validates that the MAC address observed at Layer 2 corresponds to the MAC address used in DHCP transactions. A mismatch suggests spoofing, MiTM attempts, or unauthorized device manipulation.
Option B is correct because Cisco ISE uses Adaptive Network Control (ANC) to dynamically modify authorization based on real-time threat signals. When DHCP snooping reveals inconsistencies, ISE interprets this as a risk event. It can apply a quarantine profile, restrict traffic using dACLs, or isolate the device into a secure VLAN. This prevents lateral movement and mitigates potential network compromise while still allowing monitoring and remediation.
Option A is incorrect because successful 802.1X authentication does not override newly detected threats. NAC systems operate with continuous validation, and identity assurance cannot compensate for behavioral anomalies.
Option C is incorrect because DHCP snooping data is not profiling information; it is security validation and analyzed independently of profiling completeness.
Option D is incorrect because ports are not permanently disabled by ISE unless administrators manually configure switch-side protections. ANC focuses on adaptive, reversible enforcement rather than permanent disruptions.
Cisco ISE’s ability to respond to in-session anomalies is central to Zero Trust principles. Even strong authentication does not grant permanent trust; authorization evolves dynamically based on behavior.
Therefore, B is correct.
Question 193:
How does Cisco ISE determine the correct action when TEAP EAP-chaining fails for the user portion but succeeds for the machine portion during authentication?
A) ISE grants full access because the machine is trusted
B) ISE applies machine-only authorization policies
C) ISE denies all access due to partial chain failure
D) ISE retries user authentication automatically and bypasses machine results
Answer: B
Explanation:
TEAP EAP-chaining is designed to authenticate both machine and user identities in a single secure exchange. If user authentication fails but machine authentication succeeds, Cisco ISE must decide whether the machine-only identity is sufficient to grant network access.
Option B is correct because ISE falls back to machine-only authorization policies. This reflects a real-world workflow in which a trusted corporate device can receive limited or pre-logon network access even when a user has not authenticated successfully. Machine authentication alone may allow access to patch repositories, directory services, and system resources needed during pre-logon.
Option A is incorrect because full access requires both machine and user authentication when EAP-chaining is configured. A trusted device alone cannot receive full authorization.
Option C is incorrect because TEAP does not require complete chaining for connectivity; machine authentication alone is acceptable for restricted access.
Option D is incorrect because TEAP does not bypass chain failures automatically. Each identity result is evaluated independently.
This ensures secure but functional network access based on valid machine identity while protecting user-level resources. Thus, B is correct.
Question 194:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when an endpoint completes posture assessment successfully but subsequently triggers a threat alert from a pxGrid-integrated firewall due to suspicious outbound connections?
A) ISE ignores pxGrid alerts because posture is compliant
B) ISE downgrades authorization using an ANC-based quarantine profile
C) ISE re-evaluates posture only and ignores firewall alerts
D) ISE grants full access and flags the event as informational
Answer: B
Explanation:
Posture compliance verifies that a device meets corporate security requirements at the moment of assessment. However, posture does not capture real-time threat behavior. That responsibility falls to pxGrid-integrated security tools like firewalls, EDR platforms, and threat analytics engines. When a firewall detects suspicious outbound connections—such as connections to known malicious IPs, C2 servers, or abnormal scanning activity—this represents an active threat, regardless of the device’s otherwise compliant posture.
Option B is correct because Cisco ISE uses Adaptive Network Control (ANC) to respond to dynamic threats. A pxGrid alert triggers ISE to apply a quarantine profile, restrict access, or isolate the device into a secure VLAN. This ensures real-time risk mitigation that goes beyond static posture checks.
Option A is incorrect because ISE does not prioritize posture over security alerts.
Option C is incorrect because posture checks do not detect behavioral threats; ignoring alert information would violate Zero Trust principles.
Option D is incorrect because threat alerts are not informational—they require enforcement.
ISE’s combination of posture validation and threat-intelligence-driven enforcement ensures layered defense. Thus, B is correct.
Question 195:
How does Cisco ISE determine access when a device authenticated via EAP-TLS loses network connectivity momentarily and reconnects using cached session parameters, but the session timeout value has already expired?
A) ISE allows the cached session to proceed without reauthentication
B) ISE forces full reauthentication because session timeout has been exceeded
C) ISE denies the session
D) ISE falls back to MAB
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device reconnects to the network after being idle, Cisco ISE evaluates the status of the previous session to decide how to handle access. In some situations, ISE allows the cached session to proceed without reauthentication, which occurs when the device resumes activity before the idle timeout or reauthentication timer expires. This approach helps maintain a smooth user experience and reduces unnecessary authentication traffic. However, once the session timeout has been exceeded, ISE forces a full reauthentication to confirm that the identity associated with the session is still valid and that no unauthorized device is attempting to use an old connection. If the device fails authentication or violates policy conditions, ISE may deny the session altogether, preventing access until proper credentials or compliance conditions are met. In networks that support fallback mechanisms, ISE can also revert to MAC Authentication Bypass (MAB) when the endpoint cannot complete the primary authentication method, allowing non-802.1X devices such as phones, printers, or IoT endpoints to obtain limited or provisional access. These different responses show how ISE maintains a balance between security, user convenience, and network flexibility when handling returning or partially authenticated devices.
Question 196:
How does Cisco ISE determine enforcement when a guest user successfully completes sponsor approval but fails the device registration requirement enforced through endpoint profiling?
A) ISE grants full guest access
B) ISE applies a device-registration-required authorization
C) ISE blocks access
D) ISE promotes the user to corporate access
Answer: B
Explanation:
When an unknown or unmanaged device connects to the network, Cisco ISE evaluates its identity, posture, and associated guest or corporate credentials to determine the appropriate authorization result. In some environments, ISE grants full guest access when the device successfully completes the guest workflow, such as self-registration or sponsor approval, allowing the user to browse the internet or reach permitted external services while still being isolated from internal resources. If the device has not completed onboarding or lacks the required registration details, ISE applies a device-registration-required authorization, placing the device into a limited-access zone where the user is guided to complete registration steps before receiving broader access. In cases where policy requirements are not met, credentials are invalid, or the device poses a security risk, ISE blocks access entirely to prevent unauthorized connectivity. Conversely, if the user authenticates with valid corporate credentials and the device meets compliance or profiling requirements, ISE promotes the user from a limited or guest state to full corporate access, assigning appropriate Security Group Tags, VLANs, or access control rules. These outcomes demonstrate how ISE dynamically adjusts authorization based on identity, device posture, and policy compliance to ensure a secure yet flexible network access experience.
Question 197:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when a contractor device authenticates via web authentication but exceeds the allowed session duration limit defined in the authorization profile?
A) ISE allows continued access
B) ISE forces reauthentication due to session timeout
C) ISE elevates access
D) ISE permanently blocks the device
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device remains connected to the network, Cisco ISE continuously evaluates timers, authorization conditions, and policy states to determine what should happen next. In some cases, ISE allows continued access when the session remains valid, all timers are within limits, and the device still meets the requirements defined by the original authorization. This ensures stable connectivity and avoids unnecessary interruptions. However, if the session timeout has been reached or a reauthentication interval expires, ISE forces reauthentication due to session timeout, requiring the device or user to authenticate again to confirm identity and maintain security. Under certain conditions—such as improved posture, successful onboarding, or updated credentials—ISE elevates access, moving the device from a limited authorization state to a higher-privilege role with broader network permissions. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if the device violates policy, fails authentication repeatedly, or is flagged as a security threat, ISE permanently blocks the device, preventing any further network access until administrative action is taken. These options illustrate how ISE dynamically balances user experience, compliance, and security through continuous session evaluation.
Question 198:
How does Cisco ISE determine enforcement when a device successfully authenticates but violates an applied dACL by generating traffic outside the permitted scope?
A) ISE ignores the violation
B) ISE may apply ANC quarantine actions
C) ISE grants full access
D) ISE applies a new EAP method
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a policy violation occurs, Cisco ISE evaluates the severity, the configured policies, and the endpoint’s current authorization state to determine the proper response. In some environments, ISE ignores the violation when it is considered minor, informational, or not tied to enforcement actions. This typically applies to low-risk posture or profiling mismatches where no remediation is required and the user’s access remains unchanged. In more serious cases, ISE may apply Adaptive Network Control (ANC) quarantine actions, placing the device into a restricted or isolated network segment so the endpoint can be remediated without posing further risk. Quarantine can reduce access down to essential services, block risky traffic, or force the device to a remediation portal depending on the policy configuration. In contrast, if the device unexpectedly meets all required conditions after evaluation, ISE grants full access, allowing the endpoint to use normal corporate resources with the appropriate authorization level. In scenarios involving authentication issues or method negotiation problems, ISE applies a new EAP method when the endpoint or network requires a different Extensible Authentication Protocol type to successfully authenticate. This can occur during fallback, method mismatch, or updated policy requirements. Together, these outcomes show how ISE adapts its response based on risk, compliance, and authentication needs.
Question 199:
How does Cisco ISE determine authorization when a device’s profiling identity changes from “Windows Workstation” to “Unknown” due to a loss of profiling data sources?
A) ISE maintains the original identity
B) ISE re-evaluates authorization using the new Unknown profile
C) ISE blocks access
D) ISE promotes access levels
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device’s classification changes—for example, when profiling data becomes incomplete or inconsistent—Cisco ISE must decide how to handle the identity and authorization tied to that endpoint. In some cases, ISE maintains the original identity, especially when the device had a previously validated profile and the system is configured to avoid disruptive changes. This helps preserve stable access when temporary profiling fluctuations occur. However, if the profiling result shifts to an unrecognized state, ISE re-evaluates authorization using the new Unknown profile, which typically results in more restrictive access until the device can be accurately identified again. In environments with strict security requirements, ISE blocks access when an endpoint’s identity changes in a way that violates policy or introduces uncertainty, preventing potential threats from gaining or maintaining connectivity. Conversely, when updated profiling data confirms that a device now meets higher trust requirements or matches a more privileged device category, ISE promotes access levels, granting broader permissions such as corporate network access, improved SGT assignments, or enhanced policy rights. These possibilities highlight how ISE dynamically adjusts authorization based on profiling accuracy and evolving endpoint characteristics.
Question 200: How does Cisco ISE determine final authorization when an AnyConnect VPN client passes authentication but fails dynamic posture reassessment triggered mid-session?
A) ISE maintains full access
B) ISE applies a noncompliant authorization profile
C) ISE disconnects all VPN tunnels
D) ISE ignores reassessment failures
Answer: B
Explanation:
When a device undergoes posture reassessment, Cisco ISE evaluates whether it still meets compliance requirements and adjusts authorization accordingly. In some situations, ISE maintains full access when the device successfully passes the reassessment check and continues to satisfy all posture policies. This ensures uninterrupted connectivity for compliant endpoints. However, if the device fails posture validation—such as missing required patches, disabled antivirus, or outdated software—ISE applies a noncompliant authorization profile, typically restricting the device to a remediation network where it can update and correct deficiencies. In more severe or highly controlled environments, ISE disconnects all VPN tunnels when posture failure is detected, forcing the user to regain compliance before reestablishing secure remote access. There are also scenarios where ISE ignores reassessment failures, usually because the policy is configured to treat posture checks as advisory rather than mandatory. This may be used in early deployment phases or in low-risk environments where full enforcement has not yet been activated. Altogether, these outcomes reflect how ISE uses posture results to balance network security with operational continuity.
