SY0-701 Question 110

Community Discussion

Written by other learners. Comments can disagree with the marked answer — check the official documentation when in doubt.

• Chose D1

  Had a very good discussion with Grok on this. Although I went first for Code Scanning, malicious code may not always take advantage of a vulnerability which weakens this choice. Peer Review is the better choice to catch malicious behavior (although in reality both should be in place) - From Grok: Final Answer Given that you must choose one option and considering the insider threat context, D. Peer review and approval is the stronger choice. It directly addresses the risk of an insider introducing malicious code by ensuring human oversight, which is better suited to detecting intentional, non-vulnerability-based malicious code that automated scanners might miss. While code scanning is valuable, its reliance on predefined vulnerability patterns makes it less effective against sophisticated insider threats, as you astutely pointed out. Peer review, when properly implemented, provides a critical layer of scrutiny to catch such threats, despite the potential for human error.

• Chose D1

  Review and approval involve having code reviewed by multiple individuals within the development team before it is integrated into the project. This process allows for the identification of any potential malicious code or vulnerabilities introduced by an insider. Additionally, it ensures that there is oversight and accountability within the development process, reducing the likelihood of malicious activities going unnoticed

• Chose D1

  The key word here is prevent. Code scanning reveals vulnerabilities that are already introduced to a system. Peer reviews are intended to check code prior to intruduction in a production system.