Q: 1
[Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC)]
A security engineer is assisting a DevOps team that has the following requirements for container
images:
Ensure container images are hashed and use version controls.
Ensure container images are up to date and scanned for vulnerabilities.
Which of the following should the security engineer do to meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
B . CI/CD pipeline gates are how you enforce image hashing, versioning, and auto scans before anything hits production. Small edge case: if the team already had strong post-deploy auditing then C might get confusing in a badly worded question, but this one specifically asks for the upfront controls.
Option B makes sense. Setting security and quality checks in the CI/CD pipeline is how you can automate hashing, version control, and vulnerability scanning before any containers go live. The other choices don't guarantee these checks happen upfront. Pretty sure this is what they're after but let me know if anyone sees it differently.
Option B. saw a similar question in a practice set. Fits what they're asking for on image controls and vulnerability checks.
B checks all the pre-deployment boxes. CI/CD can automate image hashing, version tagging, and vulnerability scans before anything goes live. That's how you actually enforce those requirements up front, not just watch for issues after. Pretty sure B is right.
B tbh
C , since audits and monitoring would reveal config drift or missed patches post-deployment if the CI/CD breaks.
C/D? Not sure, both seem to cover parts of the requirements.
I don’t think C fits. B checks all the boxes-CI/CD lets you enforce hashes, versioning, and do automated vulnerability scans before deployment. Auditing after the fact (C) misses the upfront controls. Pretty sure B’s right unless I’m missing something obvious.
C, B is probably a trap since audits and monitoring config changes sound closer to GRC tasks.
Its C this time. Had something like this in a mock and enabling audits plus config monitoring seemed to fit the governance/control side, especially for ongoing compliance. Might not cover versioning as tightly as B but I think it handles the "ensure" part better. Not 100% though, feel free to push back.
Be respectful. No spam.