How Should a Security Administrator Prevent a Former Developer from Modifying Code After a Role Change?

N10-008 By islever Editorial Last updated

Short answer

B A role-based access control policy

Question

A software developer changed positions within a company and is now a sales engineer. The security team discovered that the former software developer had been modifying code to implement small features requested by customers. Which of the following would be the best thing for the security administrator to implement to prevent this from happening?
  1. A software patching policy
  2. A role-based access control policy Correct Answer
  3. Firewalls on the software development servers
  4. Longer and more complex password requirements

Key Takeaways

The question tests the principle of least privilege as it applies to role changes; RBAC ensures that a user’s permissions are tied to their current job function, not their past role.

When an employee transfers from a software development role to sales, the best control is role-based access control (RBAC), which automatically removes access based on the new role. Community consensus overwhelmingly supports B, RBAC, as the correct answer.

Common mistake: Choosing A (software patching policy) is a common mistake because it sounds like it involves reviewing code, but patching policies address software updates and vulnerabilities, not authorization to modify source code.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

Option B (a role-based access control policy) is correct because the employee changed roles, and RBAC grants or revokes access based on current job responsibilities. As one commenter explained, "You're on the Sales team, not the Dev team. We're denying your access to the code repository now." This aligns with the security principle of least privilege, ensuring that a user only has access necessary for their current role. The former developer no longer needs code modification rights, so RBAC would remove them.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

A software patching policy (A) governs how and when updates are applied to software, not who can modify source code, so it would not prevent unauthorized code changes. Firewalls on development servers (C) could block network access, but they would not prevent an authorized user with valid credentials from modifying code. Longer, more complex passwords (D) address authentication strength, not authorization; the developer already has legitimate credentials.

Community Comment Notes

Most commenters (87% of votes) selected B, and several explained it clearly: one noted that after the role change, RBAC would deny access to the code repository. Another provided the formal definition of RBAC, emphasizing that access is regulated based on roles within the enterprise. One commenter suggested A was plausible, but acknowledged that B is the standard answer. The consensus is clear: role-based access control is the best fit for this scenario.

Official Reference

These links open the official vendor documentation in a new tab.

Exam Strategy

Focus on the employee's changed role and remember that RBAC assigns permissions based on current job functions, not past positions. Eliminate options that address unrelated issues like patching, network firewalls, or password strength, and apply the principle of least privilege to select the answer that directly prevents unauthorized code access.

Community Votes

B
100%

100% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Discussion 6 contributions

Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.

From public community threads 6

  1. interestingtimes 👍 4 Answered B
    Employee changed role in this example. Seems pretty straightforward.
  2. Mamad66 👍 3 Answered B
    Role-based access control (RBAC) is a method of regulating access to computer or network resources based on the roles of individual users within an enterprise. In this context, roles are defined according to job competency, authority, and responsibility within the enterprise. Implementing RBAC will ensure that users only have the access necessary to fulfill their current roles. So, if a user changes roles, their access permissions change accordingly, preventing them from accessing systems or performing actions that are not relevant to their current role.
  3. Ty13 👍 3 Answered B
    It's B. RBAC: "Hey, you're on the Sales team, not the Dev team. We're denying your access to the code repository now.". Patching Policy: "Hey, no more choosing when you want Windows updates. You now get them on the second Tuesday of the month when they're released."
  4. Mynameisshiro1 👍 3 Answered B
    Gonna go with B over A, since employee's role changed, it makes sense he should no longer have access to the code anymore to make changes thus RBAC.
  5. bdemps98 👍 1 Answered A
    GPT says B. a public community thread says B. So it's probably B, but A also seems like it could be the answer cause patches get reviewed and new code being pushed would be reviewed and denied if noticed it was out of scope of the current sprint.
Show 1 more comment
  1. Biancoega10 👍 1 Answered A
    Role based access control

Reader comments & corrections

No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Log in to comment, report an error, or add a note about this question.

How to Resolve Printer-Workstation Connectivity Issues?

S-grade

Why Can a Workstation Reach the Internet but Not Internal Resources?

S-grade

Database server slow on access switch: move to core switch?

S-grade

Which Factor Most Impacts IDF Physical Design?

S-grade

← Back to N10-008 Study Guide