Which solution should a security team use to address legal concerns for guest wireless users?
A newly implemented wireless network is designed so that visitors can connect to the wireless network for business activities. The legal department is concerned that visitors might connect to the network and perform illicit activities. Which of me following should the security team implement to address this concern?
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
This question tests the distinction between technical access controls (like RADIUS or 802.1X) and legal consent mechanisms (such as a captive portal), with the trap being to confuse authentication with accountability for user activity.
For guest wireless networks, the recommended solution is to implement a captive portal that requires visitors to accept terms and conditions before connecting. Community consensus overwhelmingly supports option C, as it provides a legal acknowledgment that addresses the legal department's concern.
A common wrong answer is choosing A or B, assuming that strong device authentication will prevent illicit activity or provide legal coverage. However, authentication only verifies identity and does not require users to consent to terms of use, failing to address the legal department's concern.
Community Discussion (3 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Option C is correct because a guest captive portal that requires visitors to accept terms and conditions gives the organization a legal basis to hold users accountable for their activities. This directly addresses the legal department's concern about illicit actions. Commenter [1] notes that logging into a captive portal and accepting terms before access is exactly what provides that acknowledgment. Additionally, options A, B, and D do not provide any form of user consent, as commenter [2] points out.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A (RADIUS server) is about managing device authentication, not about legal consent. While it helps control who connects, it does not require users to agree to any policy. Option B (802.1X) similarly provides strong secure authentication but focuses on device/user identity verification, not on informing users of acceptable behavior or obtaining consent. Option D (WPS) is insecure and unrelated to legal accountability. None of these alternatives create a legally binding acknowledgment, so they fail the legal requirement.
Community Comment Notes
The community unanimously voted for C, with several comments explaining the reasoning. Commenter [2] directly states that 'A, B, and D don't account for people performing illicit activities.' Commenter [3] even jokes about the grammar error in the question ('Which of me following'), but still agrees on the answer. The logic is straightforward: legal concerns require explicit user acceptance of terms, which only a guest captive portal provides.
Official Reference
Exam Strategy
For questions involving guest wireless and legal liability, look for an option that provides user acknowledgment, such as a captive portal with terms and conditions. Remember that authentication (RADIUS, 802.1X) controls access to the network, not the user's legal responsibility for their activity.
Related Analysis
Practice All SY0-701 Questions
Access 100 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full SY0-701 Practice Test →