Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

CertNexus ITS-110 Exam - Topic 7 Question 60 Discussion

Actual exam question for CertNexus's ITS-110 exam

Question #: 60
Topic #: 7

[All ITS-110 Questions]

Which of the following is one way to implement countermeasures on an IoT gateway to ensure physical security?

AAdd tamper detection to the enclosure

BLimit physical access to ports when possible

CAllow quick administrator access for mitigation

DImplement features in software instead of hardware

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Theodora at Aug 01, 2025, 11:13 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ITS-110 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Rasheeda

9 months ago

I’m not sure about C, quick access could be risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

Britt

10 months ago

Totally agree, B is also important!

upvoted 0 times

...

Huey

10 months ago

Wait, tamper detection? That sounds advanced!

upvoted 0 times

...

Amira

10 months ago

D seems like a bad idea, software can be hacked easily.

upvoted 0 times

...

Oliva

10 months ago

A is a solid choice for physical security.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alberta

11 months ago

Implementing features in software instead of hardware seems risky. I recall that hardware solutions are often more reliable for physical security.

upvoted 0 times

...

Florinda

11 months ago

I practiced a similar question, and I think quick admin access might not be the best choice. It could lead to more vulnerabilities if not managed properly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Natalie

11 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like limiting physical access to ports is also a good idea. It could prevent unauthorized connections, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Marti

11 months ago

I remember studying about physical security measures, and I think adding tamper detection makes sense. It could alert us if someone tries to access the device.

upvoted 0 times

...

Naomi

11 months ago

Limiting physical access to ports is also a good idea, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough to ensure proper physical security. I'll have to weigh the options carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fernanda

12 months ago

Adding tamper detection to the enclosure seems like the most logical choice here. That would help prevent unauthorized access and tampering with the device. I'm pretty confident that's the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Son

12 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know physical security is important for IoT, but I'm not sure which of these options is the best approach. I'll have to think it through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Doretha

12 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question about physical security measures for IoT gateways. I'll carefully consider each option and choose the one that best addresses the prompt.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kaycee

1 year ago

I think both A) and B) are important for physical security on an IoT gateway.

upvoted 0 times

...

Twana

1 year ago

C might be handy, but I don't want to give just anyone the keys to the castle, you know?

upvoted 0 times

...

Melynda

1 year ago

D, really? That's like putting a lock on a cardboard box. Hardware security is where it's at!

upvoted 0 times

...

Paris

1 year ago

I believe B) Limit physical access to ports when possible is also a good option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kenia

1 year ago

I agree with Eliseo, adding tamper detection would enhance physical security.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eliseo

1 year ago

I think the answer is A) Add tamper detection to the enclosure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ling

1 year ago

A and B seem like the way to go. Can't let anyone mess with my IoT gateway!

upvoted 0 times

Dean

1 year ago

User 1: I agree, adding tamper detection and limiting physical access are important.

upvoted 0 times

...

...