New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Rasheeda
2 months ago
I’m not sure about C, quick access could be risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Britt
3 months ago
Totally agree, B is also important!
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
3 months ago
Wait, tamper detection? That sounds advanced!
upvoted 0 times
...
Amira
3 months ago
D seems like a bad idea, software can be hacked easily.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
3 months ago
A is a solid choice for physical security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alberta
4 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
4 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
4 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
4 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
4 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 months ago
I think both A) and B) are important for physical security on an IoT gateway.
upvoted 0 times
...
Twana
5 months 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
5 months ago
D, really? That's like putting a lock on a cardboard box. Hardware security is where it's at!
upvoted 0 times
...
Paris
6 months ago
I believe B) Limit physical access to ports when possible is also a good option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenia
7 months ago
I agree with Eliseo, adding tamper detection would enhance physical security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eliseo
7 months ago
I think the answer is A) Add tamper detection to the enclosure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ling
7 months ago
A and B seem like the way to go. Can't let anyone mess with my IoT gateway!
upvoted 0 times
Dean
5 months ago
User 1: I agree, adding tamper detection and limiting physical access are important.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel