Deal of The Day! 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

Google Exam Google Workspace Administrator Topic 13 Question 29 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Google Workspace Administrator exam
Question #: 29
Topic #: 13
[All Google Workspace Administrator Questions]

Your organization has decided to enforce 2-Step Verification for a subset of users. Some of these users are now locked out of their accounts because they did not set up 2-Step Verification by the enforcement date. What corrective action should you take to allow the users to sign in again?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Kiley at Apr 10, 2024, 05:33 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Google Workspace Administrator Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Deane
12 months ago
That sounds like a good compromise. We can ensure security while allowing them to sign in.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
12 months ago
How about temporarily moving the affected users to an exception group to set up 2-Step Verification, and then remove them from the group?
upvoted 0 times
...
Refugia
1 years ago
It might create security risks for other users if we disable it organization-wide.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deane
1 years ago
But wouldn't disabling it for everyone be easier?
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
1 years ago
I agree with it's the quickest way to allow them to sign in.
upvoted 0 times
...
Refugia
1 years ago
I think we should disable 2-Step Verification for the affected users.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
1 years ago
That's a valid point, Floyd. Maybe we can send them reminders to complete the setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
Floyd
1 years ago
But what if they forget to set up 2-Step Verification again once they are removed from the exception group?
upvoted 0 times
...
Brianne
1 years ago
I agree with Jani. Moving the affected users into the exception group temporarily makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
1 years ago
I think we should go with option B. It seems like the most reasonable approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brynn
1 years ago
I agree with the majority here. Option B is the way to go. Disabling 2-Step Verification organization-wide or creating a permanent exception group are both bad ideas from a security standpoint.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sina
1 years ago
Ha, can you imagine if we just let everyone off the hook and disabled 2-Step Verification? The IT team would probably stage a mutiny. Gotta keep that security tight, even if it means a little inconvenience for some users.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derrick
1 years ago
Agreed, Option B sounds like the best solution. It's important we don't just disable the security measures altogether. I'm glad there's a temporary workaround for the users who got locked out.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theron
1 years ago
Option B seems like the most appropriate solution. We need to ensure that the security measures are in place, but also provide a way for users to set up 2-Step Verification without being locked out. Temporarily moving them to an exception group is a good way to achieve that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
1 years ago
I think Option B is the way to go. Temporarily moving the affected users to an exception group so they can set up 2-Step Verification is a good compromise. It keeps the security in place but gives those users a chance to get back in.
upvoted 0 times
Youlanda
1 years ago
I think so too. Moving them into an exception group temporarily is more secure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lovetta
1 years ago
But wouldn't it be risky to disable 2-Step Verification organization-wide?
upvoted 0 times
...
Margo
1 years ago
I agree, Option B seems like a fair solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tayna
1 years ago
Definitely, it's a good way to handle the situation without compromising security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
1 years ago
It's a fair approach to ensure everyone is following the security measures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Samira
1 years ago
That way they still have to comply with the new policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Torie
1 years ago
Once they set up 2-Step Verification, they can be removed from the exception group.
upvoted 0 times
...
Evangelina
1 years ago
I agree, it's important to balance security with user access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vicki
1 years ago
Yeah, it's a good compromise for those users who missed the deadline.
upvoted 0 times
...
Estrella
1 years ago
Option B sounds like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Maybelle
1 years ago
Haha, can you imagine if we just disabled 2-Step Verification organization-wide? The IT team would be swamped with calls from users asking, 'What happened to my extra layer of security?' That would be a total disaster!
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicitas
1 years ago
Ugh, this question is tricky. I really don't want to disable 2-Step Verification organization-wide, that would be a major security risk. But I also feel bad for the users who got locked out, that must be so frustrating for them.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
1 years ago
I'm not sure I like the idea of creating a permanent exception group. That could create a security vulnerability in the long run. I think Reena and 2 have the right idea with a temporary exception group.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefania
1 years ago
I agree with Reena. Option B seems like the most sensible solution here. We don't want to completely disable the security measure, but we also need to ensure that users can access their accounts. Temporarily moving them to an exception group and then removing them once they've set up 2-Step Verification is a good compromise.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reena
1 years ago
I think this is a tricky question. We need to balance security with user experience. Disabling 2-Step Verification organization-wide is a big no-no, as that would completely undermine the security measures put in place. The best approach seems to be moving the affected users into an exception group temporarily, so they can set it up without being locked out.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel