HPE7-A02 Exam - Topic 11 Question 22 Discussion

Actual exam question for HP's HPE7-A02 exam

Question #: 22
Topic #: 11

HPE Aruba Networking switches are implementing MAC-Auth to HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Policy Manager (CPPM) for a company's printers. The company wants to quarantine a client that spoofs a legitimate printer's MAC address. You plan to add a rule to the MAC-Auth service enforcement policy for this purpose. What condition should you include?

AEndpoint Compliance EQUALS false

BEndpoint Device Insight Tag EXISTS

CAuthorization: [Endpoints Repository] Compromised EQUALS true

DAuthorization: [Endpoints Repository] Conflict EQUALS true

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

MAC Spoofing Detection with Endpoint Conflict:

When two devices attempt to use the same MAC address, ClearPass identifies a Conflict state in the Endpoints Repository.

This condition can be used to detect and quarantine clients that spoof legitimate devices.

Option D: Correct. The Conflict EQUALS true condition identifies devices with duplicate MAC addresses.

Option A: Incorrect. Endpoint compliance checks posture, not MAC spoofing.

Option B: Incorrect. Device Insight Tags are used for profiling but do not identify conflicts.

Option C: Incorrect. Compromised devices relate to security incidents, not MAC address conflicts.

by Nicholle at Nov 25, 2025, 01:11 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium HPE7-A02 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Larue

3 days ago

I agree with D. Conflicts mean something's wrong.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jenise

8 days ago

Option A seems too broad. Compliance can vary.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iola

14 days ago

I prefer option C. Compromised devices should be quarantined.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shawn

19 days ago

I think option D makes sense. Conflicts indicate issues.

upvoted 0 times

...

Latricia

24 days ago

I didn't know MAC spoofing was such a big issue!

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorean

29 days ago

Wait, are we sure about that? What if the device isn't actually compromised?

upvoted 0 times

...

Ming

1 month ago

Totally agree, D makes the most sense here!

upvoted 0 times

...

Carmen

2 months ago

I'm just here for the dad jokes. Did you hear about the claustrophobic astronaut? He just needed a little space!

upvoted 0 times

...

Grover

2 months ago

C) is the way to go. It's the only one that actually makes sense for this scenario. The others are just plain silly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Diane

2 months ago

A) Endpoint Compliance EQUALS false? Really? That's like trying to catch a thief by checking if they're wearing socks or not.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ira

2 months ago

D) Authorization: [Endpoints Repository] Conflict EQUALS true sounds like the perfect solution. I mean, who doesn't love a good conflict?

upvoted 0 times

...

Jamal

2 months ago

I think B) Endpoint Device Insight Tag EXISTS is the way to go. It's more straightforward than that complicated Authorization stuff.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shoshana

3 months ago

I recall discussing device insight tags in class, so option B might be worth considering, but I’m not completely confident about it.

upvoted 0 times

...

Paola

3 months ago

I practiced a similar question where we had to identify non-compliant endpoints, so option A seems like it could be a possibility too.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jaime

3 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like option D might be relevant since it mentions conflicts, which could relate to MAC spoofing.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gracie

3 months ago

I think I remember that we need to check for compromised devices, so maybe option C could be the right choice?

upvoted 0 times

...

Brittani

3 months ago

I'm leaning towards option D. Checking for a "Conflict" in the Endpoints Repository seems like the best way to identify the spoofed device and quarantine it accordingly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mona

3 months ago

Based on the question, I think the key is to look for a condition that identifies the client as having a "Conflict" in the Endpoints Repository. That seems like the most direct way to detect the MAC address spoofing.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dannie

4 months ago

I'm a bit confused on the difference between the options. Do we need to check for a specific Endpoint Compliance status, or is there a better way to identify the spoofed device?

upvoted 0 times

...

Raylene

4 months ago

I think D is the right choice for identifying conflicts.

upvoted 0 times

...

Frank

4 months ago

C) Authorization: [Endpoints Repository] Compromised EQUALS true is the correct answer. This condition will quarantine the client that is spoofing the legitimate printer's MAC address.

upvoted 0 times

...

Danica

4 months ago

A could work too, but D seems more specific for this case.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elinore

5 months ago

Okay, let's see. I'm thinking option C might be the way to go, since we want to check if the endpoint is compromised in the Endpoints Repository.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tabetha

5 months ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the different options and how they relate to quarantining a client that's spoofing a printer's MAC address.

upvoted 0 times

Charolette

4 months ago

I think option C makes sense. It directly addresses compromised devices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tammara

5 months ago

I’m leaning towards B. Knowing the device insight could help.

upvoted 0 times

...