Which two are true about various Oracle security and auditing capabilities?

Question

Options

• AApplication-common Transparent Security Data Protection (TSDP) policies can be created
• BApplication-common TSDP policies are always container specific.
• CApplication-common OLS policies can be created only if all the PDBs in the application
• DUnified auditing can be automatically synchronized to all application PDBs in an application
• EFine-grained auditing (FGA) policies in an application root are automatically synchronized to all

• A
  14% (7)
• B
  8% (4)
• C
  31% (15)
• D
  47% (23)

Explanation

D and E are correct because in Oracle Multitenant application containers, both Unified Audit policies and Fine-Grained Auditing (FGA) policies defined in an application root propagate to all application PDBs when the application is synchronized via ALTER PLUGGABLE DATABASE APPLICATION ... SYNC - making them true application-common security constructs.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is false: TSDP (Transparent Sensitive Data Protection) policies are container-specific and cannot be created as application-common objects in an application root.
• B is misleading: since application-common TSDP policies don't exist as a concept (A is false), framing them as "always container specific" incorrectly implies they can be created application-wide but behave locally.
• C is false: Oracle Label Security (OLS) policies can be created as application-common objects in an application root without the conditional restriction the choice implies (the choice is also truncated, but the premise of a limiting condition is incorrect).

Memory tip: Use the acronym "FUA syncs" - Fine-Grained Auditing and Unified Auditing sync across application PDBs. Everything else (TSDP, OLS with conditions) does not follow the same automatic synchronization pattern, so when in doubt, remember that the two auditing mechanisms are the ones that travel with the application.

No community discussion yet for this question.