Which statement about agent-based versus agentless configuration management tools is true?

Question

Options

• AAgentless tools require no messaging systems between master and slaves.
• BAgentless tools use proxy nodes to interface with slave nodes.
• CAgent-based tools do not require a high-level language interpreter such as Python or Ruby on
• DAgent-based tools do not require installation of additional software packages on the slave nodes.

• A
  4% (2)
• B
  2% (1)
• C
  90% (43)
• D
  4% (2)

Explanation

Agent-Based vs. Agentless Configuration Management

Option C is correct because agent-based tools (like Puppet or Chef) install a dedicated agent binary on slave/client nodes, which handles execution natively - meaning the agent itself is a compiled or self-contained program that does not depend on a separate high-level language interpreter like Python or Ruby being pre-installed on the managed node.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Option A is false because agentless tools (like Ansible) typically do rely on messaging or communication systems (e.g., SSH or WinRM) to issue commands - they simply skip the dedicated agent installation.
• Option B is false because using proxy nodes is not a defining characteristic of agentless tools; this describes an optional architecture pattern, not a core requirement.
• Option D is actually the opposite of the truth - it's agentless tools that avoid installing additional software packages, while agent-based tools require installing the agent package on each slave node.

Memory Tip

Think: "Agent = self-sufficient software bundle" - once the agent is installed, it handles everything internally, whereas agentless tools "borrow" whatever is already on the system (like SSH + Python) to do the work remotely.

No community discussion yet for this question.