What are two results of utilizing a fragmented security model? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• AIndividual components pieced together to meet requirements.
• BDecreased visibility and limited understand of security coverage.
• CReduced malicious file risk through additional segmentation.
• DDecreased network accessibility through multiple applications.
• EIncreased identity controls.

• A
  87% (39)
• C
  4% (2)
• D
  7% (3)
• E
  2% (1)

Explanation

A fragmented security model describes an environment built from multiple disconnected point solutions rather than a unified platform - and options A and B capture its defining characteristics. A is correct because fragmentation literally means assembling individual components (separate tools, vendors, and products) to cover security needs, resulting in integration gaps. B is correct because when tools don't communicate with each other, security teams lose centralized visibility and struggle to understand their full coverage, creating blind spots attackers can exploit.

C is wrong because fragmentation increases risk rather than reducing it - it doesn't produce meaningful segmentation benefits, and the "reduced malicious file risk" framing contradicts how fragmentation actually works. D is wrong because using multiple security applications doesn't inherently restrict network accessibility; this conflates tool quantity with access control policy. E is wrong because fragmentation typically leads to inconsistent identity controls across siloed systems, not stronger or increased ones.

Memory tip: Think of "fragmented" like a shattered mirror - you can piece together the broken shards (A), but the result is a distorted, incomplete picture of what you're looking at (B). Both consequences stem directly from the broken, disconnected nature of the model.

No community discussion yet for this question.