An organization's Chief Technical Officer is concerned that changes to the network using IaC are causing unscheduled outages. Which of the following best mitigates this risk?

The correct answer is D. Adding review/approval steps to the CI/CD pipelines. Adding review and approval steps to the CI/CD pipeline enforces a gate that prevents untested or unapproved Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) changes from being automatically deployed to production, directly reducing the risk of unscheduled outages. Making changes directly to the mast

Cloud Network Operations and Troubleshooting

Question

Options

AMaking code changes to the master branch
BEnforcing code review of the change by the author
CForking the code repository before making changes
DAdding review/approval steps to the CI/CD pipelines

How the community answered

(33 responses)

A
12% (4)
B
3% (1)
C
6% (2)
D
79% (26)

Explanation

Adding review and approval steps to the CI/CD pipeline enforces a gate that prevents untested or unapproved Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) changes from being automatically deployed to production, directly reducing the risk of unscheduled outages. Making changes directly to the master branch (A) bypasses safety checks entirely. Enforcing code review by the original author (B) is not an independent review and defeats its purpose. Forking the repository (C) isolates experimental work but does not prevent those changes from eventually being merged and deployed without scrutiny. Only option D introduces a mandatory, external checkpoint before changes affect the live environment.

Topics

#IaC#CI/CD#Change Management#Risk Mitigation

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full CNX-001 Practice