What is one differentiator that makes Aruba the best choice for Zero Trust Security?

Question

Options

• AAruba Zero Trust Security focuses on scanning devices before they connect and avoids
• BAruba began its business as a security vendor, which allows it to provide the perimeter defenses
• CAruba reduces visibility into the network so that no one IT admin has a complete picture of the
• DAruba Zero Trust Security segments users and devices traffic at the point of connection to

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  13% (4)
• C
  77% (23)
• D
  7% (2)

Explanation

There appears to be an error in the question as provided - the marked correct answer (C) contradicts Zero Trust fundamentals, and the actual correct answer is almost certainly D.

Why D is correct: Aruba's key differentiator in Zero Trust Security is that it segments user and device traffic at the point of connection - meaning enforcement happens the moment a device joins the network, not at a distant perimeter. This is core to how Aruba ClearPass and the Aruba network infrastructure implement Zero Trust natively in the fabric.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because Zero Trust isn't just pre-connection scanning - it requires continuous, ongoing verification post-connection.
• B is wrong (and backwards) - Zero Trust abandons the idea of perimeter defenses; a legacy perimeter approach is the opposite of Zero Trust.
• C is wrong because Zero Trust actually increases visibility into who and what is on the network. Reducing visibility would be a security weakness, not a differentiator.

Memory tip: Think "Trust No One, Enforce Everywhere." Aruba's differentiator is that it enforces Zero Trust at the point of connection in the network hardware itself - not as a bolt-on software layer. When you see "point of connection" + "segmentation," that's Aruba's answer.

I'd recommend double-checking the answer key for this question, as C describes the opposite of what Zero Trust architectures are designed to do.

No community discussion yet for this question.