McAfee Secure

Cisco 300-715 Bundle

Exam Code: 300-715

Exam Name Implementing and Configuring Cisco Identity Services Engine (300-715 SISE)

Certification Provider: Cisco

Corresponding Certification: CCNP Security

Cisco 300-715 Bundle $25.00
300-715 Sample 1 300-715 Sample 2 300-715 Sample 3 300-715 Sample 4 300-715 Sample 5 300-715 Sample 6 300-715 Sample 7 300-715 Sample 8 300-715 Sample 9 300-715 Sample 10

100% Cisco 300-715 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real 300-715 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    300-715 Questions & Answers

    433 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual 300-715 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • 300-715 Video Course

    300-715 Training Course

    73 Video Lectures

    300-715 Video Course is developed by Cisco Professionals to help you pass the 300-715 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Implementing and Configuring Cisco Identity Services Engine (300-715 SISE) exam.

Implementing and Configuring Cisco Identity Services Engine (300-715 SISE) (300-715) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $164.98
Bundle Price: $139.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    433 Questions

    $124.99
  • 300-715 Video Course

    Training Course

    73 Video Lectures

    $39.99

Cisco 300-715 Practice Test 32

Question 310

An identity and device-administration engineer evaluates: A sponsor creates a visitor account, but the user never receives the access information and the helpdesk diagnoses the switch RADIUS service without checking guest notification delivery. What result should be documented before closing the issue?

  1. An unapproved visitor remains restricted and the same approved visitor gains only the authorized guest role.
  2. The visitor is denied before activation, accepted during the window, and denied after expiry.
  3. The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window.
  4. A test visitor accepts the AUP and receives the limited guest role without being asked for a personal password.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The required remediation is: Check the guest-account notification method, contact address, and message delivery configuration after validating account creation. It works because account provisioning and guest notification are separate stages; a valid account does not guarantee credential delivery.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a hotspot's acceptance step does not prove a sponsor approved a named visitor or checked their eligibility. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: the visitor is denied before activation, accepted during the window, and denied after expiry. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a hotspot flow can grant defined guest access on acknowledgement, whereas credentialed guest portals require account authentication. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 311

A campus and branch network operator reports: A sponsor creates a visitor account, but the user never receives the access information and the helpdesk diagnoses the switch RADIUS service without checking guest notification delivery. Which durable safeguard best prevents a recurrence?

  1. Require sponsor attestation and expiration for visits to controlled facilities.
  2. Select self-registration abuse protections and account cleanup procedures for large events.
  3. Trace each guest portal selection through policy and NAD session updates before release.
  4. Test email or SMS guest invitations whenever the notification provider changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Test email or SMS guest invitations whenever the notification provider changes. This control addresses recurrence of the observed failure. The governing behavior is: Account provisioning and guest notification are separate stages; a valid account does not guarantee credential delivery. The ongoing acceptance check remains: The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A hotspot's acceptance step does not prove a sponsor approved a named visitor or checked their eligibility. In the case being tested, the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test email or SMS guest invitations whenever the notification provider changes.

B:

Self-registration permits a guest to initiate account creation; sponsor-created workflows are a different ownership model. In the case being tested, the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test email or SMS guest invitations whenever the notification provider changes.

C:

Trace each guest portal selection through policy and NAD session updates before release. In the case being tested, the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test email or SMS guest invitations whenever the notification provider changes.

Question 312

An access-security change request states: A university delegate should create and approve visitors only for its own department, yet the sponsor portal currently permits visibility into every business unit's guest accounts. Which implementation decision directly satisfies the stated requirement?

  1. Modify the actual allowed guest validity period using authorized sponsor account controls and confirm current authentication state.
  2. Verify the portal selection, authorization result, and required NAD CoA/reauthentication transition for the current guest SSID.
  3. Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.
  4. Return a supported Central WebAuth authorization profile with the required redirect URL and redirect ACL, then verify WLC feature compatibility.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department. This is appropriate because sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege. It should be verified by this evidence: A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. The repeat risk here is different: the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. A directly relevant preventive control is: Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.

B:

Include both denied and approved sponsor paths in portal acceptance tests. The repeat risk here is different: the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. A directly relevant preventive control is: Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.

D:

Return a supported Central WebAuth authorization profile with the required redirect URL and redirect ACL, then verify WLC feature compatibility. The repeat risk here is different: the approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. A directly relevant preventive control is: Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.

Question 313

During a Cisco ISE postchange review, the following is observed: A university delegate should create and approve visitors only for its own department, yet the sponsor portal currently permits visibility into every business unit's guest accounts. Which technical behavior is MOST relevant to this design?

  1. Self-registration and approval are distinct workflow stages; successful form submission should not automatically grant controlled network privileges.
  2. Guest onboarding secrecy depends on recipient verification; audit retention is not the cause of misdirected credentials.
  3. Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege.
  4. A guest account's existence is distinct from whether it is valid for the current visit window.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege. This behavior directly governs the stated requirement. The recommended action is: Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department. The acceptance result is: A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Include both denied and approved sponsor paths in portal acceptance tests. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The needed response is: Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege.

B:

The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The needed response is: Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege.

D:

The offered option specifies “A guest account's existence is distinct from whether it is valid for the current visit window”. The question requires “Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege”: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. These are not equivalent responses to the stated requirement.

Question 314

A security policy owner must resolve this specific case: A university delegate should create and approve visitors only for its own department, yet the sponsor portal currently permits visibility into every business unit's guest accounts. Which readback demonstrates that the actual problem was solved?

  1. A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests.
  2. The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked.
  3. A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required.
  4. The guest retains its intended account identity and its updated expiry is audited without overlapping duplicate accounts.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The required remediation is: Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department. It works because sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege.

Incorrect Answers

B:

A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: the guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Guest management includes account lifecycle operations; repeated new identities fragment history and can bypass intended access limits. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 315

A network identity engineer receives the following requirement: A university delegate should create and approve visitors only for its own department, yet the sponsor portal currently permits visibility into every business unit's guest accounts. What validation should be repeated before subsequent rollouts?

  1. Require contact confirmation for guest invitation and credential resets.
  2. Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse.
  3. Review sponsor-group privileges as departments and reception roles change.
  4. Test negative guest-to-internal access paths after any policy reordering.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Review sponsor-group privileges as departments and reception roles change. This control addresses recurrence of the observed failure. The governing behavior is: Sponsor portal authorization limits which guest identities a sponsor can create, manage, and view; login success alone does not establish least privilege. The ongoing acceptance check remains: A departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. In the case being tested, a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Review sponsor-group privileges as departments and reception roles change.

B:

A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. In the case being tested, a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Review sponsor-group privileges as departments and reception roles change.

D:

Web authentication verifies a guest principal; a separately evaluated authorization rule determines the access scope returned to the NAD. In the case being tested, a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Review sponsor-group privileges as departments and reception roles change.

Question 316

A campus and branch network operator reports: Visitors reach an ISE guest portal with an unapproved logo, AUP text, and privacy terms from an older business unit after a portal template was copied. What should the team change before declaring this work complete?

  1. Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies.
  2. Configure the guest registration process to require the intended sponsor approval gate before credentialed access.
  3. Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.
  4. Enable and validate the supported RADIUS CoA or reauthentication process that replaces the temporary redirect result.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies. This is appropriate because portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation. It should be verified by this evidence: A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The permitted extension is visible in the account record and login succeeds only inside the revised window. The repeat risk here is different: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. A directly relevant preventive control is: Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies.

C:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The repeat risk here is different: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. A directly relevant preventive control is: Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies.

D:

Successful portal credential validation does not itself change an already authorized NAD session without the required update mechanism. The repeat risk here is different: a departmental sponsor manages permitted visitors but cannot browse unrelated guests. A directly relevant preventive control is: Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies.

Question 317

A Cisco ISE operations team investigates this site issue: Visitors reach an ISE guest portal with an unapproved logo, AUP text, and privacy terms from an older business unit after a portal template was copied. What underlying Cisco ISE dependency explains this result?

  1. Portal account creation and NAD session authorization must agree on the portal and post-login policy to complete onboarding.
  2. Guest onboarding secrecy depends on recipient verification; audit retention is not the cause of misdirected credentials.
  3. Guest identity repositories and account validity limits support time-bound visitor access distinct from durable employee identities.
  4. Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation. This behavior directly governs the stated requirement. The recommended action is: Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies. The acceptance result is: A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Include both denied and approved sponsor paths in portal acceptance tests. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The needed response is: Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation.

B:

The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The needed response is: Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation.

C:

Guest identity repositories and account validity limits support time-bound visitor access distinct from durable employee identities. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The needed response is: Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation.

Question 318

At a distributed Cisco ISE deployment, a security review finds: Visitors reach an ISE guest portal with an unapproved logo, AUP text, and privacy terms from an older business unit after a portal template was copied. Which measurable outcome proves the intended behavior?

  1. A test visitor on the actual isolated SSID loads the portal while ISE management remains inaccessible.
  2. A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required.
  3. The contractor can issue only its permitted account class and an executive sponsor retains the separate class.
  4. A pilot guest loads the portal without a TLS name mismatch and cannot be redirected to an untrusted duplicate endpoint.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The required remediation is: Edit and publish the intended guest portal branding and acceptable-use content without changing unrelated authentication policies. It works because portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a test visitor on the actual isolated SSID loads the portal while ISE management remains inaccessible. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Review privilege inheritance in sponsor groups before exposing new guest account types. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Portal trust depends on certificate hostname and chain validation; successful RADIUS redirection alone does not make the HTTPS identity trusted. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 319

An ISE administrator troubleshoots the following: Visitors reach an ISE guest portal with an unapproved logo, AUP text, and privacy terms from an older business unit after a portal template was copied. Which ongoing practice is most appropriate for this failure mode?

  1. Require contact confirmation for guest invitation and credential resets.
  2. Reconcile event guest validity periods with portal guest types before issuing credentials.
  3. Include the HTTPS guest portal endpoint in PSN high-availability exercises.
  4. Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse. This control addresses recurrence of the observed failure. The governing behavior is: Portal appearance and required acknowledgement content are configurable independently of RADIUS password validation. The ongoing acceptance check remains: A pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The guest receives a newly issued credential through the verified contact method and the old credential is revoked. In the case being tested, a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse.

B:

A newly issued visitor credential expires after the approved day and the sponsor cannot extend beyond its authorized limit. In the case being tested, a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse.

C:

Central guest portal web service availability is a separate dependency from the NAD's RADIUS authentication server fallback. In the case being tested, a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Version-control guest portal copy and legal terms before cross-business reuse.

Question 320

A network identity engineer receives the following requirement: A guest portal is accessible on the corporate management address but not from the isolated guest network after a firewall segmentation change. Which response most directly corrects the described failure?

  1. Configure sponsor groups, their allowed guest types, and account-management scope for the appropriate department.
  2. Configure the correct guest type and sponsor portal account-duration limits to enforce the approved single-day validity.
  3. Enable the approved verification method and do not treat unverified self-entered contact details as proof of identity.
  4. Permit the specific guest-facing portal IP/FQDN and TLS ports through the approved segmentation path while retaining management isolation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Permit the specific guest-facing portal IP/FQDN and TLS ports through the approved segmentation path while retaining management isolation. This is appropriate because a portal may be healthy on ISE but unreachable from guests if network policy blocks its published listener. It should be verified by this evidence: A test visitor on the actual isolated SSID loads the portal while ISE management remains inaccessible.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The approved guest receives the expected onboarding notification and uses it within the account's valid window. The repeat risk here is different: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. A directly relevant preventive control is: Permit the specific guest-facing portal IP/FQDN and TLS ports through the approved segmentation path while retaining management isolation.

B:

A test visitor on the actual isolated SSID loads the portal while ISE management remains inaccessible. The repeat risk here is different: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. A directly relevant preventive control is: Permit the specific guest-facing portal IP/FQDN and TLS ports through the approved segmentation path while retaining management isolation.

C:

The visitor is denied before activation, accepted during the window, and denied after expiry. The repeat risk here is different: a pilot device sees the approved brand and terms, and its acknowledgement is recorded when required. A directly relevant preventive control is: Permit the specific guest-facing portal IP/FQDN and TLS ports through the approved segmentation path while retaining management isolation.