Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Does not apply (generally incorrect)
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Security exposure is influenced by attack surface, number of endpoints, network topology, and controls. Centralized architectures concentrate data and processing in fewer locations, while client/server (especially widely distributed) increases the number of nodes and possible entry points. This question asks which posture is more susceptible in general terms.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
All else equal, a larger, more distributed attack surface (clients, networks, integrations) tends to increase susceptibility. Centralization can actually simplify hardening, monitoring, and incident response. Therefore, claiming centralized systems are more susceptible than client/server is generally incorrect. Specific cases may vary, but the blanket statement is not accurate.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
Review enterprise security architectures: VDI/mainframe centralization often reduces endpoint risks relative to thick-client deployments.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Equating impact with susceptibility; centralized breaches can have high impact, but that does not equal higher likelihood.
Final Answer:
Does not apply (generally incorrect)
Discussion & Comments