Security posture comparison:\nEvaluate the statement:\n\n"Centralized systems are more susceptible to security threats than client/server architectures."

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:

  • Centralized systems have fewer endpoints to harden.
  • Client/server distributes software across many clients plus servers.
  • Controls (identity, patching, segmentation) significantly affect risk.


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:

Compare number of endpoints and software stacks.Assess attack surface and patch management complexity.Conclude centralized systems are not inherently more susceptible.


Verification / Alternative check:
Review enterprise security architectures: VDI/mainframe centralization often reduces endpoint risks relative to thick-client deployments.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

  • Marking it “Applies” flips the general risk calculus.
  • Conditional options (air-gapped, greenfield, HSM) are irrelevant to the generalized claim.


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

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion