An automotive plant turns on posture checking for its plant-floor laptops over 802.1X. Windows machines are offered the Cisco Secure Client posture module, but the handful of macOS laptops land on a provisioning page that returns a 404, since the deployment offers a package only for Windows. Which change delivers the right agent package to each operating system?

Client provisioning policies keyed on endpoint operating system are the right change because they let the network access control system select and serve the compatible posture package during provisioning: Windows endpoints receive the Windows module, and macOS endpoints receive the macOS package. This directly addresses the 404, which occurs because the current deployment exposes only a Windows package. Keeping a Windows-only provisioning portal and sending macOS users to a vendor download page is a plausible manual workaround, but it does not make the provisioning flow deliver the correct package to each platform; macOS users still encounter the broken portal path. Deploying agents through MDM is also common, but leaving the 802.1X provisioning portal unchanged does not fix the stated provisioning failure, and it depends on the laptops being enrolled and reachable through that separate management channel. OS-matched authorization rules can place endpoints into suitable access profiles, but authorization determines network access, not which agent installer the provisioning service provides. Exam caveat: distinguish client provisioning, which selects and delivers software, from authorization, which assigns access after authentication or posture evaluation. Practical check: verify that the policy rules match the endpoint’s detected operating system, that each rule references the correct package, and that test Windows and macOS laptops can download and run their respective agents without a 404.