During a 911 failover test, an operator proposes putting restored CAD VMs on the Distributed Firewall exclusion list so recovery is faster. What should the administrator do?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Exclusion is pulling the fire alarm panel off the wall so the trucks can park closer. CAD still needs its groups and rules at the recovery site, not a recovery-time exclusion.
Full Explanation
During a 911 failover test, when an operator proposes putting restored CAD VMs on the Distributed Firewall exclusion list so recovery is faster, the administrator must forbid using the exclusion list as a disaster-recovery shortcut and apply the same CAD security groups and policy at the recovery site. Treat exclusion-as-DR as unlocking every CAD door for speed—unacceptable for a CJIS-sensitive workload. Excluding all restored CAD VMs until the next CJIS audit cycle fails by concept because long-lived exclusion is not recovery and leaves CAD unprotected for an audit-length window. Disabling Guest Introspection on CAD so Distributed Firewall is skipped during restore fails because skipping DFW via GI disable is not a valid recovery acceleration and breaks Identity Firewall dependencies. Replacing CAD Distributed Firewall policy with a Workspace ONE compliance profile fails because UEM compliance does not replace overlay micro-segmentation for CAD VMs. Exam caveat: DR must realize the same CAD security groups and DFW policy; exclusion list is not a failover shortcut. Operational check: recover CAD with production-equivalent groups and policy, reject exclusion-list proposals in the test report, verify DFW hits, and update the 911 DR standard to ban exclusion-as-recovery.