Due to locality and budget constraints, an organization's satellite office has a lower bandwidth allocation than other offices in the organization. As a result, the local security infrastructure staff is assessing architectural options that will help preserve network bandwidth and increase speed to both internal and external resources while not sacrificing threat visibility.
Which of the following would be the BEST option to implement?
Local caching is the best option to implement for an organization with limited bandwidth and budget constraints. Local caching stores frequently accessed data on local servers, thereby reducing the need to repeatedly download the same data over the constrained network connection. This not only preserves network bandwidth but also increases access speed for both internal and external resources. Furthermore, local caching does not sacrifice threat visibility, as local security infrastructure can still monitor and scan cached data.
I think CDN makes more sense. A CDN is a network of servers that are distributed across the Internet and are designed to deliver content to users more efficiently. CDNs work by storing copies of content on servers that are located closer to the users who are requesting it, which can help to reduce latency and improve performance. The other reason is that the official book does not even mention the other alternatives, there's no references whatsoever for local caching or SD-WAN.
B is the correct answer
B, local caching. CDN does not help because it does not reduce bandwidth requirements.
It's CDN Preserve Bandwidth -- CDN Caches data so external resources eat less local bandwidth since they are retrieving via CDN. Increase Speed -- CDN increases speed by being geographical dispersed, and handling queries for content to and from the local site. Not sacrificing threat visibility -- CDN again. Local caching could cause decreased threat visibility if you aren't care about how you set up the cache and permissions to it. CDNs are secure and the answer is always CDN in CompTIA!
CDN - it offers caching and more
Going with CDN as it provides all the requirements and is more secure.
CHANGED TO C
Will go for local caching here considering the company's budget constraints... Implementing a CDN will tighten the budget even more so this option doesn't seem suitable.
Local Caching, ts260 has a point but also in the question said internal and external sources caching handles both internal and external. CDN will only handle internal sources.
Preserve network bandwidth, increase speed to both internal and external resources, and maintain threat visibility, implementing Local Caching (Option B) seems to be the most fitting solution.
Source: Verifying each answer against Chat GPT, my experience, other test banks, a written book, and weighing in the discussion from all users to create a 100% accurate guide for myself before I take the exam. (It isn't easy because of the time needed, but it is doing my diligence)
local caching - im a infrastructure admin by trade so if it is locality and cost.. this is what i am going with first. Low bandwidth is a concern here. the question states these guys are looking to preserve network bandwidth and increase speed. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/local-caching
CDN like AZURE is not cheap.
CHANGING MY ANSWER TO CDN .. CDN CACHING IS MENTIONED IN THE OFFICIAL CASP+ STUDENT GUIDE IN EXAMPLE SCALABLE DESIGNS. THIS QUESTION IS BAD AND VAGUE. IS THIS A CLOUD ENVIRONMENT?? WE DO NOT KNOW CDN architecture improves website load times; improves availability and redundancy; reduces costs by limiting the amount of content delivered directly by an origin server; and improves website security by mitigating DDoS attacks, distributing digital certificates, and facilitating the use of specialized encryption hardware. leverage the global footprint of cloud platforms by distributing and replicating the components of any service, such as web apps, media, and storage, across all the key service areas needing access to the content. This approach allows for the fastest delivery of content to local regions and provides unmatched scalability and performance.
Cost-Effectiveness: Local caching is typically a cost-effective solution. It can be implemented using relatively inexpensive hardware or even existing infrastructure, like local servers or dedicated caching devices. Bandwidth Preservation: By storing frequently accessed data locally, the satellite office reduces the need to repeatedly download the same data over the limited bandwidth connection, which preserves bandwidth. Improved Speed: Accessing cached data locally is much faster than downloading it over a constrained network connection, which improves speed for both internal and external resources. Threat Visibility: Local caching does not compromise security as the cached data can still be monitored and scanned by local security infrastructure.
CDN is not selected because: While a CDN can improve access to external resources, it primarily benefits external website access and might not be cost-effective for a small office with budget constraints. It also does not help with internal resources.
Keyword is budget constraints.
Local caching is the correct answer
lower bandwidth - B. Local caching
poor question... If we are considering the best to the amount information left out of the question, CDN would be the answer since it offers more along with caching.
Local caching. A CDN wouldn't help with external resources.