Free LPI 102-500 Actual Exam Questions - Question 11 Discussion

It’s A because if neither file exists, cron defaults to denying access to users by default, so no one can create crontabs unless those files are set up.

B. The absence of both files usually means no restrictions are applied, so all users can create their own crontabs by default.

A/C? I’m thinking it’s not B because having neither file doesn’t necessarily mean full access for everyone. It might default to no users allowed unless explicitly permitted, so A could make sense. Also, C is unlikely since cron usually just defaults and doesn’t fail on missing files. D seems off since admin approval isn’t typically required just to create a user crontab. So between A and C, I’d go with A based on default denial without those files in place.

B imo, since no deny means no restrictions, so all users can use crontabs.

B is the usual default since cron assumes no restrictions without those files.

It’s not C because the cron daemon generally won’t refuse to start just because those files are missing. Also, A is unlikely since default behavior usually allows users to create crontabs unless explicitly denied. That leaves B and D. D seems off as explicit approval isn’t typical without extra security configs. So B makes the most sense: if neither file exists, cron usually defaults to allowing all users to have crontabs. This aligns with what I’ve seen on most Linux systems.

Maybe D isn’t the case because usually cron doesn’t require explicit approval for each user crontab unless configured with extra security measures. C sounds unlikely too; missing allow/deny files typically won’t stop cron from starting, they just control access. A also seems too restrictive since by default cron usually allows users to create crontabs unless explicitly denied. So B makes the most sense—if neither file exists, it’s generally interpreted as no restrictions, meaning all users can create crontabs. This matches the typical default behavior on many Unix-like systems.

Maybe B makes the most sense here too. The way I understand it, if neither cron.allow nor cron.deny is present, cron just lets any user add crontabs by default—no extra approval needed and no blocking. Option A doesn’t fit because that would mean no one can create crontabs, which sounds too restrictive without any config files. C and D seem off since the daemon wouldn’t just fail or require admin approval just because those files don’t exist. So, B feels like the standard fallback behavior.

A, because by default cron restricts access if no allow/deny files exist.

B. From what I know, if both files are missing, cron usually lets all users create crontabs by default, so this fits typical behavior without extra config or restrictions.

Maybe D because typically system admins need to approve user crontabs if there’s no explicit allow or deny, so automatic permission isn’t guaranteed without an admin step.

A/B? I’d say B is more likely since cron usually defaults to allowing users if no restrictions are set, but some distros might do A by default. Without specific OS info, B makes more sense.

A imo, some distros disable user crontabs if no allow or deny files exist by default.

Maybe A here. If neither file exists, some cron versions might block user crontabs to be safe, so no one can set them by default without config. It depends on the system, but blocking feels safer than allowing all.

B. Cron defaults to allowing all users to create crontabs if neither file exists. It won’t block access or require approvals, so options A, C, and D don’t fit here.

It’s B. Without cron.allow or cron.deny, cron usually defaults to letting everyone use crontabs since there’s no rule blocking them. No need for admin approval or the daemon to fail starting.

B. If both files are missing, cron typically lets all users create crontabs by default since there’s no explicit denial or allowance set. This aligns with typical Unix permissive defaults.

Maybe B here. If neither file exists, I think cron just assumes no restrictions and lets everyone use user crontabs by default. A sounds too strict, and C can’t be right since cron usually starts fine without those files. D seems off because I don’t remember needing admin approval just to create a crontab, unless there’s a deny file blocking you explicitly. So it makes sense that the absence of both files means open access.

Maybe D, but thinking about it, if neither cron.allow nor cron.deny exist, the system probably defaults to allowing users unless explicitly denied. So A and C seem off because cron usually won’t just refuse to start or block all users outright without those files. B feels right since no restrictions means open access. D sounds unlikely—there’s typically no admin approval step just because those files aren’t there. I’d stick with B here based on what I’ve seen in most default setups.

B imo since no files means no restrictions by default.