Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Exam Dumps - Actual Questions Answers

Nutanix security guidance is explicit on this point. After adding an SSH public key and verifying connectivity, Nutanix recommends disabling password authentication for all CVMs and AHV hosts to reduce interactive access risk. The Security Guide notes that after the SSH key inclusion and connectivity validation are complete, password authentication should be disabled as the next hardening step. That makes B the correct answer.

This is a straightforward hardening sequence question. The administrator has already completed the prerequisite—public-key access is working—so the next step is to remove the weaker interactive method. Core dumps, login banners, and UI session settings do not address SSH authentication exposure. Nutanix’s security model favors moving from password-based remote shell access to key-based access only. Therefore B is the authentic and recommended next step.

For AHV, when enabling LACP, Nutanix documentation specifies the Active-Active bond type, also described as balance-tcp. Nutanix explicitly ties LACP and link aggregation behavior to the Active-Active configuration and notes that this configuration sets LACP fallback to Active-Backup on AHV hosts. That makes C the correct bond type for an LACP-enabled design. ( Nutanix Portal )

It is also important to understand why Active-Active with MAC Pinning is wrong here. Nutanix documentation states that the MAC-pinning / balance-slb style must not be used with link aggregation protocols such as LACP. So even though both options sound like they distribute traffic, only one is compatible with LACP. Active-Backup provides redundancy, but not the LACP behavior being requested. “No Uplink Bond” obviously does not meet the requirement. Even without the missing exhibit from the uploaded file, the Nutanix networking documentation makes the intended answer clear: Active-Active is the bond type used when enabling LACP on AHV. ( Nutanix Portal )

The key requirement here is that the playbook must fire based on a pattern of alert characteristics, not on one fixed alert policy name or ID. Nutanix Intelligent Operations documentation provides a trigger type specifically for this purpose: Alerts Matching Criteria. That trigger lets administrators filter alerts using criteria such as severity, type, title patterns, and similar attributes, which is exactly what is needed when policy identifiers vary across environments but the response logic should stay consistent. It avoids binding the playbook to one alert definition and instead binds it to the alert behavior that matters operationally. ( Nutanix )

A single Alert trigger would be too brittle because it ties the automation to one named alert policy. A Webhook trigger would move the matching logic outside Prism and add unnecessary external dependency when the requirement can already be met natively. An Event trigger is also too broad or mismatched because the question is explicitly about filtering alerts by performance-related characteristics. Nutanix created “Alerts Matching Criteria” to handle precisely this kind of cross-environment, pattern-based automation. Therefore, A is the best answer because it gives the administrator scalable, environment-agnostic remediation logic while still excluding unrelated alerts through filters. ( Nutanix )