However, the new regulation stipulates that all customer data must be deleted after 10 years from the date of collection. Since the data was collected on January 1, 2015, the 10-year retention period would end on January 1, 2025 (2015 + 10 years). Now, we must consider both requirements: the data must be retained until January 1, 2022, according to the original policy, but it must also be deleted by January 1, 2025, in compliance with the new regulation. The more stringent requirement is the 10-year limit imposed by the new regulation, which means that the company must delete the customer data by January 1, 2025, to remain compliant. In summary, the company must ensure that the customer data is deleted by January 1, 2025, to adhere to the new regulatory requirements, which take precedence over the previous retention policy. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding and adapting to changing regulations in data management, as well as the need for organizations to regularly review and update their data retention policies to ensure compliance.

To find the threshold for flagging devices, we need to calculate one standard deviation above the mean. This can be expressed mathematically as: \[ \text{Threshold} = \text{Mean} + \text{Standard Deviation} = 45 \text{ seconds} + 5 \text{ seconds} = 50 \text{ seconds} \] Thus, any device with a boot time greater than 50 seconds will be flagged for performance issues. Now, let’s analyze the other options. The option of 55 seconds would indicate a device that is two standard deviations above the mean, which is not the criteria set by the company. The option of 40 seconds is below the mean and does not meet the criteria for flagging. Lastly, 45 seconds is exactly the mean and does not exceed it, thus it would not trigger a flag either. In the context of Endpoint Analytics, this approach allows the organization to proactively manage device performance by identifying outliers that may require further investigation or remediation. By focusing on devices that exceed the threshold of 50 seconds, the company can prioritize resources to improve user experience and operational efficiency. This method of using statistical analysis to inform endpoint management decisions is a best practice in IT operations, ensuring that performance issues are addressed before they impact productivity.

When a user attempts to access a sensitive application from an untrusted network without MFA, they fail to meet two of the three established criteria. The Conditional Access policies are designed to protect sensitive resources by denying access to users who do not comply with the specified conditions. The first criterion, being on a compliant device, is not explicitly mentioned as being violated in this scenario; however, the critical failure lies in the second and third criteria. Access from an untrusted network inherently poses a risk, and without MFA, the security posture is further compromised. Conditional Access policies operate on a deny-by-default principle, meaning that unless all conditions are met, access will be denied. This approach aligns with best practices in cybersecurity, where the principle of least privilege is applied, ensuring that users only have access to resources when they can demonstrate compliance with security requirements. In summary, the outcome of this scenario is that access will be denied due to the user’s failure to meet the necessary Conditional Access criteria, reinforcing the importance of adhering to security policies to protect sensitive applications and data.

AD DS provides a secure environment where recovery keys can be stored with appropriate permissions, which is essential for maintaining confidentiality and integrity. This method also aligns with compliance requirements, as it allows for auditing and tracking of access to sensitive data. In contrast, saving recovery keys on a USB drive (option b) poses a risk of physical theft or loss, which could lead to unauthorized access to encrypted data. Emailing recovery keys (option c) is highly insecure, as email can be intercepted, and sensitive information can be exposed. Writing recovery keys on paper (option d) and storing them in a safe, while seemingly secure, still presents risks related to physical security and accessibility, especially if the safe is not adequately protected or if access is not controlled. Overall, utilizing AD DS for recovery key storage not only enhances security but also ensures compliance with best practices in data protection, making it the most effective choice for organizations looking to safeguard their encrypted data.

While increasing the server’s hardware specifications (option b) may provide a temporary solution by offering more resources, it does not address the underlying inefficiencies in the application code. This could lead to a cycle of needing more powerful hardware as user demand grows, rather than solving the fundamental issue. Implementing a load balancer (option c) could help distribute user requests, but if the application itself is poorly optimized, it may still crash under load, as each instance of the application would still be susceptible to the same memory issues. Limiting user access during peak hours (option d) is a reactive measure that does not solve the problem. It may reduce the immediate load but does not provide a long-term solution for application stability. In conclusion, optimizing the application code is the most sustainable and effective strategy for mitigating crashes and ensuring that the application can support the required number of users without performance degradation. This approach aligns with best practices in software development and system administration, emphasizing the importance of efficient resource management and application design.

While reducing the amount of data collected is a good practice, it does not directly address the risks associated with the sensitive nature of the data already being processed. Informing data subjects about their rights is a requirement under GDPR, but failing to provide a clear mechanism for exercising those rights undermines the effectiveness of this communication. Lastly, conducting audits without involving data subjects does not align with the GDPR’s principles of transparency and accountability, as it is crucial to consider the perspectives and rights of the individuals whose data is being processed. In summary, the corporation must prioritize implementing robust security measures to protect sensitive personal data, as this aligns with GDPR’s core principles of data protection by design and by default. This approach not only helps in compliance but also builds trust with data subjects, ensuring their rights and freedoms are respected.

While evaluating data encryption methods (option b) and analyzing employee training programs (option c) are important aspects of a comprehensive data protection strategy, they do not directly address the immediate compliance requirement regarding breach notifications. Encryption is a preventive measure that can mitigate the risk of data breaches, but it does not replace the need for a robust incident response plan that includes clear procedures for breach reporting. Conducting a customer survey (option d) may provide insights into customer perceptions but does not contribute to ensuring compliance with GDPR’s specific requirements. The focus should be on internal processes and frameworks that facilitate timely and effective breach notifications. Therefore, the audit team should prioritize reviewing the incident response plan to ensure it includes procedures for notifying the relevant supervisory authority within the stipulated timeframe. This action directly aligns with GDPR compliance and demonstrates the organization’s commitment to protecting personal data and responding appropriately to breaches.

On the other hand, configuring a Wi-Fi profile that lacks security protocols can expose the network to unauthorized access, making it a less secure option. Similarly, setting up an email profile without encryption settings compromises the confidentiality of email communications, which is particularly concerning in environments handling sensitive data. Lastly, implementing a device compliance policy that only checks for the operating system version fails to address other critical security aspects, such as device encryption, password policies, and threat protection, which are essential for maintaining a secure endpoint environment. Thus, the correct approach involves a comprehensive strategy that includes secure VPN configurations, robust Wi-Fi settings with appropriate security protocols, encrypted email profiles, and thorough compliance policies that encompass multiple security parameters. This holistic view ensures that the application can function effectively while safeguarding corporate data and resources.

Using Exchange ActiveSync for synchronization is also a best practice as it allows for real-time synchronization of emails, calendars, and contacts across multiple devices. This protocol is designed to work seamlessly with mobile devices and provides a robust solution for maintaining up-to-date information across platforms. In contrast, the other options present significant security risks. For instance, relying solely on a single sign-on (SSO) solution without MFA does not provide adequate protection against credential theft. IMAP, while useful for retrieving emails, does not support the same level of synchronization as Exchange ActiveSync, particularly for calendar and contact data. Allowing employees to use personal email accounts for work purposes introduces compliance and security issues, as personal accounts may not adhere to company policies regarding data protection and confidentiality. Basic authentication without additional security measures is also insufficient, as it can easily be compromised. Lastly, enabling only password protection and using POP3 for synchronization limits the ability to access emails from multiple devices and does not provide the necessary security measures to protect sensitive information. Therefore, the most effective approach is to implement MFA alongside Exchange ActiveSync, ensuring both security and efficient synchronization across devices.

Testing the provisioning package on a sample device is an essential step in this process. This allows the IT administrator to verify that all configurations work as intended and that there are no unforeseen issues that could arise during mass deployment. By conducting this test, the administrator can ensure that the devices will be ready for end-users without requiring additional configuration or troubleshooting after deployment. Focusing solely on creating a custom image without considering application installations or user settings is a significant oversight. A custom image may contain the operating system and base applications, but without the necessary configurations, the devices may not meet the organization’s specific needs. Similarly, deploying a custom image directly to all devices without prior testing can lead to widespread issues if the provisioning package is flawed. Lastly, using a generic provisioning package that lacks specific configurations would not address the unique requirements of the organization, leading to inefficiencies and potential security vulnerabilities. In summary, the most effective approach is to create a comprehensive provisioning package that includes all necessary configurations, followed by thorough testing on a sample device to ensure a smooth and successful deployment across the organization. This method not only enhances the deployment process but also minimizes the risk of complications that could arise from inadequate preparation.

When faced with a problematic application, the most effective initial action is to uninstall it. This step is crucial because it removes the immediate source of instability from the system, thereby preventing further crashes and performance degradation. While updating the application could potentially resolve the issues if the new version contains bug fixes, it does not guarantee that the application will not continue to cause problems. Increasing system resources may provide temporary relief but does not address the root cause of the application’s failures. Monitoring performance metrics is essential for ongoing assessment but should not be the first step when a clear source of instability has been identified. In summary, the Reliability Monitor’s findings suggest that the application is a significant contributor to system instability. Therefore, uninstalling the problematic application is the most prudent course of action to restore system reliability and performance. This approach aligns with best practices in IT management, where addressing the root cause of issues is prioritized to ensure long-term stability and efficiency in the network environment.

Firstly, enforcing a minimum password length of 12 characters, along with complexity requirements (including uppercase letters, numbers, and special characters), significantly enhances the strength of user passwords. This is essential because weak passwords are a common vulnerability that can be exploited by attackers. Additionally, requiring full disk encryption on all devices ensures that data is protected at rest, making it inaccessible to unauthorized users even if a device is lost or stolen. On the other hand, allowing users to set their own password complexity (as suggested in option b) can lead to inconsistent security practices, as not all users may choose strong passwords. Furthermore, enabling encryption only on devices that access sensitive data creates a gap in security for devices that may still hold valuable information. Options c and d present significant risks. A maximum password age of 90 days without complexity requirements (option c) does not adequately protect against brute-force attacks, and disabling encryption compromises the security of all devices, potentially exposing sensitive data. Similarly, a password length of only 8 characters with no complexity requirements (option d) is insufficient in today’s threat landscape, and allowing unrestricted app installations can lead to the introduction of malicious software. In summary, the best security posture is achieved by implementing stringent password policies and ensuring that all devices are encrypted, thereby creating a robust defense against potential threats while maintaining compliance with relevant regulations.

Once the sign-in logs are retrieved, the company can perform client-side processing to calculate the total number of sign-ins, the average session duration, and the number of unique users. This method is advantageous because it leverages the capabilities of the API to provide raw data while allowing for flexible data manipulation on the client side. In contrast, option b is inefficient as it requires multiple API calls—one for each user—which can lead to performance bottlenecks, especially in larger organizations. Option c suggests using the `/reports/getUserActivity` endpoint but fails to recognize that this endpoint may not provide all the necessary metrics in a single call, leading to additional requests. Lastly, option d, while potentially viable, introduces unnecessary complexity and overhead by requiring the development of a custom API, which may not be needed given the existing capabilities of the Microsoft Graph API. Thus, the optimal solution is to utilize the `/auditLogs/signIns` endpoint, allowing for efficient data retrieval and processing while adhering to the company’s performance policies. This approach not only meets the reporting requirements but also aligns with best practices for API usage in terms of minimizing calls and maximizing data utility.

One significant factor that can affect update deployment is the configuration of network settings on the devices. If the devices are set to use metered connections, Windows will limit the amount of data used for updates to avoid exceeding data caps. This means that even if updates are available, they may not be downloaded or installed until the connection is no longer metered. This setting is particularly relevant in environments where bandwidth is a concern, such as remote offices or users with limited internet access. Additionally, while the deferral settings do delay the application of feature and quality updates, they do not prevent critical security updates from being installed. Therefore, option b is incorrect as critical updates would still be applied regardless of the deferral settings. Option c, which suggests that devices are not connected to the corporate network, could be a factor, but it does not directly relate to the update settings themselves. Devices can still receive updates over the internet if they are configured correctly. Lastly, while option d mentions the Windows Update service being disabled, this is less likely to be the root cause if the devices are otherwise functioning normally. The primary issue here revolves around the metered connection setting, which directly impacts the ability of devices to download updates as intended. Understanding these nuances is essential for effective management of updates in a corporate environment, ensuring that devices remain secure and up-to-date without unnecessary delays.

Enabling full disk encryption is essential for protecting sensitive data on devices, especially in industries that handle confidential information. This ensures that even if a device is lost or stolen, the data remains inaccessible without the proper credentials. Additionally, restricting app installations to a pre-approved list mitigates the risk of malware and unverified applications, which can compromise device security. In contrast, the other options present various vulnerabilities. For instance, a password length of 8 characters or less is generally considered weak, as it can be easily compromised. Allowing encryption only for sensitive data or disabling encryption entirely exposes the organization to significant risks, particularly in the event of data breaches. Furthermore, permitting users to install apps from any source can lead to the introduction of malicious software, undermining the integrity of the device management strategy. Overall, the selected configuration not only meets compliance requirements but also fosters a secure environment while maintaining a reasonable level of user flexibility. This approach is vital for organizations aiming to protect their assets while enabling productivity.

Moreover, the provisioning package should be tailored to include necessary customizations that meet the organization’s requirements, such as specific user account settings, network configurations, and application installations. Relying solely on default settings (as suggested in option b) may not address unique organizational needs, potentially resulting in a suboptimal user experience. Additionally, limiting the package to only application installations (as in option c) neglects the importance of user account configurations, which are vital for ensuring that users can log in and access their resources seamlessly. Lastly, creating a package in an unsupported format (as in option d) would not only hinder the deployment process but also complicate troubleshooting efforts, as the package would not function as intended within the Windows Autopilot framework. In summary, the key to a successful deployment lies in ensuring compatibility with the AAD tenant used by Windows Autopilot, while also incorporating necessary customizations to meet organizational requirements. This approach facilitates a smooth integration and enhances the overall user experience during the device provisioning process.

Reinstalling the endpoint management solution (option b) may not address the underlying issue, as it does not directly relate to the permissions set by Group Policy. Additionally, while checking network connectivity (option c) is a valid troubleshooting step, if other users can access the shared drives without issue, it suggests that the problem is not with the network itself but rather with the permissions or policies applied to the affected users. Disabling the firewall (option d) is generally not advisable as a first step, as it could expose the network to security risks. Firewalls are crucial for protecting network resources, and disabling them could lead to further vulnerabilities. Instead, the focus should remain on ensuring that the Group Policy settings are correctly configured to allow access to the shared drives. By systematically reviewing and adjusting these settings, the IT team can effectively resolve the access issues while maintaining the security and integrity of the network.

Disabling the user account without investigation is a reactive measure that may not address the root cause of the issue. It could also disrupt legitimate user activities and lead to operational inefficiencies. Ignoring the incident is a significant oversight, as it could allow an attacker to maintain access to the network undetected. Lastly, reviewing only the audit logs for the specific user account without considering other related logs or events limits the scope of the investigation and may result in missing critical information that could help in understanding the full context of the incident. By taking a holistic approach to log analysis, the IT team can better understand the incident, identify any patterns of unauthorized access, and implement appropriate security measures to prevent future occurrences. This includes enhancing monitoring capabilities, updating security policies, and educating users about safe practices. Overall, a thorough investigation of audit logs, combined with cross-referencing other relevant logs, is essential for effective incident response and improving the organization’s security posture.

In terms of data, if each device has an average of 5 GB of user data, the total amount of data being migrated is \(150 \text{ devices} \times 5 \text{ GB/device} = 750 \text{ GB}\). However, the size of the data does not affect the total time required for the migration when done in parallel. When configuring the USMT, the IT team must ensure that the tool is set up to capture all necessary user data, including user profiles, application settings, and data files. This involves using the correct command-line options and ensuring that the XML configuration files (such as the MigUser.xml and MigApp.xml) are properly defined to include all relevant data. Additionally, the team should consider the network bandwidth and storage capacity for the migration process, as transferring large amounts of data can impact performance. Moreover, testing the migration process on a small group of devices before a full rollout is crucial to identify any potential issues. This pre-migration testing can help ensure that all user settings and data are correctly captured and restored, minimizing disruptions for end-users during the upgrade process. By taking these considerations into account, the IT team can facilitate a smooth and efficient migration using the USMT.

In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about the consequences of non-compliance. For instance, while a data breach investigation may be necessary if a breach occurs, the GDPR does not mandate a full investigation simply due to non-compliance without an incident. Additionally, the GDPR does not stipulate automatic loss of customer data based on compliance failures, nor does it provide exemptions from future audits based on past compliance issues. Instead, organizations are expected to continuously demonstrate compliance and may face repeated audits if issues are identified. Therefore, the most significant and immediate consequence of failing to address compliance issues under GDPR is the potential for substantial financial penalties, which can severely impact the organization’s financial health and reputation.

To achieve the desired outcome of rapid deployment for the “Fast Ring” while ensuring a safety net for the “Slow Ring,” the best practice is to configure the “Fast Ring” to receive updates immediately after their release. This allows the organization to take advantage of the latest features and security improvements without delay. However, for the “Slow Ring,” implementing a 30-day delay provides a buffer period during which any potential issues can be identified and addressed. This delay is critical as it allows IT administrators to monitor the performance of the updates in the “Fast Ring” and make informed decisions about whether to proceed with the updates in the “Slow Ring.” Additionally, having a rollback option for the “Slow Ring” is a best practice that ensures that if any issues arise from the updates, devices can revert to a previous stable state. This approach minimizes disruption to users and maintains operational continuity. The other options presented do not align with best practices; for instance, simultaneous updates for both rings could lead to instability in the “Slow Ring,” while delaying the “Fast Ring” updates would negate the purpose of having a fast deployment strategy. Thus, the configuration that balances speed and safety is the most effective strategy for managing updates across different device groups.

\[ P’ = P + 0.3P \] This simplifies to: \[ P’ = 1.3P \] This means that the post-training proficiency score must be at least 1.3 times the pre-training score. Now, let’s evaluate the options provided. The first option states that \( P’ \) should be at least \( P + 0.3P \), which is correct as it directly reflects the calculation we derived. The second option suggests that \( P’ \) should be at least \( P + 0.3 \), which is incorrect because it does not account for the percentage increase relative to the original score. The third option states that \( P’ \) should be at least \( 1.3P \), which is a correct representation of the required outcome but is less explicit than the first option. The fourth option, \( P’ \) should be at least \( P \times 1.3 \), is mathematically equivalent to the third option but uses a different phrasing that may confuse some. In conclusion, the correct interpretation of the requirement for a 30% improvement in proficiency is that the post-training score must be at least \( 1.3P \), which aligns with the first option’s expression. This understanding is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of user training and ensuring that the training sessions meet their intended goals.

On the other hand, device-driven enrollment, where IT enrolls devices directly, is typically used for corporate-owned devices. In this case, the IT department will enroll 50 devices, which allows for a more controlled setup and configuration, ensuring that all security policies are applied consistently from the outset. The combination of these two methods allows the organization to balance user autonomy with security compliance. By leveraging user-driven enrollment for personal devices, the company can foster a more engaged workforce while still maintaining oversight through policies that enforce security standards. This dual approach not only streamlines the enrollment process but also mitigates potential security risks associated with unmanaged devices accessing sensitive information. Therefore, the total number of devices enrolled using user-driven methods is 100, which significantly impacts the overall management strategy by enhancing user experience while ensuring compliance with security protocols.

On the other hand, simply increasing the number of support staff may lead to a temporary solution but does not address the root cause of the performance issues. This strategy could result in a cycle of high demand for support without improving the overall user experience. Additionally, focusing solely on resolving individual tickets without analyzing the broader impact of the software update can lead to repeated issues and a lack of systemic improvement. Lastly, reverting all user devices to the previous software version without proper communication can create confusion and distrust among users, as they may not understand the rationale behind such a decision. In summary, a proactive communication strategy not only addresses immediate concerns but also fosters a collaborative environment where users feel informed and supported. This approach aligns with best practices in user support, emphasizing the importance of transparency and user empowerment in managing technology-related challenges.

Since the update is released on January 1st, the devices will not receive this update until the deferral period has expired. Therefore, the update will be applied on January 31st, which is exactly 30 days after the release date. If the company decides to apply the update immediately after the deferral period ends, the devices will receive the update on January 31st, and it will have been 30 days since the update was released. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding the implications of deferral settings in Windows Update for Business. Organizations must carefully consider their update policies to balance security needs with operational requirements. By deferring updates, they can ensure that updates are tested and validated before deployment, but they must also be aware of the risks associated with delaying critical updates, especially those related to security vulnerabilities. In this case, the company effectively managed its update strategy while adhering to its deferral settings, ensuring that devices remain secure without compromising their operational integrity.

User-driven enrollment is particularly effective in environments where employees use their personal devices (BYOD) or when there is a diverse range of devices, such as Windows, iOS, and Android. This method not only enhances user engagement but also aligns with modern workplace trends that favor flexibility and autonomy. In contrast, mandating a centralized IT process may lead to resistance from users, as it can be perceived as intrusive and may hinder productivity. While maintaining control is important, overly restrictive measures can create friction and reduce overall compliance. Choosing a third-party MDM solution instead of Intune can introduce compatibility issues and complicate the management landscape, as it may not integrate seamlessly with existing Microsoft services. This could lead to increased overhead and potential security vulnerabilities. Lastly, enforcing strict compliance policies that require factory resets can be counterproductive. While ensuring compliance is essential, such a requirement may deter users from enrolling their devices, especially if they have important data or applications that would be lost in the process. A balanced approach that prioritizes user experience while maintaining compliance is crucial for successful device management in an organization. In summary, the best practice for optimizing the enrollment experience in Microsoft Intune is to implement a user-driven enrollment process, which fosters user engagement, enhances compliance, and aligns with organizational policies.

For instance, the finance department requires access to sensitive financial data, which should be restricted to only those users whose roles necessitate such access. Conversely, the marketing department’s access should be limited to tools that facilitate customer engagement, without exposing them to sensitive financial information. This tailored approach not only adheres to the principle of least privilege but also enhances operational efficiency by clearly delineating access rights based on departmental needs. Creating a single role for all employees (option b) would violate the principle of least privilege, as it would grant unnecessary access to sensitive resources for users who do not require it. Similarly, assigning permissions based on seniority (option c) disregards the specific needs of different roles and could lead to significant security risks. Lastly, allowing users to request additional permissions as needed (option d) can lead to a lack of control and oversight, potentially resulting in excessive access being granted without proper justification. Therefore, the most effective strategy is to implement a role-based access control system that aligns with the principle of least privilege, ensuring that users have access only to the resources essential for their job functions.

The importance of compliance cannot be overstated; devices that do not meet the organization’s security requirements should be restricted from accessing corporate resources. This is typically enforced through compliance policies set within Intune, which can check for various criteria such as operating system version, security updates, and the presence of required applications. By ensuring that devices are compliant before granting access, the organization mitigates risks associated with data breaches and unauthorized access. In contrast, manually enrolling devices (as suggested in option b) is inefficient and prone to human error, leading to potential gaps in security management. Relying on a third-party MDM solution (option c) may complicate the management process and could lead to integration issues with Azure AD. Lastly, disabling automatic enrollment (option d) undermines the benefits of a streamlined management process and could result in inconsistent device compliance across the organization. Thus, the correct approach is to configure automatic enrollment in Intune through Azure AD settings, ensuring that devices are compliant with security policies before accessing corporate resources. This not only enhances security but also simplifies device management in a cloud-first environment.

By configuring feature updates to defer for 365 days, the organization ensures that no new features are introduced without adequate testing, which is crucial for maintaining system stability and compatibility with existing applications. This long deferral period allows the IT team to evaluate the impact of new features in a controlled environment before rolling them out to all users. On the other hand, security updates are critical for protecting devices from vulnerabilities and threats. The requirement to install security updates automatically within 14 days aligns with best practices for cybersecurity, as it minimizes the window of exposure to potential attacks. WUfB allows administrators to set policies that ensure security updates are applied promptly, thus maintaining compliance with the organization’s security policy. The other options present various shortcomings. For instance, automatically installing feature updates (option b) could lead to unexpected issues if new features are not properly vetted. Deferring security updates (option c) contradicts the requirement for timely updates, and deferring both updates (option d) could leave devices vulnerable for too long, especially if critical security patches are delayed. In summary, the optimal configuration leverages WUfB’s capabilities to ensure that security updates are applied promptly while allowing for extensive testing of feature updates, thereby aligning with the organization’s policies and best practices in endpoint management.

1. **Calculating the number of bits for subnets**: The formula to calculate the number of subnets is given by \(2^n\), where \(n\) is the number of bits borrowed from the host portion of the address. To accommodate at least 5 subnets, we need to find the smallest \(n\) such that \(2^n \geq 5\). The smallest \(n\) that satisfies this condition is \(3\) because \(2^3 = 8\), which provides enough subnets. 2. **Calculating the number of bits for hosts**: The remaining bits will be used for hosts. The original subnet mask for a /24 network has 8 bits for the host portion (since \(32 – 24 = 8\)). After borrowing 3 bits for subnetting, we have \(8 – 3 = 5\) bits left for hosts. The formula to calculate the number of hosts is \(2^m – 2\), where \(m\) is the number of bits available for hosts (the subtraction of 2 accounts for the network and broadcast addresses). Thus, with 5 bits, we can have \(2^5 – 2 = 32 – 2 = 30\) usable host addresses, which meets the requirement. 3. **Determining the new subnet mask**: Since we borrowed 3 bits from the host portion, the new subnet mask becomes \(24 + 3 = 27\). In decimal notation, a /27 subnet mask is represented as 255.255.255.224. In summary, the subnet mask of 255.255.255.224 allows for 8 subnets, each capable of supporting 30 hosts, thus fulfilling the company’s requirements effectively. The other options do not meet both criteria: 255.255.255.192 allows for only 62 hosts but provides only 4 subnets, 255.255.255.240 allows for 14 hosts per subnet but provides 16 subnets, and 255.255.255.128 allows for 126 hosts but only provides 2 subnets. Therefore, the correct subnet mask is 255.255.255.224.