A mid-sized insurer is rolling out a claims platform that will be used by adjusters, supervisors, fraud investigators, and external loss assessors. The CISO wants entitlements to remain stable as people move between branches and as the company acquires smaller brokers. Joiner-mover-leaver volumes have tripled in eighteen months and HR has just published a tidy job catalogue. Which authorization model should the security architect recommend as the primary basis for access decisions on the new platform?
- ARole-based access control aligned to the HR job catalogue, with role assignments driven by position changes Correct
- BDiscretionary access control, so each claims manager can grant their team the entitlements they need on the cases they own
- CAttribute-based access control evaluating dozens of user, resource, and environmental attributes on every request
- DMandatory access control with sensitivity labels assigned to every claim file and cleared per user
Why A is correct: RBAC anchored to an authoritative HR catalogue scales cleanly across branches and acquisitions: people move, their role assignment moves, and entitlements follow without ad hoc grants.
Why B is wrong: DAC pushes grant decisions to data owners, which feels responsive but produces inconsistent entitlements across branches and is exactly what struggles under high joiner-mover-leaver churn and acquisitions.
Why C is wrong: ABAC is powerful and a defensible second choice, but starting an enterprise rollout there is over-engineered when a clean job catalogue already supports a simpler RBAC baseline that the business can govern.
Why D is wrong: MAC suits classified or strongly regulated label-driven environments; imposing labels and clearances on commercial claims data adds operational burden without matching the actual confidentiality model of the business.