Visit here for our full Palo Alto Networks NGFW-Engineer exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 41:
An administrator is configuring a new Palo Alto Networks firewall and wants to ensure that all web traffic to external sites is decrypted for threat inspection. However, corporate policy mandates that traffic destined for specific financial and healthcare partner domains must not be decrypted dueto privacy and compliance regulations. The administrator has already configured a main SSL Forward Proxy decryption policy. Which configuration component is the most precise and efficient method to meet this specific requirement?
A) Create a URL Filtering profile with the sensitive domains added to a custom category set to “block”.
B) Configure a Decryption policy rule placed above the main decryption rule, using a custom URL Category for the financial/healthcare domains, and set the action to “No Decrypt”.
C) Configure a Decryption policy rule placed below the main decryption rule, using the predefined “financial-services” and “health-and-medicine” URL categories, and set the action to “No Decrypt”.
D) Create individual Security policy rules for each sensitive domain with the application set to “ssl” and the service set to “service-https”, and set the action to “Allow”.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B, which involves creating a “No Decrypt” Decryption policy rule placed strategically before the general decryption rule, using a custom URL category to define the exception domains.
Why B (Configure a Decryption policy rule placed above the main decryption rule, using a custom URL Category for the financial/healthcare domains, and set the action to “No Decrypt”.) is Correct: Palo Alto Networks firewalls process policies in a top-down, first-match fashion. This logic applies to Security policies, NAT policies, and Decryption policies. The goal is to create a specific exception to a general rule. The general rule is “decrypt everything” (the main SSL Forward Proxy rule). The specific exception is “do not decrypt traffic to these specific domains.” To create this exception, a new rule must be created that matches the exception traffic first. By placing a rule above the general decryption rule, the firewall evaluates it first. This new rule should use a matching condition that precisely identifies the traffic to be excluded. A custom URL Category is the ideal tool for this, as it allows the administrator to create a precise list of domains (e.g., partner-bank.com, healthcare-provider.org). The action for this rule must be set to “No Decrypt”. When a user attempts to access a domain in this custom URL category, the session matches this first rule, the “No Decrypt” action is applied, and the traffic is passed through (or blocked by Security policy) without decryption. The firewall then stops processing further Decryption policy rules for that session.
Why A (Create a URL Filtering profile with the sensitive domains added to a custom category set to “block”.) is Incorrect: This option is fundamentally incorrect because its objective is different. A URL Filtering profile set to “block” will prevent users from accessing those sites entirely. The requirement is not to block access but to allow access while skipping decryption. This configuration would stop all business with those partners, which is not the desired outcome. URL Filtering profiles are attached to Security policies to control access, whereas Decryption policies control the inspection level of allowed traffic.
Why C (Configure a Decryption policy rule placed below the main decryption rule, using the predefined “financial-services” and “health-and-medicine” URL categories, and set the action to “No Decrypt”.) is Incorrect: This option has two critical flaws. First, it suggests placing the exception rule below the main decryption rule. Because of the top-down, first-match logic, the traffic would match the “decrypt everything” rule first, and the “No Decrypt” exception rule would never be evaluated. This placement renders the rule ineffective. Second, while using predefined categories like “financial-services” is convenient, it is not precise. The requirement is for specific partner domains, not all financial or health domains. Using the broad predefined category might exclude far too much traffic from inspection, creating security blind spots, or it might not even include the specific partner domains if they are not categorized as such. A custom URL Category is the correct tool for specific domains.
Why D (Create individual Security policy rules for each sensitive domain with the application set to “ssl” and the service set to “service-https”, and set the action to “Allow”.) is Incorrect: This option confuses the function of Security policies with Decryption policies. A Security policy rule with action “Allow” simply permits the traffic to be evaluated for session setup. It does not control whether the content of that allowed session is decrypted. SSL decryption is a separate policy set. Even if this Security rule is matched, the traffic will still be passed to the Decryption policy engine, where it would match the “decrypt everything” rule and be decrypted. This configuration does not create the required decryption exception. The control for decryption must happen within the Decryption policy itself.
Question 42:
A firewall administrator is troubleshooting a complex User-ID mapping issue in a large enterprise environment. Users in the ‘Operations’ Active Directory (AD) group are inconsistently receiving the correct security policy, which should allow them access to a custom application identified as ‘ops-tool’. The User-ID agent is configured to monitor domain controller security logs. The administrator notices that the mappings for some users disappear prematurely, while others map to incorrect IP addresses, especially in a specific subnet that uses DHCP with very short lease times. Which User-ID mapping method should the administrator investigate and implement to provide the most reliable and deterministic user-to-IP mapping in this volatile DHCP environment?
A) Client Probing
B) Session Monitoring
C) X-Forwarded-For (XFF) Headers
D) GlobalProtect Client
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B, Session Monitoring. This method involves the User-ID agent (or agentless monitoring) querying the session table of workstations or servers to verify the logged-in user, providing a more reliable alternative when log-scraping is insufficient.
Why B (Session Monitoring) is Correct: Session Monitoring, also known as WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) probing in some contexts, is a proactive method used by the User-ID agent to validate or discover user mappings. Instead of passively waiting for a security log event (which might be missed or delayed), the agent actively queries the endpoints (workstations) in the network. It checks the network session table on the endpoint to see which user is logged in. This method is exceptionally effective in environments with short DHCP leases because even if an IP address is reassigned, the User-ID agent can re-probe that IP and discover the new user associated with it, or confirm the old user is gone. In the scenario described, mappings are “inconsistently” applied and “disappear prematurely.” This strongly suggests the passive log-scraping method is failing. This can happen if log events are overwritten too quickly on busy domain controllers or if workstations don’t generate logon events (e.g., resuming from sleep). Session Monitoring directly counteracts this by actively polling the endpoints for ground-truth user information, making it far more deterministic and reliable in a dynamic VDI or short-lease DHCP environment.
Why A (Client Probing) is Incorrect: Client Probing is a secondary mechanism, but it is less comprehensive than Session Monitoring. Client Probing (often used interchangeably with WMI probing, but distinct from “Session Monitoring” in some PAN-OS documentation) is typically used when the primary method (like DC log monitoring) fails. The User-ID agent will attempt to connect to the IP address in question (e.g., via WMI or NetBIOS) to query the logged-in user. While useful, “Session Monitoring” (monitoring the session information on the server or endpoint) is the more robust and direct method described to solve this. More importantly, Session Monitoring is the broader term for discovering mappings from endpoint sessions, which is the correct solution. If the problem is purely short DHCP leases, Session Monitoring’s active polling is superior to the more reactive nature of Client Probing, which often kicks in after a failed lookup.
Why C (X-Forwarded-For (XFF) Headers) is Incorrect: X-Forwarded-For (XFF) is an HTTP header field used to identify the originating IP address of a client connecting to a web server through a proxy or load balancer. The Palo Alto Networks firewall can be configured to parse these headers to identify the true client IP for policy. This is a very specific User-ID mechanism used only for web traffic passing through an internal proxy. The scenario describes a general mapping problem for a custom application (‘ops-tool’), not specifically web traffic, and the root cause appears to be DHCP and log volatility, not proxying. XFF headers are irrelevant to solving a core user-to-IP mapping issue across the general network.
Why D (GlobalProtect Client) is Incorrect: While installing the GlobalProtect client on every endpoint would provide the most reliable User-ID mapping (as the client directly communicates the username and IP to the firewall), it is not the most logical answer based on the prompt. The prompt implies a standard on-premise network and asks the administrator to investigate and implement a method to fix the existing configuration, which is based on the User-ID agent. Suggesting a massive new software deployment (GlobalProtect) across all workstations is a different solution category. The question is about optimizing the current User-ID agent-based architecture. Within the context of agent-based and agentless monitoring, Session Monitoring is the correct feature to investigate for this specific problem.
Question 43:
A security engineer observes that a novel, zero-day malware variant was successfully downloaded by an internal user. The firewall’s logs indicate that the file was allowed. Upon investigating the WildFire analysis report for the file’s hash, the verdict is “malware”. The file was downloaded at 10:00 AM. The WildFire report shows a “malware” verdict was rendered at 10:05 AM, and the logs show the firewall’s threat database was successfully updated with new signatures at 10:30 AM. What feature, if configured correctly, could have retroactively identified and alerted on the user who downloaded this file after the “malware” verdict was received but before the administrator manually investigated?
A) A URL Filtering profile with the “check for new wildfire verdicts” option enabled.
B) A WildFire Update Schedule set to 1 minute.
C) The WildFire “Forward to AutoFocus” setting.
D) A Log Forwarding profile that forwards WildFire logs to an external syslog server.
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A, which points to a specific and often overlooked feature in URL Filtering profiles designed for exactly this “patient zero” scenario.
Why A (A URL Filtering profile with the “check for new wildfire verdicts” option enabled.) is Correct: This is a nuanced feature. When a file is downloaded, the firewall not only submits it to WildFire but also logs the URL from which it was downloaded. If the file is initially unknown, it is allowed (barring other policies). Later, WildFire analyzes the file and renders a “malware” verdict. At this point, WildFire correlates the malicious file with the URL that hosted it. This URL is then re-categorized as “malware” in the PAN-DB URL database. The feature “check for new wildfire verdicts” (or similar wording in PAN-OS versions) within a URL Filtering profile enables the firewall to perform a retroactive check. The firewall’s logs contain the original URL download event. When the PAN-DB is updated with the new malicious URL categorization (which happens very quickly after a verdict), this feature can trigger a log entry or alert. This log, often called a “WildFire-benign-to-malicious” log or similar, specifically flags the original session that downloaded the now-known-malicious file from the now-known-malicious URL. This directly addresses the requirement to “retroactively identify” the user.
Why B (A WildFire Update Schedule set to 1 minute.) is Correct: This is a critical part of the WildFire solution, but it does not, by itself, solve the retroactive identification problem. The WildFire Update Schedule controls how often the firewall pulls down the latest signatures from the WildFire cloud after a verdict has been rendered. In the scenario, the verdict was rendered at 10:05 AM, and the update happened at 10:30 AM (a 25-minute gap). Setting this to 1 minute would have reduced that gap, meaning the firewall would have had the signature by ~10:06 AM. This is a best practice and would have protected all subsequent users from downloading the file. However, it does not retroactively identify the “patient zero” who downloaded it at 10:00 AM. The log entry for the 10:00 AM event has already been written as “allow.” This option prevents future infections but does not alert on the past one.
Why C (The WildFire “Forward to AutoFocus” setting.) is Incorrect: AutoFocus is a separate, subscription-based threat intelligence service. Forwarding WildFire logs to AutoFocus allows for massive-scale correlation and analysis of threat data across an organization and the entire AutoFocus community. While the administrator could manually log into AutoFocus, search for the hash, and then pivot to find the internal user, this is not an automatic or retroactive alerting feature on the firewall itself. The question asks for a feature that could have “retroactively identified and alerted” on the user, implying an automated log or alert generated by the firewall. AutoFocus is a powerful manual investigation tool, not an automatic firewall-level alerting mechanism for this specific scenario.
Why D (A Log Forwarding profile that forwards WildFire logs to an external syslog server.) is Incorrect: A Log Forwarding profile simply dictates where logs are sent (e.g., Panorama, syslog, email). Forwarding the original WildFire log (which would have shown “file submitted” or “benign” at 10:00 AM) to a syslog server does not change the content of the log. The syslog server would receive a log at 10:00 AM showing an allowed download. It would then receive another log at 10:05 AM (or when the verdict is available) showing the “malware” verdict. A human or a complex SIEM correlation rule would be required to piece these two events together. This is not a built-in, automated feature of the firewall itself. The feature in option A is specifically designed for this retroactive correlation on the box (or via Panorama) to generate a new, actionable log entry.
Question 44:
A network security engineer is tasked with configuring High Availability (HA) between two identical PA-3220 firewalls. The primary goal is to ensure seamless failover for all traffic, including long-lived sessions like remote desktop protocol (RDP) and database connections. The engineer has cabled the dedicated HA1 and HA2 ports. Which HA configuration setting is essential for ensuring that these long-lived, existing sessions are not dropped during a failover event?
A) Enabling “Session Synchronization” in the Active/Passive HA configuration.
B) Configuring a “Path Monitoring” group for the upstream router interfaces.
C) Setting the “HA1 Heartbeat Interval” to a low value, such as 1000 milliseconds.
D) Enabling “LACP” on the data interfaces to bundle them for redundancy.
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A, as “Session Synchronization” is the specific feature responsible for transferring session state from the active to the passive firewall, allowing the passive firewall to take over sessions without interruption.
Why A (Enabling “Session Synchronization” in the Active/Passive HA configuration.) is Correct: By default, in an Active/Passive HA pair, only the Active firewall processes traffic and maintains a session table. The Passive firewall is idle, waiting to take over. If a failover occurs without session synchronization, the Active firewall’s state (including the session table) is lost. When the Passive firewall becomes Active, it has no knowledge of the existing sessions. All traffic from these sessions (like RDP and database connections) will arrive at the new Active firewall, which will not find a matching session in its table. This traffic will be dropped (or re-evaluated by policy, which often fails for mid-stream sessions), forcing users to re-establish all connections. When “Session Synchronization” is enabled, the Active firewall continuously copies its session table (including session state, NAT translations, security policy matches, etc.) to the Passive firewall over the HA2 link. If a failover occurs, the Passive firewall already has a perfect copy of the session table and can seamlessly take over processing the packets for those long-lived sessions, making the failover transparent to end-users.
Why B (Configuring a “Path Monitoring” group for the upstream router interfaces.) is Incorrect: Path Monitoring is a crucial HA feature, but it serves a different purpose. Path Monitoring is used to monitor the reachability of critical external devices, such as upstream routers or downstream servers. It allows the firewall to detect failures that are not on the firewall itself (e.g., a “link-up” interface connected to a “dead” switch). If a monitored path fails, it can trigger an HA failover. While this is essential for a robust HA design, it does not control what happens to the sessions during the failover. A failover triggered by Path Monitoring will still drop all sessions unless Session Synchronization (Option A) is also enabled.
Why C (Setting the “HA1 Heartbeat Interval” to a low value, such as 1000 milliseconds.) is Incorrect: The HA1 Heartbeat Interval controls how frequently the two firewalls exchange “hello” packets over the HA1 (control) link to verify that the peer is alive and responsive. A lower interval allows for faster detection of a peer failure. This is part of tuning the failover trigger, not the failover behavior. Similar to Option B, this setting helps determine when to failover, but it does nothing to preserve the sessions. The sessions will still be dropped on failover if synchronization is not enabled, regardless of how fast the heartbeat interval is.
Why D (Enabling “LACP” on the data interfaces to bundle them for redundancy.) is Incorrect: LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) is a Layer 2 protocol used to bundle multiple physical interfaces into a single logical “aggregate” interface. This is used for two main purposes: increasing bandwidth and providing link-level redundancy (if one physical link in the bundle fails, traffic continues over the others). While LACP is commonly used in conjunction with HA deployments for data interface redundancy, it is completely separate from the stateful failover of the firewall cluster itself. LACP provides redundancy for the links, while HA provides redundancy for the device. Enabling LACP will not synchronize the session table between the two firewall chassis.
Question 45:
An administrator has configured a “Security” profile group that includes profiles for Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, and Vulnerability Protection. This profile group is attached to a Security policy rule allowing ‘Trust’ to ‘Untrust’ traffic. A user in the ‘Trust’ zone attempts to download a file that is a known, low-severity “adware” variant. The Anti-Spyware profile is configured with the default “alert” action for the “adware” category. The Antivirus profile is configured to “reset-both” for all malware. The Vulnerability Protection profile is set to “drop” for critical-severity vulnerabilities. What will be the final action taken by the firewall for this specific adware file download?
A) The file download will be allowed, and an “alert” will be generated in the threat logs.
B) The file download will be blocked, and the session will be terminated with a “reset-both” action.
C) The file download will be blocked, and the packets will be “dropped”.
D) The firewall will take no action as “adware” is not considered true malware.
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A because the most-specific profile (Anti-Spyware) configured for the specific threat (adware) has the action “alert”, which is a non-blocking action.
Why A (The file download will be allowed, and an “alert” will be generated in the threat logs.) is Correct: The Palo Alto Networks firewall applies the most specific threat-prevention profile to a given threat. In this scenario, the file is identified as “adware.” Adware is a category handled by the Anti-Spyware profile, not the Antivirus profile. The Antivirus profile primarily looks for viruses, worms, and trojans. The Anti-Spyware profile looks for spyware, adware, keyloggers, and similar threats. Since the prompt explicitly states the Anti-Spyware profile is set to “alert” for the “adware” category, this is the action that will be taken. The “alert” action is a non-blocking action; it logs the event in the Threat log but allows the traffic (the file download) to complete. The other profiles (Antivirus and Vulnerability Protection) are irrelevant because the threat “adware” does not match their criteria.
Why B (The file download will be blocked, and the session will be terminated with a “reset-both” action.) is Incorrect: This action (“reset-both”) is configured in the Antivirus profile. However, the threat is “adware,” which is handled by the Anti-Spyware profile. The Antivirus profile’s actions will not be triggered unless a threat signature matching its criteria (e.g., a virus) is also detected in the file. Since the file is only identified as adware, the Anti-Spyware profile’s action takes precedence, and the Antivirus profile’s action is not applied.
Why C (The file download will be blocked, and the packets will be “dropped”.) is Incorrect: This action (“drop”) is configured in the Vulnerability Protection profile. Vulnerability Protection (VP) profiles are designed to block exploits against applications and operating systems, not to block malicious files. VP scans for traffic patterns that match known vulnerability exploits (e.g., a buffer overflow attempt). A file download, even of an adware file, is not itself a vulnerability exploit. Therefore, the Vulnerability Protection profile will not find a match and will not take any action.
Why D (The firewall will take no action as “adware” is not considered true malware.) is Incorrect: This is factually incorrect. The Palo Alto Networks firewall does identify and take action on adware. “Adware” is a standard threat category within the Anti-Spyware profile. The firewall will take action; the specific action taken is just “alert” (a non-blocking action) because that is what the administrator configured. If the administrator had set the “adware” category to “drop” or “reset-both” in the Anti-Spyware profile, the file would have been blocked. The “alert” action is a conscious configuration choice, not a lack of capability.
Question 46:
A network engineer is designing a destination NAT solution for an internal web server. The web server has an internal IP of 10.1.1.100. The company wants this server to be accessible from the internet via the public IP 1.1.1.1 on port 443. The public IP 1.1.1.1 is configured on the firewall’s ‘Untrust’ interface (ethernet1/1). The web server is located in the ‘DMZ’ zone. A security policy rule has already been created to allow traffic from ‘Untrust’ to ‘DMZ’ for the ‘web-browsing’ application. However, external users report they cannot access the server. The engineer verifies the NAT policy is configured as follows:
Original Packet -> Source Zone: Untrust
- Original Packet -> Destination Zone: Untrust
- Original Packet -> Destination Address: 1.1.1.1
- Translated Packet -> Destination Translation: 10.1.1.100
- Translated Packet -> Destination Port Translation: 443
What is the fundamental error in this NAT policy configuration?
A) The Original Packet “Destination Zone” should be “DMZ”.
B) A “Security” policy rule is required before the NAT policy will be processed.
C) The “Translated Packet” should also include a “Source Translation” to hide the client’s IP.
D) The “Original Packet” Source Zone should be “any”.
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A. The Destination NAT (DNAT) policy is evaluated before the Security policy, and it uses the original packet’s destination zone to determine the final destination zone, which is then used in the Security policy lookup. The configuration in the prompt incorrectly sets the original destination zone.
Why A (The Original Packet “Destination Zone” should be “DMZ”.) is Correct: This is a common and fundamental point of confusion in PAN-OS NAT configuration. When configuring a Destination NAT policy for inbound traffic (from Untrust to DMZ), the firewall’s logic needs to determine the final destination zone of the packet after translation. The “Destination Zone” field in the Original Packet section of the NAT rule is used for this purpose. The administrator must specify the zone where the translated destination IP address resides. In this case, the translated IP is 10.1.1.100, which is in the “DMZ” zone. Therefore, the NAT rule’s “Destination Zone” must be set to “DMZ”. The firewall uses this to understand that the packet is destined for the DMZ zone, and it will use this “DMZ” zone as the destination zone when it performs the subsequent Security policy lookup (matching the “Untrust-to-DMZ” Security rule). The prompt shows the “Destination Zone” as “Untrust,” which is incorrect. The firewall would not find a match for a packet arriving at the Untrust interface destined for the Untrust zone (a U-turn scenario), and the NAT rule would not be applied.
Why B (A “Security” policy rule is required before the NAT policy will be processed.) is Incorrect: This reverses the packet processing order. On a Palo Alto Networks firewall for a new session, the packet flow for inbound traffic is (simplified):
Ingress interface, check for existing session. (No session exists).
Check NAT policy for Destination NAT. (This is where the DNAT rule is evaluated).
Perform Security policy lookup (using the post-NAT destination IP and post-NAT destination zone).
Perform Security policy enforcement (Content-ID, etc.). The NAT policy is evaluated before the Security policy to determine the true destination of the packet. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
Why C (The “Translated Packet” should also include a “Source Translation” to hide the client’s IP.) is Incorrect: This is not required for a standard Destination NAT. The goal of DNAT is to change the destination address. The server (10.1.1.100) needs to see the original client’s source IP so it knows where to send the reply. If you were to apply Source NAT (SNAT) here, the server would see all incoming traffic as coming from the firewall’s IP address. This would break logging on the server and is generally not desired unless there is a specific routing problem (e.g., the server’s default gateway is not the firewall). The reply traffic will be handled correctly by the firewall’s session table, which remembers the original NAT translation.
Why D (The “Original Packet” Source Zone should be “any”.) is Incorrect: While setting the Source Zone to “any” might work, it is less precise than setting it to “Untrust”. The traffic is known to be coming from the internet, so the “Untrust” zone is the correct and most specific source. The problem in the prompt is not with the Source Zone; it’s the critical misconfiguration of the Destination Zone, which is fundamental to how PAN-OS evaluates inbound NAT. Even if the Source Zone was “any”, the rule would still fail because the Original Packet Destination Zone is set to “Untrust” instead of “DMZ”.
Question 47:
An administrator is configuring GlobalProtect for remote users. The design requires that users connect to a “Portal” to receive the client configuration, and then connect to a separate, dedicated “Gateway” for establishing the VPN tunnel and passing traffic. The administrator wants to ensure that only users who have successfully authenticated to the Portal and have a valid client configuration can attempt to connect to the Gateway. Which configuration on the GlobalProtect Gateway is the most direct way to enforce this?
A) Configure the Gateway to use the same “Authentication Profile” and “Server Profile” as the Portal.
B) Enable the “Allow authentication with user cookie” option in the Gateway’s authentication settings.
C) Install the Portal’s “Server Certificate” on the Gateway.
D) Configure “HIP (Host Information Profile)” checks on the Gateway.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. The “user cookie” is the specific mechanism used to tie a successful Portal authentication to a subsequent Gateway connection attempt, ensuring the user is known and has a valid configuration.
Why B (Enable the “Allow authentication with user cookie” option in the Gateway’s authentication settings.) is Correct: This is the core mechanism for linking the Portal and Gateway authentication. When a user successfully authenticates to the GlobalProtect Portal, the Portal generates an encrypted “cookie.” This cookie, which is valid for a configurable period, is included in the client configuration that is pushed down to the GlobalProtect agent. When the agent then attempts to connect to the Gateway, it presents this cookie as part of its initial authentication attempt. By enabling “Allow authentication with user cookie” on the Gateway, the Gateway is configured to trust and validate this cookie. If the cookie is valid (i.e., encrypted by a trusted source, not expired), the Gateway accepts it as proof that the user has already authenticated to the Portal. This seamlessly authenticates the user to the Gateway without prompting them for credentials a second time. More importantly, it prevents users who have not authenticated to the Portal (and thus do not have a cookie) from even attempting a connection, as the Gateway will reject the connection attempt that lacks a valid cookie.
Why A (Configure the Gateway to use the same “Authentication Profile” and “Server Profile” as the Portal.) is Incorrect: While the Gateway will need an Authentication Profile (e.g., pointing to the same SAML, LDAP, or RADIUS server) to validate the user, this does not enforce the “Portal-first” workflow. If the Gateway is simply configured with the same profile, a user could manually configure their GP client to point directly to the Gateway’s IP and attempt to authenticate. The Gateway would happily accept their credentials, bypassing the Portal and any configuration it was supposed to deliver. The cookie (Option B) is the feature that prevents this direct connection.
Why C (Install the Portal’s “Server Certificate” on the Gateway.) is Incorrect: This is a confusing and incorrect statement. The Portal and Gateway both require their own server certificates for the SSL/TLS service that clients connect to. While these could be the same certificate (e.g., a wildcard *.vpn.company.com), one does not “install the Portal’s certificate on the Gateway” as a distinct configuration step for this workflow. The Gateway needs its own valid, trusted certificate for its own FQDN. This is necessary for establishing the tunnel but has no bearing on the authentication workflow or enforcing the Portal-first connection.
Why D (Configure “HIP (Host Information Profile)” checks on the Gateway.) is Incorrect: HIP (Host Information Profile) checking is a powerful feature, but it serves a different purpose. HIP is used to check the security posture of the connecting endpoint (e.g., “Is the antivirus up to date?”, “Is the disk encrypted?”, “Is the OS patched?”). The Gateway (or Portal) collects this information and can use it in “HIP Objects” and “HIP Profiles” to make policy decisions. While you can enforce that a client must submit a HIP report, this is separate from the user authentication step. A user could still attempt to connect directly to the Gateway (bypassing the Portal) and would then be evaluated by the HIP policy. This does not enforce the “Portal-first” requirement.
Question 48:
An administrator is configuring an Active/Passive HA pair and is concerned about upstream network failures. The firewall’s ‘Untrust’ interface (eth1/1) connects to Router-1, and the ‘Trust’ interface (eth1/2) connects to Switch-1. The administrator wants to ensure that the firewall fails over to the passive unit only if the firewall can no longer reach the internet gateway, which is at 1.1.1.254 (reachable via Router-1). The administrator has already enabled HA. What is the most precise way to configure this failover trigger?
A) Configure Link Monitoring on the eth1/1 interface.
B) Configure Path Monitoring using an ICMP ping to the 1.1.1.254 IP address.
C) Enable “Heartbeat Backup” on the management interface.
D) Configure a “Link Group” that includes both eth1/1 and eth1/2.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. Path Monitoring is specifically designed to monitor the reachability of remote IP-based targets, whereas Link Monitoring only checks the local physical link state.
Why B (Configure Path Monitoring using an ICMP ping to the 1.1.1.254 IP address.) is Correct: This directly addresses the requirement. The administrator is not concerned about the physical link to Router-1 being “up” or “down” (which is what Link Monitoring checks). They are concerned about the ability to route traffic to the internet gateway (1.1.1.254). The physical link could be “up,” but Router-1 could be failing, or a downstream ISP could be down. Path Monitoring addresses this by actively sending probes (like ICMP pings) to a specified IP address. The administrator would configure a Path Monitoring group that monitors the target 1.1.1.254. If the active firewall fails to receive replies to these pings (after a configurable number of retries), it concludes that the path to the internet is down. This failure is then registered as an HA event, and if it exceeds the configured threshold, it will trigger a failover to the passive unit, which (presumably) has a different or working path.
Why A (Configure Link Monitoring on the eth1/1 interface.) is Incorrect: Link Monitoring is a basic HA feature that monitors the physical link state (L1/L2) of an interface. If the cable is unplugged or the connected device (Router-1) powers off, the link will go “down,” and this can trigger a failover. However, this does not meet the requirement. It is possible for the link to Router-1 to be “up” and functioning perfectly, but for Router-1 itself to have lost its “default route” to the internet. In this scenario, Link Monitoring would see the link as “up” and would not trigger a failover, even though traffic to 1.1.1.254 is failing. Path Monitoring is required to detect this more intelligent, application-layer (L3) failure.
Why C (Enable “Heartbeat Backup” on the management interface.) is Incorrect: Heartbeat Backup is a redundancy feature for the HA1 control link itself. It allows the HA1 heartbeat and HA state information to be sent over an alternate link (like the MGT port) if the primary HA1 link fails. This prevents a “split-brain” scenario where both firewalls think they are active because they can’t hear each other. This feature is a best practice for HA stability but has nothing to do with monitoring external network paths or triggering a failover based on upstream reachability.
Why D (Configure a “Link Group” that includes both eth1/1 and eth1/2.) is Incorrect: A Link Group is used in conjunction with Link Monitoring. It allows the administrator to group multiple interfaces (e.g., eth1/1 and eth1/2) and specify a failover condition, such as “failover if any link in this group goes down” or “failover if all links in this group go down.” This is still fundamentally tied to Link Monitoring (physical link state), not Path Monitoring (L3 reachability). This configuration would not detect the “link-up, route-down” failure scenario described in the prompt.
Question 49:
A security operations center (SOC) analyst is investigating a suspicious traffic pattern on a Palo Alto Networks firewall. The analyst needs to examine the details of a specific, active session to determine which Security policy rule it matched, what NAT translations were applied (if any), and whether the session is being SSL-decrypted. The analyst has identified the session’s unique numerical identifier (ID) from the traffic logs. Which CLI command will provide the most comprehensive, human-readable output for all these details about that specific, active session?
A) show session all filter id <session_id>
B) show running-config devices | match <session_id>
C) show session id <session_id>
D) debug dataplane packet-diag show session <session_id>
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. The show session id <session_id> command is the standard, primary operational CLI command for displaying the detailed state of a single, active session from the session table.
Why C (show session id <session_id>) is Correct: This command queries the data plane’s active session table and provides a wealth of information about the specified session. The output is formatted for human readability and includes:
Client and Server details: Source/destination IP, port, zone.
NAT information: If NAT was applied, it shows the post-NAT source/destination IP and port.
Protocol and Application: The application identified by App-ID (e.g., ‘ssl’, ‘web-browsing’).
Policy and State: The name of the Security policy rule that matched the session.
Flags and Timers: Information about the session’s state (e.g., ‘ACTIVE’, ‘TIMED_WAIT’), timeouts, and flags indicating specific behaviors.
Decryption: Flags that indicate if the session is marked for SSL decryption (‘flag(s): 0x4000008’ or similar indicators of ‘decrypt’). This single command directly provides all the information the analyst is looking for: the Security rule, the NAT translations, and decryption status.
Why A (show session all filter id <session_id>) is Incorrect: This command syntax is close but slightly incorrect and less direct. The show session all command is used to display the entire session table, which can be millions of entries. While you can pipe this to a filter (e.g., show session all | match <session_id>), this is inefficient. The filter syntax (show session all filter …) is used to apply specific match criteria (like filter source <ip>), but filter id is not the standard or most efficient syntax. show session id is the purpose-built command for this exact task.
Why B (show running-config devices | match <session_id>) is Incorrect: This command is completely wrong for this task. show running-config displays the configuration of the firewall (the saved rules and settings). A session ID is a runtime, dynamic identifier for a traffic flow. It will never appear in the static configuration file. This command would search the firewall’s rules for the literal string of the session ID number, which would yield no results.
Why D (debug dataplane packet-diag show session <session_id>) is Incorrect: This command is part of the debug family, which is generally used for more advanced, low-level troubleshooting and can have a performance impact. While debug dataplane packet-diag can show session information, it is part of a much more complex debugging framework used for things like packet tracing. The show session id command is the standard, non-disruptive, operational command for simply viewing the session details. The analyst should always start with show session id before moving to more advanced debug commands.
Question 50:
An organization wants to implement a strict internet access policy. The policy should block all websites categorized as “malware”, “phishing”, and “adult”. However, there is a specific, business-critical partner website, partner.example.com, which is incorrectly categorized by PAN-DB as “adult”. This site must be accessible to the ‘Sales’ department. All other ‘Sales’ department internet access should conform to the strict policy. What is the most precise and secure way to configure this exception?
A) Create a custom URL category named “Partner-Whitelist” containing partner.example.com. Create a Security policy rule above the main “Sales-to-Untrust” rule, from ‘Sales’ to ‘Untrust’, that only allows this “Partner-Whitelist” URL category.
B) Create a custom URL category named “Partner-Whitelist” containing partner.example.com. Attach this custom category to the URL Filtering profile used by the main ‘Sales’ security rule, and set the action for this category to “allow”.
C) Submit a PAN-DB re-categorization request for partner.example.com and wait for it to be processed.
D) Instruct the ‘Sales’ department to use a different, less-restrictive “Guest” network to access the partner site.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. This solution correctly uses URL filtering customization to create a specific “allow” exception within the context of the existing Security policy, maintaining the principle of least privilege.
Why B (Create a custom URL category named “Partner-Whitelist” containing partner.example.com. Attach this custom category to the URL Filtering profile used by the main ‘Sales’ security rule, and set the action for this category to “allow”.) is Correct: This is the standard best-practice for this scenario. A URL Filtering profile is a list of categories with associated actions (allow, alert, block, etc.). The firewall evaluates these categories from top to bottom. By creating a custom category (“Partner-Whitelist”) and placing it at the top of the category list within the profile with an action of “allow”, the firewall will first check if the requested URL matches partner.example.com. If it does, it matches this custom category, the “allow” action is taken, and no further URL categories (including the “adult” category) are processed for this request. For any other URL, the request will not match the custom category and will be evaluated against the subsequent categories, where it will be blocked if it matches “malware”, “phishing”, or “adult”. This approach is precise, secure, and correctly isolates the exception.
Why A (Create a custom URL category named “Partner-Whitelist”… Create a Security policy rule above the main “Sales-to-Untrust” rule… that only allows this “Partner-Whitelist” URL category.) is Incorrect: This configuration is problematic and less secure. This rule would only match traffic to the “Partner-Whitelist” category. It would not have the primary URL Filtering profile (with the “malware”, “phishing” blocks) attached. While this seems to work, it means that this specific traffic to partner.example.com is now bypassing all other Content-ID inspections (like Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, Vulnerability Protection) that are attached to the main “Sales-to-Untrust” rule. The goal is not to bypass all security for this site, but only to override the URL category. Option B keeps the traffic within the same Security rule, ensuring it still gets all the required Threat Prevention inspections.
Why C (Submit a PAN-DB re-categorization request for partner.example.com and wait for it to be processed.) is Incorrect: While submitting a re-categorization request is a good, “good-citizen” thing to do to fix the global database, it is not a solution to the immediate business problem. The prompt asks for the configuration to solve the problem now. The re-categorization process can take days or may even be rejected if the PAN-DB team’s analysis disagrees. The “Sales” department cannot be blocked from a business-critical site for that long. An immediate configuration (like Option B) is required, and the re-categorization request can be submitted in parallel.
Why D (Instruct the ‘Sales’ department to use a different, less-restrictive “Guest” network to access the partner site.) is Incorrect: This is a “workaround,” not a “solution,” and it is a very poor security practice. A “Guest” network is typically isolated, untrusted, and has minimal security. Forcing business users to conduct business on a guest network bypasses all corporate security controls, logging, and protections (like User-ID) and may even expose their devices to other unsecured guest devices. This introduces significant risk and is not the correct, professional way to solve a simple URL filtering exception.
Question 51:
An administrator is reviewing the traffic logs and notices that many sessions are being denied by the default interzone-default security rule, which has logging enabled. The administrator wants to identify these “shadowed” applications—that is, applications that are being used on the network but are being blocked because no explicit “allow” rule exists for them. What is the most efficient and effective tool or report within the PAN-OS web interface for the administrator to use to identify these applications and create new, appropriate Security policy rules for them?
A) The Application Command Center (ACC) “Blocked Applications” widget.
B) The “SaaS Risk Report” generated from the ‘Reports’ menu.
C) The “Traffic” log, filtered by (rule eq ‘interzone-default’) and grouped by ‘Application’.
D) The “Threat” log, filtered by ‘action eq drop’.
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. Filtering the Traffic log by the specific “deny” rule and then grouping by application is the most direct and precise way to find the applications being blocked by that specific rule.
Why C (The “Traffic” log, filtered by (rule eq ‘interzone-default’) and grouped by ‘Application’.) is Correct: This is the most direct and operational method to achieve the administrator’s goal. The Traffic log records every session that is either allowed or denied by a Security policy. The administrator knows the specific rule that is blocking the traffic: interzone-default.
Filtering: By applying a filter to the Traffic log for (rule eq ‘interzone-default’), the administrator isolates only the log entries for sessions that were blocked by this default deny rule.
Grouping: By then using the “Group-By” feature in the log viewer and grouping by ‘Application’, the log view will aggregate all these “deny” events and present a summary list of which applications are being blocked most frequently by this rule. This gives the administrator a perfect, actionable list (e.code_g., “ms-update: 5000 sessions,” “google-drive: 1000 sessions”) from which they can make informed decisions about creating new, specific “allow” rules.
Why A (The Application Command Center (ACC) “Blocked Applications” widget.) is Incorrect: The ACC is a powerful high-level dashboard, but its “Blocked Applications” widget can be misleading in this context. This widget typically shows applications blocked by Threat Prevention (e.g., a “drop” action in an Anti-Spyware profile) or by explicit “block” actions in Security policy rules. It may not prominently feature traffic that is simply “denied” by the default rule, as this is often considered “background noise.” The ACC is excellent for a 10,000-foot view of risk, but for the specific, granular task of “what is my default-deny rule blocking,” the Traffic log itself (Option C) is the ground-truth data source.
Why B (The “SaaS Risk Report” generated from the ‘Reports’ menu.) is Incorrect: The SaaS Risk Report is a very specific report. It analyzes allowed traffic (specifically web-browsing and ssl) and correlates the applications identified with their known risk profiles (e.g., “This application supports file sharing,” “This application has poor EULA terms”). Its purpose is to show the risk of the SaaS applications you are already using. It does not show applications that are being blocked by the default-deny rule. This report is for analyzing “shadow IT” that is currently successful, not “shadowed applications” that are being blocked.
Why D (The “Threat” log, filtered by ‘action eq drop’.) is Incorrect: The Threat log is the wrong log file for this task. The Threat log records events from the Content-ID “threat” profiles: Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, Vulnerability Protection, and file blocking. A “drop” here means a threat was detected and stopped. The scenario describes traffic being blocked by a Security policy rule (interzone-default), which is an L4 “deny” action. These “policy-deny” events are recorded in the Traffic log, not the Threat log. The administrator is looking for “applications-not-allowed,” not “threats-detected.”
Question 52:
A security engineer is designing a security policy for a DMZ. The engineer wants to create a single, consolidated rule that allows both standard HTTP and HTTPS traffic from the ‘Untrust’ zone to the ‘DMZ’ zone, but only for applications that are web-based. Which configuration represents the most secure and accurate way to write this Security policy rule using Palo Alto Networks best practices?
A) Application: [ web-browsing, ssl ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]
B) Application: [ web-browsing ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]
C) Application: [ any ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]
D) Application: [ web-browsing, ssl ], Service: [ application-default ]
Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
The correct answer is D. This configuration correctly uses App-ID to identify the applications (‘web-browsing’ and ‘ssl’) and leverages ‘application-default’ to let the firewall enforce the standard, well-known ports for those specific applications.
Why D (Application: [ web-browsing, ssl ], Service: [ application-default ]) is Correct: This is the modern, App-ID-centric best practice.
Application: The administrator explicitly defines the applications they wish to allow: web-browsing (which App-ID identifies from HTTP traffic) and ssl (which App-ID identifies as the generic SSL/TLS handshake, often for HTTPS).
Service: The application-default setting is a special keyword. It instructs the firewall to only allow the specified applications on their standard, industry-defined ports. For web-browsing, this is typically TCP 80. For ssl, this is typically TCP 443. This is highly secure because it prevents evasive techniques, such as running ‘ssh’ over TCP port 80. If the service was ‘any’, ‘ssh’ on port 80 might be allowed (if ssh was in the application list). By using application-default, the firewall enforces both the App-ID and the expected port, creating a “zero-trust” check.
Why A (Application: [ web-browsing, ssl ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]) is Incorrect: This configuration is redundant and less secure than Option D. service-http (TCP 80) and service-https (TCP 443) are just port definitions. While this seems correct, it “hard-codes” the ports. If an application (e.g., web-browsing) also had a standard port of 8080, application-default would know this and allow it, whereas this rule would block it. Conversely, this rule allows the ssl application on TCP 80 and the web-browsing application on TCP 443, which is nonsensical and pollutes the policy. application-default (Option D) is the cleaner, more intelligent setting that correctly maps App-IDs to their known ports.
Why B (Application: [ web-browsing ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]) is Incorrect: This rule is critically flawed. It only allows the web-browsing application (HTTP). It does not include the ssl application. When a user tries to connect via HTTPS, the firewall will identify the traffic as ssl, not web-browsing. Since ssl is not in the allowed application list, the traffic will be dropped. This rule would successfully allow HTTP but would block all HTTPS traffic.
Why C (Application: [ any ], Service: [ service-http, service-https ]) is Incorrect: This is the “legacy” or “stateful firewall” way of writing a rule. It completely ignores App-ID, the core feature of the NGFW. This rule states, “Allow any application as long as it is on TCP port 80 or 443.” This is highly insecure. A malicious actor could run a command-and-control (C2) bot, a ssh session, or exfiltrate data using a custom tool, all over TCP port 443. The firewall would allow it because the application is set to ‘any’. This configuration provides no “next-generation” protection and is a major security vulnerability.
Question 53:
A company has deployed a Palo Alto Networks VM-Series firewall in a public cloud environment. The firewall needs to be configured with basic networking, a default-deny security policy, and a connection to Panorama. The DevOps team wants this entire process to be fully automated whenever a new firewall is instantiated, without any manual login. The firewall image has been deployed, but it is in a factory-default state. Which VM-Series feature is designed to pull this initial “golden” configuration from a remote location upon its first boot?
A) Bootstrapping
B) HA Clustering
C) API Polling
D) GlobalProtect Auto-Discovery
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A. Bootstrapping is the specific, formal term for the process by which a VM-Series firewall (or a ZTP-enabled hardware firewall) automatically provisions itself with a base configuration when it is first powered on.
Why A (Bootstrapping) is Correct: Bootstrapping is the automated process of provisioning a new, unconfigured (factory-default) firewall with its initial “day-one” configuration. In a public cloud (like AWS, Azure, or GCP), this is typically accomplished by attaching a “bootstrap package” to the virtual machine instance. This package is often stored in a cloud storage bucket (like S3 or Blob Storage). When the VM-Series instance boots for the first time, it has a “bootstrap” service that runs. This service is configured (often via ‘user data’) to fetch this package. The package contains a config directory with files like init-cfg.txt (for basic network, Panorama, and license settings), bootstrap.xml (the full configuration), and software (for the desired PAN-OS version). The firewall ingests these files, reconfigures itself, applies the “golden” config, and reboots, coming online fully configured and managed by Panorama without any human intervention. This directly matches the DevOps requirement for full, automated instantiation.
Why B (HA Clustering) is Incorrect: HA (High Availability) Clustering is a feature for providing device redundancy between two already configured firewalls. It involves synchronizing state and configuration. It is not a mechanism for applying the initial configuration to a brand-new, factory-default device. A firewall must be bootstrapped before it can be configured to join an HA cluster.
Why C (API Polling) is Incorrect: This is a vague term. While the firewall has an XML/REST API, a factory-default firewall does not have the necessary network configuration (IP address, credentials, API key) to be polled by an external system, nor does it have the logic to poll an external system for its configuration (that logic is called bootstrapping). An external orchestration tool (like Ansible or Terraform) could push a configuration via the API, but this would happen after the firewall has a basic network configuration, which itself would need to be applied manually or via bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is the “pull” method that solves the initial chicken-and-egg problem.
Why D (GlobalProtect Auto-Discovery) is Incorrect: GlobalProtect is the remote-access VPN solution. Auto-Discovery is a feature related to how the GlobalProtect client finds the “best” (lowest-latency) Gateway to connect to. It has absolutely no relationship to the initial provisioning or configuration of the firewall chassis itself.
Question 54:
An administrator is designing a new Panorama deployment to manage 100 firewalls across two regions: North America (NA) and Europe (EU). The networking and server teams are different in each region, so they require different administrator accounts and access domains. However, the corporate security team mandates that the core Threat Prevention profiles (Antivirus, Anti-Spyware) must be identical and non-modifiable for all 100 firewalls. What is the correct Panorama object hierarchy to achieve this?
A) Device Group NA and Device Group EU, both under a parent Device Group Global. The Global group holds the Threat profiles. Template Stack NA and Template Stack EU hold the network settings.
B) A single Device Group Global for all firewalls. Use “Collector Groups” to separate the NA and EU logs.
C) Device Group NA and Device Group EU. A Template Stack Global holding the Threat profiles is “pushed” to both device groups.
D) Device Group NA and Device Group EU for policy. Template NA and Template EU for network settings. Use Access Domains to separate NA and EU admin roles.
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A. This design correctly uses Panorama’s hierarchical Device Groups to enforce a “global” policy (the Threat Profiles) while allowing “regional” policy (other rules). It also correctly identifies Templates/Template Stacks as the objects for network settings, which are separate.
Why A (Device Group NA and Device Group EU, both under a parent Device Group Global. The Global group holds the Threat profiles. Template Stack NA and Template Stack EU hold the network settings.) is Correct: This is the canonical “global-protects-regional” design in Panorama.
Device Groups (Policy/Objects): Device Groups control policies and objects (like Threat profiles). By creating a hierarchy (Global > NA and Global > EU), the administrator can define the mandatory Threat Prevention profiles in the top-level Global group. These profiles are inherited by the NA and EU child groups and cannot be overridden or modified by regional administrators (assuming correct RBAC). The regional admins can then add their own specific rules in the NA and EU groups, which are processed after the global rules.
Templates/Stacks (Network/Device): Templates and Template Stacks control device-specific settings (networking, interfaces, GlobalProtect, HA, etc.). This is correctly separated from Device Groups. Having a Template Stack NA and Template Stack EU is the correct way to manage the different network settings for each region. This option correctly separates policy-from-network and correctly uses hierarchy to enforce the mandatory profiles.
Why B (A single Device Group Global for all firewalls. Use “Collector Groups” to separate the NA and EU logs.) is Incorrect: This is a flawed design. While a single Device Group would enforce the global policy, it provides no flexibility for the NA and EU teams to create their own regional security rules (e.g., NA-to-NA traffic rules). All 100 firewalls would share one large, monolithic policy, which is unmanageable. Furthermore, “Collector Groups” are for log collection and have nothing to do with policy or object management.
Why C (Device Group NA and Device Group EU. A Template Stack Global holding the Threat profiles is “pushed” to both device groups.) is Incorrect: This option fundamentally confuses the purpose of Device Groups and Template Stacks. Template Stacks control network/device settings. Device Groups control policy/objects. Threat Prevention profiles are objects and therefore must be managed in a Device Group, not a Template Stack. This option is technically impossible as described.
Why D (Device Group NA and Device Group EU for policy. Template NA and Template EU for network settings. Use Access Domains to separate NA and EU admin roles.) is Incorrect: This option is almost correct but misses the most important requirement: how to enforce the mandatory, identical Threat profiles. This design allows NA and EU admins to be separated (via Access Domains) and have their own policy (via Device Groups), but it does not include the parent Global group (from Option A) that is necessary to force the “golden” Threat profiles onto both groups. Without the parent group, the NA admin and the EU admin would have to create their own Threat profiles, and there would be no guarantee they are identical or non-modifiable.
Question 55:
A user at IP address 10.50.10.100 is accessing a web server in the DMZ. The administrator sees the traffic being allowed by a Security policy rule, but the user is complaining of very slow performance. The administrator suspects the session is being “offloaded” to the hardware data plane, but wants to verify if the session is being “CPU-processed” (i.e., not offloaded) for any reason, which could explain the high latency. Which “show” CLI command and flag would indicate that the session is not being offloaded to the hardware data plane?
A) show session id <id> and a flag of ‘n’ (NAT)
B) show session id <id> and a flag of ‘s’ (session in software)
C) show counter global | match ‘flow_offload’
D) show system resources | match ‘dp0’
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. Within the output of show session id, the ‘s’ flag specifically indicates that the session’s “fast-path” (hardware offload) is disabled and the session is being processed in the “slow-path” (CPU/software), which is a common cause of performance issues.
Why B (show session id <id> and a flag of ‘s’ (session in software)) is Correct: The show session id <id> command provides a detailed breakdown of a session’s state. The “flag(s)” field is a bitmap of all the attributes of that session. If the ‘s’ flag is present, it explicitly means “slow-path” or “session in software.” This indicates that the firewall’s data plane CPU is being forced to process every single packet for this session, bypassing the high-speed, hardware-based “fast-path” offload. This is a primary cause of high latency and low throughput for a session. This could be happening for many reasons (e.g., packet-level inspection, unknown App-ID, certain QoS configurations, or a bug). Identifying this flag is the first step in diagnosing the performance problem.
Why A (show session id <id> and a flag of ‘n’ (NAT)) is Incorrect: The ‘n’ flag simply indicates that the session is subject to a NAT (Source, Destination, or both) rule. NAT is a standard, hardware-accelerated feature on Palo Alto Networks firewalls. The presence of the ‘n’ flag does not imply the session is in the slow-path. In fact, most NAT’d sessions are fully offloaded and processed in hardware. This flag is irrelevant to the performance problem.
Why C (show counter global | match ‘flow_offload’) is Incorrect: This command shows global counters for the firewall. flow_offload_count (or similar counters) would show the total number of sessions that have been offloaded. This is a cumulative, global statistic. It cannot be used to diagnose the state of a single, specific session (10.50.10.100). The administrator needs to know the state of this user’s session, not the state of the entire firewall.
Why D (show system resources | match ‘dp0’) is Incorrect: This command (or show running resource-monitor data-plane) is used to view the real-time CPU utilization of the data plane (dp0, dp1, etc.) processors. While the administrator might see high CPU on the data plane if many sessions are being forced into the slow-path, this command is still a global diagnostic. It shows the symptom (high CPU) but not the cause. It cannot tell the administrator which specific session (the user at 10.50.10.100) is responsible for the CPU load or whether that specific session is in the slow-path. show session id is the only command that provides a per-session diagnosis.
Question 56:
An administrator is configuring SSL Inbound Inspection for a web server (10.1.1.10) in the DMZ. The goal is to decrypt traffic from external users, inspect it for threats, and then re-encrypt it before sending it to the web server. The administrator has created a Decryption policy rule with the type “SSL-Inbound-Inspection” and has imported the web server’s private key and public certificate (server.pfx) onto the firewall. When users try to connect, they receive a “Certificate Mismatch” error in their browser. What is the most likely configuration error?
A) The Decryption policy rule should be of type “SSL-Forward-Proxy”.
B) The firewall’s “Forward Trust” certificate should be used as the Decryption “Certificate”.
C) The web server’s public certificate and private key are incorrect; the firewall only needs the public certificate.
D) The Decryption policy rule’s “Certificate” setting is misconfigured and is not using the imported web server certificate.
Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
The correct answer is D. For SSL Inbound Inspection, the firewall must be configured to use the actual certificate and private key of the server being protected. A “Certificate Mismatch” error means the browser is receiving a different certificate than the one it was expecting for that FQDN.
Why D (The Decryption policy rule’s “Certificate” setting is misconfigured and is not using the imported web server certificate.) is Correct: In an SSL Inbound Inspection scenario, the firewall is “impersonating” the real web server. To do this successfully, it must present the real web server’s public certificate (e.g., www.company.com) to the external user’s browser. The browser will trust this certificate because it’s a valid certificate issued by a public CA. The firewall is able to do this because the administrator has imported both the public certificate and its corresponding private key. The firewall decrypts the traffic using this key, inspects it, and then re-encrypts it (using a new SSL session) to send to the internal web server. A “Certificate Mismatch” error in this context almost always means the firewall is not presenting this correct certificate. This happens if the administrator fails to select the imported certificate (server.pfx) in the “Certificate” field of the Decryption policy rule. If this field is left blank or set to the wrong certificate (like the “Forward Trust” certificate), the firewall will present a different certificate, and the user’s browser will immediately flag a mismatch between the FQDN they typed and the FQDN in the certificate.
Why A (The Decryption policy rule should be of type “SSL-Forward-Proxy”.) is Incorrect: This is fundamentally wrong. “SSL-Forward-Proxy” is used to decrypt outbound traffic (e.g., users in ‘Trust’ going to the ‘Untrust’ internet). In this scenario, the firewall impersonates the destination site using a firewall-generated certificate signed by its “Forward Trust” CA. “SSL-Inbound-Inspection” is the correct type for decrypting inbound traffic to a server you control.
Why B (The firewall’s “Forward Trust” certificate should be used as the Decryption “Certificate”.) is Incorrect: This would be the cause of the problem, not the solution. The “Forward Trust” certificate is the CA certificate used for Forward Proxy decryption. If this certificate is (incorrectly) used for Inbound Inspection, the firewall will generate a certificate for www.company.com and sign it with the “Forward Trust” CA. The user’s browser will not trust this, as the “Forward Trust” CA is an internal, self-signed CA, not a public one. This will cause a “Certificate Untrusted” error, not necessarily a “Mismatch” error (though both are possible).
Why C (The web server’s public certificate and private key are incorrect; the firewall only needs the public certificate.) is Incorrect: This is backward. To decrypt anything, you must have the private key. Without the private key, the firewall cannot perform the decryption. The firewall needs both the public certificate (to present to the client) and the matching private key (to decrypt the session key). Stating it “only needs the public certificate” is incorrect.
Question 57:
An engineer is migrating a legacy port-based firewall rule to a new Palo Alto Networks firewall. The legacy rule allowed TCP port 3389 (RDP) from the ‘IT-Admin’ zone to the ‘Servers’ zone. The new App-ID-based rule is configured to allow the ‘rdp’ application. After the migration, RDP sessions are failing to connect. The administrator observes in the traffic logs that the application is showing as ‘unknown-tcp’ on port 3389 and is being denied. What is the most likely reason for this behavior?
A) The ‘rdp’ application requires the ‘ssl’ application to also be allowed in the Security rule.
B) The ‘rdp’ application is not decryptable and is being blocked by a Decryption policy.
C) The server is using a custom version of RDP that App-ID does not recognize, and an ‘Application Override’ is needed.
D) The RDP clients are using a non-standard port, and the ‘service’ in the Security rule is set to ‘application-default’.
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. If the traffic is on the correct port (3389) but App-ID still identifies it as ‘unknown-tcp’, it means the traffic signature does not match the firewall’s definition of RDP, strongly implying a non-standard or custom implementation.
Why C (The server is using a custom version of RDP that App-ID does not recognize, and an ‘Application Override’ is needed.) is Correct: App-ID does not just check the port; it inspects the packet payload and handshake for a signature that matches the application. Standard RDP has a very specific handshake. The logs show traffic on the correct port (3389) but identify it as unknown-tcp. This is the classic symptom of traffic that looks like it should be ‘rdp’ (based on port) but is not ‘rdp’ (based on signature). This can happen with custom clients, non-Windows RDP clients, or applications that simply “tunnel” over RDP’s port. The correct, immediate solution to restore connectivity is to create an Application Override policy. This policy tells the firewall, “For traffic matching this source, destination, and port (3389), stop trying to identify it with App-ID and force it to be treated as the application ‘rdp’.” This will allow the traffic to match the existing ‘rdp’ Security rule and be allowed.
Why A (The ‘rdp’ application requires the ‘ssl’ application to also be allowed in the Security rule.) is Incorrect: This is a misunderstanding of application dependencies. While some modern RDP can use TLS/SSL for its transport, the Palo Alto Networks App-ID ‘rdp’ is a “container” that includes its own dependencies. You do not typically need to add ‘ssl’ to an ‘rdp’ rule. Even if this were the case, the log would show ‘ssl’ traffic being blocked, not ‘unknown-tcp’. The ‘unknown-tcp’ log is the key symptom.
Why B (The ‘rdp’ application is not decryptable and is being blocked by a Decryption policy.) is Incorrect: This is unlikely. First, RDP traffic is often (but not always) non-decryptable. Second, if a Decryption policy was set to “decrypt” this traffic and failed, it would typically be dropped by the Decryption policy. The log would show a decryption-related drop, not a Traffic log entry for ‘unknown-tcp’ being denied by the interzone-default rule. The ‘unknown-tcp’ identification happens before decryption policy is enforced.
Why D (The RDP clients are using a non-standard port, and the ‘service’ in the Security rule is set to ‘application-default’.) is Incorrect: This contradicts the evidence in the prompt. The prompt explicitly states the traffic is seen on port 3389. This means the clients are using the standard port. If they were using a non-standard port (e.g., 3390) and the service was application-default, the traffic would be blocked, but the log would show traffic on port 3390 being denied. The problem here is not the port; it’s the signature on the correct port.
Question 58:
A network architect is designing an Active/Active High Availability cluster. The architect is concerned about “asymmetric routing,” where a session’s “request” packet (client-to-server) goes through Firewall-A, but the “response” packet (server-to-client) returns through Firewall-B. Why is this a critical problem in an Active/Active HA cluster, and what feature is specifically designed to solve it?
A) Problem: It causes “split-brain”. Solution: Configure a dedicated HA3 link for session state synchronization.
B) Problem: The firewall that receives the response (Firewall-B) has no session state and will drop the packet. Solution: Enable “Session Synchronization” (HA2) and “HA3” (Packet-Forwarding) links.
C) Problem: It doubles the load on the HA1 link. Solution: Configure Path Monitoring to force all traffic to one firewall.
D) Problem: The firewalls will have different App-ID caches. Solution: Enable “HA Session Offload” to the data plane.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. Asymmetric routing is a stateful firewall’s worst enemy. The return packet is dropped because it doesn’t match a session on the second firewall. In Active/Active, this is solved by using HA2 for session table sync and HA3 for forwarding the packet to the correct firewall.
Why B (Problem: The firewall that receives the response (Firewall-B) has no session state and will drop the packet. Solution: Enable “Session Synchronization” (HA2) and “HA3” (Packet-Forwarding) links.) is Correct: This perfectly describes the problem and solution.
The Problem: Firewalls are stateful. When Firewall-A receives the initial SYN packet, it creates a session in its session table. When the server sends the SYN-ACK reply through Firewall-B (due to asymmetric routing), Firewall-B looks in its session table. It finds no matching session (because Firewall-A created it) and drops the packet as “unknown” or “out-of-state.”
The Solution: An Active/Active cluster has two mechanisms. First, Session Synchronization (HA2): Both firewalls constantly sync their session tables, so Firewall-B knows about the session. Second, Packet-Forwarding (HA3): Even though Firewall-B knows about the session, the session is “owned” by Firewall-A. To maintain “session-ownership” and ensure all processing (threat, decryption) happens on one device, Firewall-B forwards the packet over the dedicated HA3 link to Firewall-A. Firewall-A processes the packet and then sends it out, solving the asymmetric problem.
Why A (Problem: It causes “split-brain”. Solution: Configure a dedicated HA3 link for session state synchronization.) is Incorrect: This confuses multiple concepts. “Split-brain” is when HA1 fails and both firewalls think they are Active. This is solved by heartbeat backup, not HA3. Furthermore, HA3 is for packet-forwarding, not session state synchronization—that is the job of HA2. This option is incorrect in both its premise and solution.
Why C (Problem: It doubles the load on the HA1 link. Solution: Configure Path Monitoring to force all traffic to one firewall.) is Incorrect: This is nonsensical. Asymmetric routing does not impact the HA1 (control) link. The “solution” given (forcing all traffic to one firewall) is the definition of an Active/Passive setup and defeats the entire purpose of deploying an Active/Active cluster.
Why D (Problem: The firewalls will have different App-ID caches. Solution: Enable “HA Session Offload” to the data plane.) is Incorrect: While asymmetric routing might lead to different App-ID caches, that is a minor symptom, not the critical problem (which is the dropped packets). “HA Session Offload” is not a specific feature; all modern HA sessions are “offloaded” to the data plane once established. The true solution is the HA3 packet-forwarding link.
Question 59:
A network administrator is using the built-in packet capture (pcap) feature on the firewall’s web interface to troubleshoot a connectivity issue. The administrator wants to see the packet exactly as it arrives on the ingress interface, before any NAT, policy, or decryption is applied. Which “stage” of packet capture must the administrator select to achieve this?
A) r (receive)
B) d (drop)
C) f (firewall)
D) t (transmit)
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct answer is A. The receive stage (or r stage) captures the packet at the moment it is “received” by the network driver, before any PAN-OS logic (NAT, App-ID, policy) has been applied.
Why A (r (receive)) is Correct: The PAN-OS packet capture utility allows you to capture packets at four distinct stages of processing, representing the packet’s “journey” through the data plane.
r (receive): This is the very first stage. It captures the packet as it comes off the wire and hits the ingress interface’s network card. The packet is in its original, unaltered state. This is crucial for (1) verifying the packet is arriving at the firewall at all, and (2_ verifying its original source/destination IP, VLAN tags, etc., before the firewall’s logic touches it.
f (firewall): This stage shows the packet as it is being processed by the “firewall” logic, such as App-ID, Content-ID, and Security policy evaluation. NAT translations have typically been applied at this stage.
t (transmit): This stage shows the packet just before it is placed on the wire at the egress interface. It will show the packet in its final state, with all NAT and transformations applied.
d (drop): This stage captures packets that are dropped by the firewall for any reason (e.g., policy-deny, threat-drop, unknown-state).
To see the packet exactly as it arrives, the receive stage is the only correct choice.
Why B (d (drop)) is Incorrect: The drop stage only shows packets that the firewall has actively decided to drop. This is useful for troubleshooting denials, but it does not show the administrator the original state of all incoming packets. The administrator’s goal is to see the unaltered arriving packet, not just the dropped ones.
Why C (f (firewall)) is Incorrect: The firewall stage is too late. By the time the packet reaches this stage, it has already passed through the initial ingress processing, and NAT/policy lookup may have already occurred. The packet at this stage may no longer have its original destination IP if DNAT was applied. To see the pre-NAT state, the receive stage is required.
Why D (t (transmit)) is Incorrect: The transmit stage is the very last stage, showing the packet as it leaves the firewall. This is the complete opposite of what the administrator wants. This file would show the post-NAT and post-policy packet on the egress interface.
Question 60:
An organization is implementing an SD-WAN solution to manage two ISP links (ISP-A, ISP-B) for branch office connectivity. The primary goal is to send high-priority, low-latency ‘VoIP’ traffic over the link with the best performance (lowest latency and jitter). All ‘bulk-data’ traffic should just use the cheapest link (ISP-B) unless it is down. Which PAN-OS SD-WAN components would be used to configure this logic?
A) A Traffic Distribution Profile to assign ‘VoIP’ to ISP-A, and a Security policy to send ‘bulk-data’ to ISP-B.
B) Two SD-WAN Interface Profiles (one for ISP-A, one for ISP-B) and a “Path Quality Monitoring” (PQM) profile applied to a Security rule.
C) A “Path Quality Profile” (for VoIP) and a “Static Path” profile (for bulk-data) configured within a single SD-WAN Policy.
D) A “session-owner” policy to pin ‘VoIP’ to the data plane on ISP-A and a “session-setup” policy for ‘bulk-data’ on ISP-B.
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. This option correctly identifies the two main types of SD-WAN policy logic: dynamic (Path Quality) and static (Static Path), and places them within the “SD-WAN Policy” object where they are configured.
Why C (A “Path Quality Profile” (for VoIP) and a “Static Path” profile (for bulk-data) configured within a single SD-WAN Policy.) is Correct: This is the precise way PAN-OS SD-WAN implements this logic.
SD-WAN Policy: The “SD-WAN Policy” is the central “rule” that matches traffic (e.g., Application ‘VoIP’ or ‘bulk-data’).
Path Quality Profile: For the ‘VoIP’ traffic, the administrator would create a “Path Quality Profile” that defines the acceptable thresholds for latency, jitter, and packet loss. The SD-WAN policy rule for ‘VoIP’ would be set to use this profile, which dynamically sends the VoIP traffic over the best link (ISP-A or ISP-B) that meets those thresholds. This directly satisfies the “lowest latency and jitter” requirement.
Static Path Profile: For the ‘bulk-data’ traffic, the requirement is different: “use the cheapest link (ISP-B) unless it is down.” This is not dynamic. The administrator would create a second SD-WAN Policy rule (below the VoIP rule) that matches ‘bulk-data’. This rule would be configured to use a “Static Path” preference, forcing the traffic to ISP-B as the primary link and only failing over to ISP-A if ISP-B is “down” (as defined by a path-monitoring test).
This combination, configured within SD-WAN policies, perfectly models the desired outcome.
Why A (A Traffic Distribution Profile to assign ‘VoIP’ to ISP-A, and a Security policy to send ‘bulk-data’ to ISP-B.) is Incorrect: “Traffic Distribution Profile” is not the correct term for this logic. Furthermore, using a Security policy to direct traffic (e.g., with “Policy Based Forwarding”) is the old way of doing things before the SD-WAN feature. The SD-WAN feature supersedes this and provides much more intelligent, dynamic path selection.
Why B (Two SD-WAN Interface Profiles… and a “Path Quality Monitoring” (PQM) profile applied to a Security rule.) is Incorrect: This mixes up several components. “SD-WAN Interface Profiles” define the interfaces and their roles (e.g., their link-type and cost). “Path Quality Monitoring” (PQM) is the mechanism used to measure the path health, but it is not a “profile” you attach to a Security rule. The logic for using those PQM measurements is configured in the “SD-WAN Policy,” as described in Option C.
Why D (A “session-owner” policy… and a “session-setup” policy…) is Incorrect: These terms (“session-owner,” “session-setup”) relate to the internal packet-processing logic (like in Active/Active HA), not to the high-level SD-WAN policy configuration. This is the wrong level of abstraction and does not describe how an administrator would configure SD-WAN traffic steering.
