Visit here for our full Checkpoint 156-215.81.20 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 21:
A Security Administrator reports that the Firewall is not logging certain connections even though the rules clearly specify “Log” as the tracking option. What configuration should be checked first to ensure consistent logging functionality?
A) The Log Server configuration and its connectivity with the Security Gateway
B) The Threat Emulation kernel debug
C) The VPN dead peer detection settings
D) The Identity Awareness browser-based authentication method
Answer:
A
Explanation:
When a Firewall is configured to log specific traffic but no corresponding log entries appear in SmartConsole or SmartView Tracker, one of the most common causes is an issue in the communication between the Security Gateway and the Log Server. In Check Point architecture, the Security Gateway sends logs either to the Security Management Server or to a dedicated Log Server. If this connection is unstable, misconfigured, or blocked, logs will fail to appear even when the rulebase includes tracking options such as Log, Detailed Log, or Accounting. Therefore, the first configuration that must be examined is the Log Server settings associated with the Security Gateway.
A misconfigured Log Server object could lead to log flow interruptions. Administrators should confirm that the Log Server IP is correct, reachable, and defined properly in the Gateway’s properties. The SIC trust between the Gateway and the Log Server must be valid. A broken SIC trust prevents secure log transmission. Network-related issues can also interrupt logging. If ports such as TCP 257 and related log channels are blocked by upstream devices, the Gateway cannot export logs. High latency, packet loss, or routing misconfigurations can result in intermittent log failures.
Another important factor is disk space availability on the Log Server. If the server that stores logs is full or nearing full capacity, logs may be dropped or delayed. Administrators must verify disk usage and ensure that log retention policies are correctly configured to archive older logs and free space. Additionally, if log indexing is disabled or behind schedule, logs may not appear promptly, giving the impression that logging is malfunctioning.
In distributed environments, where multiple Gateways send logs to a centralized server, performance bottlenecks on the Log Server itself may cause backlogs. Logging relies heavily on CPU and I/O performance. Overloaded servers process logs slowly or temporarily stop receiving logs.
Option B, Threat Emulation kernel debug, is irrelevant because Threat Emulation focuses on file analysis and sandboxing. Option C, VPN dead peer detection, relates only to monitoring VPN peer connectivity and has nothing to do with Firewall logging. Option D, browser-based authentication via Identity Awareness, affects user login mechanisms but not log collection. Only the Log Server configuration has a direct relationship to missing logs.
By verifying the Log Server connection settings, SIC trust, disk availability, and network reachability, administrators can restore consistent logging functionality.
Question 22:
A Security Administrator notices that the Anti-Virus blade is enabled, but certain malicious files are passing through the Gateway without detection. What configuration should be evaluated first to ensure Anti-Virus is scanning the relevant traffic?
A) The position and scope of the Threat Prevention rule in the Access Control Policy
B) The DHCP server reservations
C) The cluster synchronization state
D) The VPN encryption method
Answer:
A
Explanation:
The Anti-Virus blade in Check Point environments inspects traffic for known malware signatures and behavioral patterns. Although enabling the blade activates its capabilities, the actual enforcement of Anti-Virus protections depends on the Threat Prevention rulebase applied within the Access Control Policy. This rulebase determines which traffic is scanned, which profiles are applied, and what actions the system takes upon detecting suspicious or malicious files. Therefore, when malware passes through undetected, the most likely root cause is that the Threat Prevention rule is missing, incorrectly placed, or too restrictive.
A proper Threat Prevention rule must appear above a cleanup rule and must match the appropriate sources, destinations, services, and file types. If the rule only covers specific services such as SMTP, but malware arrives over HTTP or HTTPS, the Firewall never triggers Anti-Virus scanning. Similarly, if the rule is applied only to a subset of networks, traffic outside that scope bypasses scanning. Administrators often unintentionally place the Threat Prevention rule beneath a more generic allow rule, causing traffic to skip scanning and match a rule that does not enforce Threat Prevention.
Another factor involves the Threat Prevention profile associated with the rule. If the profile is configured in detect-only mode rather than prevent mode, malicious files may be logged but not actively blocked. If protections within the profile are disabled or set to inactive, Anti-Virus coverage becomes incomplete. Administrators must ensure that signatures are updated regularly and that the Gateway can communicate with ThreatCloud for updated malware intelligence.
Option B, DHCP server reservations, does not affect file scanning or malware detection. Option C, cluster synchronization state, pertains to state sharing between cluster members and does not influence Anti-Virus enforcement. Option D, VPN encryption method, affects secure tunnel negotiation and does not control malware scanning in cleartext or decrypted streams.
Thus, verifying the correct positioning and configuration of the Threat Prevention rule ensures that Anti-Virus is actively scanning the intended traffic.
Question 23:
A Security Administrator receives reports that multiple internal hosts are unable to download large files from external websites. Logs show repeated drops due to “Packet exceeds maximum allowed size.” What configuration should be reviewed first to resolve the issue?
A) The Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) configuration on relevant interfaces
B) The Anti-Bot profile
C) The administrator permission profiles
D) The VPN Tunnel Sharing settings
Answer:
A
Explanation:
When users cannot download large files and logs show drops indicating “Packet exceeds maximum allowed size,” the underlying problem typically relates to MTU mismatches along the communication path. MTU defines the maximum packet size a network interface can handle without requiring fragmentation. If packets exceed this limit and fragmentation is not properly supported or is blocked by policy or network devices, the Firewall may drop the packets. This issue disproportionately affects large file transfers, which commonly use maximum-size packets to optimize throughput.
The first step is verifying the MTU configuration on the Gateway interfaces. MTU values must match or remain compatible with upstream and downstream network devices. If the Gateway interface has an unusually low MTU, such as 1300 instead of the standard 1500, large packets will be dropped or fragmented incorrectly. Administrators should also confirm whether Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) is functioning. PMTUD relies on ICMP unreachable messages to negotiate appropriate packet sizes. If ICMP is blocked anywhere along the path, fragmentation is not negotiated properly, leading to packet drops.
Another related issue involves SecureXL and Stateful Inspection. When packets are fragmented, inspection becomes more complex. If certain IPS protections are active that block fragmented packets, the Gateway may prevent reconstruction of transmission segments. Administrators must ensure that packet reassembly is functioning.
Option B, the Anti-Bot profile, focuses on botnet detection and has no involvement in fragmentation or MTU issues. Option C, permission profiles for administrators, affects access control in SmartConsole and is unrelated to packet transmission sizes. Option D, VPN Tunnel Sharing, governs how VPN tunnels are built for multiple connections and does not influence MTU handling for non-VPN traffic.
Verifying and correcting MTU configuration resolves packet size drops and restores normal large file transfers across the network.
Question 24:
A Security Administrator has enabled Content Awareness to control file uploads and downloads. However, large media files are passing through without enforcement despite matching the rule conditions. What should be checked first to ensure Content Awareness is functioning?
A) That the Content Awareness blade supports the inspected file types and sizes
B) That SecureXL is in router mode
C) That VPN renegotiation timers are lowered
D) That the Gaia WebUI port is modified
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Content Awareness enables the Firewall to inspect file attributes such as file type, file size, and file data patterns before allowing or denying the transfer. If large files are bypassing enforcement, the likely cause is that the file types or sizes exceed the supported inspection limits. Content Awareness has known file size restrictions and may not inspect extremely large files depending on configuration or hardware capabilities. If a file type is not supported or cannot be parsed, the Firewall will allow the file by default unless specific block conditions exist.
Therefore, the first configuration to review is whether Content Awareness supports the file types being transferred and whether file size limitations have been exceeded. Administrators must verify the blade’s supported file categories and ensure that the policy rules align with these capabilities. For example, certain large media formats or archive types may not be fully inspectable. Likewise, multi-gigabyte files may exceed the maximum inspectable size.
Option B, SecureXL router mode, does not influence Content Awareness capabilities. Option C, VPN renegotiation timers, pertains to VPN session maintenance and has no relation to file inspection. Option D, Gaia WebUI port configuration, affects administrative access but does not influence traffic file inspection.
Reviewing Content Awareness capabilities and limitations is the correct step to ensure enforcement on large media files.
Question 25:
A Security Administrator finds that remote branch offices using Remote Access VPN clients frequently experience disconnections. Logs show repeated “Office Mode IP assignment failures.” What configuration must be reviewed first to ensure stable VPN connectivity?
A) The Office Mode IP pool configuration and available address range
B) The cluster pivot table
C) The Threat Extraction hold time
D) The NAT rulebase comments
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Remote Access VPN users rely on Office Mode IP addresses to connect through the Gateway with a stable internal IP identity. When the log shows repeated “Office Mode IP assignment failures,” it indicates that the Gateway is unable to assign the required virtual IPs to remote clients. This results in disconnections, authentication loops, or unstable VPN sessions.
The first configuration to verify is the Office Mode IP pool. The pool must contain a sufficient number of addresses to support the maximum number of concurrent VPN users. If the pool is too small or improperly subnetted, the Gateway runs out of available IPs and cannot assign addresses to new connections. Additionally, administrators must ensure that the Office Mode network does not overlap with internal networks, external networks, or other VPN pools. Overlapping networks create routing conflicts and connection failures.
Option B, the cluster pivot table, relates to internal cluster communication and is not relevant to VPN client IP assignment. Option C, Threat Extraction hold time, applies to file sanitization and has no influence on VPN stability. Option D, NAT rulebase comments, are administrative notes and cannot affect Office Mode IP allocation.
A properly configured and sufficiently sized Office Mode IP pool ensures consistent VPN stability for remote users.
Question 26:
A Security Administrator observes that Threat Extraction is enabled on the Gateway, but users still receive original files instead of sanitized versions. What configuration should be checked first to ensure Threat Extraction is actively sanitizing files?
A) The Threat Prevention rule enforcing Threat Extraction actions
B) The Anti-Bot DNS reputation settings
C) The Identity Awareness multi-host configuration
D) The SSL VPN topology
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Threat Extraction is designed to sanitize potentially malicious files by removing active content, macros, embedded code, and other risky components before the file reaches the user. Although Threat Extraction may be enabled at the blade level, it does not operate automatically without an accompanying Threat Prevention rule that specifies which traffic should undergo extraction. Therefore, when users continue receiving unsanitized original files, the first configuration to examine is the Threat Prevention rule structure and whether it enforces Threat Extraction actions for the relevant traffic.
Threat Extraction depends on correct policy placement. If the Threat Prevention rule is placed beneath rules that accept or bypass traffic without inspection, the extraction engine never processes the file. For example, if a general “accept all internal traffic” rule is placed above the extraction policy, file transfers match that rule first and bypass Threat Extraction entirely. This occurs frequently when administrators forget that Threat Prevention must intercept traffic before an allow rule can end the inspection sequence.
Additionally, the Threat Prevention profile associated with the rule must explicitly enable Threat Extraction. If the profile is configured in detect-only mode or the extraction capability is disabled for certain file types, sanitization may not occur. Administrators must review the profile to ensure that the extraction action is set correctly for inbound and outbound streams. For HTTPS traffic, decryption must be enabled. Without HTTPS Inspection, Threat Extraction cannot see or sanitize files inside encrypted channels.
Threat Extraction includes multiple extraction methods such as removing macros, converting PDFs to images, or stripping active content. If these methods are disabled or set to fallback-to-original mode, the Gateway may deliver the original file instead of the sanitized version. Some organizations choose this mode for compatibility reasons, but users often misinterpret this as a failure of the feature.
Option B, Anti-Bot DNS reputation settings, pertains to malware callbacks and has no direct role in Threat Extraction. Option C, Identity Awareness multi-host configuration, focuses on identifying users and devices, not file sanitization. Option D, SSL VPN topology, controls VPN connectivity but has no relevance to content sanitization.
Thus, the first and most essential configuration to review is the Threat Prevention rule that enforces Threat Extraction. Ensuring the rule is properly positioned, configured, and applied guarantees that sanitized files reach end users as intended.
Question 27:
A Security Administrator observes slow performance on a Security Gateway handling heavy HTTPS traffic. Analysis shows that almost all HTTPS traffic is going through full inspection instead of being accelerated. What configuration should be reviewed first to improve performance?
A) The HTTPS Inspection policy exceptions and bypass rules
B) The user directory LDAP schema
C) The Mobile Access portal theme settings
D) The cluster priority values
Answer:
A
Explanation:
HTTPS Inspection is one of the most resource-intensive functions on a Security Gateway. Decrypting, inspecting, and re-encrypting encrypted traffic consumes substantial CPU cycles. When nearly all HTTPS sessions undergo full inspection without benefiting from acceleration or bypass mechanisms, performance degrades significantly. Therefore, the first configuration to review is the HTTPS Inspection policy, specifically the exceptions and bypass rules.
In a typical enterprise environment, not all HTTPS traffic requires full decryption. For example, traffic destined for financial institutions, healthcare services, government sites, or certificate-pinned applications should be bypassed by HTTPS Inspection due to privacy and compatibility requirements. If exceptions are not properly configured, the Gateway attempts to decrypt every session, leading to high CPU load and slow processing.
Reviewing the exceptions list helps determine whether high-volume trusted sites are being decrypted unnecessarily. Administrators must also assess whether category-based exemptions are enabled, such as financial services or medical websites. If these categories are missing from the bypass list, the Gateway consumes resources decrypting traffic that should never be inspected.
Additionally, certain applications rely on certificate pinning, such as corporate mobile apps, security tools, or specialized cloud platforms. If such apps do not appear in the exception list, decryption breaks their connectivity and also increases CPU demand. Administrators must review logs for repeated decryption failures and create exceptions for such applications.
Another factor is the inspection scope. If the policy decrypts all outbound traffic regardless of risk level, the Gateway is unnecessarily burdened. Best practice recommends decrypting only categories or destinations that present moderate to high risk, not general-purpose encrypted traffic.
Option B, LDAP schema settings, pertains to user identity mapping and has no effect on HTTPS performance. Option C, Mobile Access portal themes, affects UI presentation but not traffic inspection load. Option D, cluster priority values, influence which node is active but do not optimize decryption performance.
Thus, reviewing and refining HTTPS Inspection exceptions is the most effective method to restore performance while maintaining balanced security.
Question 28:
A Security Administrator discovers that several IPS protections are not being enforced even though IPS is enabled and active. Logs show that traffic is “accelerated” and bypasses deep inspection. What should be reviewed first to ensure IPS protections apply correctly?
A) SecureXL template creation and acceleration status
B) The Anti-Spam settings
C) The DHCP server relay configuration
D) The administrator permission profiles
Answer:
A
Explanation:
IPS protections rely on deep packet inspection to block or detect malicious patterns. When SecureXL acceleration is enabled, eligible traffic may bypass full inspection by using acceleration templates. While this improves performance, it can inadvertently cause IPS protections to be skipped if traffic matches an acceleration path instead of passing through the full inspection pipeline. Therefore, when IPS protections are not being enforced and logs indicate acceleration, the first configuration to review is SecureXL template creation and acceleration status.
SecureXL templates are generated when traffic matches predictable, non-dynamic rules. If a rule permits broad categories of traffic without requiring inspection, SecureXL may create templates that accelerate sessions through fast path. This prevents IPS from analyzing packets. Administrators should examine which rules allow acceleration and determine whether these rules should be modified or moved below inspection-enforced rules.
Another important factor is verifying that the relevant IPS protections require deep inspection. Some protections are disabled by default or configured only in detect mode. If a protection is detect-only, it logs events but does not block attacks. Administrators may misinterpret this as a bypass when the behavior is actually intentional.
SecureXL may also bypass inspection for fragmented packets, nonstandard protocols, or traffic that matches specific exceptions. Reviewing the SecureXL statistics helps determine whether the traffic in question is being processed through the accelerated path due to template misalignment.
Option B, Anti-Spam settings, focuses on email filtering and does not influence IPS behavior. Option C, DHCP relay configuration, relates to IP assignments and does not impact IPS inspection. Option D, administrator permission profiles, governs SmartConsole access rights and is unrelated to packet inspection.
Therefore, reviewing SecureXL acceleration behavior is essential for restoring proper IPS enforcement.
Question 29:
A Security Administrator is troubleshooting remote access issues where VPN clients authenticate successfully but cannot access internal resources. Logs show “no route found.” What configuration should be checked first to resolve this issue?
A) The encryption domain routing and internal network reachability
B) The ThreatCloud URL reputation settings
C) The cluster synchronization delay
D) The DNS server recursive lookup mode
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Remote Access VPN clients rely on the encryption domain and internal routing to reach internal resources. When clients authenticate successfully but cannot access internal networks, and logs show “no route found,” the problem almost always lies in incorrect routing or misconfigured encryption domains. The encryption domain specifies which internal networks are reachable through the VPN tunnel. If these networks are missing, incorrectly defined, or overlapping, the Gateway cannot route traffic for VPN clients.
Administrators must verify that the internal networks requiring access are included in the encryption domain associated with the Remote Access VPN community. If only partial networks are included, clients may reach some resources but not others. Another issue arises when the Office Mode IP range overlaps with internal networks, causing routing conflicts. The Gateway may be unable to determine proper routes for VPN traffic, resulting in dropped packets.
Additionally, static routes or dynamic routing protocols must direct internal traffic toward the Gateway handling VPN clients. If no route exists from internal resources back to the VPN client’s assigned IP, replies fail, and connections appear one-way. Administrators must ensure symmetric routing.
Option B, ThreatCloud URL reputation settings, applies only to web filtering and does not influence VPN routing. Option C, cluster synchronization delay, affects failover behavior but would not cause routing errors. Option D, DNS server lookup mode, influences name resolution but not network path selection.
Thus, verifying encryption domain routing and internal reachability is paramount for resolving VPN access failures.
Question 30:
A Security Administrator enables Anti-Spam on the Security Gateway, but incoming email continues to bypass filtering. Logs show no Anti-Spam activity. What configuration should be reviewed first to restore filtering functionality?
A) The Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) settings and SMTP security policy
B) The VPN NAT traversal settings
C) The Gaia operating system password policy
D) The SMTP relay timeout
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Anti-Spam filtering in Check Point environments depends on the Firewalls ability to intercept and process SMTP traffic. To filter emails, the Security Gateway must be configured as an MTA or as an inline SMTP security gateway. If incoming email bypasses filtering and no Anti-Spam logs appear, the most likely configuration issue lies in the MTA settings or SMTP security policy.
Administrators must verify that the Gateway is configured to operate in MTA mode if required. In this mode, the Firewall receives messages, analyzes them for spam indicators, and forwards clean messages to the internal mail server. If MTA mode is disabled or not properly configured, the Firewall acts only as a pass-through device without filtering.
Another essential factor is the SMTP Security Rule within the Threat Prevention rulebase. If SMTP traffic is not matched by an Anti-Spam protecting rule, filtering never activates. If the rule targets the wrong source or destination, or if it is placed below a generic allow rule, SMTP flows bypass inspection entirely.
Option B, NAT traversal, affects VPN communications and is unrelated to SMTP inspection. Option C, the OS password policy, impacts administrative authentication but not mail filtering. Option D, SMTP relay timeout, may cause delays but would not disable Anti-Spam logging.
Thus, the correct configuration to review is the MTA and SMTP security settings to restore full Anti-Spam functionality.
Question 31:
A Security Administrator notices that multiple IPS protections are marked as “stale” in the Threat Prevention profile. The Gateway has been updated recently, but lingering stale protections are not being enforced. What configuration should be checked first to ensure IPS protections remain up-to-date and active?
A) The Gateway’s connectivity to Check Point Update and ThreatCloud services
B) The DHCP static bindings
C) The local user database entries
D) The VPN community shared secret
Answer:
A
Explanation:
When IPS protections appear as stale in SmartConsole, it means the Gateway has not received updated signatures or cannot verify the current protection dataset. Stale protections are not enforced, leaving the environment exposed to vulnerabilities. The most common cause of stale protections is a failure in the Gateway’s ability to connect to Check Point Update servers or the ThreatCloud intelligence network. IPS signature delivery relies entirely on continuous and stable communication with these update sources, so administrators must verify this connectivity before reviewing any other configuration.
The first step involves checking outbound connectivity. The Gateway needs to reach a set of URLs and IP ranges over specific ports, commonly HTTPS-based update channels. Firewalls or proxy servers along the path may accidentally block these connections, leading to incomplete or failed updates. Administrators should test connectivity using built-in diagnostic commands that verify communication with Check Point’s update infrastructure. If these tests fail, updating protections becomes impossible.
Another potential issue is misconfigured proxy settings. If the Gateway uses a proxy for internet access, the proxy authentication or whitelist configuration may be incorrect, causing update failures. Administrators must ensure that proxy credentials are correct and that update-related URLs are exempt from filtering. DNS resolution also plays a critical role. If the DNS servers used by the Gateway cannot resolve Check Point update domains, the update process fails silently.
Certificates used to validate update packages must also be valid. If the system clock is not synchronized with an NTP source, certificate validation can fail, resulting in stale protections. Therefore, administrators must confirm proper time synchronization. Additionally, disk space constraints on the management server or Gateway can interrupt updates if insufficient space exists to store update packages.
Option B, DHCP static bindings, has no relevance to IPS protections or updates. Option C, local user database entries, affects authentication but not IPS signature delivery. Option D, VPN shared secrets, plays a role in VPN connectivity but has no impact on IPS updates.
Ensuring stable ThreatCloud and update server connectivity resolves stale signature issues and restores IPS protections to active status.
Question 32:
A Security Administrator finds that several applications categorized under “High Risk” are still accessible despite being blocked under the Application Control policy. Logs show that traffic is matching a more generic rule before reaching the block rule. What configuration should be corrected first?
A) The order and placement of Application Control rules
B) The TACACS authentication sequence
C) The multicast routing settings
D) The cluster object topology
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Application Control rules work sequentially, meaning traffic is evaluated from top to bottom. The first matching rule determines whether the traffic is allowed, blocked, or monitored. When high-risk applications remain accessible despite explicit block rules, the problem is almost always improper rule ordering. A more general rule placed above a specific block rule allows traffic to bypass the intended restriction. Therefore, the primary configuration to review and correct is the order and placement of Application Control rules.
Administrators should ensure that block rules for high-risk applications are positioned above broader allow rules. For example, a common mistake occurs when administrators place a generic “Allow All Internet” rule before application-specific block entries. Because Application Control operates on a first-match basis, the traffic matches the generic rule and is allowed before the block rule is ever evaluated. Reordering the rulebase ensures that high-priority block rules take precedence.
Another factor involves overlapping rule criteria. If a parent rule permits an application category or service that encompasses the blocked applications, that allow rule may override the block rule unless the block rule is placed above it. Proper grouping and consistent object usage help prevent this.
Administrators must also evaluate Identity Awareness roles, if used. A block rule targeted to a specific Access Role will not apply to users outside that role. Therefore, logs must be reviewed to determine which rule the traffic is matching and which identity is assigned to the user.
Option B, TACACS authentication, affects admin login to the system but does not influence Application Control policy enforcement. Option C, multicast routing, is unrelated to application-based filtering for user traffic. Option D, cluster topology, affects cluster interfaces but does not impact rule matching in Application Control.
Thus, reordering the Application Control policy ensures correct enforcement of high-risk application blocks.
Question 33:
A Security Administrator notices that mobile devices using Capsule VPN can authenticate successfully but receive no internet access when split tunneling is enabled. Internal resources work properly. What configuration should be examined first to restore external connectivity?
A) The split tunneling definitions and routing configuration for external traffic
B) The Identity Sharing settings
C) The Data Loss Prevention scanning profile
D) The SMP cloud management configuration
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Split tunneling allows VPN clients to access internal corporate resources while sending internet-bound traffic directly through their local internet connection. When users connected through Capsule VPN can access internal resources but not the internet, the issue is typically caused by incorrect split tunneling configuration. The first area to examine is the list of networks and routes included or excluded in the split tunneling definitions.
If the split tunneling policy mistakenly includes the default route or internet-bound networks within the tunneled segment, the client attempts to send all traffic through the VPN. This results in internet access failures because the Gateway is not configured to NAT or route external traffic coming from VPN clients. Administrators must verify that only internal networks are included in the encryption domain of the VPN community. No default 0.0.0.0/0 route should be present unless full tunneling is desired.
Another common issue arises from local routing tables on the client device. If the VPN client installs incorrect routes—such as setting itself as the gateway for the internet—the traffic fails. Administrators must ensure the capsule configuration sends only internal routes through the VPN. Misconfigured Office Mode IP assignments can also cause routing conflicts. If the Office Mode subnet overlaps with local internet-facing subnets, routing loops occur.
DNS is also a contributing factor. When split tunneling is enabled, clients may try to resolve internet domains using the internal DNS server, which may not be configured to resolve external names. Ensuring proper DNS assignment for split tunnel clients is critical.
Option B, Identity Sharing, pertains to user identity distribution between Gateways and does not affect internet routing. Option C, DLP scanning, involves document movement policies and has no impact on split tunneling. Option D, SMP cloud management, pertains to cloud administration but not client routing.
Thus, reviewing split tunnel definitions and routing ensures correct path selection for internet traffic.
Question 34:
A Security Administrator is troubleshooting a site-to-site VPN where traffic flows successfully from Site A to Site B but not in the reverse direction. Logs show asymmetric routing issues. What configuration should be reviewed first to solve the one-way communication problem?
A) The static and dynamic routing paths between both sites
B) The HTTPS Inspection bypass rules
C) The administrator login method
D) The cluster virtual IP address
Answer:
A
Explanation:
One-way VPN traffic commonly indicates routing asymmetry, where traffic from Site A to Site B follows one path, but return traffic takes a different or incorrect path. IPSec tunnels require symmetric routing. If the return traffic bypasses the tunnel or exits the wrong interface, the Gateway drops it due to anti-spoofing or missing tunnel associations. Therefore, the first configuration to review is the static and dynamic routing paths at both sites.
Administrators must ensure that the encryption domains match and that both Gateways know how to reach the internal networks behind the other site. If Site B sends return traffic toward the internet instead of toward the VPN peer, the traffic never reenters the tunnel. Incorrect default routes, misconfigured static routes, or mistakes in OSPF or BGP propagation can cause this issue.
Anti-spoofing also plays a role. If the returning packets arrive at an interface that is not configured to expect those source IP ranges, the Firewall drops them as spoofed. Correcting interface topology and routing eliminates this.
Option B, HTTPS bypass rules, does not influence VPN routing. Option C, admin login methods, affect management access only. Option D, cluster VIPs, relate to redundancy and do not cause one-way VPN failures.
Routing definitions are the foundational element of resolving asymmetric traffic in VPN environments.
Question 35:
A Security Administrator discovers that Threat Emulation is functioning correctly, but Threat Extraction is not triggered for email attachments arriving via SMTP. Users receive original files instead of sanitized versions. What configuration should be checked first?
A) The Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) configuration enabling content inspection for SMTP
B) The cluster CCP secure mode
C) The NAT loopback entry
D) The OSPF authentication mode
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Threat Extraction operates on files passing through supported protocols such as HTTP, HTTPS, and SMTP. For email attachments arriving via SMTP, the Gateway must be configured as an MTA or inline SMTP security device. If the MTA role is disabled or misconfigured, the Firewall does not intercept or analyze SMTP messages, preventing Threat Extraction from activating.
The first step is verifying the MTA settings. When operating as an MTA, the Gateway terminates the SMTP connection, processes the email content, applies Threat Prevention actions including Threat Emulation and Threat Extraction, then forwards the sanitized message to the internal mail server. If the Gateway is not configured in this mode, SMTP traffic merely passes through without inspection.
Another factor involves the Threat Prevention rule that must include SMTP services and enforce extraction actions. If the rule targets only web services, email attachments bypass extraction. In addition, administrators must ensure that SMTP parsing is enabled in the Threat Prevention profile.
Option B, CCP secure mode, governs cluster communication and is unrelated to SMTP inspection. Option C, NAT loopback, affects internal access via public addresses and does not influence email scanning. Option D, OSPF authentication, relates to routing protocol security, not mail inspection.
Thus, reviewing and correcting the MTA configuration ensures that Threat Extraction applies to SMTP attachment traffic.
Question 36:
A Security Administrator notices that several inbound HTTPS connections to internal servers fail when HTTPS Inspection is enabled. The browser errors indicate that the certificate presented is not the server’s real certificate. What configuration should be checked first to ensure inbound HTTPS traffic is handled correctly?
A) The HTTPS Inspection policy to confirm inbound HTTPS traffic is excluded from decryption
B) The Anti-Bot enforcement profile
C) The cluster state synchronization interface
D) The DNS server root hints
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Inbound HTTPS connections must never be decrypted unless the Firewall is performing reverse proxy-style inspection, which is not the default in Check Point environments. In most deployments, inbound connections to internal servers must preserve the original server certificate and must not be intercepted by HTTPS Inspection. If inbound HTTPS traffic is mistakenly subjected to decryption, the Security Gateway attempts to impersonate the internal server by presenting its own inspection certificate. Because browsers expect the original server certificate, they detect the mismatch immediately and block the connection. Therefore, the first configuration to examine is the HTTPS Inspection policy, specifically ensuring that inbound HTTPS traffic is excluded from inspection.
The HTTPS Inspection policy contains rules determining whether traffic is decrypted or bypassed. A common mistake is creating overly broad inspection rules such as “Inspect all outbound and inbound HTTPS traffic.” If the source and destination categories are not correctly defined, the Firewall may inadvertently decrypt traffic for internal server destinations. Administrators must ensure that rules explicitly bypass traffic whose destination is the internal server’s public IP address or internal IP address, depending on whether NAT is applied. This prevents the Gateway from performing man-in-the-middle inspection where it should not.
Another factor is NAT configuration. If inbound traffic is translated before HTTPS Inspection rules are evaluated, the Firewall may interpret the inbound connection as internal-to-internal traffic and wrongly apply decryption. Administrators must verify that NAT occurs in the correct inspection stage and that the HTTPS Inspection rules reflect the NATed or original IP addresses as necessary.
Certainty regarding certificate deployment is also essential. If the HTTPS Inspection certificate is not trusted by external clients, inbound decryption breaks immediately. Even if clients trust the certificate, decryption of inbound server traffic is undesirable because it violates the security model of public-facing HTTPS architecture. The original server certificate must remain untouched.
Option B, the Anti-Bot profile, pertains to botnet detection and has no impact on inbound certificate impersonation. Option C, the cluster state synchronization interface, ensures stateful failover functionality but does not affect SSL certificate handling. Option D, DNS server root hints, relates to name resolution and does not influence HTTPS Inspection rules.
Thus, reviewing and correcting the HTTPS Inspection policy to bypass inbound server traffic is crucial for restoring normal HTTPS access to internal servers.
Question 37:
A Security Administrator reports that newly created Network Objects do not appear in the Access Control policy installation, causing installation to fail due to unresolved objects. What configuration should be checked first?
A) The SmartConsole session publish and database synchronization status
B) The VPN tunnel sharing mode
C) The SecureXL dynamic priority table
D) The OSPF redistribution settings
Answer:
A
Explanation:
When new objects created in SmartConsole do not appear during policy installation, the root cause typically stems from unsubmitted changes or database synchronization issues. SmartConsole uses a session-based workflow where administrators create, modify, or delete objects within a session that must be published before changes become visible to the Security Management Server. If an administrator forgets to publish their session, the new objects remain local to the console and are not included in the global policy database. As a result, policy installation fails because the Gateway receives references to objects that do not exist in the published database.
The first step is verifying that the session was published. Administrators must check whether their SmartConsole session displays unsaved changes. If so, they need to publish them to synchronize the central management database. In collaborative environments with multiple administrators, another common issue arises when session locks prevent changes from being merged. If another administrator holds a publish lock, new objects cannot be committed until that session is closed or published.
Beyond session publication, database synchronization between Management and Log servers can fail due to connectivity problems or misconfigured SIC trust. Administrators should verify SIC status and confirm that management servers are reachable. If database corruption or inconsistencies occur, performing a database repair or re-synchronization may be required.
Another contributing issue could involve SmartConsole version mismatches. Administrators running outdated SmartConsole builds may encounter compatibility issues preventing objects from appearing correctly. Ensuring that both the Management Server and SmartConsole client are updated resolves many inconsistencies.
Option B, VPN tunnel sharing mode, affects VPN traffic handling and never influences the visibility of Network Objects. Option C, the SecureXL dynamic priority table, relates to performance tuning and is irrelevant to policy object management. Option D, OSPF redistribution settings, pertains to routing and has no connection to the SmartConsole object database.
Therefore, verifying the publish state and ensuring database synchronization is the essential first step for resolving missing object issues during policy installation.
Question 38:
A Security Administrator receives reports that internal users cannot resolve external DNS names when using the Security Gateway as their DNS forwarder. Logs indicate repeated DNS drops due to inspection failures. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The DNS Security settings and protocol parser configuration
B) The ClusterXL pivot table
C) The GAIA WebUI management port
D) The Remote Access office mode lease time
Answer:
A
Explanation:
DNS is a critical service for nearly all network operations, and failures in DNS resolution severely disrupt user productivity. When a Security Gateway serves as a DNS forwarder and logs show DNS drops due to inspection failures, the DNS Security blade or protocol parser configuration is likely misconfigured. Check Point incorporates DNS filtering and protocol validation to detect malicious DNS patterns such as tunneling, domain generation algorithms, and suspicious responses. If the DNS parser detects malformed or unexpected DNS packets, it may drop them.
The first configuration to examine is the DNS Security settings. Administrators must ensure that DNS inspection modes are correctly set and not overly restrictive for legitimate traffic. For example, if DNS over UDP is allowed but DNS over TCP is incorrectly blocked, some domains requiring TCP fallback will fail. Similarly, oversized DNS packets, EDNS-enabled responses, or DNSSEC queries may be dropped if the inspection engine is not configured to support them.
Another important factor is verifying that the up-stream DNS servers are reachable and not returning malformed responses. Sometimes, DNS providers return extended or non-standard fields that DNS inspection interprets as suspicious. Administrators must consider whether bypassing DNS inspection for trusted DNS servers is reasonable.
The Gateway’s own DNS resolver configuration must be correct. Incorrect or unreachable DNS servers in the Gateway’s configuration can lead to failed DNS forwarding. Administrators must verify the DNS settings under system configuration to ensure valid primary and secondary DNS servers are in use.
Option B, the ClusterXL pivot table, concerns cluster synchronization decisions and does not influence DNS resolution failures. Option C, GAIA WebUI management port, affects GUI accessibility but has no impact on DNS operations. Option D, office mode lease time, applies only to VPN clients and does not affect local DNS forwarding.
Reviewing DNS Security and parser configurations is the correct starting point for restoring normal DNS functionality.
Question 39:
A Security Administrator notices that large log files on the Management Server are causing disk usage alerts. Log retention works, but automatic log export and deletion appear inconsistent. What configuration should be reviewed first to stabilize log management?
A) The Log Server retention and automatic log export settings
B) The HTTPS Inspection trust store
C) The VPN S2S shared secrets
D) The OSPF dead timer configuration
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Log management is a critical part of maintaining a stable Security Management Server. As logs accumulate, they consume significant disk space. If disk space becomes critically low, management operations fail, log indexing stops, and policy installations may be disrupted. When automatic log export and deletion work inconsistently, the underlying issue typically lies in the Log Server retention settings.
The first step is reviewing the Log Server retention policy configuration. Retention determines how long logs remain stored and when they are automatically archived or deleted. If retention periods are misconfigured or set too long, logs will accumulate faster than they are processed. Administrators must verify that expiration timelines reflect the organization’s compliance requirements while preserving sufficient disk space.
Automatic log export settings determine whether logs are exported to external storage before deletion. If the export process fails due to permission issues, unreachable storage destinations, or incorrect export paths, logs remain on the server longer than intended. Administrators should confirm that export destinations are reachable, have adequate permissions, and support the required throughput. If the export fails, the deletion process does not proceed, causing disk usage issues.
Another important factor is indexing. If log indexing is delayed due to high CPU or I/O load, logs may not be archived promptly, leading to backup accumulation in the active log directory. Administrators must ensure that the indexing engine runs on schedule and has access to adequate resources.
Finally, administrators should confirm that log rotation is functioning. If rotation is disabled or misconfigured, log files may grow indefinitely instead of being segmented into manageable units. Some deployments also require adjusting the threshold values for automatic cleanup.
Option B, the HTTPS Inspection trust store, manages SSL certificate validation and is unrelated to log storage. Option C, VPN shared secrets, only impacts VPN negotiation. Option D, OSPF dead timer, influences routing stability and has no impact on log management.
Thus, reviewing retention and log export settings is essential for restoring stable log lifecycle management.
Question 40:
A Security Administrator finds that some users authenticated with Identity Awareness report inconsistent access to resources. Logs show conflicting identity mappings for the same IP address. What configuration should be examined first to resolve the identity conflicts?
A) The priority and sequencing of Identity Sources in the Identity Awareness settings
B) The SMTP Security rule in Threat Prevention
C) The DHCP pool exclusion list
D) The SecureXL affinity table
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Identity Awareness enables user-based policy enforcement by associating IP addresses with authenticated users. When users receive inconsistent access rights and logs show conflicting identity mappings for the same IP address, the issue often stems from multiple Identity Sources providing overlapping or contradictory identity information. Identity Awareness allows several sources such as AD Query, Identity Agents, Browser-Based Authentication, Terminal Server Agents, and RADIUS accounting. If these sources are enabled simultaneously without proper prioritization, identity collisions occur.
The first configuration to examine is the identity source priority order. Check Point processes identity information sequentially, meaning one source may override another. If a less authoritative source, such as Browser-Based Authentication, overwrites AD Query identity information, users may suddenly lose or change Access Roles. Administrators must ensure that identity sources are listed in the correct order based on reliability.
It is also essential to verify that identity logoff events are processed correctly. Stale identity mappings can cause old user data to persist. Clearing the identity cache or reducing identity timeout durations helps resolve stale mappings.
Terminal Server Agents, if deployed, require unique user-to-IP mapping to prevent identity overlap. If a Terminal Server is mistakenly treated as a standard workstation, multiple users appear to share a single IP, causing conflicting identity logs.
Option B, SMTP Security, concerns email filtering and does not influence identity mapping. Option C, DHCP exclusion lists, relate to IP addressing but do not resolve conflicts in authentication sources. Option D, SecureXL affinity, affects CPU assignment and does not determine user identity resolution.
Therefore, reviewing the priority and configuration of Identity Sources is essential for resolving identity conflicts and restoring consistent access.
