Visit here for our full Checkpoint 156-215.81.20 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 61:
A Security Administrator finds that internal hosts accessing external HTTPS sites sometimes fail during TLS handshake after enabling Threat Prevention inline layers. Logs show packet drops tagged as “TLS fingerprint mismatch.” What configuration should be checked first?
A) The TLS inspection and protocol anomaly settings within the Threat Prevention profile
B) The DHCP lease scope for wireless clients
C) The cluster member priority weights
D) The SMTP content filtering rule
Answer:
A
Explanation:
When TLS handshake failures occur after enabling Threat Prevention inline layers, and logs reflect “TLS fingerprint mismatch,” the issue typically relates to the Threat Prevention engine performing advanced protocol anomaly inspections. TLS fingerprinting is used to profile client-side behavior such as cipher preferences, extensions, and handshake structure. If the Threat Prevention profile is configured with strict TLS anomaly detection, it may flag legitimate variations in handshake packets as suspicious. This causes the Firewall to drop the packets, resulting in handshake failures for certain external HTTPS sites.
The first configuration to review is the TLS inspection and protocol anomaly settings within the Threat Prevention profile. Administrators must ensure that the profile is not applying overly strict protocol validation rules that block legitimate applications or browsers with unique TLS handshaking patterns. For example, newer browsers supporting TLS 1.3 extensions may include handshake components that older inspection engines misinterpret as anomalous. Similarly, cloud-based services can use non-standard TLS negotiation sequences that strict inspection profiles mistakenly flag.
Another important factor is how Threat Prevention interacts with HTTPS Inspection. If HTTPS Inspection is decrypting traffic, but the Threat Prevention profile applies strict rules to decrypted flows, mismatches can occur. Adjusting the inspection to “Detect” mode rather than “Prevent” for TLS anomalies may mitigate unnecessary drops while still providing security visibility. Administrators may also apply exceptions for specific categories such as major cloud platforms or content delivery networks.
Compatibility issues with the underlying TLS parser can also cause fingerprint mismatches, especially if the Firewall is running outdated software lacking full support for emerging TLS features. In such cases, upgrading the software version helps resolve parsing inconsistencies.
Option B, DHCP lease scope, is unrelated to TLS packet inspection. Option C, cluster priority weights, affects failover behavior but does not impact TLS handshake evaluation. Option D, SMTP content filtering, deals with email security and does not influence HTTPS behavior.
Thus, reviewing TLS anomaly inspection settings in the Threat Prevention profile is the correct first step.
Question 62:
A Security Administrator sees that remote branch offices connected through VPN tunnels can access internal services, but traffic toward cloud-based services fails. Logs show that traffic is routed incorrectly outside the encryption domain. What configuration should be checked first?
A) The VPN encryption domain definitions for each VPN gateway
B) The Threat Emulation archive handling policy
C) The cluster state table synchronization speed
D) The DNS zone delegation policy
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Site-to-site VPN tunnels rely on encryption domains to determine which networks are included in the secure tunnel. When branch-office users can access internal resources but not cloud services, it indicates that cloud-bound traffic is not following the intended routing path. If the encryption domain excludes cloud service networks—or is configured incorrectly—the Firewall may treat the cloud-bound traffic as general outbound traffic, potentially NATing or routing it through the wrong gateway.
The first configuration to review is the VPN encryption domain definitions. Administrators must ensure that only internal networks that require secure transport are included. If cloud networks are mistakenly included in the encryption domain, the branch firewall may expect those networks to reside inside the VPN, causing asymmetrical routing. Conversely, if the cloud services rely on private RFC1918 addresses or SD-WAN overlays, missing these from the encryption domain can cause routing mismatches.
Another issue arises from overlapping address spaces. If local subnets at the branch office overlap with cloud service networks, the Firewall may incorrectly route packets. Adjusting the encryption domain to exclude external cloud networks—unless explicitly required—is essential.
Some organizations mistakenly configure a full-tunnel VPN using 0.0.0.0/0 as the encryption domain. This forces all branch traffic, including cloud services, to route back to headquarters. If HQ Firewalls are not prepared to route to cloud platforms or if NAT conflicts occur, traffic fails. Reviewing the encryption domain to ensure split-tunneling or selective encryption is configured correctly resolves these issues.
Option B, archive handling, pertains to Threat Emulation and does not influence routing. Option C deals with cluster synchronization but does not affect VPN routing logic. Option D involves DNS delegation and plays no role in routing cloud-bound packets.
Correcting the encryption domain ensures proper routing and restores cloud connectivity for branch users.
Question 63:
A Security Administrator notices that users authenticated through Identity Awareness SmartLog show inconsistent log correlation between source IP, user identity, and Access Role. Logs indicate identity updates are delayed. What configuration should be checked first?
A) Identity Awareness session timeouts and identity cache expiration settings
B) The VPN IKE Phase 1 lifetime
C) The SmartEvent automatic purge schedule
D) The NAT rulebase order
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Identity Awareness relies on timely mappings between IP addresses, user identities, and group memberships. When logs show delayed or inconsistent identity updates, users may temporarily receive incorrect Access Roles or mismatched rights. This is especially common in dynamic environments with DHCP-assigned addresses or roaming users. The underlying cause typically lies in stale identity mappings or identity caches that retain outdated entries.
The first configuration to review is the session timeout and identity cache expiration settings in Identity Awareness. If the identity cache duration is too long, user identities remain tied to IP addresses even after users log out or change networks. As a result, SmartLog entries may reflect the wrong identity or outdated group memberships. Configuring shorter timeout durations ensures timely refresh of user-IP bindings.
Administrators should also examine the frequency of identity updates from sources such as AD Query, Identity Agents, or RADIUS. If AD Query polling intervals are too long, group updates take longer to propagate, causing inconsistencies. Ensuring proper synchronization speeds between identity sources helps maintain accuracy.
Additionally, if DHCP lease times are too short relative to identity lifetimes, identities may bind to IPs that get reassigned before the identity cache updates. Adjusting either DHCP leases or identity cache timers resolves the mismatch.
Option B, IKE lifetime, is unrelated to user identity. Option C, SmartEvent purge schedule, affects log retention but does not delay identity mapping. Option D, NAT rule order, influences IP translation but not user identity associations.
Therefore, adjusting identity timeouts and cache settings is essential for accurate user-role correlation.
Question 64:
A Security Administrator finds that Anti-Bot protections detect inbound malicious callbacks but fail to block outbound connections from infected hosts. Logs indicate that outbound flows match a rule with insufficient threat enforcement. What configuration should be checked first?
A) The Threat Prevention rule order to ensure outbound bot traffic matches a block or prevent rule
B) The OSPF virtual link parameters
C) The DHCP failover mode
D) The SMTP MTA relay security level
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Anti-Bot must block malicious outbound communications from infected hosts to command-and-control servers. These communications are detected by analyzing patterns, signatures, DNS reputation queries, and behavioral signals. When outbound botnet traffic is detected but not blocked, the most common cause is incorrect Threat Prevention rule ordering. Threat Prevention rules, like Access Control rules, operate on a top-down structure. If an outbound accept rule precedes the Threat Prevention block/prevent rule, traffic matches the accept rule and bypasses deeper threat analysis.
The first configuration to review is the Threat Prevention rule order. Administrators must ensure that relevant outbound traffic passes through a Threat Prevention rule enforcing Anti-Bot protections. If the Anti-Bot rule is placed below a broader accept rule, it never triggers. Reorganizing the rules ensures outbound malicious traffic matches the correct prevention rule.
Another issue is using detect-only mode instead of prevent mode. If the Threat Prevention profile is configured to “Detect” for Anti-Bot events, the Firewall logs detections but allows the traffic. Administrators must verify that outbound botnet categories are configured with Prevent actions.
Option B, OSPF virtual links, relates to routing behavior but does not affect botnet protection. Option C, DHCP failover, concerns IP assignment and is irrelevant. Option D, SMTP relay settings, is related to mail flow and does not influence botnet communication prevention.
Thus, proper Threat Prevention rule ordering ensures that outbound malicious activity is blocked effectively.
Question 65:
A Security Administrator sees that several internal servers show repeated “port scan detected” alerts, but traffic originates from legitimate monitoring tools. The alerts cause unnecessary blocking. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The IPS protections related to port scanning and the exception list for trusted monitoring hosts
B) The cluster synchronization topology
C) The VPN domain-based routing table
D) The DNS cache TTL settings
Answer:
A
Explanation:
IPS detects port scans by monitoring patterns of connection attempts across multiple ports in a short timeframe. While this is effective for identifying reconnaissance activity, legitimate monitoring systems often mimic port scan behavior because they probe servers for health checks, availability, or performance metrics. When IPS flags these monitoring activities as port scans, unnecessary blocking occurs.
The first configuration to review is the IPS protections related to port scanning. Administrators should confirm whether these protections are set to prevent mode or detect mode. For internal monitoring traffic, placing these protections in detect mode prevents unnecessary blocking while still generating alerts. Additionally, administrators must review or create exceptions for trusted monitoring hosts. Exception rules allow specific IP ranges or tools to bypass certain IPS protections.
Another important factor is the sensitivity threshold. IPS port scan protections sometimes apply very aggressive thresholds that misclassify legitimate scanning activities. Adjusting thresholds or modifying profiles helps tailor detection to the environment.
Option B, cluster synchronization topology, involves failover communication and does not affect port scan detection. Option C, VPN routing, affects tunnel path selection but not internal monitoring behavior. Option D, DNS TTL, deals with caching and has no connection to port scan detection logic.
Thus, adjusting IPS port scan protections and defining exceptions for trusted internal tools is the correct first step.
Question 66:
A Security Administrator reports that Geo Policy is enabled to block traffic from high-risk countries, but certain blocked countries still manage to generate inbound connection attempts. Logs show that the traffic is matched by earlier Access Control rules before Geo Policy is applied. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Access Control rule order to ensure Geo Policy enforcement occurs before general accept rules
B) The SMTP TLS enforcement setting
C) The DHCP static reservation method
D) The cluster pivot connection synchronization mode
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Geo Policy filters traffic at the country level, allowing administrators to block or allow traffic based on geographic source or destination. However, Geo Policy is not evaluated independently of the Access Control rulebase. Instead, Geo Policy is applied only when traffic reaches rules that enforce it. If earlier rules match the traffic before Geo Policy rules are evaluated, those rules override Geo Policy settings. This is especially common when broad “accept” rules, NAT rules, or legacy migration rules appear above Geo Policy entries.
The first configuration to review is the Access Control rule ordering. Administrators must ensure that the rules referencing Geo Policy are placed above any general accept, allow, or bypass rules. If Geo Policy is configured within a Threat Prevention or inline layer, the placement of that layer within the parent rule must also be evaluated. Misplacement prevents Geo Policy from triggering.
Another common issue is the use of “Any” objects in early rules, which unintentionally accept all traffic regardless of geographic origin. Narrowing these objects or moving them below Geo Policy ensures correct enforcement. In addition, administrators must confirm that traffic is indeed being inspected by the correct Gateway. If traffic bypasses the intended Gateway via asymmetric routing or secondary WAN links, Geo Policy may not apply.
Some administrators use objects representing specific IP ranges instead of Geo objects. If these objects include ranges belonging to restricted countries, Geo Policy may appear ineffective. Reviewing object definitions helps prevent inaccurate overrides.
Option B relates to email encryption and is unrelated to Geo enforcement. Option C deals with IP assignment but has no relationship to Geo filtering. Option D pertains to cluster synchronization behavior, which does not affect Geo policy evaluation.
Correct Access Control rule order is the most important factor determining whether Geo Policy operates properly.
Question 67:
A Security Administrator notes that when HTTPS Inspection is enabled, some internal web applications that use client-side certificates fail during authentication. Logs show that the Firewall replaces client certificates with its own inspection certificate. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The HTTPS Inspection bypass list to exclude applications requiring client-certificate authentication
B) The VPN topology and community encryption settings
C) The SmartEvent log indexing frequency
D) The ARP gratuitous reply settings
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Client-certificate authentication requires that the original certificate presented by the user remains intact through the entire TLS handshake. When HTTPS Inspection is enabled, the Firewall decrypts and re-encrypts SSL traffic using its own certificate. This substitution breaks mutual TLS authentication because the web server sees the Firewall-generated certificate instead of the user’s client certificate. As a result, applications relying on client-side certificates reject the connection.
The first configuration to review is the HTTPS Inspection bypass list. Administrators must identify which web applications require client-certificate authentication and ensure these applications are excluded from interception. These exceptions must be placed at the top of the HTTPS Inspection rulebase to ensure that the Firewall identifies and bypasses them before attempting decryption.
In some environments, IP-based exceptions are more reliable than domain-based exceptions, especially for applications running internal services with unique certificate requirements. Administrators may also need to enable compatibility mode for TLS parsing if the application uses proprietary client-certificate exchange formats.
Another important factor is whether the Firewall trusts the issuing CA of client certificates. If not, the Firewall cannot validate them even if bypassing is attempted. However, because client-certificate authentication implies that traffic must remain encrypted end-to-end, bypassing HTTPS Inspection entirely for these applications is the correct solution.
Option B concerns VPN encryption and does not impact client-certificate authentication. Option C addresses SmartEvent log processing but has no effect on SSL mutual authentication. Option D deals with ARP replies, unrelated to TLS certificate handling.
Thus, HTTPS Inspection exceptions must be applied to ensure applications that use mutual TLS continue to function correctly.
Question 68:
A Security Administrator observes that connections to internal application servers intermittently fail when load-balanced through a ClusterXL environment. Logs show that some return traffic bypasses the active cluster member. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The cluster Sticky Decision Function (SDF) and server-side routing paths
B) The SMTP MTA delivery queue
C) The Identity Awareness browser-based authentication flow
D) The Threat Emulation file size limit
Answer:
A
Explanation:
ClusterXL requires symmetric routing for connections to function correctly. When the active cluster member receives a connection, it must also process the return traffic. If return packets arrive at the standby cluster member or a different gateway, connection state information is missing, causing drops. These drops appear as intermittent connectivity failures for applications behind a load balancer.
The first configuration to review is the Sticky Decision Function (SDF), which ensures that connections consistently route through the same cluster member. SDF maintains affinity between client sessions and cluster members by hashing connection parameters. If SDF is misconfigured or disabled, packet distribution becomes inconsistent, causing asymmetric flows.
Administrators must also examine routing paths behind the application servers. If the servers use a default route pointing to a different Firewall or gateway instead of the active cluster member, return traffic exits incorrectly. Configuring appropriate static routes, policy-based routing, or using a cluster multicast MAC ensures traffic flows through the active member.
Load balancers also influence routing symmetry. If they direct inbound connections to multiple servers in a way that causes varying routing paths, SDF must be configured to maintain directional consistency. If source NAT is used, ensuring SNAT is applied consistently on the active member prevents servers from replying directly to clients.
Option B concerns email queues, unrelated to routing. Option C deals with Identity Awareness login pages and does not affect cluster routing. Option D affects sandboxing limits but not packet flow symmetry.
Thus, reviewing SDF and routing paths ensures stable connections in ClusterXL load-balanced environments.
Question 69:
A Security Administrator notices that some IPS protections for critical protocols are not applied when using an inline layer for Threat Prevention. Logs indicate that the parent rulebase allows traffic without invoking the inline layer. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The position and matching conditions of the inline layer within the parent Access Control rulebase
B) The DNS forwarding conditional rules
C) The VPN NAT-T keepalive interval
D) The SmartLog indexing allocation
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Inline layers allow administrators to embed a secondary rulebase within the primary Access Control policy. This allows specific traffic to be further evaluated by Threat Prevention or Application Control rules. However, inline layers only function when the parent rule that contains them is matched. If the parent rule is placed too low, overshadowed by broad accept rules, or misconfigured, traffic never reaches the inline layer. As a result, Threat Prevention rules such as IPS protections fail to apply.
The first configuration administrators must examine is the position and matching logic of the inline layer parent rule. Administrators must ensure that the parent rule precedes any general allow rules that would prematurely match the traffic. Inline layers work sequentially: if a higher rule matches, evaluation does not proceed to the parent rule containing the inline layer.
Matching conditions within the parent rule are also critical. If the source, destination, service, or application fields are too narrow or too broad, traffic may not enter the inline layer at all. Reviewing logs for which parent rule traffic is actually matching provides immediate insight.
Another important issue is the placement of cleanup rules. If a cleanup rule placed above the inline layer accepts traffic, no Threat Prevention inspection takes place. Inline layers must be strategically positioned to guarantee that intended traffic is examined.
Option B pertains to DNS forwarding and does not affect inline layer evaluation. Option C deals with VPN NAT-T and is unrelated. Option D concerns log indexing and has no effect on rulebase matching.
Thus, ensuring that the inline layer is properly placed and configured within the parent rule is essential for Threat Prevention enforcement.
Question 70:
A Security Administrator finds that SNMP monitoring tools intermittently fail to poll the Firewall, generating “timeout” alerts. Logs show that some SNMP packets are dropped as “invalid community access.” What configuration should be checked first?
A) The SNMP community definitions and allowed source IP addresses
B) The cluster cphaprob broadcast interval
C) The VPN shared secret agreement
D) The DNS reverse lookup settings
Answer:
A
Explanation:
SNMP monitoring requires that the Firewall recognize the community string and accept queries only from authorized monitoring systems. When packets are dropped with “invalid community access,” it indicates that the Firewall either does not recognize the community string or does not trust the IP address sending the request. SNMP configurations typically require that each community string be tied to specific source IP addresses or networks for security.
The first configuration to review is the SNMP community definition. Administrators must verify that the correct community name and source IP restrictions match the addresses of monitoring servers. If servers have dynamic IPs or use multihomed interfaces, requests may originate from unexpected addresses, leading to drops.
SNMP versions also matter. If the Firewall is configured for SNMPv3 but the monitoring system uses SNMPv2c, mismatches occur. Likewise, incorrect authentication or privacy settings in SNMPv3 cause timeouts. Checking the allowed SNMP versions ensures compatibility.
Access Control rules must also allow SNMP traffic from monitoring hosts. Even with correct community definitions, an Access Control rule denying UDP/161 will cause timeouts.
Option B deals with cluster heartbeat behavior and does not influence SNMP authentication. Option C concerns VPN authentication and is unrelated. Option D deals with reverse DNS lookups, which do not affect SNMP community validation.
Thus, reviewing SNMP community definitions and allowed source IPs is the correct first step to resolving SNMP intermittent polling failures.
Question 71:
A Security Administrator observes that Site-to-Site VPN tunnels randomly drop during high-bandwidth file transfers. Logs show “ESP packet dropped – received out of window” events. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The VPN IPSec window size and sequence tracking configuration
B) The DHCP lease assignment strategy
C) The SMTP smart host relay settings
D) The cluster member multicast mode
Answer:
A
Explanation:
IPSec ESP traffic relies heavily on correct sequence numbering for packet integrity and replay protection. When large file transfers occur over a VPN tunnel, packet flow intensity increases, and packets may arrive slightly out of order due to network jitter, variations in link latency, or differential processing times. If the Firewall’s replay window or sequence tracking configuration is too strict, packets that arrive out of order—even if legitimate—will be considered invalid and dropped. This leads to tunnel resets, dropped packets, or full VPN renegotiation, especially during high-bandwidth transfers.
The first configuration to review is the IPSec replay window size. A too-small replay window restricts acceptable sequence variations. By default, Check Point uses a conservative replay window to protect against replay attacks. However, in high-latency or high-throughput environments, administrators may need to expand this window to accommodate natural packet reordering. Increasing the replay window allows slightly delayed packets to be accepted rather than dropped.
Sequence tracking is closely related. If the Firewall prematurely increments expected sequence numbers or misinterprets delayed packets as replays, ESP packet drops occur. Administrators should verify that both peers use compatible IPSec parameters. Mismatches in IPSec acceleration, fragmentation behavior, or tunnel offload capabilities may cause inconsistent sequence handling.
Additionally, administrators should analyze underlying network transport conditions. Packet loss on WAN circuits creates gaps that the Firewall interprets as sequence anomalies. Saturated links, asymmetric routing paths, or buffering differences between upstream routers can worsen out-of-order delivery. Ensuring consistent bandwidth allocation, QoS policies, and symmetrical routing can reduce reliance on replay window adjustments.
Option B concerns DHCP scopes and is unrelated to IPSec sequence tracking. Option C deals with email routing and does not affect VPN behavior. Option D involves cluster multicast communication and does not influence ESP replay window performance.
Thus, adjusting IPSec replay window settings and verifying sequence tracking parameters is essential for resolving ESP packet drops during high-bandwidth VPN transfers.
Question 72:
A Security Administrator notices that internal users accessing SMB-based file servers experience slow directory browsing and intermittent disconnects after enabling Threat Prevention. Logs show that SMB sessions are scanned for exploit signatures, causing delays. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Threat Prevention profile settings for SMB inspection and performance impact
B) The VPN community shared secret
C) The DNS authoritative zone records
D) The cluster cphaprob interval timer
Answer:
A
Explanation:
SMB (Server Message Block) is highly sensitive to latency. It relies on rapid back-and-forth exchanges between client and server. When Threat Prevention is enabled, the Firewall may perform signature-based inspection on SMB traffic to detect exploits, ransomware activity, or worm propagation. However, this inspection can introduce micro-delays, which compound quickly in SMB workflows, resulting in slow directory browsing, incomplete file listings, and intermittent session resets.
The first configuration to review is the Threat Prevention profile’s SMB-specific inspection settings. Administrators must identify whether SMB protections are configured to “Prevent” rather than “Detect,” as prevent mode often adds additional inspection steps. While prevention is beneficial for blocking malicious behavior, overly aggressive SMB inspection disrupts legitimate file-sharing operations. Adjusting SMB protections to detect-only mode for internal trusted networks may improve performance.
In addition, certain SMB protections are designed to identify exploitation attempts such as EternalBlue, SambaCry, or lateral movement signatures. If these protections operate on every packet rather than session-level evaluation, performance degradation occurs. Administrators should fine-tune inspection granularity, exempt trusted internal traffic, or employ performance-friendly inspection modes.
CoreXL and SecureXL interactions also influence SMB processing. If SMB inspection forces packets into the slow path, CPU usage rises. Ensuring that acceleration and inspection components synchronize efficiently prevents unnecessary bottlenecks.
Option B pertains to VPN authentication and has no connection to SMB performance. Option C concerns DNS resolution, which influences name queries but not SMB inspection delays. Option D deals with cluster health-check intervals and does not affect SMB traffic’s inspection behavior.
Therefore, the correct first step is reviewing the Threat Prevention profile’s SMB inspection settings to balance security with acceptable performance.
Question 73:
A Security Administrator finds that the Firewall’s NAT rules are not being applied consistently to traffic routed through a Policy-Based VPN community. Logs show packets bypassing expected NAT translations. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The interaction between NAT rules and policy-based VPN rule matching order
B) The SMTP anti-spoofing policy
C) The cluster virtual MAC selection
D) The DHCP helper address configuration
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Policy-based VPNs operate differently from route-based or domain-based VPNs. In policy-based VPNs, the Firewall determines whether traffic should be encrypted based on the rulebase rather than on routing decisions. As a result, NAT interactions behave uniquely. If NAT rules are placed incorrectly or conflict with the VPN match rules, NAT may not apply as expected. For instance, traffic matching a policy-based VPN rule may bypass NAT entirely because encryption occurs before NAT, depending on rule order and VPN community design.
The first configuration administrators must inspect is how NAT rules interact with policy-based VPN rules. NAT rules are evaluated after Access Control rules but before VPN encapsulation. However, in policy-based VPNs, the Firewall must first determine whether the packet matches an encrypt rule. If encrypted before NAT is applied, translations are skipped, causing unexpected behavior.
Administrators should examine the NAT rulebase to ensure appropriate rules appear before or after VPN rules based on desired behavior. For example, if traffic requires source NAT before entering the VPN, NAT rules must appear early enough to apply before VPN selection occurs. Incorrect ordering causes mismatches, routing failures, or packets escaping encryption.
Another important factor is overlapping rules. If a broad encrypt rule is placed above narrower NAT rules, NAT never triggers. Similarly, auto-NAT configurations for VPN domains may override manual NAT rules intended for specific flows.
Option B focuses on SMTP protection and has nothing to do with NAT or VPN processing. Option C deals with cluster MAC and impacts failover behavior but not NAT behavior in policy-based tunnels. Option D concerns DHCP forwarding and does not influence NAT evaluation.
Thus, reviewing the interaction and order of NAT rules with policy-based VPN rules is essential to ensuring consistent NAT behavior.
Question 74:
A Security Administrator notes that Threat Emulation is functioning correctly for most files, but PDF files originating from a specific SaaS storage provider fail emulation. Logs show “file extraction failed – unsupported container format.” What configuration should be checked first?
A) The Threat Extraction and Emulation file-type handling settings for PDF containers
B) The cluster CoreXL instance distribution
C) The DHCP scope superscope configuration
D) The SMTP start-TLS requirement
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Threat Emulation and Threat Extraction rely on parsing document formats accurately. PDF files, especially those created by SaaS storage providers or online collaborative tools, sometimes use non-standard container formats or embedded layers, such as custom compression schemes, encrypted segments, or proprietary wrappers. When Threat Emulation cannot parse these layers, it generates an “unsupported container format” error and skips analysis.
The first configuration administrators should review is the file-type handling settings within the Threat Prevention profiles. Certain PDF inspection features may be disabled or limited. If Threat Extraction is set to sanitize only standard PDFs, unusual formatting from SaaS tools may fail parsing. Administrators may need to enable compatibility modes or allow extraction of embedded elements.
It is also important to evaluate whether PDF files from the SaaS provider include embedded media, JavaScript, dynamic forms, or encrypted content. Threat Emulation systems cannot emulate encrypted or password-protected files unless exceptions are configured. Adjusting settings to allow partial extraction or bypassing specific formats may resolve the issue.
SaaS providers often generate PDF previews using container-style frameworks that wrap the PDF within a larger metadata envelope. Threat Emulation engines may misinterpret this as an unsupported archive. In such cases, administrators should add exceptions for those specific SaaS domains or adjust emulation to treat the file as a raw PDF rather than a compound document.
Option B relates to CPU core allocation and does not influence PDF parsing. Option C is tied to IP address grouping and is irrelevant. Option D pertains to email TLS and does not affect file parsing.
Thus, reviewing PDF handling settings in Threat Extraction/Emulation ensures proper analysis of PDFs from SaaS environments.
Question 75:
A Security Administrator discovers that Security Gateway logs sent to a dedicated SmartEvent server occasionally arrive delayed by several minutes. Logs show high load on the Log Server during peak usage. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Log Server indexing, hardware allocation, and log forwarding performance settings
B) The VPN NAT-Traversal mode
C) The DHCP fallback mode
D) The SMTP antimalware attachment scanning rule
Answer:
A
Explanation:
SmartEvent relies on timely log delivery from Security Gateways. When logs arrive late or inconsistently, correlation accuracy suffers, real-time alerts are delayed, and time-sensitive detections such as distributed attacks or lateral movement may be missed. The main reason logs arrive slowly is that the Log Server or SmartEvent server is overloaded, misconfigured, or lacking sufficient resources.
The first configuration to review is the indexing and hardware resource allocation of the Log Server. Log indexing consumes CPU and disk I/O. If indexing is set too aggressively, or if the system lacks sufficient CPUs, RAM, or SSD storage, logs queue instead of processing immediately. Administrators should evaluate indexing frequency, storage performance, and whether log compression is delaying throughput.
Log forwarding performance settings must also be checked. If the Log Server forwards logs to SmartEvent asynchronously or inefficiently, delays can accumulate. Reviewing log forwarding schema, connection buffering, and queue parameters helps identify bottlenecks.
Additionally, administrators should confirm that multiple Gateways do not overload the Log Server beyond its intended design. In larger environments, distributed log servers or dedicated indexing servers may be required. Network issues between Gateways and Log Server—such as congestion, packet loss, or firewall filtering—also contribute to delays.
Option B, NAT-Traversal, concerns VPN behavior and is unrelated. Option C deals with DHCP fallback behavior and does not impact log transmission. Option D pertains to email malware scanning and does not influence SmartEvent performance.
Thus, reviewing Log Server indexing, resource allocation, and log forwarding settings is the correct step to resolving SmartEvent log delays.
Question 76:
A Security Administrator finds that after enabling Content Awareness on a specific Access Control rule, large file transfers over FTP and SMB are significantly slower. Logs show that the Content Awareness blade is performing full file scanning. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Content Awareness data scanning thresholds and file-size inspection limit
B) The DHCP failover replication settings
C) The cluster member election priority
D) The SMTP antispam dictionary rules
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Content Awareness enables the Firewall to inspect files for data types, sensitive content, credit card numbers, SSNs, or other structured information. When this feature is attached to an Access Control rule that governs large file transfers such as FTP or SMB, the Firewall must extract and scan file data before allowing it through. This extraction process heavily impacts performance, especially if large files—hundreds of megabytes or more—are transferred frequently. The issue becomes more visible when Content Awareness is configured to scan all file sizes without file-size limits or threshold-based filtering.
The first configuration administrators should inspect is the file-size inspection limit within the Content Awareness blade. By default, the Firewall may attempt to scan entire files depending on the applied policy. For large SMB or FTP transfers, this scanning can drastically slow file throughput because Content Awareness must buffer segments, analyze content, and potentially reconstruct file streams. Adjusting the maximum file size for scanning allows administrators to exclude extremely large files from inspection, thereby improving transfer speeds.
Administrators should also verify whether unnecessary content classifications are enabled. For example, scanning for all data types when only credit card information is required adds overhead without security value. Narrowing the scanning criteria reduces processing time. Similarly, applying Content Awareness only to specific traffic types or user groups can improve performance.
Another factor is CoreXL and SecureXL acceleration. When Content Awareness inspects a session, the session may drop into the slow path, where CPU-intensive processing occurs. If many large file transfers occur simultaneously, CPU utilization spikes, leading to slowdowns. Reviewing acceleration configuration helps ensure that unnecessary workload does not fall onto limited CPU resources.
Option B concerns DHCP failover and is unrelated to file scanning. Option C addresses cluster priorities and does not influence throughput issues caused by content inspection. Option D pertains to email filtering, which does not affect file transfers over SMB or FTP.
Thus, reviewing scanning thresholds and file-size limits within the Content Awareness configuration is the correct first step to alleviating slowdowns.
Question 77:
A Security Administrator reports that internal DNS requests routed through the Firewall are occasionally failing. Logs show DNS packets dropped due to “malformed DNS payload.” The internal DNS server recently enabled EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Firewall’s DNS protocol inspection settings and EDNS compatibility
B) The VPN community shared secret
C) The cluster virtual IP failover timing
D) The DHCP subnet allocation mask
Answer:
A
Explanation:
EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS) allows DNS to support larger UDP packet sizes, additional options, and modern features such as DNSSEC. When an internal DNS server begins using EDNS but the Firewall’s DNS inspection engine does not fully support EDNS or interprets some EDNS extensions as malformed, the Firewall may drop these packets as suspicious. These drops appear in logs as “malformed DNS payload,” even though the DNS packets are legitimate.
The first configuration administrators must examine is the DNS protocol inspection settings on the Firewall. Some versions of Check Point software require explicit enabling of EDNS support or updated protocol signatures for proper EDNS handling. Administrators may need to adjust DNS inspection strictness or bypass protocol inspection for internal DNS traffic.
Another factor is UDP packet fragmentation. EDNS allows DNS packets up to 4096 bytes or more. If the Firewall or intermediate device cannot handle large DNS responses, fragmentation may occur. Fragmented UDP packets are more likely to be misinterpreted by strict DNS parsers. Administrators should ensure that fragmentation handling and large-packet support are correctly configured.
If DNSSEC is used, additional payload validation may be required. Some Firewalls do not parse DNSSEC records completely, flagging them as malformed. Adjusting DNSSEC inspection settings or enabling compatibility mode helps eliminate false positives.
Option B relates to VPN authentication and does not influence DNS behavior. Option C concerns cluster failover, which does not affect DNS packet parsing. Option D pertains to DHCP scope configuration and is unrelated to DNS packet structure.
Therefore, reviewing DNS inspection and EDNS compatibility is the proper starting point for resolving DNS payload parsing issues.
Question 78:
A Security Administrator discovers that SMTP traffic to a mail relay is intermittently rejected by the Firewall. Logs show “SMTP protocol violation.” The mail server recently enabled STARTTLS enforcement. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The SMTP protocol parser settings and STARTTLS compatibility in Threat Prevention
B) The IPSec Phase 2 transform settings
C) The cluster sync interface MTU
D) The DNS authoritative PTR records
Answer:
A
Explanation:
SMTP protocol inspection includes command validation, content scanning, and behavior analysis. When STARTTLS is enabled on a mail server, SMTP traffic initially begins in plaintext and then upgrades to TLS encryption upon receiving the STARTTLS command. Some Firewalls treat this transition as a protocol anomaly if their SMTP protocol parser is not configured to interpret the STARTTLS handshake properly.
The first configuration to review is the SMTP parser settings in Threat Prevention. Administrators must ensure that the parser recognizes STARTTLS negotiation, including encrypted payload transitions. Outdated protocol signatures or strict inspection settings may flag the encryption transition as a protocol violation, resulting in rejected traffic.
Some Firewalls require enabling a compatibility option for STARTTLS or disabling strict command validation when STARTTLS is used. If the server enforces encryption and the Firewall incorrectly parses encryption initiation, SMTP sessions will drop immediately after the STARTTLS command is issued.
Another factor is whether the Firewall performs SMTP Security scanning. If content scanning begins before TLS negotiation, the Firewall may misinterpret encrypted payloads as malformed data. Adjusting inspection sequencing or creating exceptions for mail gateway traffic can prevent false positives.
Option B, IPSec Phase 2 transforms, pertains only to VPN settings and does not affect SMTP. Option C, sync interface MTU, relates to cluster state updates and not SMTP parsing. Option D concerns DNS PTR records, which may affect reverse lookups but not SMTP STARTTLS parsing.
Thus, verifying SMTP protocol parser and STARTTLS inspection compatibility is essential for resolving protocol violation drops.
Question 79:
A Security Administrator observes that some RADIUS authentication requests time out when the Firewall forwards them to an external authentication server. Logs show delayed UDP responses. The RADIUS server recently enabled response-signature validation. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Firewall’s RADIUS shared secret and compatibility with message authenticator attributes
B) The VPN Domain-based routing table
C) The cluster state table timeout
D) The SMTP fragmentation setting
Answer:
A
Explanation:
RADIUS authentication depends on shared secrets and message authenticator fields to validate requests and responses. When a RADIUS server enables response-signature validation, the Firewall must support the message-authenticator attribute. If the Firewall’s shared secret or RADIUS configuration does not match the server’s expectations, the server generates responses that the Firewall cannot validate. As a result, the Firewall either drops or delays processing of the responses, causing timeouts for user authentication.
The first configuration to review is the RADIUS shared secret. If the shared secret mismatches even slightly—due to whitespace, case sensitivity, or transcription errors—the Firewall cannot authenticate the response. This causes delayed or ignored responses. Additionally, administrators must verify that the Firewall supports message-authenticator validation. Some configurations require enabling support for RFC 2869 attributes to properly handle signed responses.
Administrators must ensure that the RADIUS server is reachable without latency-inducing network congestion. Although RADIUS uses UDP, authentication is time-sensitive, and delay thresholds are strict. If the Firewall has misconfigured routing, packets may take a longer path or be dropped along the way.
Option B involves VPN routing, unrelated to RADIUS processing. Option C concerns cluster state tracking, but authentication traffic is unaffected. Option D pertains to email fragmentation settings, not RADIUS validation.
Thus, verifying RADIUS shared secrets and message-authenticator compatibility is the correct first step to resolving timeouts.
Question 80:
A Security Administrator notes that when using Identity Awareness captive portal, some mobile devices fail to authenticate correctly. Logs show HTTP redirects failing due to HSTS enforcement on the devices’ browsers. What configuration should be reviewed first?
A) The Identity Awareness Captive Portal redirect methods and HTTPS fallback behavior
B) The cluster failover delay
C) The VPN Hub Mode configuration
D) The DHCP IP conflict detection
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Captive Portal authentication relies on redirecting the user’s HTTP traffic to a login page. However, modern browsers and mobile devices often enforce HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which forces HTTPS-only communication for known domains or all sites. When the Firewall attempts an HTTP redirect for authentication but the device attempts HTTPS instead, the redirect fails, and the user cannot reach the Captive Portal login page.
The first configuration to review is the Captive Portal redirect method. Administrators must ensure that HTTPS fallback or HTTPS-based portal access is enabled. If the Firewall only supports HTTP redirects, HSTS-compliant devices will refuse the connection. Enabling HTTPS redirection ensures that the Firewall presents the Captive Portal page over a secure HTTPS connection, satisfying device security requirements.
Another factor is whether the captive portal certificate is trusted by devices. If the certificate is untrusted or self-signed, devices may block portal access unless users manually accept the certificate. Importing a trusted certificate into the Firewall resolves this.
Administrators should also verify whether SSL inspection conflicts with the Captive Portal sequence. If a device expects HTTPS but inspection intercepts the traffic, the authentication flow becomes complicated. Properly configuring bypass logic for Captive Portal endpoints resolves issues.
Option B, cluster delay, does not affect portal redirect behavior. Option C, VPN hub mode, pertains to VPN routing. Option D concerns DHCP conflicts, unrelated to Captive Portal redirection.
Thus, adjusting Captive Portal redirect methods and enabling HTTPS fallback is essential for consistent authentication on HSTS-enabled mobile devices.
