Click here to access our full set of Fortinet FCP_FMG_AD-7.4 exam dumps and practice tests.
Q121. A FortiManager admin needs to push updated NTP settings to 200 devices but only during maintenance hours. What should they use?
A. Scheduled Install
B. Workflow Mode
C. Global ADOM Override
D. Revision Pruning
Answer: A
Explanation:
Scheduled Install is the correct option when an organization wants to deploy configuration or policy changes at a controlled and predefined time rather than immediately. Many environments operate with strict maintenance windows, peak traffic periods, or operational constraints that make immediate installation undesirable. By using Scheduled Install, administrators can prepare all configurations in advance and then specify exactly when the deployment should occur. This allows changes to take place during low-traffic hours or during approved maintenance periods, reducing the risk of service interruption or user impact. It also ensures better coordination among teams, as everyone can plan around the scheduled change. Scheduled Install improves operational stability, supports change-management practices, and aligns updates with organizational policies, which is why it is the correct answer in a scenario requiring controlled and timed deployments.
Workflow Mode introduces an approval chain for configuration changes and is useful for oversight, but it does not control when the installation occurs. Its purpose is to manage who approves changes, not when they are deployed. Global ADOM Override allows customization at the ADOM level when using a global policy environment, but it has nothing to do with scheduling installations. Revision Pruning is used to manage and reduce the number of stored configuration revisions, keeping the system clean and preventing unnecessary storage use. While useful for maintenance, it does not relate to scheduling policy deployment. Since none of these options provide time-based installation functionality, Scheduled Install is the only option that meets the requirement, making it the correct answer.
Q122. A device repeatedly appears as “Misconfigured” after installation. The admin discovers the firewall was modified locally. How should they fix this?
A. Block local changes in Central Management settings
B. Recreate the ADOM
C. Reset the device
D. Force install every time
Answer: A
Explanation:
Blocking local changes in Central Management settings is the correct approach when an organization wants to ensure that device configurations remain fully controlled by the central management system rather than being altered directly on the device. In environments where FortiManager governs multiple devices, maintaining consistency is critical. If administrators make changes locally on each device, those adjustments can create configuration drift, synchronization conflicts, and policy mismatches. By blocking local changes, all modifications must originate from the central management platform, guaranteeing uniformity and preventing unauthorized or accidental device-level edits. This approach strengthens governance, simplifies auditing, and ensures that all devices follow the established configuration standards without exception. Because the scenario involves preventing local alterations and enforcing centralized control, blocking local changes in the Central Management settings is the most effective and appropriate solution.
Recreating the ADOM would be unnecessary and highly disruptive, as it would remove configurations, histories, and associations for all devices within that administrative domain. Resetting the device would erase its configuration and require full re-provisioning, causing downtime and additional workload without solving the underlying policy enforcement requirement. Forcing installation every time may temporarily push the correct configuration but does not prevent new unauthorized local changes from being made afterwards. This would result in ongoing conflicts rather than solving the root cause. None of these options provide permanent enforcement of centralized control. Therefore, blocking local changes in the Central Management settings is the correct and most efficient approach, making option A the appropriate answer.
Q123. A policy package uses address groups that exceed the maximum allowed on small branch devices. What feature prevents excessive object usage?
A. Content Security Optimization
B. Object Cleanup
C. Policy Analyzer
D. Per-Device Mapping
Answer: C
Explanation:
The Policy Analyzer is the correct option because it is specifically designed to identify overlapping rules, hidden rules, shadowed policies, and logical inconsistencies within a policy set. In many large environments, policy sets grow over time as new rules are added and old ones are disabled or forgotten. This can lead to inefficiencies, unnecessary complexity, and potential security weaknesses. The Policy Analyzer evaluates all security policies and highlights situations where one rule may unintentionally override another, where redundant policies exist, or where certain rules are never used due to their placement in the policy sequence. By bringing these issues to the administrator’s attention, it enables better optimization, improved clarity, and stronger enforcement of intended security behavior. It is a powerful diagnostic tool that helps maintain clean, efficient, and logically correct rulebases, making it the correct answer for scenarios involving policy analysis or conflict detection.
Content Security Optimization focuses on enhancing the performance and effectiveness of security scanning features such as antivirus, intrusion prevention, or web filtering. Although valuable, it does not analyze rule structures or relationships between firewall policies. Object Cleanup removes unused or duplicate configuration objects to reduce clutter, but it does not examine rule logic or policy flow. Per-Device Mapping allows device-specific configuration values in shared policies, but it does not provide any analytical capabilities for policy correctness. None of these alternatives perform the type of rule conflict and redundancy detection that the Policy Analyzer provides. Therefore, the most appropriate and accurate choice is option C, the Policy Analyzer.
Q124. Some IPS signatures in a security profile are unsupported on older FortiGates. What setting ensures compatibility?
A. Enable IPS compatibility mode
B. Use Balanced IPS Database
C. Disable all extended signatures
D. Enforce Global ADOM
Answer: B
Explanation:
Using the Balanced IPS Database is the correct choice when the goal is to optimize intrusion prevention performance while maintaining reliable threat coverage across various device models. The Balanced IPS Database is designed to provide a middle ground between security depth and resource consumption, making it suitable for environments where hardware limitations, high traffic volume, or performance constraints require a more efficient IPS signature set. Instead of loading the full, extensive IPS signature database, the balanced version includes the most relevant, high-priority, and frequently encountered signatures. This results in faster inspection, lower memory usage, and improved throughput while still offering strong protection against common threats. It is particularly useful for mid-range or branch-level devices that cannot operate efficiently under the load of the full signature set. Because the scenario involves selecting a practical and performance-friendly IPS option, the Balanced IPS Database is the most appropriate answer.
Enabling IPS compatibility mode is generally intended for older device models and specific backward-compatibility situations, not for performance tuning or balanced security. Disabling all extended signatures would create major security gaps, exposing the network to a wide range of advanced and emerging threats, and is therefore not a viable solution. Enforcing a Global ADOM does not relate to IPS functionality at all, as ADOMs deal with management domains rather than intrusion prevention performance or signature selection. None of these alternatives address the need for a performance-optimized IPS configuration. Therefore, using the Balanced IPS Database is the correct and most effective option, making option B the proper answer.
Q125. Admin wants to ensure that specific firewall rules never get modified by junior admins. Which feature enforces this?
A. Object/Policy Locking
B. Revision Compression
C. Workflow Mode
D. Dynamic Object Mapping
Answer: A
Explanation:
Object and policy locking is an essential mechanism used in multi-administrator environments to ensure that configuration changes do not conflict or overwrite each other. When several administrators work simultaneously on a system, the possibility of accidental edits, conflicting updates, or unintentional overwrites becomes significant. Object and policy locking prevents these issues by allowing only one administrator at a time to edit a specific object or policy. Once locked, the item remains reserved for the person making the changes, ensuring that no other administrator can modify it until the lock is released. This improves accuracy, keeps the workflow organized, and reduces the risk of configuration corruption. It allows teams to collaborate safely while maintaining the integrity of policies, address objects, service definitions, and other critical configuration elements. Since the primary goal is to prevent simultaneous editing conflicts, object and policy locking is the correct answer.
Revision compression focuses on reducing storage space by compressing older revisions, but it does not manage simultaneous editing or prevent conflicts. Workflow Mode introduces approval processes and change-control steps, ensuring that modifications follow an organizational approval chain. While useful for oversight and governance, it does not directly prevent two administrators from editing the same item at the same time. Dynamic Object Mapping allows different devices to use different values for the same centrally defined object, which is beneficial for installations involving site-specific parameters, but it is unrelated to controlling edit access. These options address different management needs, but none of them replace the function of locking objects or policies. Therefore, Object and Policy Locking is the correct and most appropriate solution, making option A the right answer.
Q126. A branch office uses different VLAN IDs than the headquarters. How can one template support both?
A. Use Template Variables
B. Clone templates per branch
C. Use ADOM-level overrides
D. Rebuild template
Answer: A
Explanation:
Using template variables is the most effective approach when a shared configuration template needs to be applied across multiple branch devices that each require different values for certain settings. In centrally managed environments, a single template is often used to maintain consistency and reduce administrative effort. However, branch devices may have unique interface names, IP addressing, routing details, or local parameters that cannot be standardized across all sites. Template variables provide a flexible mechanism to insert placeholders within the template, allowing each device to substitute its own specific values during deployment. This ensures that the structural integrity of the template remains consistent, while still allowing the necessary customization for individual branches. As a result, administrators avoid maintaining multiple versions of the same template, reducing configuration drift, streamlining updates, and ensuring better long-term maintainability. Because the goal is to accommodate per-device differences without fragmenting the template system, using template variables is clearly the correct and most efficient option.
Cloning templates per branch might technically achieve customization, but it creates unnecessary duplication. Over time, this approach becomes difficult to manage, as updates must be applied manually to each clone, increasing the risk of inconsistencies and errors. Using ADOM-level overrides provides flexibility at the administrative domain level but is not designed for granular per-device variations within a shared template. Rebuilding the template is unnecessary when the template structure is already correct; it would add extra work and still not solve the requirement for per-device variation unless variables are used. Since template variables directly address the need for centralized consistency combined with device-specific customization, option A remains the correct answer.
Q127. While installing a package, the admin sees “SSL certificate missing.” What should they do?
A. Import certificate from device
B. Remove HTTPS inspection
C. Reinstall firmware
D. Disable certificate check
Answer: A
Explanation:
Importing the certificate from the device is the correct approach when the central management system is unable to validate, use, or synchronize SSL inspection or certificate-related settings because it does not possess the actual certificate stored on the FortiGate. In many deployments, devices may have locally generated certificates, CA chains, or custom inspection certificates that were never uploaded to the management server. As a result, policy installation, SSL inspection profiles, or certificate validation steps may fail because the manager cannot reference or verify what the device is using. By importing the certificate from the device, the central manager updates its internal database with the exact certificate data already in use. This ensures consistency between the device and the management system, prevents installation errors, and maintains the trust relationship required for SSL inspection or secure communication. The action is safe, does not modify the device configuration, and simply brings the management database into alignment, which is why it is the correct and most suitable solution.
Removing HTTPS inspection would bypass the underlying issue instead of addressing it, and it would weaken security by disabling an important feature rather than fixing the certificate mismatch. Reinstalling firmware is disruptive, unnecessary, and unrelated to certificate synchronization; it would introduce downtime and may still not resolve the certificate discrepancy. Disabling certificate checks would allow the system to proceed without proper validation, which is a significant security risk because it prevents detection of expired, mismatched, or invalid certificates. None of these alternatives solve the core problem, which is the absence of the certificate on the management server. Therefore, importing the certificate from the device is the most appropriate and effective option, making answer A correct.
Q128. A device fails installation due to a route conflict. The route exists on the device but not in FortiManager. What should the admin do?
A. Retrieve Config
B. Delete route on device
C. Reset ADOM
D. Disable routing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Retrieving the configuration is the most appropriate action when there is a mismatch between the device’s actual routing configuration and what the central management system believes is present. In centrally managed environments, the management platform must maintain an accurate and up-to-date copy of the device’s configuration in order to compare changes, validate policy installations, and ensure overall synchronization. When discrepancies occur, they often result from changes applied directly on the device instead of through the manager. In such cases, retrieving the configuration from the device allows the manager to refresh its local copy and bring both sides back into alignment. This process is safe, non-disruptive, and does not modify the live device. It simply updates the manager’s database so that future installations and audits function properly. Because the issue at hand involves mismatched routing information or configuration drift, Retrieve Config is the correct answer.
Deleting the route on the device is unnecessary and potentially harmful, especially if the route is actively required for network communication. Removing it could cause outages or traffic loss, and it does not solve the underlying synchronization problem. Resetting the ADOM is an extreme action that affects all devices and configurations within that administrative domain, and would cause widespread disruption while offering no direct benefit to fixing a simple configuration mismatch. Disabling routing is not only inappropriate but would render the device unable to forward traffic properly, leading to severe network impact. None of these alternatives address the actual issue, which is that the management system needs an updated configuration copy. Therefore, Retrieve Config is the correct and most efficient solution.
Q129. A FortiManager admin wants to identify changes between two policy package versions. What should they use?
A. Revision Diff
B. Hit Counter
C. Object Merge Tool
D. Template Comparison
Answer: A
Explanation:
Revision Diff is the correct option because it provides a detailed comparison between two different configuration revisions, allowing administrators to see exactly what has changed over time. In a managed environment where multiple administrators work on configurations or where frequent updates occur, it becomes essential to track modifications accurately. Revision Diff highlights additions, deletions, and modifications line by line, making it possible to quickly identify unintended changes, troubleshoot problems caused by recent edits, and verify whether a configuration was altered according to policy. This comparison tool is particularly useful when determining the source of an issue after an installation or when validating that recent updates have been applied correctly. Since the scenario focuses on identifying differences between revisions, Revision Diff is the precise and most effective tool for the job.
The Hit Counter serves an entirely different purpose by showing how often specific firewall policies are triggered by live traffic. While valuable for optimization and understanding traffic behavior, it does not provide any historical configuration comparison. The Object Merge Tool helps reduce duplication by merging similar or identical objects, improving organizational efficiency, but it does not assist in identifying changes between revisions. Template Comparison focuses on differences between configuration templates, not actual revision history on a device or ADOM. Because none of these alternatives offer detailed revision-level comparison, Revision Diff is the correct and most suitable option.
Q130. A FortiGate cluster shows “checksum mismatch” repeatedly. The admin confirms the cluster is healthy. How should they correct FortiManager’s view?
A. Refresh the device configuration
B. Force install
C. Delete subordinate
D. Reboot FortiManager
Answer: A
Explanation:
Refreshing the device configuration is the correct action when the central management system detects inconsistencies, outdated information, or missing configuration elements for a managed device. Over time, devices may undergo local changes, automatic updates, or synchronization delays that cause their actual configuration to differ from what the management system currently displays. Refreshing the device configuration allows the manager to retrieve an updated, accurate, and complete copy of the device’s settings, ensuring that future policy installations, comparisons, and audits are based on reliable data. This process does not push any changes to the device and is therefore safe, non-disruptive, and effective for resolving mismatches. It is commonly used when the management interface shows missing details such as routes, objects, or interfaces, or when the system indicates that it cannot fully evaluate the device’s state due to outdated configuration snapshots. By refreshing the configuration, administrators restore synchronization and eliminate false warnings or errors, making it the appropriate and least intrusive solution.
Forcing an install would push configurations from the manager to the device, which could overwrite valid local settings or create further inconsistencies if the manager’s copy is incomplete. Deleting the subordinate device would remove it entirely from management and require a full re-registration, which is excessive and unnecessary for resolving simple sync issues. Rebooting the FortiManager itself is unlikely to resolve configuration mismatches and introduces avoidable downtime. None of these alternatives address the core problem of outdated device data within the manager. Therefore, refreshing the device configuration is the correct and most efficient solution, making option A the appropriate answer.
Q131. Admin needs to ensure all devices use FortiAnalyzer for log storage. What is the correct deployment method?
A. Apply a Logging Device Template
B. Add FAZ settings to Policy Package
C. Use CLI script manually
D. Change ADOM version
Answer: A
Explanation:
Applying a Logging Device Template is the correct approach when the goal is to standardize and properly configure logging settings for managed devices within a centralized environment. Logging Device Templates allow administrators to predefine where logs should be sent, how they should be formatted, retention behavior, communication settings with log collectors or FortiAnalyzer units, and other necessary parameters for consistent monitoring. By applying the template to the affected device, the logging configuration becomes uniform and properly aligned with the organization’s monitoring infrastructure. This ensures that logs flow reliably, remain consistent across all managed systems, and support accurate event correlation and reporting. Using a Logging Device Template also reduces administrative workload by eliminating the need to manually configure each device, which can otherwise lead to inconsistent settings or human error. Adding FortiAnalyzer settings directly to a policy package is not an appropriate method because policy packages are intended for security policies, firewall rules, and related configurations, not global logging parameters. Using a manually executed CLI script may temporarily address the issue, but it lacks long-term consistency, introduces operational risk, and requires repeat effort each time new devices are added. Changing the ADOM version does not influence logging functionality and would be unnecessary, disruptive, and unrelated to the underlying need for unified log configuration. Because only a Logging Device Template provides a structured, scalable, and centrally managed way to enforce proper logging settings, the correct answer is option A.
Q132. An install preview shows that FortiManager will remove a static route on the device, but the admin wants to keep it. What is required?
A. Add the route to the FortiManager device settings
B. Force install
C. Create new ADOM
D. Delete policy package
Answer: A
Explanation:
Adding the route to the FortiManager device settings is the correct solution when a policy installation or device update fails because FortiManager cannot reach a specific network, interface, or address used by the managed device. FortiManager must be able to communicate with all required networks referenced in the device configuration, including routing paths used for interface verification, object validation, and connectivity checks. If the necessary route is missing from the FortiManager-side configuration, the manager cannot properly validate or deploy policies that depend on those network paths. By adding the correct route to the FortiManager device settings, administrators ensure that the manager understands how to reach those networks logically, which restores proper communication and prevents installation errors. This method is non-disruptive, preserves the existing ADOM and policy structure, and directly resolves the underlying reachability problem, which is why it is the correct answer.
Forcing the install would attempt to push policies despite the connectivity or routing mismatch. This can result in partial failure, misconfiguration, or installation errors because the fundamental routing issue remains unresolved. Creating a new ADOM is unnecessary and would only introduce additional complexity without solving the routing problem. ADOM creation is reserved for administrative separation, not connectivity or reachability issues. Deleting the policy package would remove valuable configuration work and still would not address the missing route on the FortiManager side. None of these alternatives fix the core issue that FortiManager cannot reach a required network. Therefore, adding the route to the FortiManager device settings is the most appropriate and effective solution.
Q133. A device with FG-60F hardware cannot accept certain AV settings in the profile. What ensures compatibility?
A. Content Security Optimization Profile
B. Balanced AV Mode
C. Disable AV completely
D. Rebuild profile
Answer: A
Explanation:
A Content Security Optimization Profile is used when a system requires improved performance and stability while still maintaining strong security scanning capabilities. In many environments, the antivirus engine performs deep inspection of files, web traffic, and other content, which can be resource intensive. When performance drops or certain advanced scanning features create compatibility issues with specific devices or services, applying a Content Security Optimization Profile ensures that inspection remains effective while avoiding overload or unnecessary processing. This profile is designed to balance efficiency and protection by enabling only the most essential and reliable scanning components. It helps administrators maintain consistent security posture across managed devices without completely disabling antivirus scanning or compromising the integrity of the security policies. Because this option maintains both performance and protection, it is the correct answer when optimization is needed without sacrificing core security functions.
Balanced AV Mode can improve performance but is not as targeted as an optimization profile. It may disable certain scanning elements that some environments still require and does not provide the same structured approach to fine-tuning content inspection. Disabling AV completely is never a recommended solution, as it removes vital protection layers and exposes devices to threats such as malware, viruses, and malicious files. Rebuilding the profile can be time-consuming and unnecessary, especially when the core issue is related to performance optimization rather than corruption or misconfiguration of the existing profile. Since the goal is to enhance efficiency while retaining proper antivirus functionality, applying a Content Security Optimization Profile is the most appropriate and effective solution, making option A the correct choice.
Q134. Admin wants to record all installation jobs and determine who triggered them. Which feature provides this?
A. Job History
B. Hit Counter
C. Policy Analyzer
D. Object Cleanup
Answer: A
Explanation:
Job History is the correct option when the objective is to review the results, status, and details of tasks previously executed on the management system. In environments where administrators schedule policy installations, configuration pushes, script executions, device synchronizations, or other automated tasks, it is essential to maintain visibility into what actions were attempted and whether they completed successfully. Job History provides a centralized record of all completed and ongoing jobs, showing timestamps, task descriptions, execution results, associated devices, and any errors encountered during the process. This allows administrators to troubleshoot failures efficiently, verify whether changes have been applied correctly, and maintain accountability across the management workflow. Job History is particularly useful when multiple administrators work within the same system because it provides a reliable audit trail that helps identify who initiated what task and when it occurred. Since the purpose is to review past actions or investigate issues in recent job executions, Job History is the most appropriate and accurate solution.
The Hit Counter serves a completely different purpose by tracking how often individual firewall policies match traffic. Although valuable for optimizing policy rules and understanding traffic patterns, it does not relate to reviewing system tasks or job execution results. The Policy Analyzer focuses on identifying redundant, shadowed, or conflicting policies within the rulebase, which helps streamline configurations but does not provide task execution history. Object Cleanup identifies unused or stale objects to help maintain a clean and efficient configuration environment, but it does not offer visibility into past administrative actions. None of these options assist in reviewing executed tasks or understanding job outcomes. Therefore, Job History is the correct answer.
Q135. A device requires a custom local gateway setting for IPsec that differs from the global template. What feature supports this?
A. Override Profiles
B. Multiple ADOMs
C. Template Cloning
D. Static Route Priority
Answer: A
Explanation:
Override Profiles is the correct solution when devices managed under a shared configuration require different security profiles due to unique operational needs, compliance requirements, or hardware limitations. In environments where a central policy package defines the default set of profiles for features such as antivirus, web filtering, application control, or intrusion prevention, not all branch devices can always use the same profiles. This may be due to licensing differences, firmware capabilities, performance considerations, or tenant-specific requirements. Override Profiles allow administrators to maintain a unified policy structure while assigning different profile settings to individual devices as needed. This ensures that policy installations do not fail due to incompatible or missing profiles, and it preserves consistency across the organization without sacrificing local flexibility. By enabling profile overrides, the central management system can deploy the same security policy logic while letting each device apply the most appropriate profile for its environment. This makes Override Profiles the most effective and correct choice when dealing with profile mismatches in centrally managed deployments.
Multiple ADOMs would separate management domains entirely, which is unnecessary and adds administrative complexity when the issue only concerns specific profile differences. Template Cloning would require creating duplicate templates for each variation, resulting in configuration sprawl and increased maintenance effort without addressing the root need for flexible profile assignment. Static Route Priority has no relevance to security profile compatibility or policy deployment issues, as it deals strictly with routing decisions rather than feature profiles. Since none of these alternatives solve the problem of applying unique profiles per device within a shared configuration, Override Profiles is the correct and most efficient option, making answer A the appropriate choice.
Q136. A policy installation fails due to an “invalid zone member.” What caused this?
A. The device’s interfaces don’t match the zone definition
B. HA is not synchronized
C. ADOM version mismatch
D. Zone is disabled
Answer: A
Explanation:
The device’s interfaces not matching the zone definition is the most accurate explanation for why a zone-based configuration error occurs in a centrally managed environment. Zones are logical groupings of interfaces, and they require the member interfaces to match exactly what the central manager expects. When a device receives a policy package or configuration update that references a zone, the manager checks whether the device has the correct interface names, types, and assignments associated with that zone. If even one interface name differs, or if the device is missing an interface that the zone requires, the installation fails. This mismatch prevents the system from applying policies correctly, because those policies depend on the zone structure being identical across all devices. In distributed environments using hardware with varying interface layouts, this is a common issue, and resolving it usually involves updating Per-Device Interface Mapping, adjusting the zone membership on the central manager, or ensuring the device’s interface naming is consistent. Because this condition directly causes installation conflicts related to zone-based policies, it is the correct answer.
High availability synchronization problems do not prevent zone validation unless the device’s configuration itself is incorrect, which is unrelated to simple interface mismatches. ADOM version mismatches cause policy or feature compatibility errors, but they do not specifically indicate zone membership conflicts. A disabled zone is also not typically the cause, as zones are defined objects and do not have an enabled or disabled state in the sense that would block installation. None of these alternatives address the core issue of incorrect interface-to-zone relationships. Therefore, the correct explanation for the failure is that the device’s interfaces do not match the zone definition, making option A the proper answer.
Q137. Admin wants to create an alert for any device that becomes out-of-sync. What tool should they configure?
A. Event Logs and Alerts
B. Workflow Mode
C. Policy Analyzer
D. ADOM Mapping
Answer: A
Explanation:
Event Logs and Alerts provide administrators with detailed insight into system activities, configuration changes, security events, and operational issues across managed devices. When troubleshooting unexpected behavior, installation failures, communication problems, or policy inconsistencies, the event log is the first and most essential place to investigate. It records timestamps, actions taken by administrators, system-generated warnings, errors encountered during policy installations, and alerts triggered by device-side events. By reviewing these logs, administrators can identify whether a task failed due to connectivity issues, permission restrictions, version mismatches, unsupported configurations, or device-level errors. Alerts complement the logs by drawing attention to critical issues that require immediate action, such as device communication loss, failed synchronization, security inspection problems, or management server errors. Because these events are collected automatically and provide precise details, they offer direct visibility into the root cause of problems, making Event Logs and Alerts the most appropriate and effective tool for diagnosing issues.
Workflow Mode is unrelated in this context. It is designed for approval processes and structured change control, not for troubleshooting operational failures. Policy Analyzer focuses on analyzing policy structures and identifying redundant or shadowed rules, which does not help when investigating underlying system or communication errors. ADOM Mapping is used for organizing devices into administrative domains and does not provide any diagnostic information about problems occurring during installations or device interactions. Since none of these alternatives provide detailed operational diagnostics, Event Logs and Alerts are the correct answer.
Q138. When pushing a central SNMP template, installation fails because SNMPv3 isn’t supported on older models. What should the admin do?
A. Use per-device SNMP version mapping
B. Disable SNMP
C. Force install anyway
D. Rebuild firmware
Answer: A
Explanation:
Using per-device SNMP version mapping is the correct solution when different devices in a centrally managed environment require different SNMP versions or authentication settings. In many networks, devices come from different hardware generations or run different firmware versions, which may limit which SNMP protocols they support. Some devices may still rely on SNMP v2c, while newer or more security-sensitive devices may require SNMP v3 with authentication and encryption. When a centralized management system applies a shared device template or monitoring profile, conflicts may occur if the template assumes a single SNMP version that does not match what a specific device supports. Per-device SNMP version mapping allows administrators to specify the appropriate SNMP version, community strings, security levels, or authentication credentials for each individual device, while still using a unified monitoring configuration. This approach avoids failed installations, monitoring errors, and unnecessary configuration overrides. It also preserves consistency and reduces the administrative burden of maintaining separate templates for each device type, making it the most precise and non-disruptive solution.
Disabling SNMP would remove monitoring capability entirely, which would negatively affect visibility, reporting, and alerting. It addresses no underlying configuration issue and is never recommended. Forcing an install could push incompatible settings to the device, resulting in errors or loss of monitoring functionality. Rebuilding firmware is completely unrelated to SNMP configuration differences and would introduce unnecessary risk and downtime. None of these alternatives actually solve the mismatch between the template’s SNMP requirements and each device’s supported settings. Therefore, using per-device SNMP version mapping is the correct and the most appropriate solution.
Q139. An admin wants to ensure that each policy revision is labeled with comments describing the change. What enforces this?
A. Revision Comment Requirement
B. Workflow Mode
C. Admin Profile
D. ADOM Lock
Answer: A
Explanation:
Revision Comment Requirement is a control mechanism used in configuration management systems to ensure that every significant change made by an administrator is accompanied by a meaningful explanation. When this feature is enabled, the system requires administrators to enter a descriptive comment before saving or committing revisions. This promotes accountability, traceability, and clarity in environments where multiple team members contribute to ongoing configuration modifications. By documenting the reason for each change, organizations can build a clear historical record that becomes invaluable during audits, troubleshooting, and post-incident reviews. If an issue arises later, the team can quickly understand what was changed, why it was changed, and who authorized it. This not only strengthens operational discipline but also supports compliance standards that require justification for configuration adjustments. Since the question pertains to ensuring that administrators provide a mandatory explanation before committing revisions, the Revision Comment Requirement is the correct answer.
Workflow Mode is a separate feature focused on multi-step approval processes, where changes must be reviewed and approved before implementation. While it enhances governance, it does not enforce mandatory comments for every revision. Admin Profiles determine the permissions and access levels of administrators, but they do not ensure that revision comments are required. ADOM Locking prevents simultaneous modifications by different administrators but does not impose comment verification. None of these alternatives provide the specific enforcement of mandatory comments for configuration revisions. Therefore, Revision Comment Requirement is the accurate and most appropriate choice, making option A the correct answer.
Q140. A policy package is shared across multiple devices, but one device uses a different outbound NAT interface. How can this be handled?
A. Per-Device NAT Mapping
B. Clone the policy package
C. Use static NAT
D. Remove NAT policy
Answer: A
Explanation:
Per-Device NAT Mapping is the correct approach when a centralized policy uses NAT rules that must behave differently on each managed device. In many distributed networks, branch offices, data centers, and remote sites do not share identical public IP ranges or outbound translation requirements. If a single policy package is applied across multiple devices, traditional static NAT values would not work because each device may need to translate traffic to a different external IP address. Per-Device NAT Mapping solves this problem by allowing administrators to define custom NAT values for each specific device while maintaining a unified and centrally managed policy. This ensures consistency in policy structure while preserving the flexibility required for the unique network layouts of individual devices. It also prevents unnecessary policy duplication and greatly simplifies long-term administration. By associating NAT mappings individually per device, deployments remain clean, scalable, and accurately reflect operational needs.
Cloning the policy package might appear to solve the issue by letting each device have its own NAT configuration, but this leads to fragmented management, higher administrative overhead, and difficulty maintaining policy consistency. Using static NAT is only appropriate when all devices share the same external translation requirements, which is rarely the case in multi-location deployments. Removing the NAT policy would disrupt traffic handling, break services that rely on NAT, and expose internal addressing where translation is required. None of these alternatives address the core requirement of providing device-specific NAT values while keeping a unified policy structure. Therefore, Per-Device NAT Mapping is the most efficient, scalable, and correct solution, making option A the appropriate answer.
