Free Paloalto Networks PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

When adopting additional security features over time, remaining aligned with Zero Trust principles requires a focus on constant visibility, control, and adherence to best practices. The following actions are the most relevant:

Why "Apply decryption where possible to inspect and log all new and existing traffic flows" (Correct Answer B)?Zero Trust principles emphasize visibility into all traffic, whether encrypted or unencrypted. Without decryption, encrypted traffic becomes a blind spot, which attackers can exploit. By applying decryption wherever feasible, organizations ensure they can inspect, log, and enforce policies on encrypted traffic, thus adhering to Zero Trust principles.

Why "Use the Best Practice Assessment (BPA) tool to measure progress toward Zero Trust principles" (Correct Answer C)?The BPA tool provides detailed insights into the customer’s security configuration, helpingmeasure alignment with Palo Alto Networks’ Zero Trust best practices. It identifies gaps in security posture and recommends actionable steps to strengthen adherence to Zero Trust principles over time.

Why not "Turn on all licensed Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions in blocking mode for all policies" (Option A)?While enabling CDSS subscriptions (like Threat Prevention, URL Filtering, Advanced Threat Prevention) in blocking mode can enhance security, it is not an action specifically tied to maintaining alignment with Zero Trust principles. A more holistic approach, such as decryption and BPA analysis, is critical to achieving Zero Trust.

Why not "Use the Policy Optimizer tool to understand security rules allowing users to bypass decryption" (Option D)?Policy Optimizer is used to optimize existing security rules by identifying unused or overly permissive policies. While useful, it does not directly address alignment with Zero Trust principles or help enforce decryption.

When evaluating Palo Alto Networks products, prospective customers need tools that can help them assess compatibility, performance, and value within their existing architecture. The following tools are the most relevant:

Why "Proof of Concept (POC)" (Correct Answer A)?A Proof of Concept is a hands-on evaluation that allows the customer to deploy and test Palo Alto Networks products directly within their environment. This enables them to assess real-world performance, compatibility, and operational impact.

Why "Security Lifecycle Review (SLR)" (Correct Answer C)?An SLR provides a detailed report of a customer’s network security posture based on data collected during a short evaluation period. It highlights risks, vulnerabilities, and active threats in the customer’s network, demonstrating how Palo Alto Networks solutions can address those risks. SLR is a powerful tool for justifying the value of a product in the customer’s architecture.

Why "Ultimate Test Drive" (Correct Answer D)?The Ultimate Test Drive is a guided hands-on workshop provided by Palo Alto Networks that allows prospective customers to explore product features and capabilities in a controlled environment. It is ideal for customers who want to evaluate products without deploying them in their production network.

Why not "Policy Optimizer" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is used after a product has been deployed to refine security policies by identifying unused or overly permissive rules. It is not designed for pre-deployment evaluations.

Why not "Expedition" (Option E)?Expedition is a migration tool that assists with the conversion of configurations from third-party firewalls or existing Palo Alto Networks firewalls. It is not a tool for evaluating thesuitability of products in the customer’s architecture.

When configuring Advanced URL Filtering on a Palo Alto Networks firewall, the "Ransomware" category should be explicitly blocked to protect customers from URLs associated with ransomware activities. Ransomware URLs typically host malicious code or scripts designed to encrypt user data and demand a ransom. By blocking the "Ransomware" category, systems engineers can proactively prevent users from accessing such URLs.

Why "Ransomware" (Correct Answer A)?The "Ransomware" category is specifically curated by Palo Alto Networks to include URLs known to deliver ransomware or support ransomware operations. Blocking this category ensures that any URL categorized as part of this list will be inaccessible to end-users, significantly reducing the risk of ransomware attacks.

Why not "High Risk" (Option B)?While the "High Risk" category includes potentially malicious sites, it is broader and less targeted. It may not always block ransomware-specific URLs. "High Risk" includes a range of websites that are flagged based on factors like bad reputation or hosting malicious content in general. It is less focused than the "Ransomware" category.

Why not "Scanning Activity" (Option C)?The "Scanning Activity" category focuses on URLs used in vulnerability scans, automated probing, or reconnaissance by attackers. Although such activity could be a precursor to ransomware attacks, it does not directly block ransomware URLs.

Why not "Command and Control" (Option D)?The "Command and Control" category is designed to block URLs used by malware or compromised systems to communicate with their operators. While some ransomware may utilize command-and-control (C2) servers, blocking C2 URLs alone does not directly target ransomware URLs themselves.

By using the Advanced URL Filtering profile and blocking the "Ransomware" category, the firewall applies targeted controls to mitigate ransomware-specific threats.

The problem provides several constraints and design requirements that must be carefully considered:

Bandwidth Requirement:

The customer needs an NGFW capable of handling a total throughput of 72 Gbps.

The PA-5445 is specifically designed for high-throughput environments and supports up to81.3 Gbps Threat Prevention throughput(as per the latest hardware performance specifications). This ensures the throughput needs are fully met with some room for growth.

Interface Compatibility:

The customer mentions that their core switches support up to40 Gbps interfaces. The design must include aggregate links to meet the overall bandwidth while aligning with the 40 Gbps interface limitations.

The PA-5445 supports40Gbps QSFP+ interfaces, making it a suitable option for the hardware requirement.

No Change to IP Address Structure:

Since the customer cannot modify their IP address structure, deploying the NGFW inLayer-2 or Virtual Wire modeis ideal.

Virtual Wire modeallows the firewall to inspect traffic transparently between two Layer-2 devices without modifying the existing IP structure. Similarly, Layer-2 mode allows the firewall to behave like a switch at Layer-2 while still applying security policies.

Threat Prevention, DNS, and Sandboxing Requirements:

The customer requires advanced security features likeThreat Preventionand potentiallysandboxing(WildFire). The PA-5445 is equipped to handle these functionalities with its dedicated hardware-based architecture for content inspection and processing.

Aggregate Interface Groups:

The architecture should includeaggregate interface groupsto distribute traffic across multiple physical interfaces to support the high throughput requirement.

By aggregating2 x 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the pathin Virtual Wire or Layer-2 mode, the design ensures sufficient bandwidth (up to 80 Gbps per side).

Why PA-5445 in Layer-2 or Virtual Wire mode is the Best Option:

Option Asatisfies all the customer’s requirements:

The PA-5445 meets the 72 Gbps throughput requirement.

2 x 40 Gbps interfaces can be aggregated to handle traffic flow between the core switches and the NGFW.

Virtual Wire or Layer-2 mode preserves the IP address structure, while still allowing full threat prevention and DNS inspection capabilities.

The PA-5445 also supports sandboxing (WildFire) for advanced file-based threat detection.

Why Not Other Options:

Option B:

The PA-5430 is insufficient for the throughput requirement (72 Gbps). Itsmaximum Threat Prevention throughput is 60.3 Gbps, which does not provide the necessary capacity.

Option C:

While the PA-5445 is appropriate, deploying it inLayer-3 modewould require changes to the IP address structure, which the customer explicitly stated is not an option.

Option D:

The PA-5430 does not meet the throughput requirement. Although Layer-2 or Virtual Wire mode preserves the IP structure, the throughput capacity of the PA-5430 is a limiting factor.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Palo Alto Networks PA-5400 Series Datasheet (latest version)

Specifies the performance capabilities of the PA-5445 and PA-5430 models.

Palo Alto Networks Virtual Wire Deployment Guide

Explains how Virtual Wire mode can be used to transparently inspect traffic without changing the existing IP structure.

Aggregated Ethernet Interface Documentation

Details the configuration and use of aggregate interface groups for high throughput.

The customer is seeking centralized policy management to reduce human error while maintaining compliance with their contractual obligations to AWS and Azure. Here's the evaluation of each option:

Option A: Cloud NGFWs at both CSPs; provide the customer a license for a Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP's marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems

Cloud NGFW is a fully managed Next-Generation Firewall service by Palo Alto Networks, offered in AWS and Azure marketplaces. It integrates natively with the CSP infrastructure, making it a good fit for customers with existing CSP agreements.

Panorama, Palo Alto Networks' centralized management solution, can be deployed as a virtual appliance in the CSP marketplace of choice, enabling centralized policy management across all NGFWs.

This option addresses the customer's need for centralized management while leveraging their existing contracts with AWS and Azure.

This option is appropriate.

Option B: Cloud NGFWs in AWS and VM-Series firewall in Azure; the customer selects a PAYG licensing Panorama deployment in their CSP of choice

This option suggests using Cloud NGFW in AWS but VM-Series firewalls in Azure. While VM-Series is a flexible virtual firewall solution, it may not align with the customer’s stated preference for CSP-managed services like Cloud NGFW.

This option introduces a mix of solutions that could complicate centralized management and reduce operational efficiency.

This option is less appropriate.

Option C: VM-Series firewalls in both CSPs; manually built Panorama in the CSP of choice on a host of either type: Palo Alto Networks provides a license

VM-Series firewalls are well-suited for cloud deployments but require more manual configuration compared to Cloud NGFW.

Building a Panorama instance manually on a host increases operational overhead and does not leverage the customer’s existing CSP marketplaces.

This option is less aligned with the customer's needs.

Option D: VM-Series firewall and CN-Series firewall in both CSPs; provide the customer a private-offer Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP’s marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems

This option introduces both VM-Series and CN-Series firewalls in both CSPs. While CN-Series firewalls are designed for Kubernetes environments, they may not be relevant if the customer does not specifically require container-level security.

Adding CN-Series firewalls may introduce unnecessary complexity and costs.

This option is not appropriate.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Cloud NGFW

Panorama overview in Palo Alto Knowledge Base

VM-Series firewalls deployment guide in CSPs: Palo Alto Documentation

A. Discuss the PAN-OS Policy Optimizer feature as a means to safely migrate port-based rules to application-based rules.

PAN-OS includes thePolicy Optimizertool, which helps migrate legacy port-based rules to application-based policies incrementally and safely. This tool identifies unused, redundant, or overly permissive rules and suggests optimized policies based on actual traffic patterns.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B:The migration wizard does not automatically convert port-based rules to application-based rules. Migration must be carefully planned and executed using tools like the Policy Optimizer.

C:Running two firewalls in parallel adds unnecessary complexity and is not a best practice for migration.

D:While port-based rules are supported, relying on them defeats the purpose of transitioning to application-based security.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Policy Optimizer

The customer’s CIO highlights two key pain points: (1) the operations team lacks expertise to efficiently manage PAN-OS upgrades and support interactions, diverting focus from valuable tasks, and (2) the company lacked tools to monitor NGFW capacity, leading to a rushed upgrade. The goal is to recommend long-term solutions leveraging Palo Alto Networks’ offerings for Strata Hardware Firewalls. Options B and D—training and AIOps Premium within Strata Cloud Manager (SCM)—address these issues by enhancing team capability and providing proactive management tools. Below is a detailed explanation, verified against official documentation.

Step 1: Analyzing the Customer’s Challenges

Expertise Gap: The CIO notes that identifying issues and engaging support requires expertise the operations team doesn’t fully have or can’t prioritize. Upgrading PAN-OS on Strata NGFWs involves tasks like version compatibility checks, pre-upgrade validation, and troubleshooting, which demand familiarity with PAN-OS tools and processes.

Capacity Visibility: The rushed upgrade stemmed from not knowing the NGFWs were nearing capacity (e.g., CPU, memory, session limits), indicating a lack of monitoring or predictive analytics.

Long-term solutions must address both operational efficiency and proactive capacity management, aligning with Palo Alto Networks’ ecosystem for Strata firewalls.

Synchronizing a large Active Directory (AD) with over 20,000 groups can introduce significant overhead if all groups are synchronized, especially when only a subset of groups (e.g., 1,000 groups) are required for Security policies. The most efficient approach is to configure agroup mapping profile with an include group listto minimize unnecessary synchronization and reduce administrative overhead.

Why "Configure a group mapping profile with an include group list" (Correct AnswerC)?Using a group mapping profile with aninclude group listensures that only the required 1,000 groups are synchronized with the firewall. This approach:

Reduces the load on the firewall's User-ID process by limiting the number of synchronized groups.

Simplifies management by focusing on the specific groups relevant to Security policies.

Avoids synchronizing the entire directory (20,000 groups), which would be inefficient and resource-intensive.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile, without a filter, to synchronize all groups" (Option B)?Synchronizing all 20,000 groups would unnecessarily increase administrative and resource overhead. This approach contradicts the requirement to reduce administrative burden.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile with custom filters for LDAP attributes that are mapped to the user roles" (Option A)?While filtering LDAP attributes can be useful, this approach is more complex to implement and manage compared to an include group list. It does not directly address the problem of limiting synchronization to a specific subset of groups.

Why not "Configure NGFWs to synchronize with the AD after deploying the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) and agents" (Option D)?While the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) is a modern solution for user and group mapping, it is unnecessary in this scenario. A traditional group mapping profile with an include list is sufficient and simpler to implement. CIE is typically used for complex hybrid or cloud environments.

The appropriate CDSS subscription to inspect and mitigate suspicious DNS traffic isAdvanced DNS Security. Here’s why:

Advanced DNS Securityprotects against DNS-based threats, including domain generation algorithms (DGA), DNS tunneling (often used for data exfiltration), and malicious domains used in attacks. It leverages machine learning to detect and block DNS traffic associated with command-and-control servers or other malicious activities. In this case, unusually high DNS traffic to an unfamiliar IP address is likely indicative of a DNS-based attack or malware activity, making this the most suitable service.

Option A:Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) focuses on identifying and blocking sophisticated threats in network traffic, such as exploits and evasive malware. While it complements DNS Security, it does not specialize in analyzing DNS-specific traffic patterns.

Option B:Advanced WildFire focuses on detecting and preventing file-based threats, such as malware delivered via email attachments or web downloads. It does not provide specific protection for DNS-related anomalies.

Option C:Advanced URL Filtering is designed to prevent access to malicious or inappropriate websites based on their URLs. While DNS may be indirectly involved in resolving malicious websites, this service does not directly inspect DNS traffic patterns for threats.

Option D (Correct):Advanced DNS Security specifically addresses DNS-based threats. By enabling this service, the customer can detect and block DNS queries to malicious domains and investigate anomalous DNS behavior like the high traffic observed in this scenario.

How to Enable Advanced DNS Security:

Ensure the firewall has a valid Advanced DNS Security license.

Navigate toObjects > Security Profiles > Anti-Spyware.

Enable DNS Security under the "DNS Signatures" section.

Apply the Anti-Spyware profile to the relevant Security Policy to enforce DNS Security.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Advanced DNS Security Overview: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/dns-security

Best Practices for DNS Security Configuration.

When sizing a Palo Alto Networks NGFW appliance, it's crucial to consider variables that affect its performance and capacity. These include the network's traffic characteristics, application requirements, and expected workloads. Below is the analysis of each option:

Option A: Connections per second

Connections per second (CPS) is a critical metric for determining how many new sessions the firewall can handle per second. High CPS requirements are common in environments with high traffic turnover, such as web servers or applications with frequent session terminations and creations.

This is an important sizing variable.

Option B: Max sessions

Max sessions represent the total number of concurrent sessions the firewall can support. For environments with a large number of users or devices, this metric is critical to prevent session exhaustion.

This is an important sizing variable.

Option C: Packet replication

Packet replication is used in certain configurations, such as TAP mode or port mirroring for traffic inspection. While it impacts performance, it is not a primary variable for firewall sizing as it is a specific use case.

This is not a key variable for sizing.

Option D: App-ID firewall throughput

App-ID throughput measures the firewall's ability to inspect traffic and apply policies based on application signatures. It directly impacts the performance of traffic inspection under real-world conditions.

This is an important sizing variable.

Option E: Telemetry enabled

While telemetry provides data for monitoring and analysis, enabling it does not significantly impact the sizing of the firewall. It is not a core variable for determining firewall performance or capacity.

This is not a key variable for sizing.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Firewall Sizing Guidelines

Knowledge Base article on Performance and Capacity Sizing