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

Cobalt Strike is a popular post-exploitation framework often used by attackers for Command and Control (C2) operations. Malleable C2 profiles allow attackers to modify the behavior of their C2 communication, making detection more difficult. Stopping these attacks in real time requires deep inline inspection and the ability to block zero-day and evasive threats.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 10.2" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) on PAN-OS 10.2 uses inline deep learning models to detect and block Cobalt Strike Malleable C2 attacks in real time. ATP is designed to prevent evasive techniques and zero-day threats, which is essential for blocking Malleable C2. PAN-OS 10.2 introduces enhanced capabilities for detecting malicious traffic patterns and inline analysis of encrypted traffic.

ATP examines traffic behavior and signature-less threats, effectively stopping evasive C2 profiles.

PAN-OS 10.2 includes real-time protections specifically for Malleable C2.

Why not "Next-Generation CASB on PAN-OS 10.1" (Option A)?Next-Generation CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker) is designed to secure SaaS applications and does not provide the inline C2 protection required to stop Malleable C2 attacks. CASB is not related to Command and Control detection.

Why not "Threat Prevention and Advanced WildFire with PAN-OS 10.0" (Option C)?Threat Prevention and Advanced WildFire are effective for detecting and preventing malware and known threats. However, they rely heavily on signatures and sandboxing for analysis, which is not sufficient for stopping real-time evasive C2 traffic. PAN-OS 10.0 lacks the advanced inline capabilities provided by ATP in PAN-OS 10.2.

Why not "DNS Security, Threat Prevention, and Advanced WildFire with PAN-OS 9.x" (Option D)?While DNS Security and Threat Prevention are valuable for blocking malicious domains and known threats, PAN-OS 9.x does not provide the inline deep learning capabilities needed for real-time detection and prevention of Malleable C2 attacks. The absence of advanced behavioral analysis in PAN-OS 9.x makes this combination ineffective against advanced C2 attacks.

The PA-400 Series is the most cost-efficient Palo Alto Networks NGFW for small branch offices. Let’s analyze the options:

PA-400 Series (Recommended Option)

The PA-400 Series (PA-410, PA-415, etc.) is specifically designed for small to medium-sized branch offices with fewer than 50 users.

It provides all the necessary security features, including Advanced Threat Prevention, at a lower price point compared to higher-tier models.

It supports PAN-OS and Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS), making it suitable for securing internet traffic at branch locations.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

PA-200: The PA-200 is an older model and is no longer available. It lacks the performance and features needed for modern branch office security.

PA-500: The PA-500 is also an older model that is not as cost-efficient as the PA-400 Series.

PA-600: The PA-600 Series does not exist.

Key Takeaways:

For branch offices with fewer than 50 users, the PA-400 Series offers the best balance of cost and performance.

5G Security (Answer A):

In this scenario, the mining company operates on a private mobile network, likely powered by 5G technology to ensure low latency and high bandwidth for controlling robots and vehicles.

Palo Alto Networks 5G Security is specifically designed to protect private mobile networks. It prevents exploitation of vulnerabilities in the 5G infrastructure and ensures the control signals sent to the machines are not compromised by attackers.

Key features include network slicing protection, signaling plane security, and secure user plane communications.

IoT Security (Answer C):

The mining operation depends on machines and remote-controlled vehicles, which are IoT devices.

Palo Alto Networks IoT Security provides:

Full device visibility to detect all IoT devices (such as robots, remote vehicles, or sensors).

Behavioral analysis to create risk profiles and identify anomalies in the machines' operations.

This ensures a secure environment for IoT devices, reducing the risk of a device being exploited.

Why Not Cloud NGFW (Answer B):

While Cloud NGFW is critical for protecting cloud-based applications, the specific concern here is protecting control signals and IoT devices rather than external access into the cloud service.

The private mobile network and IoT device protection requirements make 5G Security and IoT Security more relevant.

Why Not Advanced CDSS Bundle (Answer D):

The Advanced CDSS bundle (Advanced Threat Prevention, Advanced WildFire, Advanced URL Filtering) is essential for securing web traffic and detecting threats, but it does not address the specific challenges of securing private mobile networks and IoT devices.

While these services can supplement the design, they are not the primary focus in this use case.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

5G Security for Private Mobile Networks

IoT Security Solution Brief

Cloud NGFW Overview

The default configuration of a Palo Alto Networks NGFW includes a set of default security rules that determine how traffic is handled when no explicit rules are defined. Here's the explanation for each option:

Option A: Security profiles are applied to all policies by default, eliminating implicit trust of any data traversing the firewall

Security profiles (such as Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, and URL Filtering) are not applied to any policies by default. Administrators must explicitly apply them to security rules.

This statement is incorrect.

Option B: The default policy action for intrazone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust within a security zone

By default, traffic within the same zone (intrazone traffic) is allowed. For example, traffic between devices in the "trust" zone is permitted unless explicitly denied by an administrator.

This statement is incorrect.

Option C: The default policy action allows all traffic unless explicitly denied

Palo Alto Networks firewalls do not have an "allow all" default rule. Instead, they include a default "deny all" rule for interzone traffic and an implicit "allow" rule for intrazone traffic.

This statement is incorrect.

Option D: The default policy action for interzone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust between security zones

By default, traffic between different zones (interzone traffic) is denied. This aligns with the principle of zero trust, ensuring that no traffic is implicitly allowed between zones. Administrators must define explicit rules to allow interzone traffic.

This statement is correct.

The customer’s question focuses on how Palo Alto Networks Strata Hardware Firewalls maintain throughput performance as more Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions—such as Threat Prevention, URL Filtering, WildFire, DNS Security, and others—are enabled. Unlike traditional firewalls where enabling additional security features often degrades performance, Palo Alto Networks leverages its unique architecture to minimize this impact. The systems engineer (SE) should explain two key concepts—Parallel Processing and Single Pass Architecture—which are foundational to the firewall’s ability to sustain throughput. Below is a detailed explanation, verified against Palo Alto Networks documentation.

Step 1: Understanding Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) and Performance Concerns

CDSS subscriptions enhance the Strata Hardware Firewall’s capabilities by integrating cloud-based threat intelligence and advanced security features into PAN-OS. Examples include:

Threat Prevention: Blocks exploits, malware, and command-and-control traffic.

WildFire: Analyzes unknown files in the cloud for malware detection.

URL Filtering: Categorizes and controls web traffic.

Traditionally, enabling such services on other firewalls increases processing overhead, as each feature requires separate packet scans or additional hardware resources, leading to latency and throughput loss. Palo Alto Networks claims consistent performance due to its innovative design, rooted in the Single Pass Parallel Processing (SP3) architecture.

The CN-Series firewalls are Palo Alto Networks’ containerized Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) designed to secure Kubernetes clusters. Unlike the Strata Hardware Firewalls (e.g., PA-Series), which are physical appliances, the CN-Series is a software-based solution deployed within containerized environments. The question focuses on the specific files used to deploy CN-Series firewalls in Kubernetes clusters. Based on Palo Alto Networks’ official documentation, the two correct files are PAN-CN-MGMT-CONFIGMAP and PAN-CN-MGMT. Below is a detailed explanation of why these files are essential, with references to CN-Series deployment processes (noting that Strata hardware documentation is not directly applicable here but is contextualized for clarity).

Step 1: Understanding CN-Series Deployment in Kubernetes

The CN-Series firewall consists of two primary components: the CN-MGMT (management plane) and the CN-NGFW (data plane). These components are deployed as containers in a Kubernetes cluster, orchestrated using YAML configuration files. The deployment process involves defining resources such as ConfigMaps, Pods, and Services to instantiate and manage the CN-Series components. The files listed in the question are Kubernetes manifests or configuration files used during this process.

CN-MGMT Role: The CN-MGMT container handles the management plane, providing configuration, logging, and policy enforcement for the CN-Series firewall. It requires a dedicated YAML file to define its deployment.

CN-NGFW Role: The CN-NGFW container handles the data plane, inspecting traffic within the Kubernetes cluster. It relies on configurations provided by CN-MGMT and additional networking setup (e.g., via CNI plugins).

ConfigMaps: Kubernetes ConfigMaps store configuration data separately from container images, making them critical for passing settings to CN-Series components.

When planning a firewall deployment with SSL/TLS decryption enabled, it is crucial to consider the additional processing overhead introduced by decrypting and inspecting encrypted traffic. Here are the details for each statement:

Why "SSL decryption traffic amounts vary from network to network" (Correct Answer A)?SSL decryption traffic varies depending on the organization’s specific network environment, user behavior, and applications. For example, networks with heavy web traffic, cloud applications, or encrypted VoIP traffic will have more SSL/TLS decryption processing requirements. This variability means each deployment must be properly assessed and sized accordingly.

Why "Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) ephemeral key exchange algorithms such as Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (DHE) and Elliptic-Curve Diffie-Hellman Exchange (ECDHE) consume more processing resources than Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithms" (Correct Answer C)?PFS algorithms like DHE and ECDHE generate unique session keys for each connection, ensuring better security but requiring significantly more processing power compared to RSA key exchange. When decryption is enabled, firewalls must handle these computationally expensive operations for every encrypted session, impacting performance and sizing requirements.

Why not "Large average transaction sizes consume more processing power to decrypt" (Option B)?While large transaction sizes can consume additional resources, SSL/TLS decryption is more dependent on the number of sessions and the complexity of the encryption algorithms used, rather than the size of the transactions. Hence, this is not a primary best practice consideration.

Why not "Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) certificate authentication method consumes more resources than Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), but ECDSA is more secure" (Option D)?This statement discusses certificate authentication methods, not SSL/TLS decryption performance. While ECDSA is more efficient and secure than RSA, it is not directly relevant to sizing considerations for firewall deployments with decryption enabled.

Prisma Access (Answer A):

Strata Cloud Manager (SCM) and Panorama provide centralized visibility and management for Prisma Access, Palo Alto Networks’ cloud-delivered security platform for remote users and branch offices.

NGFW (Answer D):

Both SCM and Panorama are used to manage and monitor Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) deployed in on-premise, hybrid, or multi-cloud environments.

Prisma SD-WAN (Answer E):

SCM and Panorama integrate with Prisma SD-WAN to manage branch connectivity and security, ensuring seamless operation in an SD-WAN environment.

Why Not B:

Prisma Cloud is a distinct platform designed for cloud-native security and is not directly managed through Strata Cloud Manager or Panorama.

Why Not C:

Cortex XSIAM (Extended Security Intelligence and Automation Management) is part of the Cortex platform and is not managed by SCM or Panorama.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Strata Cloud Manager Overview

Panorama Features and Benefits

Step 1: Understanding User-to-IP Mappings

User-to-IP mappings are the foundation of User-ID, a core feature of Strata Hardware Firewalls (e.g., PA-400 Series, PA-5400 Series). These mappings link a user’s identity (e.g., username) to their device’s IP address, enabling policy enforcement based on user identity rather than just IP. Palo Alto Networks supports multiple methods to populate these mappings, depending on the network environment and authentication mechanisms.

Purpose: Allows the firewall to apply user-based policies, monitor user activity, and generate user-specific logs.

Strata Context: On a PA-5445, User-ID integrates with App-ID and security subscriptions to enforce granular access control.