Free Paloalto Networks PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

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.

To configure GlobalProtect to authenticate users from multiple SAML identity providers (IdPs), the correct approach involves creating multiple authentication profiles, one for each IdP. Here's the analysis of each option:

Option A: GlobalProtect with multiple authentication profiles for each SAML IdP

GlobalProtect allows configuring multiple SAML authentication profiles, each corresponding to a specific IdP.

These profiles are associated with the GlobalProtect portal or gateway. When users attempt to authenticate, they can be directed to the appropriate IdP based on their domain or other attributes.

This is the correct approach to enable authentication for users from multiple IdPs.

Option B: Multiple authentication mode Cloud Identity Engine authentication profile for use on the GlobalProtect portals and gateways

The Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) can synchronize identities from multiple directories, but it does not directly support multiple SAML IdPs for a shared GlobalProtect setup.

This option is not applicable.

Option C: Authentication sequence that has multiple authentication profiles using different authentication methods

Authentication sequences allow multiple authentication methods (e.g., LDAP, RADIUS, SAML) to be tried in sequence for the same user, but they are not designed for handling multiple SAML IdPs.

This option is not appropriate for the scenario.

Option D: Multiple Cloud Identity Engine tenants for each business unit

Deploying multiple CIE tenants for each business unit adds unnecessary complexity and is not required for configuring GlobalProtect to authenticate users to multiple SAML IdPs.

This option is not appropriate.

When preparing for a customer meeting, it’s important to understand their specific challenges and align solutions accordingly. The notes suggest that the customer is facing difficulties securing their cloud apps and remote users, which are core areas addressed by Palo Alto Networks’ Zero Trust and SASE solutions. However, jumping directly into a pitch or product demonstration without validating the customer's specific challenges may fail to build trust or fully address their needs.

Option A:Leading with a pre-structured pitch about Zero Trust principles may not resonate with the customer if their challenges are not fully understood first. The team needs to gather insights into the customer's security pain points before presenting a solution.

Option B (Correct):Discovery questionsare a critical step in the sales process, especially when addressing complex topics like Zero Trust. By designing targeted questions about the customer’s challenges with identity, devices, data, and access, the SE can identify specific pain points. These insights can then be used to tailor a Zero Trust strategy that directly addresses the customer’s concerns. This approach ensures the meeting is customer-focused and demonstrates that the SE understands their unique needs.

Option C:While a product demonstration of GlobalProtect, Prisma Access, and SaaS security is valuable, it should come after discovery. Presenting products prematurely may seem like a generic sales pitch and could fail to address the customer’s actual challenges.

Option D:Prisma SASEis an excellent solution for addressing cloud security and remote user challenges, but recommending it without first understanding the customer’s specific needs may undermine trust. This step should follow after discovery and validation of the customer’s pain points.

Examples of Discovery Questions:

What are your primary security challenges with remote users and cloud applications?

Are you currently able to enforce consistent security policies across your hybrid environment?

How do you handle identity verification and access control for remote users?

What level of visibility do you have into traffic to and from your cloud applications?

References:

Palo Alto Networks Zero Trust Overview: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/zero-trust

Best Practices for Customer Discovery: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/sales-playbooks

Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) provide robust security features across a variety of use cases. Let’s analyze each option:

A. Code-embedded NGFWs provide enhanced IoT security by allowing PAN-OS code to be run on devices that do not support embedded VM images.

This statement is incorrect. NGFWs do not operate as "code-embedded" solutions for IoT devices. Instead, they protect IoT devices through advanced threat prevention, device identification, and segmentation capabilities.

B. Serverless NGFW code security provides public cloud security for code-only deployments that do not leverage VM instances or containerized services.

This is not a valid use case. Palo Alto NGFWs provide security for public cloud environments using VM-series firewalls, CN-series (containerized firewalls), and Prisma Cloud for securing serverless architectures. NGFWs do not operate in "code-only" environments.

C. IT/OT segmentation firewalls allow operational technology (OT) resources in plant networks to securely interface with IT resources in the corporate network.

This is a valid use case. Palo Alto NGFWs are widely used in industrial environments to provide IT/OT segmentation, ensuring that operational technology systems in plants or manufacturing facilities can securely communicate with IT networks while protecting against cross-segment threats. Features like App-ID, User-ID, and Threat Prevention are leveraged for this segmentation.

D. PAN-OS GlobalProtect gateways allow companies to run malware and exploit prevention modules on their endpoints without installing endpoint agents.

This is incorrect. GlobalProtect gateways provide secure remote access to corporate networks and extend the NGFW’s threat prevention capabilities to endpoints, but endpoint agents are required to enforce malware and exploit prevention modules.

Key Takeaways:

IT/OT segmentation with NGFWs is a real and critical use case in industries like manufacturing and utilities.

The other options describe features or scenarios that are not applicable or valid for NGFWs.

References:

Palo Alto Networks NGFW Use Cases

Industrial Security with NGFWs

The SE has demonstrated an NGFW managed by SCM, and the CISO now wants the POV to show progress toward industry standards (e.g., CSC) and verify effective use of purchased features (e.g., CDSS subscriptions like Advanced Threat Prevention). The SE must ensure the POV delivers measurable evidence during the testing timeline. Let’s evaluate the options.

Step 1: Understand the CISO’s Request

Industry Standards (e.g., CSC): The Center for Internet Security’s Critical Security Controls (e.g., CSC 1: Inventory of Devices, CSC 4: Secure Configuration) require visibility, threat prevention, and policy enforcement, which NGFW and SCM can address.

Feature Utilization: Confirm that licensed functionalities (e.g., App-ID, Threat Prevention, URL Filtering) are active and effective.

POV Goal: Provide verifiable progress and utilization metrics within the testing timeline.

Advanced DNS Security on Palo Alto Networks firewalls is designed to identify and prevent a wide range of DNS-based attacks. Among the listed options, "High entropy DNS domains" is a specific example of a DNS attack that Advanced DNS Security can detect and block.

Why "High entropy DNS domains" (Correct Answer A)?High entropy DNS domains are often used in attacks where randomly generated domain names (e.g., gfh34ksdu.com) are utilized by malware or bots to evade detection. This is a hallmark of Domain Generation Algorithms (DGA)-based attacks. Palo Alto Networks firewalls with Advanced DNS Security use machine learning to detect such domains by analyzing the entropy (randomness) of DNS queries. High entropy values indicate the likelihood of a dynamically generated or malicious domain.

Why not "Polymorphic DNS" (Option B)?While polymorphic DNS refers to techniques that dynamically change DNS records to avoid detection, it is not specifically identified as an attack type mitigated by Advanced DNS Security in Palo Alto Networks documentation. The firewall focuses more on the behavior of DNS queries, such as detecting DGA domains or anomalous DNS traffic patterns.

Why not "CNAME cloaking" (Option C)?CNAME cloaking involves using CNAME records to redirect DNS queries to malicious or hidden domains. Although Palo Alto firewalls may detect and block malicious DNS redirections, the focus of Advanced DNS Security is primarily on identifying patterns of DNS abuse like DGA domains, tunneling, or high entropy queries.

Why not "DNS domain rebranding" (Option D)?DNS domain rebranding involves changing the domain names associated with malicious activity to evade detection. This is typically a tactic used for persistence but is not an example of a DNS attack type specifically addressed by Advanced DNS Security.

Advanced DNS Security focuses on dynamic, real-time identification of suspicious DNS patterns, such as high entropy domains, DNS tunneling, or protocol violations. High entropy DNS domains are directly tied to attack mechanisms like DGAs, making this the correct answer.

A large deployment of 500 firewalls requires a scalable, centralized logging and reporting infrastructure. Here's the analysis of each option:

Option A: Combine Panorama for firewall management with Palo Alto Networks' cloud-based Strata Logging Service to offer scalability for the company's logging and reporting infrastructure

TheStrata Logging Service(or Cortex Data Lake) is a cloud-based solution that offers massive scalability for logging and reporting. Combined with Panorama, it allows for centralized log collection, analysis, and policy management without the need for extensive on-premises infrastructure.

This approach is ideal for large-scale environments like the one described in the scenario, as it ensures cost-effectiveness and scalability.

This is the correct recommendation.

Option B: Use Panorama for firewall management and to transfer logs from the 500 firewalls directly to a third-party SIEM for centralized logging and reporting

While third-party SIEM solutions can be integrated with Palo Alto Networks NGFWs, directly transferring logs from 500 firewalls to a SIEM can lead to bottlenecks and scalability issues. Furthermore, relying on third-party solutions may not provide the same level of native integration as the Strata Logging Service.

This is not the ideal recommendation.

Option C: Highlight the efficiency of PAN-OS, which employs AI to automatically extract critical logs and generate daily executive reports, and confirm that the purchase of 500 NGFWs is sufficient

While PAN-OS provides AI-driven insights and reporting, this option does not address the requirement for centralized logging and reporting. It also dismisses the need for additional infrastructure to handle logs from 500 firewalls.

This is incorrect.

Option D: Deploy a pair of M-1000 log collectors in the customer data center, and route logs from all 500 firewalls to the log collectors for centralized logging and reporting

The M-1000 appliance is an on-premises log collector, but it has limitations in terms of scalability and storage capacity when compared to cloud-based options like the Strata Logging Service. Deploying only two M-1000 log collectors for 500 firewalls would result in potential performance and storage challenges.

This is not the best recommendation.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Panorama

Strata Logging Service (Cortex Data Lake) overview in Palo Alto Networks Docs

Step 1: Understand the Requirement and Context

Customer Need: Segregate the internal network into unique BGP environments, suggesting multiple isolated or semi-isolated routing domains within a single organization.

BGP Basics:

BGP is a routing protocol used to exchange routing information between autonomous systems (ASes).

eBGP: External BGP, used between different ASes.

iBGP: Internal BGP, used within a single AS, typically requiring a full mesh of peers unless mitigated by techniques like confederations or route reflectors.

Palo Alto NGFW: Supports BGP on virtual routers (VRs) within PAN-OS, enabling advanced routing capabilities for Strata hardware firewalls (e.g., PA-Series).

References: "PAN-OS supports BGP for dynamic routing and network segmentation" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp).

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

Option A: It cannot be addressed because PAN-OS does not support it

Analysis:

PAN-OS fully supports BGP, including eBGP, iBGP, confederations, and route reflectors, configurable under "Network > Virtual Routers > BGP."

Features like multiple virtual routers and BGP allow network segregation and routing policy control.

This statement contradicts documented capabilities.

Verification:

"Configure BGP on a virtual router for dynamic routing" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/configure-bgp).

Conclusion: Incorrect—PAN-OS supports BGP and segregation techniques.Not Applicable.

Option B: It can be addressed by creating multiple eBGP autonomous systems

Analysis:

eBGP: Used between distinct ASes, each with a unique AS number (e.g., AS 65001, AS 65002).

Within a single organization, creating multiple eBGP ASes would require:

Assigning unique AS numbers (public or private) to each internal segment.

Treating each segment as a separate AS, peering externally with other segments via eBGP.

Challenges:

Internally, this isn’t practical for a single network—it’s more suited to external peering (e.g., with ISPs).

Requires complex management and public/private AS number allocation, not ideal for internal segregation.

Doesn’t leverage iBGP or confederations, which are designed for internal AS management.

PAN-OS supports eBGP, but this approach misaligns with the intent of internal network segregation.

Verification:

"eBGP peers connect different ASes" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-concepts).

Conclusion: Possible but impractical and not the intended BGP solution for internal segregation.Not Optimal.

Option C: It can be addressed with BGP confederations

Description: BGP confederations divide a single AS into sub-ASes (each with a private Confederation Member AS number), reducing the iBGP full-mesh requirement while maintaining a unified external AS.

Analysis:

How It Works:

Single AS (e.g., AS 65000) is split into sub-ASes (e.g., 65001, 65002).

Within each sub-AS, iBGP full mesh or route reflectors are used.

Between sub-ASes, eBGP-like peering (confederation EBGP) connects them, but externally, it appears as one AS.

Segregation:

Each sub-AS can represent a unique BGP environment (e.g., department, site) with its own routing policies.

Firewalls within a sub-AS peer via iBGP; across sub-ASes, they use confederation EBGP.

PAN-OS Support:

Configurable under "Network > Virtual Routers > BGP > Confederation" with a Confederation Member AS number.

Ideal for large internal networks needing segmentation without multiple public AS numbers.

Benefits:

Simplifies internal BGP management.

Aligns with the customer’s need for unique internal BGP environments.

Verification:

"BGP confederations reduce full-mesh burden by dividing an AS into sub-ASes" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

"Supports unique internal routing domains" (knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com).

Conclusion: Directly addresses the requirement with a supported, practical solution.Applicable.

Option D: It cannot be addressed because BGP must be fully meshed internally to work

Analysis:

iBGP Full Mesh: Traditional iBGP requires all routers in an AS to peer with each other, scaling poorly (n(n-1)/2 connections).

Mitigation: PAN-OS supports alternatives:

Route Reflectors: Centralize iBGP peering.

Confederations: Divide the AS into sub-ASes (see Option C).

This statement ignores these features, falsely claiming BGP’s limitation prevents segregation.

Verification:

"Confederations and route reflectors eliminate full-mesh needs" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

Conclusion: Incorrect—PAN-OS overcomes full-mesh constraints.Not Applicable.

Step 3: Recommendation Justification

Why Option C?

Alignment: Confederations allow the internal network to be segregated into unique BGP environments (sub-ASes) while maintaining a single external AS, perfectly matching the customer’s need.

Scalability: Reduces iBGP full-mesh complexity, ideal for large or segmented internal networks.

PAN-OS Support: Explicitly implemented in BGP configuration, validated by documentation.

Why Not Others?

A: False—PAN-OS supports BGP and segregation.

B: eBGP is for external ASes, not internal segregation; less practical thanconfederations.

D: Misrepresents BGP capabilities; full mesh isn’t required with confederations or route reflectors.

Step 4: Verified References

BGP Confederations: "Divide an AS into sub-ASes for internal segmentation" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

PAN-OS BGP: "Supports eBGP, iBGP, and confederations for routing flexibility" (paloaltonetworks.com, PAN-OS Networking Guide).

Use Case: "Confederations suit large internal networks" (knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com).