PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Palo Alto Networks Systems Engineer Professional - Hardware Firewall Questions and Answers

After a customer has concluded an evaluation of Palo Alto Networks solutions, it is critical to provide a detailed analysis of the results and benefits gained during the evaluation. The following two tools are most appropriate:

Why "Best Practice Assessment (BPA)" (Correct Answer A)?The BPA evaluates the customer's firewall configuration against Palo Alto Networks' recommended best practices. It highlights areas where the configuration could be improved to strengthen security posture. This is an excellent tool to showcase how adopting Palo Alto Networks' best practices aligns with industry standards and improves security performance.

Why "Security Lifecycle Review (SLR)" (Correct Answer B)?The SLR provides insights into the customer's security environment based on data collected during the evaluation. It identifies vulnerabilities, risks, and malicious activities observed in the network and demonstrates how Palo Alto Networks' solutions can address these issues. SLR reports use clear visuals and metrics, making it easier to showcase the benefits of the evaluation.

Why not "Firewall Sizing Guide" (Option C)?The Firewall Sizing Guide is a pre-sales tool used to recommend the appropriate firewall model based on the customer's network size, performance requirements, and other criteria. It is not relevant for showcasing the benefits of an evaluation.

Why not "Golden Images" (Option D)?Golden Images refer to pre-configured templates for deploying firewalls in specific use cases. While useful for operational efficiency, they are not tools for demonstrating the outcomes or benefits of a customer evaluation.

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 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.

Understanding the Problem:

The issue is thatAdvanced Threat Prevention (ATP) logsare visible on the firewall but are not being ingested into the company’s SIEM.

This implies that the ATP subscription is working and generating logs on the firewall but the logs are not being forwarded properly to the SIEM.

Action to Resolve:

Log Forwarding Configuration:

Verify that the Security policy rules configured to inspect traffic using Advanced Threat Prevention are set toforward logsto the SIEM instance.

This is a common oversight. Even if the logs are generated locally, they will not be forwarded unless explicitly configured.

Configuration steps to verify in the Palo Alto Networks firewall:

Go toPolicies > Security Policiesand check the "Log Forwarding" profile applied.

Ensure the "Log Forwarding" profile includes the correct settings to forwardThreat Logsto the SIEM.

Go toDevice > Log Settingsand ensure the firewall is set to forward Threat logs to the desired Syslog or SIEM destination.

Why Not the Other Options?

A (Enable the Threat Prevention license):

The problem does not relate to the license; the administrator already confirmed the license is active.

B (Check with the SIEM vendor):

While verifying SIEM functionality is important, the first step is to ensure the logs are being forwarded correctly from the firewall to the SIEM. This is under the systems administrator’s control.

C (Have the SIEM vendor troubleshoot):

This step should only be takenafterconfirming the logs are forwarded properly from the firewall.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Log Forwarding and Security Policy Configuration

Advanced Threat Prevention Configuration Guide

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

To address the MSSP’s requirement for logically separated BGP peering setups while efficiently managing standard routing rules and updates, Palo Alto Networks offers theAdvanced Routing Engineintroduced in PAN-OS 11.0. The Advanced Routing Engine enhances routing capabilities,including support forlogical routers, which is critical in this scenario.

Why A is Correct

Logical routers enable the MSSP to create isolated BGP peering configurations for each customer.

The Advanced Routing Engine allows the MSSP to share standard routing profiles (such as filters, policies, or maps) across logical routers, simplifying the deployment and maintenance of routing configurations.

This approach ensures scalability, as each logical router can handle the unique needs of a customer while leveraging shared routing rules.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B:While using APIs to automate deployment is beneficial, it does not solve the need for logically separated BGP peering setups. Logical routers provide this separation natively.

C:While virtual routers in PAN-OS can separate BGP peering setups, they do not support the efficient sharing of standard routing rules and profiles across multiple routers.

D:Virtual systems (vsys) are used to segregate administrative domains, not routing configurations. Vsys is not the appropriate solution for managing BGP peering setups across multiple customers.

Key Takeaways:

PAN-OS Advanced Routing Engine with logical routers simplifies BGP peering management for MSSPs.

Logical routers provide the separation required for customer environments while enabling shared configuration profiles.

References:

Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS 11.0 Advanced Routing Documentation

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 ProcessingandSingle 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 theSingle Pass Parallel Processing (SP3)architecture.

Policy Optimizer is a feature designed to help administrators improve the efficiency and effectiveness of security policies on Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs). It focuses on identifying unused or overly permissive policies to streamline and optimize the configuration.

Why "Identify Security policy rules with unused applications" (Correct Answer C)?Policy Optimizer provides visibility into existing security policies and identifies rules thathave unused or outdated applications. For example:

It can detect if a rule allows applications that are no longer in use.

It can identify rules with excessive permissions, enabling administrators to refine them for better security and performance.By addressing these issues, Policy Optimizer helps reduce the attack surface and improves the overall manageability of the firewall.

Why not "Recommend best practices on new policy creation" (Option A)?Policy Optimizer focuses on optimizingexisting policies, not creating new ones. While best practices can be applied during policy refinement, recommending new policy creation is not its purpose.

Why not "Show unused licenses for Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions and firewalls" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is not related to license management or tracking. Identifying unused licenses is outside the scope of its functionality.

Why not "Act as a migration tool to import policies from third-party vendors" (Option D)?Policy Optimizer does not function as a migration tool. While Palo Alto Networks offers tools for third-party firewall migration, this is separate from the Policy Optimizer feature.

Advanced WildFire is Palo Alto Networks' cloud-based malware analysis and prevention solution. It determines whether files are malicious by executing them in a sandbox environment and observing their behavior. To address the customer's concern about the file categorization, the systems engineer must provide evidence of the file's behavior. Here’s the analysis of each option:

Option A: Review the threat logs for information to provide to the customer

Threat logs can provide a summary of events and verdicts for malicious files, but they do not include the detailed behavior analysis needed to convince the customer.

While reviewing the logs is helpful as a preliminary step, it does not provide the level of proof the customer needs.

This option is not sufficient on its own.

Option B: Use the WildFire Analysis Report in the log to show the customer the malicious actions the file took when it was detonated

WildFire generates an analysis report that includes details about the file's behavior during detonation in the sandbox, such as network activity, file modifications, process executions, and any indicators of compromise (IoCs).

This report provides concrete evidence to demonstrate why the file was flagged as malicious. It is the most accurate way to assure the customer that WildFire's decision was based on observed malicious actions.

This is the best option.

Option C: Open a TAG ticket for the customer and allow support engineers to determine the appropriate action

While opening a support ticket is a valid action for further analysis or appeal, it isnot a direct way to assure the customer of the current WildFire verdict.

This option does not directly address the customer’s request for immediate proof.

This option is not ideal.

Option D: Do nothing because the customer will realize Advanced WildFire is right

This approach is dismissive of the customer's concerns and does not provide any evidence to support WildFire's decision.

This option is inappropriate.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on WildFire

WildFire Analysis Reports

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.

LDAP Query (Answer B):

Palo Alto Networks NGFWs can queryLDAP directories(such as Active Directory) to validate whether submitted credentials match the corporate directory.

Domain Credential Filter (Answer C):

TheDomain Credential Filterfeature ensures that submitted credentials are checked against valid corporate credentials, preventing credential misuse.

Why Not A:

Group mappingis used to identify user groups for policy enforcement but does not validate submitted credentials.

Why Not D:

WMI client probingis used for user identification but is not a method for validating submitted credentials.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Credential Theft Prevention

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.

Palo Alto Networks' PAN-OS supports API keys for authentication when interacting with the firewall’s RESTful and XML-based APIs. By default, API keys do not have an expiration time set, but the expiration time for API keys can be configured by an administrator to meet specific requirements, such as a time-based deactivation after two hours. This is particularly useful for compliance and security purposes, where API keys should not remain active indefinitely.

Here’s an evaluation of the options:

Option A:This is incorrect because the default setting for API keys does not include an expiration time. By default, API keys are valid indefinitely unless explicitly configured otherwise.

Option B:This is incorrect because PAN-OS fully supports API keys. The API keys are integral to managing access to the firewall's APIs and provide a secure method for authentication.

Option C:This is incorrect because PAN-OS does support API key expiration when explicitly configured. While the default is "no expiration," the feature to configure an expiration time (e.g., 2 hours) is available.

Option D (Correct):The correct response to the RFP clause is that the default API key settings need to be modified to set the expiration time to 120 minutes (2 hours). This aligns with the customer requirement to enforce API key deactivation based on time. Administrators can configure this using the PAN-OS management interface or the CLI.

How to Configure API Key Expiration (Steps):

Access theWeb InterfaceorCLIon the firewall.

Navigate toDevice > Management > API Key Lifetime Settings(on the GUI).

Set the desired expiration time (e.g., 120 minutes).

Alternatively, use the CLI to configure the API key expiration:

set deviceconfig system api-key-expiry

commit

Verify the configuration using the show command or by testing API calls to ensure the key expires after the set duration.

References:

Palo Alto Networks API Documentation: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/apis

Configuration Guide: Managing API Key Expiration

Protecting web servers from advanced threats like SQL injection, command injection, XSS attacks, and IIS exploits requires a solution capable of deep packet inspection, behavioral analysis, andinline prevention of zero-day attacks. The most effective solution here isAdvanced Threat Prevention (ATP)combined withPAN-OS 11.x.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 11.x" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) enhances traditional threat prevention by usinginline deep learning modelsto detect and block advanced zero-day threats, includingSQL injection, command injection, and XSS attacks. With PAN-OS 11.x, ATP extends its detection capabilities to detect unknown exploits without relying on signature-based methods. This functionality is critical for protecting web servers in scenarios where a dedicated WAF is unavailable.

ATP provides the following benefits:

Inline prevention of zero-day threats using deep learning models.

Real-time detection of attacks like SQL injection and XSS.

Enhanced protection for web server platforms like IIS.

Full integration with the Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW).

Why not "Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 11.x" (Option A)?Threat Prevention relies primarily on signature-based detection for known threats. While it provides basic protection, it lacks the capability to block zero-day attacks using advanced methods like inline deep learning. For zero-day SQL injection and XSS attacks, Threat Prevention alone is insufficient.

Why not "Threat Prevention, Advanced URL Filtering, and PAN-OS 10.2 (and higher)" (Option C)?While this combination includes Advanced URL Filtering (useful for blocking malicious URLs associated with exploits), it still relies onThreat Prevention, which is signature-based. This combination does not provide the zero-day protection needed for advanced injection attacks or XSS vulnerabilities.

Why not "Advanced WildFire and PAN-OS 10.0 (and higher)" (Option D)?Advanced WildFire is focused on analyzing files and executables in a sandbox environment to identify malware. While it is excellent for identifying malware, it is not designed to provide inline prevention for web-based injection attacks or XSS exploits targeting web servers.

User-ID is a feature in PAN-OS that maps IP addresses to usernames by integrating with various directory services (e.g., Active Directory). User-ID can be implemented through agents provided by Palo Alto Networks. Here’s how each option applies:

Option A: Integrated agent

The integrated User-ID agent is built into PAN-OS and does not require an external agent installation. It is configured directly on the firewall and integrates with directory services to retrieve user information.

This is correct.

Option B: GlobalProtect agent

GlobalProtect is Palo Alto Networks' VPN solution and does not function as a User-ID agent. While it can be used to authenticate users and provide visibility, it is not categorized as a User-ID agent.

This is incorrect.

Option C: Windows-based agent

The Windows-based User-ID agent is a standalone agent installed on a Windows server. It collects user mapping information from directory services and sends it to the firewall.

This is correct.

Option D: Cloud Identity Engine (CIE)

The Cloud Identity Engine provides identity services in a cloud-native manner but is not a User-ID agent. It synchronizes with identity providers like Azure AD and Okta.

This is incorrect.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on User-ID

Knowledge Base article on User-ID Agent Options