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

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 directlyrelevant to sizing considerations for firewall deployments with decryption enabled.

Populating user-to-IP mappings is a critical function for enabling user-based policy enforcement in Palo Alto Networks firewalls. The following two methods are valid ways to populate these mappings:

Why "XML API" (Correct Answer A)?The XML API allows external systems to programmatically send user-to-IP mapping information to the firewall. This is a highly flexible method, particularly when user information is available from an external system that integrates via the API. This method is commonly used in environments where the mapping data is maintained in a centralized database or monitoring system.

Why "User-ID" (Correct Answer C)?User-ID is a core feature of Palo Alto Networks firewalls that allows for the dynamic identification of users and their corresponding IP addresses. User-ID agents can pull this data from various sources, such as Active Directory, Syslog servers, and more. This is one of the most common and reliable methods to maintain user-to-IP mappings.

Why not "Captive portal" (Option B)?Captive portal is a mechanism for authenticating users when they access the network. While it can indirectly contribute to user-to-IP mapping, it is not a direct method to populate these mappings. Instead, it prompts users to authenticate, after which User-ID handles the mapping.

Why not "SCP log ingestion" (Option D)?SCP (Secure Copy Protocol) is a file transfer protocol and does not have any functionality related to populating user-to-IP mappings. Log ingestion via SCP is not a valid way to map users to IP addresses.

In this scenario, the company does not use on-premises Active Directory and manages devices with Entra ID and Jamf, which implies a cloud-native and modern management setup. Below is the evaluation of each option:

Option A: Captive portal

Captive portal is typically used in environments where identity mapping is needed for unmanaged devices or guest users. It provides a mechanism for users to authenticate themselves through a web interface.

However, in this case, the company is managing devices using Entra ID and Jamf, which means identity information can already be centralized through other means. Captive portal is not an ideal solution here.

This option is not appropriate.

Option B: User-ID agents configured for WMI client probing

WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) client probing is a mechanism used to map IP addresses to usernames in a Windows environment. This approach is specific to on-premises Active Directory deployments and requires direct communication with Windows endpoints.

Since the company does not have an on-premises AD and is using Entra ID and Jamf, this method is not applicable.

This option is not appropriate.

Option C: GlobalProtect with an internal gateway deployment

GlobalProtect is Palo Alto Networks' VPN solution, which allows for secure remote access. It also supports identity-based mapping when deployed with internal gateways.

In this case, GlobalProtect with an internal gateway can serve as a mechanism to provide user and device visibility based on the managed devices connecting through the gateway.

This option is appropriate.

Option D: Cloud Identity Engine synchronized with Entra ID

The Cloud Identity Engine provides a cloud-based approach to synchronize identity information from identity providers like Entra ID (formerly Azure AD).

In a cloud-native environment with Entra ID and Jamf, the Cloud Identity Engine is a natural fit as it integrates seamlessly to provide identity visibility for applicationsand data.

This option is appropriate.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Cloud Identity Engine

GlobalProtect configuration and use cases in Palo Alto Knowledge Base

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

To prevent malicious actors from abusing file-sharing applications for data exfiltration,App-IDprovides a granular approach to managing application traffic. Palo Alto Networks'App-IDis a technology that identifies applications traversing the network, regardless of port, protocol, encryption (SSL), or evasive tactics. By leveraging App-ID, security engineers can implement policies that restrict the use of specific applications or functionalities based on job functions, ensuring that only authorized users or groups can use file-sharing applications while blocking unauthorized or malicious usage.

Here’s why the options are evaluated this way:

Option A:DNS Security focuses on identifying and blocking malicious domains. While it plays a critical role in preventing certain attacks (like command-and-control traffic), it is not effective for managing application usage. Hence, this is not the best approach.

Option B (Correct):App-ID provides the ability to identify file-sharing applications (such as Dropbox, Google Drive, or OneDrive) and enforce policies to restrict their use. For example, you can create a security rule allowing file-sharing apps only for specific job functions, such as HR or marketing, while denying them for other users. This targeted approach ensures legitimate business needs are not disrupted, which aligns with the requirement of not impacting valid users.

Option C:Blocking all file-sharing applications outright using DNS Security is a broad measure that will indiscriminately impact legitimate users. This does not meet the requirement of allowing specific users to continue using file-sharing applications.

Option D:While App-ID can block file-sharing applications outright, doing so will prevent legitimate usage and is not aligned with the requirement to allow usage based on job functions.

How to Implement the Solution (Using App-ID):

Identify the relevant file-sharing applications using App-ID in Palo Alto Networks’ predefined application database.

Create security policies that allow these applications only for users or groups defined in your directory (e.g., Active Directory).

Use custom App-ID filters or explicit rules to control specific functionalities of file-sharing applications, such as uploads or downloads.

Monitor traffic to ensure that only authorized users are accessing the applications and that no malicious activity is occurring.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Admin Guide: Application Identification and Usage Policies.

Best Practices for App-ID Configuration: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com

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 help a customer understand how Palo Alto Networks can bring value when adopting a Zero Trust architecture, the systems engineer must focus on understanding the customer's specific needs and explaining how the Zero Trust strategy aligns with their business goals. Here’s the detailed analysis of each option:

Option A: Ask the customer about their internal business flows, such as how their users interact with applications and data across the infrastructure

Understanding the customer's internal workflows and how their users interact with applications and data is a critical first step in Zero Trust. This information allows the systems engineer to identify potential security gaps and suggest tailored solutions.

This is correct.

Option B: Explain how Palo Alto Networks can place virtual NGFWs across the customer's network to ensure assets and traffic are seen and controlled

While placing NGFWs across the customer's network may be part of the implementation, this approach focuses on the product rather than the customer's strategy. Zero Trust is more about policies and architecture than specific product placement.

This is incorrect.

Option C: Use the Zero Trust Roadshow package to demonstrate to the customer how robust Palo Alto Networks capabilities are in meeting Zero Trust

While demonstrating capabilities is valuable during the later stages of engagement, the initial focus should be on understanding the customer's business requirements rather than showcasing products.

This is incorrect.

Option D: Ask the customer about their approach to Zero Trust, explaining that it is a strategy more than it is something they purchase

Zero Trust is not a product but a strategy that requires a shift in mindset. By discussing their approach, the systems engineer can identify whether the customer understands Zero Trust principles and guide them accordingly.

This is correct.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Zero Trust

Zero Trust Architecture Principles inNIST 800-207

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.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of exploitation bynewly announced vulnerabilitiesis throughAdvanced Threat Prevention (ATP). ATP usesinline deep learningto identify and block exploitation attempts, even for zero-day vulnerabilities, in real time.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention’s command injection and SQL injection functions use inline deep learning against zero-day threats" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention leveragesdeep learning modelsdirectly in the data path, which allows it to analyze traffic in real time and detect patterns of exploitation, including newly discovered vulnerabilities being actively exploited in the wild. It specifically targets advanced tactics like:

Command injection.

SQL injection.

Memory-based exploits.

Protocol evasion techniques.

This functionality lowers the risk of exploitation byactively blocking attack attemptsbased on their behavior, even when a signature is not yet available. This approach makes ATP the most valuable solution for addressing new and actively exploited vulnerabilities.

Why not "Advanced URL Filtering uses machine learning (ML) to learn which malicious URLs are being utilized by the attackers, then block the resulting traffic" (Option A)?While Advanced URL Filtering is highly effective at blocking access to malicious websites, it does not provide the inline analysis necessary to prevent direct exploitation of vulnerabilities. Exploitation often happens within the application or protocol layer, which Advanced URL Filtering does not inspect.

Why not "Single Pass Architecture and parallel processing ensure traffic is efficiently scanned against any enabled Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscription" (Option C)?Single Pass Architecture improves performance by ensuring all enabled services (like Threat Prevention, URL Filtering, etc.) process traffic efficiently. However, it is not a feature that directly addresses vulnerability exploitation or zero-day attack detection.

Why not "WildFire loads custom OS images to ensure that the sandboxing catches anyactivity that would affect the customer's environment" (Option D)?WildFire is a sandboxing solution designed to detect malicious files and executables. While it is useful for analyzing malware, it does not provide inline protection against exploitation of newly announced vulnerabilities, especially those targeting network protocols or applications.

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.

Discovering Applications on the Network (Answer A):

Policy Optimizeranalyzes traffic logs to identifyapplications running on the networkthat are currently being allowed by port-based or overly permissive policies.

It providesvisibilityinto these applications, enabling administrators to transition to more secure,application-based policies over time.

Converting Broad Rules into Narrow Rules (Answer B):

Policy Optimizer helps refine policies byconverting broad application filters(e.g., rules that allow all web applications) intonarrower rules based on specific application groups.

This reduces the risk of overly permissive access while maintaining granular control.

Migrating from Port-Based Rules to Application-Based Rules (Answer C):

One of the primary use cases for Policy Optimizer is enabling organizations tomigrate from legacy port-based rules to application-based rules, which are more secure and aligned with Zero Trust principles.

Policy Optimizer identifies traffic patterns and automatically recommends the necessary application-based policies.

Why Not D:

5-tuple attributes (source IP, destination IP, source port, destination port, protocol)are used in traditional firewalls. Simplifying these attributes to 4-tuple (e.g., removing the protocol) is not a use case for Policy Optimizer, as Palo Alto Networks NGFWs focus onapplication-based policies, not just 5-tuple matching.

Why Not E:

Automating tagging of rules based on historical log data is not a specific feature of Policy Optimizer. While Policy Optimizer analyzes log data to recommend policy changes, tagging is not its primary use case.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Policy Optimizer Overview

Transitioning to Application-Based Policies

Strata Cloud Manager (SCM), part of Palo Alto Networks’ Prisma Access and Prisma SD-WAN suite, provides enhanced visibility and control for managing compliance and security policies across the network. In the Premium version of SCM, compliance frameworks are pre-integrated to help organizations streamline audits and maintain adherence to critical standards.

A. Payment Card Industry (PCI)

PCI DSS (Data Security Standard) compliance is essential for businesses that handle payment card data. SCM Premium provides monitoring, reporting, and auditing tools that align with PCI requirements, ensuring that sensitive payment data is processed securely across the network.

B. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

NIST is a comprehensive cybersecurity framework used in various industries, especially in the government sector. However, NIST is not specifically included in SCM Premium; organizationsmay need separate configurations or external tools to fully comply with NIST guidelines.

C. Center for Internet Security (CIS)

CIS benchmarks provide security best practices for securing IT systems and data. SCM Premium includes CIS compliance checks, enabling organizations to maintain a strong baseline security posture and proactively address vulnerabilities.

D. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

HIPAA is a framework designed to protect sensitive healthcare information. While Palo Alto Networks provides general solutions that can be aligned with HIPAA compliance, it is not explicitly included as a compliance framework in SCM Premium.

Key Takeaways:

The frameworks included in SCM Premium are PCI DSS and CIS.

Other frameworks like NIST and HIPAA may require additional configurations or are supported indirectly but not explicitly part of the Premium compliance checks.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Strata Cloud Manager Documentation

Palo Alto Networks Compliance Resources

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

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.

DNS Security (Answer C):

DNS Securityis the appropriate subscription for addressingthreats over port 53.

DNS tunneling is a common method used fordata exfiltration, infiltration, and C2 activities, as it allows malicious traffic to be hidden within legitimate DNS queries.

The DNS Security service appliesmachine learning modelsto analyze DNSqueries in real-time, block malicious domains, and prevent tunneling activities.

It integrates seamlessly with the NGFW, ensuring advanced protection against DNS-based threats without requiring additional infrastructure.

Why Not Threat Prevention (Answer A):

Threat Prevention is critical for blocking malware, exploits, and vulnerabilities, but it does not specifically addressDNS-based tunnelingor C2 activities over port 53.

Why Not App-ID and Data Loss Prevention (Answer B):

While App-ID can identify applications, and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) helps prevent sensitive data leakage, neither focuses on blockingDNS tunnelingor malicious activity over port 53.

Why Not Advanced Threat Prevention and Advanced URL Filtering (Answer D):

Advanced Threat Prevention and URL Filtering are excellent for broader web and network threats, but DNS tunneling specifically requires theDNS Security subscription, which specializes in DNS-layer threats.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

DNS Security Subscription Overview