Paloalto Networks PSE-Strata-Pro-24 - Palo Alto Networks Systems Engineer Professional - Hardware Firewall
Total 60 questions
What does Policy Optimizer allow a systems engineer to do for an NGFW?
Recommend best practices on new policy creation
Show unused licenses for Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions and firewalls
Identify Security policy rules with unused applications
Act as a migration tool to import policies from third-party vendors
The Answer Is:
CExplanation:
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Answer C)?Policy Optimizer provides visibility into existing security policies and identifies rules thathave unused or outdated applications.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.
As a team plans for a meeting with a new customer in one week, the account manager prepares to pitch Zero Trust. The notes provided to the systems engineer (SE) in preparationfor the meeting read: "Customer is struggling with security as they move to cloud apps and remote users." What should the SE recommend to the team in preparation for the meeting?
Lead with the account manager pitching Zero Trust with the aim of convincing the customer that the team's approach meets their needs.
Design discovery questions to validate customer challenges with identity, devices, data, and access for applications and remote users.
Lead with a product demonstration of GlobalProtect connecting to an NGFW and Prisma Access, and have SaaS security enabled.
Guide the account manager into recommending Prisma SASE at the customer meeting to solve the issues raised.
The Answer Is:
BExplanation:
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
What are two methods that a NGFW uses to determine if submitted credentials are valid corporate credentials? (Choose two.)
Group mapping
LDAP query
Domain credential filter
WMI client probing
The Answer Is:
B, CExplanation:
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
A prospective customer wants to validate an NGFW solution and seeks the advice of a systems engineer (SE) regarding a design to meet the following stated requirements:
"We need an NGFW that can handle 72 Gbps inside of our core network. Our core switches only have up to 40 Gbps links available to which new devices can connect. We cannot change the IP address structure of the environment, and we need protection for threat prevention, DNS, and perhaps sandboxing."
Which hardware and architecture/design recommendations should the SE make?
PA-5445 or larger to cover the bandwidth need and the link types; Architect aggregate interface groups in Layer-2 or virtual wire mode that include 2 x 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the path.
PA-5430 or larger to cover the bandwidth need and the link types; Architect aggregate interface groups in Layer-3 mode that include 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the path.
PA-5445 or larger to cover the bandwidth need and the link types; Architect aggregate interface groups in Layer-3 mode that include 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the path.
PA-5430 or larger to cover the bandwidth need and the link types; Architect aggregate interface groups in Layer-2 or virtual wire mode that include 2 x 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the path.
The Answer Is:
AExplanation:
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.
Which two statements correctly describe best practices for sizing a firewall deployment with decryption enabled? (Choose two.)
SSL decryption traffic amounts vary from network to network.
Large average transaction sizes consume more processing power to decrypt.
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.
Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) certificate authentication method (not the RSA key exchange algorithm) consumes more resources than Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), but ECDSA is more secure.
The Answer Is:
A, CExplanation:
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.
Which two tools should a systems engineer use to showcase the benefit of an evaluation that a customer has just concluded?
Best Practice Assessment (BPA)
Security Lifecycle Review (SLR)
Firewall Sizing Guide
Golden Images
The Answer Is:
A, BExplanation:
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.
A prospective customer is interested in Palo Alto Networks NGFWs and wants to evaluate the ability to segregate its internal network into unique BGP environments.
Which statement describes the ability of NGFWs to address this need?
It cannot be addressed because PAN-OS does not support it.
It can be addressed by creating multiple eBGP autonomous systems.
It can be addressed with BGP confederations.
It cannot be addressed because BGP must be fully meshed internally to work.
The Answer Is:
CExplanation:
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).
The PAN-OS User-ID integrated agent is included with PAN-OS software and comes in which two forms? (Choose two.)
Integrated agent
GlobalProtect agent
Windows-based agent
Cloud Identity Engine (CIE)
The Answer Is:
A, CExplanation:
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