Pass the Fortinet Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Questions and answers with CertsForce

According to the official Fortinet administration guide for FortiOS 7.6.4 under the section " Configuring a RADIUS server, " the supported RADIUS authentication methods you can configure via the CLI with config user radius are:

pap

chap

mschap

mschapv2

auto

The relevant CLI syntax is set auth-type {auto | ms_chap_v2 | ms_chap | chap | pap}​. You can confirm this directly in the configuration table and from real CLI sessions.

EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) is NOT an authentication option you can directly set under config user radius. EAP methods (such as EAP-TLS, EAP-PEAP, EAP-TTLS) are negotiated between the RADIUS client and server but are not configurable as an explicit auth-type option in FortiOS. EAP authentication is typically used automatically by features like 802.1X, not through the user radius object authentication-type setting, and always requires proper backend workings between supplicant and RADIUS server

The Network Security Support Engineer 7.6 Study Guide explicitly explains this debug message:

“iprope_in_check() check failed, drop” means the packet is destined to a FortiGate IP address and one of these conditions applies:

The service is not enabled

The service is using a different TCP port

The source IP address is not included in the trusted host list

The packet matches a local-in policy with action deny

That directly confirms C. Trusted host list misconfiguration .

Why D is the second valid choice:

The FortiOS administration guide explains that:

“IP pools and VIPs are considered local IP addresses if responding to ARP requests on these external IP addresses is enabled … the FortiGate is considered a destination for those IP addresses … once an IP pool or VIP has been configured … the FortiGate considers it as a local address and will not forward traffic based on the routing table.”

Because iprope_in_check() is a local-in/local-destination type failure, a VIP or IP pool misconfiguration can cause traffic to be treated as destined for the FortiGate itself, which can then trigger this drop condition if the matching local service/local-in handling is not valid. So D is the closest supported second answer from the available choices.

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because policy route problems are not the documented meaning of this specific debug message. The study guide instead ties iprope_in_check() check failed, drop to management/local-in conditions.

B is wrong because the study guide says traffic shaping drops appear as: “Denied by quota check”

The get router info bgp summary output lists BGP neighbor status:

Prefix Reception: The " State/PfxRcd " column shows the number of prefixes received from the neighbor—neighbor 100.64.1.254 has " 1 " , confirming option A.

Received Message Count: Under " MsgRcvd " , 18 packets have been received from neighbor 100.64.1.254. This matches option C.

The second neighbor 100.64.2.254 is in " Active " state and has received/sent 0 packets, indicating that its TCP connection is NOT established, disproving option B.

There is no indication anywhere that the router is " still calculating " prefixes; " Active " just means no session is established, so option D is incorrect.

The correct answer is B .

The study guide explicitly states: “IKE version 2 does not interoperate with IKE version 1, but they share enough of the header format that both versions can unambiguously operate over the same UDP port.”

That directly proves B .

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because the study guide shows authentication methods as Asymmetric for IKEv2 and Symmetric for IKEv1

C is wrong because the study guide does not say they use the same TCP port; instead, it specifically says they can operate over the same UDP port

D is wrong because the study guide states: “IKEv2 does not use the concept of phase 1 or phase 2” , even though FortiOS CLI/GUI still uses those terms for configuration purposes

The Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol simplifies the negotiation process compared to IKEv1. It is defined by a specific sequence of message exchanges to establish a secure IPsec tunnel.

The correct chronological order of the IKEv2 exchanges is:

IKE_SA_INIT (Initial Exchange):

This is the first exchange. It negotiates the security parameters for the IKE Security Association (IKE SA), sends nonces, and performs the Diffie-Hellman key exchange. At the end of this exchange, the communication is encrypted, but the peers are not yet authenticated.

IKE_AUTH (Authentication Exchange):

This is the second exchange. It authenticates the previous messages, exchanges identities and certificates (if used), and establishes the first Child SA (the actual IPsec Security Association used for data traffic).

CREATE_CHILD_SA (Subsequent Exchanges):

This exchange occurs after the IKE SA and the initial Child SA are established. It is used to create additional Child SAs (for different traffic selectors) or to perform re-keying for the IKE SA or existing Child SAs.

Why other options are incorrect:

A & B: Incorrect because CREATE_CHILD_SA cannot happen before the SA is initialized (IKE_SA_INIT) and authenticated (IKE_AUTH).

D: Incorrect because IKE_AUTH cannot occur before IKE_SA_INIT.

Therefore, the protocol flow is IKE_SA_INIT $\rightarrow$ IKE_AUTH $\rightarrow$ CREATE_CHILD_SA.

The correct answer is A .

The debug output is for an HTTPS request and shows a hostname value. The study guide explains that with SSL certificate inspection, FortiGate extracts the FQDN from either:

“TLS extension server name indication (SNI)”

“SSL certificate common name (CN)”

So the hostname shown in the real-time web-filter debug can be derived from the SNI in the client request or, if needed, from the CN in the server certificate. That makes A correct.

Why the other options are wrong:

B is wrong because the study-guide example for web-filter real-time debug explicitly says: “This slide shows an example of real-time debug output when the URL to categorize isn ' t in the FortiGuard cache.” In these debugs, cat=255 appears before the final lookup result, so this does not indicate a local-cache hit.

C is wrong because ftgd-allow is the action , not the profile name. The debug line shows the action as action=9 (ftgd-allow) while the profile shown is profile= ' default ' . FortiOS web-filter logs also use the profile field separately from the action field

D is wrong because the final category shown is url_cat=52 , not 255. The study guide’s example shows the same pattern: an initial cat=255 in the request line, followed by the resolved result cat=52 url_cat=52

So the verified answer is: A .

The correct answers are B and D .

The study guide explains that expectation sessions are pinhole sessions created by session helpers for protocols such as FTP that need additional negotiated connections. It states: “FortiGate created an expectation session and opened the pinhole port for the expected return traffic” and also shows that the firewall “creates an expected (pinhole) session to allow the traffic”

That makes D correct.

For B , the study guide explains the gwy= field in session output: the first value is the gateway to the destination , and the second is the gateway to the source

In the exhibit, the original-direction traffic is DNATed here:

hook=pre dir=org act=dnat 10.171.121.38:0- > 10.200.1.1:60426(10.0.1.10:50365)

So the destination after DNAT is the internal host 10.0.1.10, and the session’s first gwy value corresponds to the next hop toward that destination. That makes B correct.

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because this is an expectation/session-helper behavior, not an IPS-engine-created session. The study guide ties expectation sessions to helpers such as FTP, not IPS.

C is wrong because 10.200.1.1 is the translated address used before DNAT, not the next hop used to forward the original-direction traffic after translation to the internal destination.

So the verified answers are: B, D .