Pass the Paloalto Networks PSE-Strata Professional PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Questions and answers with CertsForce

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.

DNS-based threats, such as DNS tunneling, phishing, or malware command-and-control (C2) activities, are commonly used by attackers to exfiltrate data or establish malicious communications. Palo Alto Networks firewalls provide several mechanisms to address these threats, and the correct method is DNS sinkholing.

Why "DNS sinkholing" (Correct Answer D)?DNS sinkholing redirects DNS queries for malicious domains to an internal or non-routable IP address, effectively preventing communication with malicious domains. When a user or endpoint tries to connect to a malicious domain, the sinkhole DNS entry ensures the traffic is blocked or routed to a controlled destination.

DNS sinkholing is especially effective for blocking malware trying to contact its C2 server or preventing data exfiltration.

Why not "DNS proxy" (Option A)?A DNS proxy is used to forward DNS queries from endpoints to an upstream DNS server. While it can be part of a network's DNS setup, it does not actively stop DNS-based threats.

Why not "Buffer overflow protection" (Option B)?Buffer overflow protection is a method used to prevent memory-related attacks, such as exploiting software vulnerabilities. It is unrelated to DNS-based threat prevention.

Why not "DNS tunneling" (Option C)?DNS tunneling is itself a type of DNS-based threat where attackers encode malicious traffic within DNS queries and responses. This option refers to the threat itself, not the method to stop it.

The default configuration of a Palo Alto Networks NGFW includes a set of default security rules that determine how traffic is handled when no explicit rules are defined. Here's the explanation for each option:

Option A: Security profiles are applied to all policies by default, eliminating implicit trust of any data traversing the firewall

Security profiles (such as Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, and URL Filtering) are not applied to any policies by default. Administrators must explicitly apply them to security rules.

This statement is incorrect.

Option B: The default policy action for intrazone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust within a security zone

By default, traffic within the same zone (intrazone traffic) is allowed. For example, traffic between devices in the "trust" zone is permitted unless explicitly denied by an administrator.

This statement is incorrect.

Option C: The default policy action allows all traffic unless explicitly denied

Palo Alto Networks firewalls do not have an "allow all" default rule. Instead, they include a default "deny all" rule for interzone traffic and an implicit "allow" rule for intrazone traffic.

This statement is incorrect.

Option D: The default policy action for interzone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust between security zones

By default, traffic between different zones (interzone traffic) is denied. This aligns with the principle of zero trust, ensuring that no traffic is implicitly allowed between zones. Administrators must define explicit rules to allow interzone traffic.

This statement is correct.

When evaluating Palo Alto Networks products, prospective customers need tools that can help them assess compatibility, performance, and value within their existing architecture. The following tools are the most relevant:

Why "Proof of Concept (POC)" (Correct Answer A)?A Proof of Concept is a hands-on evaluation that allows the customer to deploy and test Palo Alto Networks products directly within their environment. This enables them to assess real-world performance, compatibility, and operational impact.

Why "Security Lifecycle Review (SLR)" (Correct Answer C)?An SLR provides a detailed report of a customer’s network security posture based on data collected during a short evaluation period. It highlights risks, vulnerabilities, and active threats in the customer’s network, demonstrating how Palo Alto Networks solutions can address those risks. SLR is a powerful tool for justifying the value of a product in the customer’s architecture.

Why "Ultimate Test Drive" (Correct Answer D)?The Ultimate Test Drive is a guided hands-on workshop provided by Palo Alto Networks that allows prospective customers to explore product features and capabilities in a controlled environment. It is ideal for customers who want to evaluate products without deploying them in their production network.

Why not "Policy Optimizer" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is used after a product has been deployed to refine security policies by identifying unused or overly permissive rules. It is not designed for pre-deployment evaluations.

Why not "Expedition" (Option E)?Expedition is a migration tool that assists with the conversion of configurations from third-party firewalls or existing Palo Alto Networks firewalls. It is not a tool for evaluating the suitability of products in the customer’s architecture.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of exploitation by newly announced vulnerabilities is through Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP). ATP uses inline deep learning to 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 leverages deep learning models directly 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 by actively blocking attack attempts based 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 any activity 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.

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 the Web Interface or CLI on the firewall.

Navigate to Device > 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.

Synchronizing a large Active Directory (AD) with over 20,000 groups can introduce significant overhead if all groups are synchronized, especially when only a subset of groups (e.g., 1,000 groups) are required for Security policies. The most efficient approach is to configure a group mapping profile with an include group list to minimize unnecessary synchronization and reduce administrative overhead.

Why "Configure a group mapping profile with an include group list" (Correct Answer C)?Using a group mapping profile with an include group list ensures that only the required 1,000 groups are synchronized with the firewall. This approach:

Reduces the load on the firewall's User-ID process by limiting the number of synchronized groups.

Simplifies management by focusing on the specific groups relevant to Security policies.

Avoids synchronizing the entire directory (20,000 groups), which would be inefficient and resource-intensive.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile, without a filter, to synchronize all groups" (Option B)?Synchronizing all 20,000 groups would unnecessarily increase administrative and resource overhead. This approach contradicts the requirement to reduce administrative burden.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile with custom filters for LDAP attributes that are mapped to the user roles" (Option A)?While filtering LDAP attributes can be useful, this approach is more complex to implement and manage compared to an include group list. It does not directly address the problem of limiting synchronization to a specific subset of groups.

Why not "Configure NGFWs to synchronize with the AD after deploying the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) and agents" (Option D)?While the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) is a modern solution for user and group mapping, it is unnecessary in this scenario. A traditional group mapping profile with an include list is sufficient and simpler to implement. CIE is typically used for complex hybrid or cloud environments.

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 customer is seeking centralized policy management to reduce human error while maintaining compliance with their contractual obligations to AWS and Azure. Here's the evaluation of each option:

Option A: Cloud NGFWs at both CSPs; provide the customer a license for a Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP's marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems

Cloud NGFW is a fully managed Next-Generation Firewall service by Palo Alto Networks, offered in AWS and Azure marketplaces. It integrates natively with the CSP infrastructure, making it a good fit for customers with existing CSP agreements.

Panorama, Palo Alto Networks' centralized management solution, can be deployed as a virtual appliance in the CSP marketplace of choice, enabling centralized policy management across all NGFWs.

This option addresses the customer's need for centralized management while leveraging their existing contracts with AWS and Azure.

This option is appropriate.

Option B: Cloud NGFWs in AWS and VM-Series firewall in Azure; the customer selects a PAYG licensing Panorama deployment in their CSP of choice

This option suggests using Cloud NGFW in AWS but VM-Series firewalls in Azure. While VM-Series is a flexible virtual firewall solution, it may not align with the customer’s stated preference for CSP-managed services like Cloud NGFW.

This option introduces a mix of solutions that could complicate centralized management and reduce operational efficiency.

This option is less appropriate.

Option C: VM-Series firewalls in both CSPs; manually built Panorama in the CSP of choice on a host of either type: Palo Alto Networks provides a license

VM-Series firewalls are well-suited for cloud deployments but require more manual configuration compared to Cloud NGFW.

Building a Panorama instance manually on a host increases operational overhead and does not leverage the customer’s existing CSP marketplaces.

This option is less aligned with the customer's needs.

Option D: VM-Series firewall and CN-Series firewall in both CSPs; provide the customer a private-offer Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP’s marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems

This option introduces both VM-Series and CN-Series firewalls in both CSPs. While CN-Series firewalls are designed for Kubernetes environments, they may not be relevant if the customer does not specifically require container-level security.

Adding CN-Series firewalls may introduce unnecessary complexity and costs.

This option is not appropriate.

North-south traffic refers to the flow of data in and out of a network, typically between internal resources and the internet. To secure this type of traffic, Palo Alto Networks recommends specific CDSS subscriptions in addition to DNS Security:

A. SaaS Security

SaaS Security is designed for monitoring and securing SaaS application usage but is not essential for handling typical north-south traffic.

B. Advanced WildFire

Advanced WildFire provides cloud-based malware analysis and sandboxing to detect and block zero-day threats. It is a critical component for securing north-south traffic against advanced malware.

C. Enterprise DLP

Enterprise DLP focuses on data loss prevention, primarily for protecting sensitive data. While important, it is not a minimum recommendation for securing north-south traffic.

D. Advanced Threat Prevention

Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) replaces traditional IPS and provides inline detection and prevention of evasive threats in north-south traffic. It is a crucial recommendation for protecting against sophisticated threats.

E. Advanced URL Filtering

Advanced URL Filtering prevents access to malicious or harmful URLs. It complements DNS Security to provide comprehensive web protection for north-south traffic.

Key Takeaways:

Advanced WildFire, Advanced Threat Prevention, and Advanced URL Filtering are minimum recommendations for NGFWs handling north-south traffic, alongside DNS Security.

SaaS Security and Enterprise DLP, while valuable, are not minimum requirements for this use case.