NetSec-Analyst Free Brain Dumps & Key NetSec-Analyst Concepts

ITPassLeader provides free new Palo Alto Networks NetSec-Analyst latest exam dumps pdf demo to download for your reference so that you will share risk free shopping. Also we encourage every buyer use PayPal payment which also guarantees your money safety. We are engaging in not only providing the highest quality of NetSec-Analyst Latest Exam Dumps pdf but also the satisfying customer service. If you have any doubt, we will solve for you until you are satisfied.

Our company has successfully launched the new version of our NetSec-Analyst exam tool. Perhaps you are deeply bothered by preparing the exam, perhaps you have wanted to give it up. Now, you can totally feel relaxed with the assistance of our NetSec-Analyst Study Guide. Our NetSec-Analyst exam dumps are definitely more reliable and excellent than other exam tool. What is more, the passing rate of our NetSec-Analyst study materials is the highest in the market.

>> NetSec-Analyst Free Brain Dumps <<

Key NetSec-Analyst Concepts, Exam NetSec-Analyst Duration

We have always taken care to provide our customers with the very best. So we provide numerous benefits along with our Palo Alto Networks Palo Alto Networks Network Security Analyst exam study material. We provide our customers with the demo version of the Palo Alto Networks NetSec-Analyst Exam Questions to eradicate any doubts that may be in your mind regarding the validity and accuracy. You can test the product before you buy it.

Palo Alto Networks Network Security Analyst Sample Questions (Q33-Q38):

NEW QUESTION # 33
A cybersecurity firm manages multiple tenants on a single Palo Alto Networks firewall using Virtual Systems (vSys). Each vSys has its own PBF policies. A new requirement dictates that all outbound web traffic (TCP/80, 443) from a specific subnet (172.16.0.0/24) in 'vSys_A' must first be directed to an external web proxy (192.0.2.254) before being sent to the internet. This proxy is located in a different vSys, 'vSys_B', which has a dedicated interface (ethernet1/10) for this proxy integration. All other traffic from 172.16.0.0/24 in 'vSys A' should follow its regular internet path. Which PBF configuration is appropriate, and what critical inter-vSys element is needed?

A. In 'vSys_A', create a PBF rule: Source Address: 172.16.0.0/24, Application: web-browsing, ssl, Egress Interface: ethernet1/10 (assigned to vSys_B), Next Hop: 192.0.2.254, Action: Forward. Ensure a security policy exists in vSys_B to allow traffic from vSys_A to the proxy.
B. In 'vSys_A', create a PBF rule: Source Address: 172.16.0.0/24, Application: web-browsing, ssl, Action: Forward, Virtual Router: (Virtual Router in vSys_B where the proxy's network resides). In 'vSys_B', a static route for 172.16.0.0/24 must point to the proxy via ethernet1/10.
C. This scenario requires a dedicated physical interface to connect 'vSys_A' to 'vSys_B' as an 'inter-vSys' data plane link, and PBF cannot be used to directly forward traffic between Virtual Systems.
D. In 'vSys_A', create a PBF rule: Source Address: 172.16.0.0/24, Application: web-browsing, ssl, Action: Forward, Egress Interface: (Inter-vSys Link Interface), Next Hop: 192.0.2.254. An 'Inter-vSys Link' must be configured between 'vSys_A' and 'vSys_B'.
E. In 'vSys_A', create a PBF rule: Source Address: 172.16.0.0/24, Application: web-browsing, ssl, Action: Forward, Virtual Router: (Virtual Router in vSys_B), Next Hop: 192.0.2.254. This requires an inter-vSys forwarding mechanism to be configured.

Answer: D

Explanation:
This is a complex inter-vSys PBF scenario. Palo Alto Networks firewalls can forward traffic between Virtual Systems using a special configuration called an 'Inter-vSys Link'. This is a logical link, not a physical one, that allows traffic from one vSys to be forwarded to another. Inter-vSys Link (Critical Element): An 'Inter-vSys Link' must be configured under 'Network > Virtual Wires' or 'Network > Interfaces' (depending on the PAN-OS version and desired setup). This link creates a logical connection between two Virtual Routers across different vSystems. One end is attached to a Virtual Router in 'vSys_A', and the other to a Virtual Router in 'vSys_B'. PBF Rule: In 'vSys_A', the PBF rule will then specify the 'Egress Interface' as the 'Inter-vSys Link Interface' that connects to 'vSys_B'. The 'Next Hop' would be the IP address of the proxy (192.0.2.254), which is assumed to be reachable via 'vSys_B'. Let's evaluate other options: Option A: A PBF rule in 'vSys_A' cannot directly specify an egress interface that belongs to 'vSys_B'. They are isolated routing domains. Option B and D: The 'Virtual Router' action in PBF is for transferring traffic between Virtual Routers within the same Virtual System . It cannot transfer traffic between different Virtual Systems directly. Option E: This is incorrect. While dedicated physical links can be used, the 'Inter-vSys Link' feature is designed for logical forwarding between vSystems without consuming additional physical interfaces for simple transfers like this.

NEW QUESTION # 34
A critical application behind a Palo Alto Networks firewall intermittently loses connectivity. Packet captures on the firewall show SYN packets from the client reaching the firewall, but no SYN-ACK is returned. The firewall's session browser shows sessions in a 'DOWN' state for this traffic. The security policy rule permitting this traffic has 'Service: application-default' and 'Application: '. The security logs show 'Permit' actions, but the session never establishes. Which of the following is the MOST PROBABLE cause?

A. A conflicting security policy rule with a more specific match is denying the traffic, but due to session state, initial logs show 'Permit'.
B. The server hosting the application is not responding to SYN requests due to being overloaded or misconfigured.
C. A fragmented packet from the client is being dropped due to a max-fragment-size setting, preventing session setup.
D. Asymmetric routing causing the return traffic to bypass the firewall.
E. The firewall's TCP session setup timeout is too aggressive for the application's response time.

Answer: D

Explanation:
This is a classic symptom of asymmetric routing. If the client sends a SYN packet through the firewall, the firewall creates a session table entry. If the server's SYN-ACK (or subsequent return traffic) takes a different path and bypasses the firewall, the firewall will not see the complete three-way handshake for the initial session setup, leading to 'DOWN' sessions and no SYN-ACK being returned through the firewall. Options B, C, D, and E are plausible issues but do not fit the specific combination of 'SYN reaches firewall, no SYN-ACK returned, session DOWN, logs show Permit' as well as asymmetric routing. A server not responding (B) would show 'age-out' or similar in session state, not necessarily 'DOWN' for an unestablished session if the SYN-ACK isn't seen by the firewall. Frag packets (C) would typically be dropped by the firewall with a specific log entry if they were the issue. Timeout (D) would eventually age out the session, but not necessarily prevent the SYN-ACK from being returned through the firewall if it arrived. Conflicting rules (E) would usually show a deny in the logs, not a permit.

NEW QUESTION # 35
A Palo Alto Networks firewall is configured to decrypt SSL/TLS traffic using SSL Forward Proxy. Due to a recent audit, there's a new requirement: all decrypted sessions must enforce TLS 1.2 or higher, and any attempt to use older, weaker protocols like TLS 1.0 or 1.1 must be blocked and logged. However, for a specific legacy application that must use TLS 1.0, an exception needs to be made, allowing it to communicate without decryption but still logging the attempt to use TLS 1.0. How would you configure this using a combination of decryption profiles and policies?

A. Create two Decryption Profiles: one with 'SSL Protocol Settings' to 'Block Sessions with TLS 1.0/1.1' for 'any' decryption policy, and another profile with 'Allow Sessions with TLS 1.0/1.1' for the legacy application. Apply these profiles to respective decryption policies.
B. Create a custom 'SSL Protocol Settings' object for TLS 1.0/1.1 blocking and apply it to a 'Decrypt' policy for general traffic. For the legacy application, create a separate 'Decrypt' policy with a custom decryption profile that permits TLS 1.0/1.1.
C. Configure a 'Decryption Exclusion' for the legacy application based on its IP address. For all other traffic, enable 'SSL Protocol Settings' in the decryption profile to 'Block Sessions with TLS 1.011 .1'.
D. In the default SSL Forward Proxy decryption profile, set 'SSL Protocol Settings' to 'Block Sessions with TLS 1.0/1.1'. For the legacy application, create a 'No Decryption' policy rule and place it above the general 'Decrypt' rule, ensuring logging is enabled on this 'No Decryption' rule.
E. Set the global 'SSL Protocol Settings' to 'Block Sessions with TLS 1.0/1 .1'. For the legacy application, create a custom application ID, then create a security policy rule to 'Allow' this application without decryption, ensuring session logging is active.

Answer: D

Explanation:
This scenario requires a precise ordering of decryption policies and proper use of decryption profiles. First, to enforce TLS 1.2+ for decrypted traffic, the general SSL Forward Proxy decryption profile's 'SSL Protocol Settings' should be configured to block older TLS versions. Second, for the legacy application, since it must use TLS 1.0, it cannot be decrypted by the firewall if the firewall is also enforcing TLS 1.2+. Therefore, the legacy application's traffic must be exempted from decryption. A 'No Decryption' policy rule, placed above the general 'Decrypt' rule, achieves this. Crucially, even with 'No Decryption', the firewall can still log the initial handshake details, including the TLS version, if logging is enabled on that specific 'No Decryption' rule. This allows for logging the attempt to use TLS 1.0 without breaking the application or fully decrypting it. Options A, C, and E would either attempt to decrypt the TLS 1.0 traffic (which would fail due to the block), or misapply the settings. Option D is a global exclusion and doesn't explicitly guarantee logging of the TLS version attempt for the exempted traffic through policy evaluation.

NEW QUESTION # 36
You are debugging a connectivity issue where an internal application server, running a custom SSH service on port 2222, cannot establish connections to an external cloud logging service. The firewall logs show 'deny' actions with application 'ssh' and service 'application-default', even though a specific policy rule allows 'custom_ssh_app' (a custom App-ID for port 2222) to the logging service. What is the most likely cause and solution?

A. The traffic is being identified as 'application-incomplete' before the custom App-ID can classify it. The solution is to allow 'application-incomplete' for the destination IP, then refine the rule.
B. The custom App-ID 'custom_ssh_app' is incorrectly defined and is not identifying the traffic as SSH. The solution is to redefine the custom App-ID to accurately match the SSH handshake on port 2222.
C. The issue is with Application Override. The firewall is incorrectly overriding the custom App-ID with the default 'ssh' App-I The solution is to remove any Application Override rules that might conflict with this custom application.
D. The security policy rule for 'custom_ssh_app' has a lower priority than a generic 'deny all SSH' rule. The solution is to move the 'custom_ssh_app' rule to a higher priority.
E. The firewall is correctly identifying the traffic as standard SSH (App-ID: ssh) despite the custom port. The solution is to modify the allowing rule to explicitly allow 'ssh' application and 'tcp/2222' as the service.

Answer: E

Explanation:
This is a classic App-ID behavior scenario. Palo Alto Networks firewalls perform deep packet inspection. Even if you define a custom App-ID for a non-standard port, if the traffic itself inherently resembles a known application (like SSH), the firewall will identify it as that known application's App-ID. The log showing 'application: ssh' confirms this. Therefore, the allowing rule needs to specify the 'ssh' App-ID and the custom port 'tcp/2222' as the service. Option A is unlikely if the custom App-ID was meant for a custom protocol, but here it's still SSH. Option B is possible but the log showing 'ssh' indicates App-ID identification, not just a generic deny. Option D is incorrect; Application Override forces a specific application, it wouldn't cause it to be seen as 'ssh' if a custom App-ID was intended. Option E is incorrect as the application IS identified as 'ssh'.

NEW QUESTION # 37
A publicly accessible web application is frequently targeted by HTTP GET floods and slow-read attacks. The existing DoS protection profile on the Palo Alto Networks firewall is configured with generic thresholds, leading to false positives and occasional legitimate user disruptions. The security team wants to refine the DoS protection to specifically counter these HTTP-based attacks while minimizing impact on legitimate users. Which of the following combinations of DoS protection profile settings and their application would be most effective?

A. Implement 'Session Based Attack Protection' for 'HTTP Flood' with 'Max Concurrent Sessions' and 'Session Rate' thresholds, and use 'Action: Block' for sources exceeding limits.
B. Utilize 'Slow HTTP Protection' with 'Client Header Timeout' and 'Client Read Timeout' set to aggressive values (e.g., 5 seconds), and 'Action: Reset' for non-compliant sessions.
C. Both B and D.
D. Configure 'HTTP Flood' protection with a 'Per-Request Rate' and 'Per-Source IP Rate' threshold, setting 'Action: Syn-Cookie' to challenge suspicious HTTP requests.
E. Enable 'HTTP Flood' protection with 'Per-Request Rate' and 'Per-Source IP Rate' thresholds, combined with 'Per-URL Rate' for critical URLs, and set 'Action: Drop' for exceeding thresholds.

Answer: C

Explanation:
The scenario describes two distinct HTTP-based attacks: GET floods and slow-read attacks. HTTP GET floods are best mitigated by rate-limiting on a per-request, per-source IP, and potentially per-URL basis, making 'HTTP Flood' protection with 'Per-Request Rate', 'Per-Source IP Rate', and 'Per-URL Rate' (Option B) highly effective. Slow-read attacks, where an attacker slowly consumes the response to tie up server resources, are specifically addressed by 'Slow HTTP Protection' using 'Client Header Timeout' and 'Client Read Timeout' (Option D). Combining both B and D provides comprehensive protection against both types of HTTP attacks mentioned, making E the correct choice.

NEW QUESTION # 38
......

First of all, we have the best and most first-class operating system, in addition, we also solemnly assure users that users can receive the information from the NetSec-Analyst certification guide within 5-10 minutes after their payment. Second, once we have written the latest version of the NetSec-Analystcertification guide, our products will send them the latest version of the NetSec-Analyst Test Practice question free of charge for one year after the user buys the product. Last but not least, our perfect customer service staff will provide users with the highest quality and satisfaction in the hours.

Key NetSec-Analyst Concepts: https://www.itpassleader.com/Palo-Alto-Networks/NetSec-Analyst-dumps-pass-exam.html

At the same time, we will continually make amendment to the NetSec-Analyst study materials and make sure it is suitable to the latest exam, Facing the NetSec-Analyst exam, candidates are confused and blind, The NetSec-Analyst updated dumps reflects any changes related to the actual test, Firstly, NetSec-Analyst online training can simulate the actual test environment and bring you to the mirror scene, which let you have a good knowledge of the actual test situation, We are so confident about our NetSec-Analyst exam that we are ready to make this bold claim that if you followed our instructions but still somehow did not pass the exam, you can ask for a complete refund on your purchase right away.

So it was now a case of Bass, Mitchells Butler and NetSec-Analyst Bass Charrington in different regions of the country, JavaScript, on the other hand, is case sensitive and although it is a more compact language, NetSec-Analyst Free Brain Dumps similar to C, sometimes beginning programmers have trouble getting the nuances of the syntax.

Cost-Effective Palo Alto Networks NetSec-Analyst Exam Preparation Material with Free Demos and Updates

At the same time, we will continually make amendment to the NetSec-Analyst Study Materials and make sure it is suitable to the latest exam, Facing the NetSec-Analyst exam, candidates are confused and blind.

The NetSec-Analyst updated dumps reflects any changes related to the actual test, Firstly, NetSec-Analyst online training can simulate the actual test environment and bring you to Reliable NetSec-Analyst Test Tutorial the mirror scene, which let you have a good knowledge of the actual test situation.

We are so confident about our NetSec-Analyst exam that we are ready to make this bold claim that if you followed our instructions but still somehow did not pass the exam, you can ask for a complete refund on your purchase right away.

Roy Stone Roy Stone

Biography

NetSec-Analyst Free Brain Dumps & Key NetSec-Analyst Concepts

Key NetSec-Analyst Concepts, Exam NetSec-Analyst Duration

Palo Alto Networks Network Security Analyst Sample Questions (Q33-Q38):

Cost-Effective Palo Alto Networks NetSec-Analyst Exam Preparation Material with Free Demos and Updates

Quick Links

Resources

Support