FCSS_LED_AR-7.6 Practice Questions

The problem states:

FortiGate receivesRADIUS accounting messagesonport3.

User-Nameattribute contains the username.

Classattribute contains the group membership.

Goal: authenticate users through RSSO and map them to the correct user groups.

To achieve this, three critical components must be configured:

✔

A.  

This is mandatory because:

RSSO user groups on FortiGate match users based onthe value inside the RADIUS attribute(usually Class).

For group assignment to work, FortiGate must compare:

RSSO User Group → RADIUS Class Attribute Value

This isexactly how FortiGate maps RSSO users to groups.

✔

D.  

Thesso-attributedefineswhich RADIUS attribute contains the group information.

Because group membership is carried in:

➡Class attribute

You must configure:

config user radius

set sso-attribute Class

end

This tells FortiGate:

"Use the Class attribute to derive user group membership."

✔

E.  

This identifieswhich RADIUS attributecarries the actualusername.

In this scenario:

RADIUS accounting messages contain the username inUser-Name.

So the correct setting is:

config user radius

set rsso-endpoint-attribute User-Name

end

This ensures the RSSO user object uses the correct username.

❌Incorrect Options Explained

B.  

Not required.

You only assign them to policies where RSSO authentication is used.

C.  

Totally irrelevant to RSSO.

RSSO only needs RADIUS accounting, not device detection or Fabric services.

From the FortiManager NAC policy:

Category =Device

Match criteria includeMAC addressandOperating System = Linux

Action =Assign VLAN “Students”

From the FortiGate CLI:

diagnose switch-controller switch-info mac-table ...

MAC: 70:88:6b:8c:4a:ce VLAN: 4089 Port: port2

diagnose switch-controller mac-device mac onboard­ing

VLAN 4089 MAC 70:88:6b:8c:4a:ce

So the device is stuck inVLAN 4089, which is theonboarding VLAN. No NAC policy is matched.

For a NAC policy to match, FortiGate needsdevice-identity information, which comes fromdevice detection on the VLAN / FortiLink interfaceplus theattributes that the policy expects(OS, MAC, etc.).

A.  

Device detection is not enabled on VLAN 4089.

If device detection is disabled on the interface/VLAN where the endpoint lives, FortiGate cannot learn OS / device info.

Without this, the NAC engine cannot compare against the NAC policy (which relies on OS and other attributes), so the device remains in the onboarding VLAN.✅This is a valid root cause.

B.  

The device operating system detected by FortiGate is not Linux.

The NAC policy explicitly requiresOperating System = Linux.

If the endpoint is actually Windows/macOS, or the OS fingerprint is still “Unknown”, the policy will never match, and the device stays in onboarding.✅Also a valid reason.

C.  

Management communication between FortiGate and FortiSwitch is down.

CLI output (switch-info mac-table and mac-device) proves FortiGate is talking to the switch and sees MAC/VLAN/port information.❌Not a valid reason.

D.  

The MAC address configured on the NAC policy is incorrect.

The exhibits show the MAC in the NAC policy matches the MAC appearing in the MAC table.❌Not the cause here.

In this scenario:

FortiGate + FortiAnalyzer are part of theSecurity Fabric

AnAutomation Stitchis configured:

Trigger:Compromised Host – High(IOC from FortiAnalyzer)

Action:Quarantine on FortiSwitch + FortiAP

A test device10.0.2.1visits a malicious website.

FortiAnalyzer logs show the event, butFortiGate does NOT quarantine the device.

This means theautomation did not receive an IOC trigger, OR theFabric did not classify it as a compromise.

Let's evaluate each answer option.

✅

C.  

✔Correct.

For FortiGate to quarantine a device:

FortiAnalyzer must classify the event as aCompromised Host → High / Medium / Critical

FortiAnalyzer must generate anIOC event

FortiGate must receive that IOC through the Fabric

Even though the FAZ log shows:

Action = blocked

Category = Malicious Websites

→ That doesNOTautomatically mean an IOC was generated.

A blocked website event isnot always an IOCunless:

It is included in theIOC database

FAZ’sAnalytics / UTM / IOCengine marks it as a compromise

Thus, if FAZ only logs a “Malicious Website” event butdoes not classify it as an IOC,