NSE7_FSN_AR-7.6 Practice Questions

The command on this slide shows a summary of the statuses of all the OSPF neighbors. For each neighbor, it displays the adjacency state and if it is a DR, a BDR, or neither (DROther) Pagina 362 Enterprise_Firewall_7.2_Study. - Point-to-point networks contain only two peers, one at each end of a point-to-point link - Broadcast networks (multi-access) support more than two attached routers. They also support sending messages to multiple recipients (broadcasting). Pagina 365 Enterprise_Firewall_7.2_Study. In any multi-access network there is one DR and one BDR. Pagina 439 Network_Security_Support_Engineer_7.4_Study FULL/- This represents a point-to-point network

The issue is caused by the strict matching logic of the configured Prefix List.

Current State: The rule is edit 1 with set prefix 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 and both ge (greater than or equal) and le (less than or equal) are unset.

Behavior: When ge and le are unset, FortiOS requires an exact match of the subnet mask. The current rule only matches the exact network 172.16.0.0/16. It denies 172.16.52.0/24 because the mask (/24) does not match the rule ' s mask (/16).

To fix this and inject 172.16.52.0/24, you must modify the list to match the /24 mask:

A.  

Creating a new rule (e.g., edit 2) with set prefix 172.16.52.0 255.255.255.0 will provide an exact match for the incoming route, allowing it to pass the distribute-list.

B.  

By configuring set ge 17 on the existing rule (conceptually 172.16.0.0/16 ge 17), you change the logic from " exact match " to " range match " .

This configuration tells the router to match any prefix starting with 172.16.x.x that has a subnet mask length of 17 or greater.

Since the incoming route is a /24, and 24 is greater than 17, the route will match the prefix list and be accepted.

Why other options are incorrect:

C: The option text appears to read " Change the ... value to 16 " . If this refers to le 16, it would enforce the mask to be exactly /16 or less, which still excludes /24.

D: Changing the default behavior to implicit allow defeats the purpose of a filter (security control) and is not a standard configuration step for fixing a single missing route.

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 .