Palto Alto PCNSE Practice Exam Questions

Explanation:

Why This Option?
1.HA4 Interface Purpose:
The HA4 link (also called the "HA data link") is responsible for synchronizing stateful data between active and passive firewalls in an HA pair.
This includes:
Session information (e.g., TCP/UDP states).
Forwarding tables (for seamless failover).
IPSec security associations (VPN tunnels).

2.Active-Passive HA Workflow:
The active firewall continuously syncs this data to the passive firewall via HA4.
During failover, the passive firewall takes over without dropping sessions.

Why Not Other Options?
A.Packet forwarding is handled by the data plane (data interfaces), not HA4.
B.Routes and User-ID info sync via HA1 (control link), not HA4.
C.HA4 syncs sessions within a pair, not across clusters (cluster ID is irrelevant).

Key HA Links Summary:
HA1: Syncs configs, routes, User-ID (control link).
HA2: Heartbeat/hello packets (optional backup).
HA3: Management sync (optional).
HA4: Session/forwarding table/IPSec SA sync (data link).

Reference:
Palo Alto HA Admin Guide:
"HA4 ensures stateful sync of sessions, forwarding tables, and IPSec SAs for hitless failover."

Explanation:

1: Problem restated
Goal: Enforce group-based policies (needs accurate IP-to-User mapping).
Current setup: Using Windows User-ID agent monitoring domain controller security logs.
Gap: VPN + Wireless logins are via RADIUS → auth events not on DCs, but instead on the Identity Management (IDM) solution.
IDM does not have a direct PAN-OS integration.
So, how do we get User-ID mappings from IDM into PAN-OS?

2: Methods for IP-to-User Mapping
PAN-OS supports multiple methods:
Windows security event logs (via User-ID agent).
Syslog parsing from external auth sources (RADIUS, NAC, wireless controllers, VPN concentrators, IDM, etc.).
XML API (push mappings into PAN-OS).
Captive Portal / GlobalProtect.
👉 In this case: IDM generates syslog auth events → The right approach is to configure Syslog Listener in PAN-OS User-ID agent to accept those syslog messages.

3: Analyze the Options
A. Add domain controllers that might be missing to perform security-event monitoring for VPN and wireless users.
❌ Wrong. Auth events are not on DCs at all (root cause already confirmed).

B. Configure the integrated User-ID agent on PAN-OS to accept Syslog messages over TLS.
✅ Correct. PAN-OS User-ID agent (built-in or external) can parse syslog messages from IDM, extract username ↔ IP, and populate User-ID mappings. This solves the issue directly.
C. Configure the User-ID XML API on PAN-OS firewalls to pull the authentication events directly from the IDM solution.
❌ Wrong direction. PAN-OS does not “pull” from IDM via XML API — instead, third-party systems push mappings via XML API.
D. Configure the Windows User-ID agents to monitor the VPN concentrators and wireless controllers for IP-to-User mapping.
❌ Not possible in this case. Those devices authenticate through IDM, not directly exposing logs. Windows User-ID agents can’t just “monitor” VPN controllers unless they emit Windows events (which they don’t).

🔹 Key Takeaways for PCNSE
If auth logs don’t hit the DCs, use Syslog integration to feed mappings.
PAN-OS can parse syslog login events from IDM, RADIUS servers, wireless controllers, NAC, etc.
XML API is push-only — third-party system pushes mappings to PAN-OS, not PAN-OS pulling.

📖 Reference:
Configure User Mapping Using Syslog Senders
“A firewall or User-ID agent can monitor syslog messages from authentication systems to learn IP-to-username mappings.”

Explanation:

Why:
The log shows Action: deny and Session End Reason: policy-deny. When traffic is blocked by policy before App-ID can inspect payload, the firewall can’t identify an application and logs it as not-applicable. This is exactly how PAN-OS behaves when a session is denied on the first packet(s)—no app match is attempted, so the Application field is not-applicable.

Why the others are wrong
A. Incomplete → Used when the TCP 3-way handshake didn’t complete or completed with no identifiable data; typically seen on allowed sessions that later age out/reset, not on immediate policy denies.
B. unknown-tcp → Requires a completed handshake and payload that doesn’t match any App-ID; again, not a policy-deny on first packet.
C. Insufficient-data→ Handshake finished and there was some data, but not enough to identify an app; not the case for a policy-denied sess

Explanation:
To achieve the goal of forwarding only medium or higher severity threat logs to a new destination (syslog) while maintaining the existing forwarding to Panorama, the engineer should follow these steps:

1.Open the existing log forwarding profile.
The current profile is already configured to send all threat logs to Panorama. Since you want to keep this configuration, you should modify the existing profile rather than create a new one.
2.Add a new match list for the threat log type.
Log forwarding profiles use a series of "match lists" to define different forwarding rules based on log type and filters. You need to create a new match list specifically for the syslog forwarding.
3.Define the filter.
Within the new match list, you must specify a filter. The filter should be set to capture logs with a severity of "medium" or higher. The filter expression would look something like (severity geq medium).
4.Select the syslog forward method.
For this new match list, you should select the syslog server as the forwarding destination. The existing match list for Panorama will continue to function independently, forwarding all logs as configured.

Explanation:

Why This Option?
1.User-ID Agent Syslog Processing:
The User-ID agent monitors syslog messages (e.g., from Active Directory, VPN servers) to extract login/logout events.
To interpret these events, it uses a Syslog Parse Profile, which defines:
Patterns (regex) to match syslog messages.
Fields to extract (e.g., username, IP address).
2.Configuration:
Profiles are configured under:
Device > User Identification > User-ID Agents > [Agent] > Syslog Parse Profile.
Predefined profiles exist for common sources (e.g., Cisco ASA, Windows Security Logs).

Why Not Other Options?
A.Syslog Server profile is for receiving syslog, not parsing.
B.Authentication log is a log type, not a parsing tool.
D.Log Forwarding profile sends logs, doesn’t parse them.

Reference:
Palo Alto User-ID Agent Guide:
"Syslog Parse Profiles map raw syslog messages to IP-user mappings for User-ID."

Explanation:

Analysis:
PAN-OS 10.2 Support: The compatibility of firewall platforms with a specific PAN-OS version depends on Palo Alto Networks’ hardware and software end-of-life (EOL) policies. PAN-OS 10.2 was released around March 2022, and its support status as of August 2025 would be based on the standard 5-year support period from the initial release date, unless extended or superseded by newer versions (e.g., PAN-OS 11.x).
Upgrade via Panorama: Panorama can push software updates to managed firewalls, but the target platform must be listed as supported for the specified version in the official compatibility matrix or EOL announcements.
Relevant Platforms: The options provided are PA-220, PA-800 Series, PA-5000 Series, PA-500, and PA-3400 Series. We need to identify which three of these are supported for PAN-OS 10.2.

Evaluation of Options:
A. PA-220:
Status: The PA-220 was supported for PAN-OS 10.2 at its release, but an End-of-Sale (EOS) announcement was made on August 1, 2022, with the last supported OS listed as 10.2.x. As of August 2025, support may have ended or be nearing its end (typically 5 years from EOS or first release), but during the active support period, it was compatible. Given the question’s focus on an upgrade to 10.2, it is considered supported if the upgrade occurs within the support window. Likelihood: Supported, assuming the upgrade is within the support timeline.
B. PA-800 Series:
Status: The PA-800 Series (e.g., PA-820, PA-850) is listed as supporting PAN-OS 10.2 in the compatibility matrix. These platforms are mid-range firewalls designed for branch offices and have ongoing support for 10.2 as of its release date, with no EOL indicated by August 2025 for this version.
Likelihood: Supported.
C. PA-5000 Series:
Status: The PA-5000 Series (e.g., PA-5050, PA-5060) supported PAN-OS 10.2 at its release. However, this series is older, with an EOS announced around 2018, and the last supported OS was likely PAN-OS 9.1 or 10.0, depending on hardware EOL dates. By 2025, support for 10.2 on this series is unlikely unless extended, but during the 10.2 release period, it was compatible. Likelihood: Marginally supported, but likely phased out by 2025; however, it was supported at 10.2’s release.
D. PA-500:
Status: The PA-500 is an older platform with an EOS announced on October 31, 2018, and the last supported OS was PAN-OS 8.1. PAN-OS 10.2 is not supported on this hardware due to its age and limited capabilities, as confirmed by EOL documentation. Likelihood: Not supported.
E. PA-3400 Series:
Status: The PA-3400 Series (e.g., PA-3410, PA-3440) was introduced around 2022 and is designed to support newer PAN-OS versions, including 10.2. This series is explicitly listed as compatible with PAN-OS 10.2 in the release notes and datasheets from that period, with ongoing support as of 2025.
Likelihood: Supported.
Selection of Three Platforms:
Based on the compatibility matrix and EOL data up to August 2025, the platforms that support PAN-OS 10.2 include PA-220, PA-800 Series, and PA-3400 Series. The PA-5000 Series may have been supported at 10.2’s release but is likely past its support window by 2025, and the PA-500 is definitively unsupported. Since the question focuses on an upgrade to 10.2 via Panorama, we assume the intent is to identify platforms supported at the time of 10.2’s availability, adjusted for current context.
Final Three: A. PA-220, B. PA-800 Series, and E. PA-3400 Series are the most consistent choices, reflecting a mix of supported platforms from the release period onward.
Conclusion:
The three platforms that support PAN-OS 10.2 for an upgrade via Panorama are PA-220, PA-800 Series, and PA-3400 Series. This selection aligns with the compatibility data and the question’s focus on an upgrade scenario.

References:
Palo Alto Networks Documentation: PAN-OS 10.2 Compatibility Matrix
Palo Alto Networks Documentation: Hardware End-of-Life Dates
ExamTopics PCNSE Discussion: PAN-OS Version Support

Explanation:

1: Recall how Antivirus (AV) updates work
Palo Alto Antivirus signatures (for malware, spyware, C2 traffic) are part of the Threat Prevention subscription.
They are not tied to a separate “Antivirus license” (that doesn’t exist as a standalone).
AV updates depend on Application & Threats content being installed first, because the engine relies on the App-ID/Threat framework to identify traffic.
👉 So if you install Applications and Threats updates, then refresh Dynamic Updates, the Antivirus section appears.

2: Analyze the options
A. An Antivirus license is needed first…
❌ Wrong. There is no separate Antivirus license. Antivirus is included in Threat Prevention.
B. An Antivirus license must be obtained…
❌ Same as A — no such license exists.
C. An Advanced Threat Prevention license is required…
❌ Wrong. ATP (formerly Threat Prevention Cloud/ML-based inline detection) is a different subscription. Antivirus signatures are still part of Threat Prevention.
D. Install the Application and Threats updates first, then refresh the Dynamic Updates.
✅ Correct. This is the required step to make the Antivirus option appear in Dynamic Updates.

🔹 Key Takeaway (for PCNSE)
Threat Prevention subscription includes Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, Vulnerability, and DNS signatures.
No standalone AV license.
Antivirus updates require App+Threats content installed first, otherwise they won’t show.

📖 Reference:
Palo Alto Networks — Content and Threat Signatures
“You must install Applications and Threats content before Antivirus updates can be downloaded.”

Explanation:

Why This Option?
1.Explicit Proxy Basics:
Clients must explicitly configure their browser/OS to use the firewall as a proxy.
The firewall listens on a specific interface for incoming client proxy requests.
2.Listening Interface:
This should be the ingress interface where client traffic arrives (e.g., internal LAN interface).
Clients send HTTP/HTTPS requests directly to this interface’s IP and proxy port (e.g., 8080).

Why Not Other Options?
A.Internet egress is irrelevant—clients don’t send requests there.
B.Loopback is for high availability or complex routing, not client proxy traffic.
C.Management interface is for admin access, not proxy services.

Configuration Example:
If clients are on ethernet1/1, set Listening Interface = ethernet1/1.
Clients point their proxy settings to ethernet1/1’s IP:port.

Reference:
Palo Alto Explicit Proxy Guide:
"The listening interface is where clients direct their explicit proxy requests."