NSE6_WCS-7.0 Exam Dumps - Fortinet Certification Questions and Answers

Cluster Elastic IP Address (EIP) Movement:

During a failover in an active-passive (A-P) cluster, the Elastic IP (EIP) associated with the active FortiGate instance (FGT-1) needs to be moved to the passive instance (FGT-2), which becomes the new active instance. This ensures that the traffic directed to the EIP is now handled by FGT-2 (Option A).

Secondary IP Address Movement:

The secondary IP address on Port2 of the current active instance (FGT-1) is moved to the same port on the new active instance (FGT-2). This step is crucial to ensure seamless network traffic redirection and connectivity for the services relying on that IP address (Option B).

Other Options Analysis:

Option C is incorrect because the static route modification mentioned is not directly related to the failover process described.

Option D is incorrect because no additional route needs to be added to the HA Sync AZ2 subnet route table to forward traffic to the Internet Gateway during a failover.

References:

FortiGate HA Configuration Guide: FortiGate HA

AWS Elastic IP Documentation: Elastic IP

Network Load Balancer:

Deploying a network load balancer ensures that incoming traffic is distributed across multiple web servers, providing high availability and redundancy. This setup helps in managing traffic efficiently and maintaining service uptime even if some servers fail (Option A).

Multiple Availability Zones:

Deploying web servers in multiple availability zones (AZs) enhances fault tolerance and availability. If one AZ goes down, servers in other AZs can continue to handle the traffic, ensuring the web application remains accessible (Option D).

Other Options Analysis:

Option B is incorrect because NAT Gateways are used to provide internet access to instances in private subnets, not to make private addresses reachable from the internet.

Option C is not sufficient on its own for high availability. Adding a route to the default VPC route table forwarding traffic to the internet gateway makes the VPC internet-accessible but does not ensure high availability.

References:

AWS High Availability and Fault Tolerance: AWS High Availability

AWS Network Load Balancer: Network Load Balancer

Understanding the Architecture:

The architecture includes an EC2 instance in a private subnet, a Gateway Load Balancer Endpoint (GWLBe), a NAT Gateway (NAT GW), and an Internet Gateway (IGW).

Route Tables and Routing:

The private route table for the subnet containing the EC2 instance has a route pointing to the GWLBe for internet-bound traffic.

The public route table for the subnet containing the NAT Gateway has routes to the IGW.

Traffic Flow Analysis:

Traffic initiated from the EC2 instance destined for the internet will first be routed to the GWLBe as per the private route table.

The GWLBe will forward the traffic to the NAT Gateway.

The NAT Gateway will then route the traffic to the IGW, which finally sends the traffic to the internet.

Comparison with Other Options:

Option A suggests direct routing to the NAT GW from the EC2 instance, which is incorrect.

Option B incorrectly states there is no route to the internet in the private route table.

Option D suggests direct routing from GWLBe to the internet, which is not the case.

References:

AWS Documentation on Route Tables: AWS Route Tables

Gateway Load Balancer Overview: AWS Gateway Load Balancer

Load Balancer Configuration Overview:

The provided configuration indicates that the ELB is an internet-facing load balancer.

Multi-AZ Load Balancing:

The load balancer is configured to distribute traffic across multiple availability zones (A, B, and C), ensuring high availability and fault tolerance (Option A).

Accessing Targets via DNS:

The DNS name of the load balancer (LabELB-716e15332f6401f8.elb.us-east-2.amazonaws.com) can be used to reach the targets behind the ELB, facilitating traffic routing to the appropriate instances (Option C).

Comparison with Other Options:

Option B is incorrect as the ARN is not used to access the load balancer directly.

Option D is incorrect because the load balancer is configured for internet-facing traffic, not just internal VPC traffic.

References:

AWS Elastic Load Balancer Documentation: AWS ELB

Understanding ELB DNS: AWS ELB DNS

SSL Inspection Requirement:

FortiWeb Cloud provides comprehensive SSL inspection capabilities, allowing it to decrypt and inspect HTTPS traffic for threats. This is a crucial feature for many organizations that need to ensure all traffic, including encrypted traffic, is thoroughly inspected (Option C).

Comparison with AWS WAF:

While AWS WAF with Fortinet managed rules provides robust protection, it might not offer the same level of SSL inspection capabilities as FortiWeb Cloud.

Other Considerations:

Option A (Manual WAF signature updates) is incorrect because FortiWeb Cloud updates signatures automatically.

Option B (PCI 6.6 compliance) is a general requirement for any WAF solution, not specific to choosing FortiWeb Cloud over AWS WAF.

Option D (Traffic inspection for malware) is a feature provided by both FortiWeb Cloud and AWS WAF with Fortinet managed rules.

References:

FortiWeb Cloud Overview: FortiWeb Cloud

AWS WAF Documentation: AWS WAF

Invalid Credentials:

The debug output shows an "AuthFailure" error, indicating that AWS was not able to validate the provided access credentials. This usually points to incorrect or invalid AWS access or secret keys configured in the AWS Lab SDN connector (Option C).

Clock Skew:

Another common reason for authentication failures in AWS API calls is a clock skew between the FortiGate device and AWS. AWS requires that the system time of the client making the API call is synchronized with its own time, within a small margin. If there is a significant time difference, AWS will reject the credentials (Option B).

Other Options Analysis:

Option A is incorrect because the AWS API supports XML version 1.0.

Option D is incorrect as the error message does not indicate an issue with connecting on port 401.

Option E is incorrect because the error is related to authentication, not the absence of instances.

References:

AWS API Authentication: AWS API Security

FortiGate AWS Integration Guide: FortiGate AWS Integration

HA Event and Failover:

The debug output indicates that a failover event occurred and the secondary instance (Fgt2) is now taking over as the master.

Elastic IP Association:

The debug output shows the process of moving the Elastic IP (eipalloc-090425f83f912c8d6) to the new master instance. This involves associating the Elastic IP with the appropriate network interface (eni) of the new master.

Specific IP Address Association:

The Elastic IP is specifically associated with port1 of Fgt2. The message "associate elastic ip eipalloc-090425f83f912c8d6 to 10.0.0.13 of eni eni-0f6b35f8fccd24eb0" indicates that the Elastic IP is now linked to the primary IP address (10.0.0.13) on port1 of the new master.

Other Options Analysis:

Option A is incorrect because the routing table update details are not explicitly stated.

Option C is incorrect because the IP address association mentioned relates to an Elastic IP, not eni-0b61d8afc0aefb8a2.

Option D is incorrect because it specifically mentions port2 for the Elastic IP association, which is not indicated in the debug output.

References:

FortiGate HA Configuration Guide: FortiGate HA

AWS Elastic IP Documentation: Elastic IP

VPC-Scoped Protection:

When deploying a FortiWeb VM inside a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), the security and protection it offers are limited to the applications and traffic that pass through that specific VPC. This means that any applications outside this VPC will not benefit from the protection of FortiWeb VM (Option D).

Comparison with FortiWeb Cloud:

FortiWeb Cloud, being a cloud-native WAF-as-a-Service, can protect applications regardless of their VPC location, offering broader and more flexible protection capabilities.

Other Options Analysis:

Option A is incorrect because both FortiWeb VM and FortiWeb Cloud protect against OWASP Top 10 threats.

Option B is incorrect because FortiWeb VM does support zero-day protection.

Option C is incorrect as the performance of FortiWeb VM in applying advanced WAF protection is not inherently slower compared to FortiWeb Cloud.

References:

FortiWeb Overview: FortiWeb

Enhanced Redundancy:

Deploying an active-passive (A-P) FortiGate cluster across two availability zones (AZs) provides enhanced redundancy by ensuring that if one AZ fails, the other can take over, maintaining high availability and uptime.

IP Addressing and Subnetting:

One of the major differences when deploying across different AZs compared to the same AZ is that IP addressing and subnetting are not shared between the instances. Each AZ operates independently with its own set of subnets and IP addresses, which must be managed separately (Option D).

Other Options Analysis:

Option A is incorrect because the FortiGate devices in an A-P setup do not act as a single logical instance; they operate in a failover setup.

Option B is incorrect because secondary IP address configuration is used in both single AZ and multi-AZ deployments.

Option C is incorrect because the number of subnets required is typically more when deploying across multiple AZs for redundancy.

References:

FortiGate HA Configuration Guide: FortiGate HA

AWS Availability Zones: AWS AZ

Understanding VPC Peering:

VPC peering connections allow instances in one VPC to communicate with instances in another VPC. Peering is a one-to-one relationship between two VPCs.

Transit Routing Limitation:

AWS VPC peering connections do not support transitive peering. This means that a packet originating in VPC B cannot be routed through VPC A to reach VPC C. Each pair of VPCs must have its own peering connection.

Routing Table Configuration:

Even if you add a route in the VPC A routing table for the 192.168.0.0/16 network, it won't allow VPC B to communicate with VPC C because of the non-transitive nature of VPC peering.

Comparison with Other Options:

Option A is incorrect because adding a route in VPC A does not overcome the limitation of non-transitive peering.

Option C is incorrect because associating pcx-23232323 with VPC B is not how VPC peering works.

Option D is incorrect because you can create a separate peering connection between VPC B and VPC C, which is the required approach for communication between these VPCs.

References:

AWS VPC Peering Guide: VPC Peering

Limitations of VPC Peering: AWS VPC Peering Limitations