PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Palo Alto Networks Systems Engineer Professional - Hardware Firewall Questions and Answers

A large deployment of 500 firewalls requires a scalable, centralized logging and reporting infrastructure. Here's the analysis of each option:

Option A: Combine Panorama for firewall management with Palo Alto Networks' cloud-based Strata Logging Service to offer scalability for the company's logging and reporting infrastructure

TheStrata Logging Service(or Cortex Data Lake) is a cloud-based solution that offers massive scalability for logging and reporting. Combined with Panorama, it allows for centralized log collection, analysis, and policy management without the need for extensive on-premises infrastructure.

This approach is ideal for large-scale environments like the one described in the scenario, as it ensures cost-effectiveness and scalability.

This is the correct recommendation.

Option B: Use Panorama for firewall management and to transfer logs from the 500 firewalls directly to a third-party SIEM for centralized logging and reporting

While third-party SIEM solutions can be integrated with Palo Alto Networks NGFWs, directly transferring logs from 500 firewalls to a SIEM can lead to bottlenecks and scalability issues. Furthermore, relying on third-party solutions may not provide the same level of native integration as the Strata Logging Service.

This is not the ideal recommendation.

Option C: Highlight the efficiency of PAN-OS, which employs AI to automatically extract critical logs and generate daily executive reports, and confirm that the purchase of 500 NGFWs is sufficient

While PAN-OS provides AI-driven insights and reporting, this option does not address the requirement for centralized logging and reporting. It also dismisses the need for additional infrastructure to handle logs from 500 firewalls.

This is incorrect.

Option D: Deploy a pair of M-1000 log collectors in the customer data center, and route logs from all 500 firewalls to the log collectors for centralized logging and reporting

The M-1000 appliance is an on-premises log collector, but it has limitations in terms of scalability and storage capacity when compared to cloud-based options like the Strata Logging Service. Deploying only two M-1000 log collectors for 500 firewalls would result in potential performance and storage challenges.

This is not the best recommendation.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Panorama

Strata Logging Service (Cortex Data Lake) overview in Palo Alto Networks Docs

Zero Trust principles revolve around minimizing trust in the network and verifying every interaction. To adopt Zero Trust, customers should start by gaining visibility and understanding the network and its transactions.

A. Understand which users, devices, infrastructure, applications, data, and services are part of the network or have access to it.

The first step in adopting Zero Trust is understanding the full scope of the network. Identifying users, devices, applications, and data is critical for building a comprehensive security strategy.

C. Map the transactions between users, applications, and data, then verify and inspect those transactions.

After identifying all assets, the next step is to map interactions and enforce verification and inspection of these transactions to ensure security.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B:Enabling CDSS subscriptions is important for protection but comes after foundational Zero Trust principles are established.

D:Implementing VM-Series NGFWs is part of enforcing Zero Trust, but it is not the first step. Visibility and understanding come first.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Zero Trust Overview

Create a New Threat Profile (Answer B):

Performance tuning inIntrusion Prevention System (IPS)involves ensuring that only the most relevant and necessary signatures are enabled for the specific environment.

Palo Alto Networks allows you to createcustom threat profilesto selectively enable signatures that match the threats most likely to affect the environment. This reduces unnecessary resource usage and ensures optimal performance.

By tailoring the signature set, organizations can focus on real threats without impacting overall throughput and latency.

Why Not A:

Leaving all signatures turned on is not a best practice because it may consume excessive resources, increasing processing time and degrading firewall performance, especially in high-throughput environments.

Why Not C:

While working with TAC for debugging may help identify specific performance bottlenecks, it is not a recommended approach for routine performance tuning. Instead, proactive configuration changes, such as creating tailored threat profiles, should be made.

Why Not D:

Disabling irrelevant threat signatures can improve performance, but this task is effectively accomplished bycreating a new threat profile. Manually disabling signatures one by one is not scalable or efficient.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Threat Prevention Best Practices

Custom Threat Profile Configuration

Policy Optimizer is a feature designed to help administrators improve the efficiency and effectiveness of security policies on Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs). It focuses on identifying unused or overly permissive policies to streamline and optimize the configuration.

Why "Identify Security policy rules with unused applications" (Correct Answer C)?Policy Optimizer provides visibility into existing security policies and identifies rules thathave unused or outdated applications. For example:

It can detect if a rule allows applications that are no longer in use.

It can identify rules with excessive permissions, enabling administrators to refine them for better security and performance.By addressing these issues, Policy Optimizer helps reduce the attack surface and improves the overall manageability of the firewall.

Why not "Recommend best practices on new policy creation" (Option A)?Policy Optimizer focuses on optimizingexisting policies, not creating new ones. While best practices can be applied during policy refinement, recommending new policy creation is not its purpose.

Why not "Show unused licenses for Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions and firewalls" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is not related to license management or tracking. Identifying unused licenses is outside the scope of its functionality.

Why not "Act as a migration tool to import policies from third-party vendors" (Option D)?Policy Optimizer does not function as a migration tool. While Palo Alto Networks offers tools for third-party firewall migration, this is separate from the Policy Optimizer feature.

Step 1: Understand the Requirement and Context

Customer Need: Segregate the internal network into unique BGP environments, suggesting multiple isolated or semi-isolated routing domains within a single organization.

BGP Basics:

BGP is a routing protocol used to exchange routing information between autonomous systems (ASes).

eBGP: External BGP, used between different ASes.

iBGP: Internal BGP, used within a single AS, typically requiring a full mesh of peers unless mitigated by techniques like confederations or route reflectors.

Palo Alto NGFW: Supports BGP on virtual routers (VRs) within PAN-OS, enabling advanced routing capabilities for Strata hardware firewalls (e.g., PA-Series).

References: "PAN-OS supports BGP for dynamic routing and network segmentation" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp).

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

Option A: It cannot be addressed because PAN-OS does not support it

Analysis:

PAN-OS fully supports BGP, including eBGP, iBGP, confederations, and route reflectors, configurable under "Network > Virtual Routers > BGP."

Features like multiple virtual routers and BGP allow network segregation and routing policy control.

This statement contradicts documented capabilities.

Verification:

"Configure BGP on a virtual router for dynamic routing" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/configure-bgp).

Conclusion: Incorrect—PAN-OS supports BGP and segregation techniques.Not Applicable.

Option B: It can be addressed by creating multiple eBGP autonomous systems

Analysis:

eBGP: Used between distinct ASes, each with a unique AS number (e.g., AS 65001, AS 65002).

Within a single organization, creating multiple eBGP ASes would require:

Assigning unique AS numbers (public or private) to each internal segment.

Treating each segment as a separate AS, peering externally with other segments via eBGP.

Challenges:

Internally, this isn’t practical for a single network—it’s more suited to external peering (e.g., with ISPs).

Requires complex management and public/private AS number allocation, not ideal for internal segregation.

Doesn’t leverage iBGP or confederations, which are designed for internal AS management.

PAN-OS supports eBGP, but this approach misaligns with the intent of internal network segregation.

Verification:

"eBGP peers connect different ASes" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-concepts).

Conclusion: Possible but impractical and not the intended BGP solution for internal segregation.Not Optimal.

Option C: It can be addressed with BGP confederations

Description: BGP confederations divide a single AS into sub-ASes (each with a private Confederation Member AS number), reducing the iBGP full-mesh requirement while maintaining a unified external AS.

Analysis:

How It Works:

Single AS (e.g., AS 65000) is split into sub-ASes (e.g., 65001, 65002).

Within each sub-AS, iBGP full mesh or route reflectors are used.

Between sub-ASes, eBGP-like peering (confederation EBGP) connects them, but externally, it appears as one AS.

Segregation:

Each sub-AS can represent a unique BGP environment (e.g., department, site) with its own routing policies.

Firewalls within a sub-AS peer via iBGP; across sub-ASes, they use confederation EBGP.

PAN-OS Support:

Configurable under "Network > Virtual Routers > BGP > Confederation" with a Confederation Member AS number.

Ideal for large internal networks needing segmentation without multiple public AS numbers.

Benefits:

Simplifies internal BGP management.

Aligns with the customer’s need for unique internal BGP environments.

Verification:

"BGP confederations reduce full-mesh burden by dividing an AS into sub-ASes" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

"Supports unique internal routing domains" (knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com).

Conclusion: Directly addresses the requirement with a supported, practical solution.Applicable.

Option D: It cannot be addressed because BGP must be fully meshed internally to work

Analysis:

iBGP Full Mesh: Traditional iBGP requires all routers in an AS to peer with each other, scaling poorly (n(n-1)/2 connections).

Mitigation: PAN-OS supports alternatives:

Route Reflectors: Centralize iBGP peering.

Confederations: Divide the AS into sub-ASes (see Option C).

This statement ignores these features, falsely claiming BGP’s limitation prevents segregation.

Verification:

"Confederations and route reflectors eliminate full-mesh needs" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

Conclusion: Incorrect—PAN-OS overcomes full-mesh constraints.Not Applicable.

Step 3: Recommendation Justification

Why Option C?

Alignment: Confederations allow the internal network to be segregated into unique BGP environments (sub-ASes) while maintaining a single external AS, perfectly matching the customer’s need.

Scalability: Reduces iBGP full-mesh complexity, ideal for large or segmented internal networks.

PAN-OS Support: Explicitly implemented in BGP configuration, validated by documentation.

Why Not Others?

A: False—PAN-OS supports BGP and segregation.

B: eBGP is for external ASes, not internal segregation; less practical thanconfederations.

D: Misrepresents BGP capabilities; full mesh isn’t required with confederations or route reflectors.

Step 4: Verified References

BGP Confederations: "Divide an AS into sub-ASes for internal segmentation" (docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-networking-admin/bgp/bgp-confederations).

PAN-OS BGP: "Supports eBGP, iBGP, and confederations for routing flexibility" (paloaltonetworks.com, PAN-OS Networking Guide).

Use Case: "Confederations suit large internal networks" (knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com).

To address the MSSP’s requirement for logically separated BGP peering setups while efficiently managing standard routing rules and updates, Palo Alto Networks offers theAdvanced Routing Engineintroduced in PAN-OS 11.0. The Advanced Routing Engine enhances routing capabilities,including support forlogical routers, which is critical in this scenario.

Why A is Correct

Logical routers enable the MSSP to create isolated BGP peering configurations for each customer.

The Advanced Routing Engine allows the MSSP to share standard routing profiles (such as filters, policies, or maps) across logical routers, simplifying the deployment and maintenance of routing configurations.

This approach ensures scalability, as each logical router can handle the unique needs of a customer while leveraging shared routing rules.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B:While using APIs to automate deployment is beneficial, it does not solve the need for logically separated BGP peering setups. Logical routers provide this separation natively.

C:While virtual routers in PAN-OS can separate BGP peering setups, they do not support the efficient sharing of standard routing rules and profiles across multiple routers.

D:Virtual systems (vsys) are used to segregate administrative domains, not routing configurations. Vsys is not the appropriate solution for managing BGP peering setups across multiple customers.

Key Takeaways:

PAN-OS Advanced Routing Engine with logical routers simplifies BGP peering management for MSSPs.

Logical routers provide the separation required for customer environments while enabling shared configuration profiles.

References:

Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS 11.0 Advanced Routing Documentation

The default configuration of a Palo Alto Networks NGFW includes a set of default security rules that determine how traffic is handled when no explicit rules are defined. Here's the explanation for each option:

Option A: Security profiles are applied to all policies by default, eliminating implicit trust of any data traversing the firewall

Security profiles (such as Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, and URL Filtering) are not applied to any policies by default. Administrators must explicitly apply them to security rules.

This statement is incorrect.

Option B: The default policy action for intrazone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust within a security zone

By default, traffic within the same zone (intrazone traffic) isallowed. For example, traffic between devices in the "trust" zone is permitted unless explicitly denied by an administrator.

This statement is incorrect.

Option C: The default policy action allows all traffic unless explicitly denied

Palo Alto Networks firewalls do not have an "allow all" default rule. Instead, they include a default "deny all" rule for interzone traffic and an implicit "allow" rule for intrazone traffic.

This statement is incorrect.

Option D: The default policy action for interzone traffic is deny, eliminating implicit trust between security zones

By default, traffic between different zones (interzone traffic) is denied. This aligns with the principle of zero trust, ensuring that no traffic is implicitly allowed between zones. Administrators must define explicit rules to allow interzone traffic.

This statement is correct.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on Security Policy Defaults

Knowledge Base article on Default Security Rules

DNS-based threats, such as DNS tunneling, phishing, or malware command-and-control (C2) activities, are commonly used by attackers to exfiltrate data or establish malicious communications. Palo Alto Networks firewalls provide several mechanisms to address these threats, and the correct method isDNS sinkholing.

Why "DNS sinkholing" (Correct Answer D)?DNS sinkholing redirects DNS queries for malicious domains to an internal or non-routable IP address, effectively preventing communication with malicious domains. When a user or endpoint tries to connect to a malicious domain, the sinkhole DNS entry ensures the traffic is blocked or routed to a controlled destination.

DNS sinkholing is especially effective for blocking malware trying to contact its C2 server or preventing data exfiltration.

Why not "DNS proxy" (Option A)?A DNS proxy is used to forward DNS queries from endpoints to an upstream DNS server. While it can be part of a network's DNS setup, it does not actively stop DNS-based threats.

Why not "Buffer overflow protection" (Option B)?Buffer overflow protection is a method used to prevent memory-related attacks, such as exploiting software vulnerabilities. It is unrelated to DNS-based threat prevention.

Why not "DNS tunneling" (Option C)?DNS tunneling is itself a type of DNS-based threat where attackers encode malicious traffic within DNS queries and responses. This option refers to the threat itself, not the method to stop it.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of exploitation bynewly announced vulnerabilitiesis throughAdvanced Threat Prevention (ATP). ATP usesinline deep learningto identify and block exploitation attempts, even for zero-day vulnerabilities, in real time.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention’s command injection and SQL injection functionsuse inline deep learning against zero-day threats" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention leveragesdeep learning modelsdirectly in the data path, which allows it to analyze traffic in real time and detect patterns of exploitation, including newly discovered vulnerabilities being actively exploited in the wild. It specifically targets advanced tactics like:

Command injection.

SQL injection.

Memory-based exploits.

Protocol evasion techniques.

This functionality lowers the risk of exploitation byactively blocking attack attemptsbased on their behavior, even when a signature is not yet available. This approach makes ATP the most valuable solution for addressing new and actively exploited vulnerabilities.

Why not "Advanced URL Filtering uses machine learning (ML) to learn which malicious URLs are being utilized by the attackers, then block the resulting traffic" (Option A)?While Advanced URL Filtering is highly effective at blocking access to malicious websites, it does not provide the inline analysis necessary to prevent direct exploitation of vulnerabilities. Exploitation often happens within the application or protocol layer, which Advanced URL Filtering does not inspect.

Why not "Single Pass Architecture and parallel processing ensure traffic is efficiently scanned against any enabled Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscription" (Option C)?Single Pass Architecture improves performance by ensuring all enabled services (like Threat Prevention, URL Filtering, etc.) process traffic efficiently. However, it is not a feature that directly addresses vulnerability exploitation or zero-day attack detection.

Why not "WildFire loads custom OS images to ensure that the sandboxing catches any activity that would affect the customer's environment" (Option D)?WildFire is a sandboxing solution designed to detect malicious files and executables. While it is useful for analyzing malware, it does not provide inline protection against exploitation of newly announced vulnerabilities, especially those targeting network protocols or applications.

Palo Alto Networks' PAN-OS supports API keys for authentication when interacting with the firewall’s RESTful and XML-based APIs. By default, API keys do not have an expiration time set, but the expiration time for API keys can be configured by an administrator to meet specific requirements, such as a time-based deactivation after two hours. This is particularly useful for compliance and security purposes, where API keys should not remain active indefinitely.

Here’s an evaluation of the options:

Option A:This is incorrect because the default setting for API keys does not include an expiration time. By default, API keys are valid indefinitely unless explicitly configured otherwise.

Option B:This is incorrect because PAN-OS fully supports API keys. The API keys are integral to managing access to the firewall's APIs and provide a secure method for authentication.

Option C:This is incorrect because PAN-OS does support API key expiration when explicitly configured. While the default is "no expiration," the feature to configure an expiration time (e.g., 2 hours) is available.

Option D (Correct):The correct response to the RFP clause is that the default API key settings need to be modified to set the expiration time to 120 minutes (2 hours). This aligns with the customer requirement to enforce API key deactivation based on time. Administrators can configure this using the PAN-OS management interface or the CLI.

How to Configure API Key Expiration (Steps):

Access theWeb InterfaceorCLIon the firewall.

Navigate toDevice > Management > API Key Lifetime Settings(on the GUI).

Set the desired expiration time (e.g., 120 minutes).

Alternatively, use the CLI to configure the API key expiration:

set deviceconfig system api-key-expiry

commit

Verify the configuration using the show command or by testing API calls to ensure the key expires after the set duration.

References:

Palo Alto Networks API Documentation: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/apis

Configuration Guide: Managing API Key Expiration

Advanced WildFire is Palo Alto Networks' cloud-based malware analysis and prevention solution. It determines whether files are malicious by executing them in a sandbox environment and observing their behavior. To address the customer's concern about the file categorization, the systems engineer must provide evidence of the file's behavior. Here’s the analysis of each option:

Option A: Review the threat logs for information to provide to the customer

Threat logs can provide a summary of events and verdicts for malicious files, but they do not include the detailed behavior analysis needed to convince the customer.

While reviewing the logs is helpful as a preliminary step, it does not provide the level of proof the customer needs.

This option is not sufficient on its own.

Option B: Use the WildFire Analysis Report in the log to show the customer the malicious actions the file took when it was detonated

WildFire generates an analysis report that includes details about the file's behavior during detonation in the sandbox, such as network activity, file modifications, process executions, and any indicators of compromise (IoCs).

This report provides concrete evidence to demonstrate why the file was flagged as malicious. It is the most accurate way to assure the customer that WildFire's decision was based on observed malicious actions.

This is the best option.

Option C: Open a TAG ticket for the customer and allow support engineers to determine the appropriate action

While opening a support ticket is a valid action for further analysis or appeal, it isnot a direct way to assure the customer of the current WildFire verdict.

This option does not directly address the customer’s request for immediate proof.

This option is not ideal.

Option D: Do nothing because the customer will realize Advanced WildFire is right

This approach is dismissive of the customer's concerns and does not provide any evidence to support WildFire's decision.

This option is inappropriate.

References:

Palo Alto Networks documentation on WildFire

WildFire Analysis Reports

Protecting web servers from advanced threats like SQL injection, command injection, XSS attacks, and IIS exploits requires a solution capable of deep packet inspection, behavioral analysis, andinline prevention of zero-day attacks. The most effective solution here isAdvanced Threat Prevention (ATP)combined withPAN-OS 11.x.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 11.x" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) enhances traditional threat prevention by usinginline deep learning modelsto detect and block advanced zero-day threats, includingSQL injection, command injection, and XSS attacks. With PAN-OS 11.x, ATP extends its detection capabilities to detect unknown exploits without relying on signature-based methods. This functionality is critical for protecting web servers in scenarios where a dedicated WAF is unavailable.

ATP provides the following benefits:

Inline prevention of zero-day threats using deep learning models.

Real-time detection of attacks like SQL injection and XSS.

Enhanced protection for web server platforms like IIS.

Full integration with the Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW).

Why not "Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 11.x" (Option A)?Threat Prevention relies primarily on signature-based detection for known threats. While it provides basic protection, it lacks the capability to block zero-day attacks using advanced methods like inline deep learning. For zero-day SQL injection and XSS attacks, Threat Prevention alone is insufficient.

Why not "Threat Prevention, Advanced URL Filtering, and PAN-OS 10.2 (and higher)" (Option C)?While this combination includes Advanced URL Filtering (useful for blocking malicious URLs associated with exploits), it still relies onThreat Prevention, which is signature-based. This combination does not provide the zero-day protection needed for advanced injection attacks or XSS vulnerabilities.

Why not "Advanced WildFire and PAN-OS 10.0 (and higher)" (Option D)?Advanced WildFire is focused on analyzing files and executables in a sandbox environment to identify malware. While it is excellent for identifying malware, it is not designed to provide inline prevention for web-based injection attacks or XSS exploits targeting web servers.

When high traffic from Palo Alto Networks NGFWs to Active Directory servers causes performance issues, optimizing the way NGFWs gather user-to-IP mappings is critical. Palo Alto Networks offers multiple ways to collect user identity information, andCloud Identity Engineprovides a solution that reduces the load on AD servers while still ensuring efficient and accurate mapping.

Option A (Correct):Cloud Identity Engineallows NGFWs to gather user-to-IP mappings directly from Active Directory authentication logs or other identity sources without placing heavy traffic on the AD servers. By leveraging this feature, the NGFW can offload authentication-related tasks and efficiently identify users without overloading AD servers. This solution is scalable and minimizes the overhead typically caused by frequent User-ID queries to AD servers.

Option B:UsingGlobalProtect Windows SSOto gather user information can add complexity and is not the most efficient solution for this problem. It requires all users to install GlobalProtect agents, which may not be feasible in all environments and can introduce operational challenges.

Option C:Data redistributioninvolves redistributing user-to-IP mappings from one NGFW (hub) to other NGFWs (spokes). While this can reduce the number of queries sent to AD servers, it assumes the mappings are already being collected from AD servers by the hub, which means the performance issue on the AD servers would persist.

Option D:UsingGlobalProtect agentsto gather user information is a valid method for environments where GlobalProtect is already deployed, but it is not the most efficient or straightforward solution for the given problem. It also introduces dependencies on agent deployment, configuration, and management.

How to Implement Cloud Identity Engine for User-ID Mapping:

EnableCloud Identity Enginefrom the Palo Alto Networks console.

Integrate the Cloud Identity Engine with the AD servers to allow it to retrieve authentication logs directly.

Configure the NGFWs to use the Cloud Identity Engine for User-ID mappings instead of querying the AD servers directly.

Monitor performance to ensure the AD servers are no longer overloaded, and mappings are being retrieved efficiently.

References:

Cloud Identity Engine Overview: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/cloud-identity

User-ID Best Practices: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com

Palo Alto Networks AIOps for NGFW is a cloud-delivered service that leverages telemetry data and machine learning (ML) to provide proactive operational insights, best practice recommendations, and issue prevention.

Why "It is offered in two license tiers: a free version and a premium version" (Correct Answer B)?AIOps for NGFW is available in two tiers:

Free Tier:Provides basic operational insights and best practices at no additional cost.

Premium Tier:Offers advanced capabilities, such as AI-driven forecasts, proactive issue prevention, and enhanced ML-based recommendations.

Why "It uses telemetry data to forecast, preempt, or identify issues, and it uses machine learning (ML) to adjust and enhance the process" (Correct Answer C)?AIOps uses telemetry data from NGFWs to analyze operational trends, forecast potential problems, and recommend solutions before issues arise. ML continuously refines these insights by learning from real-world data, enhancing accuracy and effectiveness over time.

Why not "It is offered in two license tiers: a commercial edition and an enterprise edition" (Option A)?This is incorrect because the licensing model for AIOps is based on "free" and "premium" tiers, not "commercial" and "enterprise" editions.

Why not "It forwards log data to Advanced WildFire to anticipate, prevent, or identify issues, and it uses machine learning (ML) to refine and adapt to the process" (Option D)?AIOps does not rely on Advanced WildFire for its operation. Instead, it uses telemetry data directly from the NGFWs to perform operational and security analysis.

Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) provide robust security features across a variety of use cases. Let’s analyze each option:

A. Code-embedded NGFWs provide enhanced IoT security by allowing PAN-OS code to be run on devices that do not support embedded VM images.

This statement is incorrect. NGFWs do not operate as "code-embedded" solutions for IoT devices. Instead, they protect IoT devices through advanced threat prevention, device identification, and segmentation capabilities.

B. Serverless NGFW code security provides public cloud security for code-only deployments that do not leverage VM instances or containerized services.

This is not a valid use case. Palo Alto NGFWs provide security for public cloud environments using VM-series firewalls, CN-series (containerized firewalls), and Prisma Cloud for securing serverless architectures. NGFWs do not operate in "code-only" environments.

C. IT/OT segmentation firewalls allow operational technology (OT) resources in plant networks to securely interface with IT resources in the corporate network.

This is a valid use case. Palo Alto NGFWs are widely used in industrial environments to provide IT/OT segmentation, ensuring that operational technology systems in plants or manufacturing facilities can securely communicate with IT networks while protecting against cross-segment threats. Features like App-ID, User-ID, and Threat Prevention are leveraged for this segmentation.

D. PAN-OS GlobalProtect gateways allow companies to run malware and exploit prevention modules on their endpoints without installing endpoint agents.

This is incorrect. GlobalProtect gateways provide secure remote access to corporate networks and extend the NGFW’s threat prevention capabilities to endpoints, but endpoint agents are required to enforce malware and exploit prevention modules.

Key Takeaways:

IT/OT segmentation with NGFWs is a real and critical use case in industries like manufacturing and utilities.

The other options describe features or scenarios that are not applicable or valid for NGFWs.

References:

Palo Alto Networks NGFW Use Cases

Industrial Security with NGFWs