Paloalto Networks PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Palo Alto Networks Systems Engineer Professional - Hardware Firewall Exam Practice Test

Zero Trust is a strategic framework for securing infrastructure and data by eliminating implicit trust and continuously validating every stage of digital interaction. Palo Alto Networks NGFWs are designed with native capabilities to align with Zero Trust principles, such as monitoring transactions, validating identities, and enforcing least-privilege access. The following narratives effectively address the customer’s question:

Option A:While emphasizing Zero Trust as an ideology is accurate, this response does not directly explain how Palo Alto Networks firewalls facilitate mapping of transactions. It provides context but is insufficient for addressing the technical aspect of the question.

Option B:Decryption and security protections are important for identifying malicious traffic, but they are not specific to mapping transactions within a Zero Trust framework. This response focuses on a subset of security functions rather than the broader concept of visibility and policy enforcement.

Option C (Correct):Placing the NGFW in the network providesvisibility into every traffic flowacross users, devices, and applications. This allows the firewall to map transactions and enforce Zero Trust principles such as segmenting networks, inspecting all traffic, and controlling access. With features like App-ID, User-ID, and Content-ID, the firewall provides granular insights into traffic flows, making it easier to identify and secure transactions.

Option D (Correct):Palo Alto Networks NGFWs usesecurity policies based on users, applications, and data objectsto align with Zero Trust principles. Instead of relying on IP addresses or ports, policies are enforced based on the application’s behavior, the identity of the user, and the sensitivity of the data involved. This mapping ensures that only authorized users can access specific resources, which is a cornerstone of Zero Trust.

References:

Zero Trust Framework: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/solutions/zero-trust

Security Policy Best Practices for Zero Trust: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com

Advanced DNS Security on Palo Alto Networks firewalls is designed to identify and prevent a wide range of DNS-based attacks. Among the listed options, "High entropy DNS domains" is a specific example of a DNS attack that Advanced DNS Security can detect and block.

Why "High entropy DNS domains" (Correct Answer A)?High entropy DNS domains are often used in attacks where randomly generated domain names (e.g., gfh34ksdu.com) are utilized by malware or bots to evade detection. This is a hallmark of Domain Generation Algorithms (DGA)-based attacks. Palo Alto Networks firewalls with Advanced DNS Security use machine learning to detect such domains by analyzing the entropy (randomness) of DNS queries. High entropy values indicate the likelihood of a dynamically generated or malicious domain.

Why not "Polymorphic DNS" (Option B)?While polymorphic DNS refers to techniques that dynamically change DNS records to avoid detection, it is not specifically identified as an attack type mitigated by Advanced DNS Security in Palo Alto Networks documentation. The firewall focuses more on the behavior of DNS queries, such as detecting DGA domains or anomalous DNS traffic patterns.

Why not "CNAME cloaking" (Option C)?CNAME cloaking involves using CNAME records to redirect DNS queries to malicious or hidden domains. Although Palo Alto firewalls may detect and block malicious DNS redirections, the focus of Advanced DNS Security is primarily on identifying patterns of DNS abuse like DGA domains, tunneling, or high entropy queries.

Why not "DNS domain rebranding" (Option D)?DNS domain rebranding involves changing the domain names associated with malicious activity to evade detection. This is typically a tactic used for persistence but is not an example of a DNS attack type specifically addressed by Advanced DNS Security.

Advanced DNS Security focuses on dynamic, real-time identification of suspicious DNS patterns, such as high entropy domains, DNS tunneling, or protocol violations. High entropy DNS domains are directly tied to attack mechanisms like DGAs, making this the correct answer.

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

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

Synchronizing a large Active Directory (AD) with over 20,000 groups can introduce significant overhead if all groups are synchronized, especially when only a subset of groups (e.g., 1,000 groups) are required for Security policies. The most efficient approach is to configure agroupmapping profile with an include group listto minimize unnecessary synchronization and reduce administrative overhead.

Why "Configure a group mapping profile with an include group list" (Correct Answer C)?Using a group mapping profile with aninclude group listensures that only the required 1,000 groups are synchronized with the firewall. This approach:

Reduces the load on the firewall's User-ID process by limiting the number of synchronized groups.

Simplifies management by focusing on the specific groups relevant to Security policies.

Avoids synchronizing the entire directory (20,000 groups), which would be inefficient and resource-intensive.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile, without a filter, to synchronize all groups" (Option B)?Synchronizing all 20,000 groups would unnecessarily increase administrative and resource overhead. This approach contradicts the requirement to reduce administrative burden.

Why not "Configure a group mapping profile with custom filters for LDAP attributes that are mapped to the user roles" (Option A)?While filtering LDAP attributes can be useful, this approach is more complex to implement and manage compared to an include group list. It does not directly address the problem of limiting synchronization to a specific subset of groups.

Why not "Configure NGFWs to synchronize with the AD after deploying the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) and agents" (Option D)?While the Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) is a modern solution for user and group mapping, it is unnecessary in this scenario. A traditional group mapping profile with an include list is sufficient and simpler to implement. CIE is typically used for complex hybrid or cloud environments.

When evaluating Palo Alto Networks products, prospective customers need tools that can help them assess compatibility, performance, and value within their existing architecture. The following tools are the most relevant:

Why "Proof of Concept (POC)" (Correct Answer A)?A Proof of Concept is a hands-on evaluation that allows the customer to deploy and test Palo Alto Networks products directly within their environment. This enables them to assess real-world performance, compatibility, and operational impact.

Why "Security Lifecycle Review (SLR)" (Correct Answer C)?An SLR provides a detailed report of a customer’s network security posture based on data collected during a short evaluation period. It highlights risks, vulnerabilities, and active threats in the customer’s network, demonstrating how Palo Alto Networks solutions can address those risks. SLR is a powerful tool for justifying the value of a product in the customer’s architecture.

Why "Ultimate Test Drive" (Correct Answer D)?The Ultimate Test Drive is a guided hands-on workshop provided by Palo Alto Networks that allows prospective customers to explore product features and capabilities in a controlled environment. It is ideal for customers who want to evaluate products without deploying them in their production network.

Why not "Policy Optimizer" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is used after a product has been deployed to refine security policies by identifying unused or overly permissive rules. It is not designed for pre-deployment evaluations.

Why not "Expedition" (Option E)?Expedition is a migration tool that assists with the conversion of configurations from third-party firewalls or existing Palo Alto Networks firewalls. It is not a tool for evaluating the suitability of products in the customer’s architecture.

LDAP Query (Answer B):

Palo Alto Networks NGFWs can queryLDAP directories(such as Active Directory) to validate whether submitted credentials match the corporate directory.

Domain Credential Filter (Answer C):

TheDomain Credential Filterfeature ensures that submitted credentials are checked against valid corporate credentials, preventing credential misuse.

Why Not A:

Group mappingis used to identify user groups for policy enforcement but does not validate submitted credentials.

Why Not D:

WMI client probingis used for user identification but is not a method for validating submitted credentials.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Credential Theft Prevention

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

Prisma Access (Answer A):

Strata Cloud Manager (SCM) and Panorama provide centralized visibility and management forPrisma Access, Palo Alto Networks’ cloud-delivered security platform for remote users and branch offices.

NGFW (Answer D):

Both SCM and Panorama are used to manage and monitorPalo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls(NGFWs) deployed in on-premise, hybrid, or multi-cloud environments.

Prisma SD-WAN (Answer E):

SCM and Panorama integrate withPrisma SD-WANto manage branch connectivity and security, ensuring seamless operation in an SD-WAN environment.

Why Not B:

Prisma Cloudis a distinct platform designed for cloud-native security and is not directly managed through Strata Cloud Manager or Panorama.

Why Not C:

Cortex XSIAM(Extended Security Intelligence and Automation Management) is part of the Cortex platform and is not managed by SCM or Panorama.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Strata Cloud Manager Overview

Panorama Features and Benefits

Firewall Sizing Tool (Answer B):

Thefirewall sizing toolis the most accurate way to determine the suitable firewall model based on specific customer requirements, such as throughput, connections per second, and enabled features like App-ID and Threat Prevention.

By inputting traffic patterns, feature requirements, and performance needs, the sizing tool provides tailored recommendations.

Why Not A:

While uploading traffic logs to the calculator tool may help analyze traffic trends, it is not the primary method for determining firewall sizing.

Why Not C or D:

Theproduct configurator toolandproduct selector toolare not designed for detailed performance analysis based on real-world requirements like connections per second or enabled features.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Firewall Sizing Guide

To prevent malicious actors from abusing file-sharing applications for data exfiltration,App-IDprovides a granular approach to managing application traffic. Palo Alto Networks'App-IDis a technology that identifies applications traversing the network, regardless of port, protocol, encryption (SSL), or evasive tactics. By leveraging App-ID, security engineers can implement policies that restrict the use of specific applications or functionalities based on job functions, ensuring that only authorized users or groups can use file-sharing applications while blocking unauthorized or malicious usage.

Here’s why the options are evaluated this way:

Option A:DNS Security focuses on identifying and blocking malicious domains. While it plays a critical role in preventing certain attacks (like command-and-control traffic), it is not effective for managing application usage. Hence, this is not the best approach.

Option B (Correct):App-ID provides the ability to identify file-sharing applications (such as Dropbox, Google Drive, or OneDrive) and enforce policies to restrict their use. For example, you can create a security rule allowing file-sharing apps only for specific job functions, such as HR or marketing, while denying them for other users. This targeted approach ensures legitimate business needs are not disrupted, which aligns with the requirement of not impacting valid users.

Option C:Blocking all file-sharing applications outright using DNS Security is a broad measure that will indiscriminately impact legitimate users. This does not meet the requirement of allowing specific users to continue using file-sharing applications.

Option D:While App-ID can block file-sharing applications outright, doing so will prevent legitimate usage and is not aligned with the requirement to allow usage based on job functions.

How to Implement the Solution (Using App-ID):

Identify the relevant file-sharing applications using App-ID in Palo Alto Networks’ predefined application database.

Create security policies that allow these applications only for users or groups defined in your directory (e.g., Active Directory).

Use custom App-ID filters or explicit rules to control specific functionalities of file-sharing applications, such as uploads or downloads.

Monitor traffic to ensure that only authorized users are accessing the applications and that no malicious activity is occurring.

References:

Palo Alto Networks Admin Guide: Application Identification and Usage Policies.

Best Practices for App-ID Configuration: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com

When configuring Advanced URL Filtering on a Palo Alto Networks firewall, the "Ransomware" category should be explicitly blocked to protect customers from URLs associated with ransomware activities. Ransomware URLs typically host malicious code or scripts designed to encrypt user data and demand a ransom. By blocking the "Ransomware" category, systems engineers can proactively prevent users from accessing such URLs.

Why "Ransomware" (Correct Answer A)?The "Ransomware" category is specifically curated by Palo Alto Networks to include URLs known to deliver ransomware or support ransomware operations. Blocking this category ensures that any URL categorized as part of this list will be inaccessible to end-users, significantly reducing the risk of ransomware attacks.

Why not "High Risk" (Option B)?While the "High Risk" category includes potentially malicious sites, it is broader and less targeted. It may not always block ransomware-specific URLs. "High Risk" includes a range of websites that are flagged based on factors like bad reputation or hosting malicious content in general. It is less focused than the "Ransomware" category.

Why not "Scanning Activity" (Option C)?The "Scanning Activity" category focuses on URLs used in vulnerability scans, automated probing, or reconnaissance by attackers. Although such activity could be a precursor to ransomware attacks, it does not directly block ransomware URLs.

Why not "Command and Control" (Option D)?The "Command and Control" category is designed to block URLs used by malware or compromised systems to communicate with their operators. While some ransomware may utilize command-and-control (C2) servers, blocking C2 URLs alone does not directly target ransomware URLs themselves.

By using the Advanced URL Filtering profile and blocking the "Ransomware" category, the firewall applies targeted controls to mitigate ransomware-specific threats.

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, and inline 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.

To configure GlobalProtect to authenticate users from multiple SAML identity providers (IdPs), the correct approach involves creating multiple authentication profiles, one for each IdP. Here's the analysis of each option:

Option A: GlobalProtect with multiple authentication profiles for each SAML IdP

GlobalProtect allows configuring multiple SAML authentication profiles, each corresponding to a specific IdP.

These profiles are associated with the GlobalProtect portal or gateway. When users attempt to authenticate, they can be directed to the appropriate IdP based on their domain or other attributes.

This is the correct approach to enable authentication for users from multiple IdPs.

Option B: Multiple authentication mode Cloud Identity Engine authentication profile for use on the GlobalProtect portals and gateways

The Cloud Identity Engine (CIE) can synchronize identities from multiple directories, but it does not directly support multiple SAML IdPs for a shared GlobalProtect setup.

This option is not applicable.

Option C: Authentication sequence that has multiple authentication profiles using different authentication methods

Authentication sequences allow multiple authentication methods (e.g., LDAP, RADIUS, SAML) to be tried in sequence for the same user, but they are not designed for handling multiple SAML IdPs.

This option is not appropriate for the scenario.

Option D: Multiple Cloud Identity Engine tenants for each business unit

Deploying multiple CIE tenants for each business unit adds unnecessary complexity and is not required for configuring GlobalProtect to authenticate users to multiple SAML IdPs.

This option is not appropriate.

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.

Cobalt Strike is a popular post-exploitation framework often used by attackers for Command and Control (C2) operations. Malleable C2 profiles allow attackers to modify the behavior of their C2 communication, making detection more difficult. Stopping these attacks inreal timerequires deep inline inspection and the ability to block zero-day and evasive threats.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention and PAN-OS 10.2" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) on PAN-OS 10.2 usesinline deep learning modelsto detect and blockCobalt Strike Malleable C2 attacksin real time. ATP is designed to prevent evasive techniques and zero-day threats, which is essential for blocking Malleable C2. PAN-OS 10.2 introduces enhanced capabilities for detecting malicious traffic patterns and inline analysis of encrypted traffic.

ATP examines traffic behavior and signature-less threats, effectively stopping evasive C2 profiles.

PAN-OS 10.2 includes real-time protections specifically for Malleable C2.

Why not "Next-Generation CASB on PAN-OS 10.1" (Option A)?Next-Generation CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker) is designed to secure SaaS applications and does not provide the inline C2 protection required to stop Malleable C2 attacks. CASB is not related to Command and Control detection.

Why not "Threat Prevention and Advanced WildFire with PAN-OS 10.0" (Option C)?Threat Prevention and Advanced WildFire are effective for detecting and preventing malware and known threats. However, they rely heavily on signatures and sandboxing for analysis, which is not sufficient for stoppingreal-time evasive C2 traffic. PAN-OS 10.0 lacks the advanced inline capabilities provided by ATP in PAN-OS 10.2.

Why not "DNS Security, Threat Prevention, and Advanced WildFire with PAN-OS 9.x" (Option D)?While DNS Security and Threat Prevention are valuable for blocking malicious domains and known threats, PAN-OS 9.x does not provide the inline deep learning capabilities needed for real-time detection and prevention of Malleable C2 attacks. The absence of advanced behavioral analysis in PAN-OS 9.x makes this combination ineffective against advanced C2 attacks.

Zero-day malware attacks are sophisticated threats that exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities or malware signatures. To provide protection against such attacks, the appropriate Cloud-Delivered Security Service subscription must be included.

Why "Advanced WildFire" (Correct Answer C)?Advanced WildFire is Palo Alto Networks’ sandboxing solution that identifies and prevents zero-day malware. It uses machine learning, dynamic analysis, and static analysis to detect unknown malware in real time.

Files and executables are analyzed in the cloud-based sandbox, and protections are shared globally within minutes.

Advanced WildFire specifically addresses zero-day threats by dynamically analyzing suspicious files and generating new signatures.

Why not "AI Access Security" (Option A)?AI Access Security is designed to secure SaaS applications by monitoring and enforcing data protection and compliance. While useful for SaaS security, it does not focus on detecting or preventing zero-day malware.

Why not "Advanced Threat Prevention" (Option B)?Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) focuses on detecting zero-day exploits (e.g., SQL injection, buffer overflows) using inline deep learning but is not specifically designed to analyze and prevent zero-day malware. ATP complements Advanced WildFire, but WildFire is the primary solution for malware detection.

Why not "App-ID" (Option D)?App-ID identifies and controls applications on the network. While it improves visibility and security posture, it does not address zero-day malware detection or prevention.

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