A systems engineer (SE) is working with a customer that is fully cloud-deployed for all applications. The customer is interested in Palo Alto Networks NGFWs but describes the following challenges:
"Our apps are in AWS and Azure, with whom we have contracts and minimum-revenue guarantees. We would use the built-in firewall on the cloud service providers (CSPs), but the need for centralized policy management to reduce human error is more important."
Which recommendations should the SE make?
The customer is seeking centralized policy management to reduce human error while maintaining compliance with their contractual obligations to AWS and Azure. Here's the evaluation of each option:
Option A: Cloud NGFWs at both CSPs; provide the customer a license for a Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP's marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems
Cloud NGFW is a fully managed Next-Generation Firewall service by Palo Alto Networks, offered in AWS and Azure marketplaces. It integrates natively with the CSP infrastructure, making it a good fit for customers with existing CSP agreements.
Panorama, Palo Alto Networks' centralized management solution, can be deployed as a virtual appliance in the CSP marketplace of choice, enabling centralized policy management across all NGFWs.
This option addresses the customer's need for centralized management while leveraging their existing contracts with AWS and Azure.
This option is appropriate.
Option B: Cloud NGFWs in AWS and VM-Series firewall in Azure; the customer selects a PAYG licensing Panorama deployment in their CSP of choice
This option suggests using Cloud NGFW in AWS but VM-Series firewalls in Azure. While VM-Series is a flexible virtual firewall solution, it may not align with the customer's stated preference for CSP-managed services like Cloud NGFW.
This option introduces a mix of solutions that could complicate centralized management and reduce operational efficiency.
This option is less appropriate.
Option C: VM-Series firewalls in both CSPs; manually built Panorama in the CSP of choice on a host of either type: Palo Alto Networks provides a license
VM-Series firewalls are well-suited for cloud deployments but require more manual configuration compared to Cloud NGFW.
Building a Panorama instance manually on a host increases operational overhead and does not leverage the customer's existing CSP marketplaces.
This option is less aligned with the customer's needs.
Option D: VM-Series firewall and CN-Series firewall in both CSPs; provide the customer a private-offer Panorama virtual appliance from their CSP's marketplace of choice to centrally manage the systems
This option introduces both VM-Series and CN-Series firewalls in both CSPs. While CN-Series firewalls are designed for Kubernetes environments, they may not be relevant if the customer does not specifically require container-level security.
Adding CN-Series firewalls may introduce unnecessary complexity and costs.
This option is not appropriate.
Palo Alto Networks documentation on Cloud NGFW
Panorama overview in Palo Alto Knowledge Base
VM-Series firewalls deployment guide in CSPs: Palo Alto Documentation
Which use case is valid for Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs)?
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.
Palo Alto Networks NGFW Use Cases
Industrial Security with NGFWs
Which three known variables can assist with sizing an NGFW appliance? (Choose three.)
When sizing a Palo Alto Networks NGFW appliance, it's crucial to consider variables that affect its performance and capacity. These include the network's traffic characteristics, application requirements, and expected workloads. Below is the analysis of each option:
Option A: Connections per second
Connections per second (CPS) is a critical metric for determining how many new sessions the firewall can handle per second. High CPS requirements are common in environments with high traffic turnover, such as web servers or applications with frequent session terminations and creations.
This is an important sizing variable.
Option B: Max sessions
Max sessions represent the total number of concurrent sessions the firewall can support. For environments with a large number of users or devices, this metric is critical to prevent session exhaustion.
This is an important sizing variable.
Option C: Packet replication
Packet replication is used in certain configurations, such as TAP mode or port mirroring for traffic inspection. While it impacts performance, it is not a primary variable for firewall sizing as it is a specific use case.
This is not a key variable for sizing.
Option D: App-ID firewall throughput
App-ID throughput measures the firewall's ability to inspect traffic and apply policies based on application signatures. It directly impacts the performance of traffic inspection under real-world conditions.
This is an important sizing variable.
Option E: Telemetry enabled
While telemetry provides data for monitoring and analysis, enabling it does not significantly impact the sizing of the firewall. It is not a core variable for determining firewall performance or capacity.
This is not a key variable for sizing.
Palo Alto Networks documentation on Firewall Sizing Guidelines
Knowledge Base article on Performance and Capacity Sizing
A customer claims that Advanced WildFire miscategorized a file as malicious and wants proof, because another vendor has said that the file is benign.
How could the systems engineer assure the customer that Advanced WildFire was accurate?
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 is not 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.
Palo Alto Networks documentation on WildFire
WildFire Analysis Reports
An existing customer wants to expand their online business into physical stores for the first time. The customer requires NGFWs at the physical store to handle SD-WAN, security, and data protection needs, while also mandating a vendor-validated deployment method. Which two steps are valid actions for a systems engineer to take? (Choose two.)
When assisting a customer in deploying next-generation firewalls (NGFWs) for their new physical store branches, it is crucial to address their requirements for SD-WAN, security, and data protection with a validated deployment methodology. Palo Alto Networks provides robust solutions for branch security and SD-WAN integration, and several steps align with vendor-validated methods:
Option A (Correct): Palo Alto Networks or certified partners provide professional services for validated deployment methods, including SD-WAN, security, and data protection in branch locations. Professional services ensure that the deployment adheres to industry best practices and Palo Alto's validated reference architectures. This ensures a scalable and secure deployment across all branch locations.
Option B: While using Golden Images and a Day 1 configuration can create a consistent baseline for configuration deployment, it does not align directly with the requirement of following vendor-validated deployment methodologies. This step is helpful but secondary to vendor-validated professional services and bespoke deployment planning.
Option C (Correct): A bespoke deployment plan considers the customer's specific architecture, store footprint, and unique security requirements. Palo Alto Networks' system engineers typically collaborate with the customer to design and validate tailored deployments, ensuring alignment with the customer's operational goals while maintaining compliance with validated architectures.
Option D: While Palo Alto Networks provides branch deployment guides (such as the 'On-Premises Network Security for the Branch Deployment Guide'), these guides are primarily reference materials. They do not substitute for vendor-provided professional services or the creation of tailored deployment plans with the customer.
Palo Alto Networks SD-WAN Deployment Guide.
Branch Deployment Architecture Best Practices: https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com
Professional Services Overview: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/services
