Fortinet FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Practice Test Questions Answers

To determine the cause of the failure, we must analyze the IKEv2 debug output provided in the exhibit (image_ad3dc6.jpg):

Identify the Negotiation Phase:

The debug log shows: responder received CREATE_CHILD exchange.

In IKEv2, the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange is used to create new Child SAs (Phase 2) or to rekey existing ones.

The fact that the tunnel was previously " brought up successfully " implies the initial IKE SA (Phase 1) is stable, and this error is occurring specifically during a rekey event, which often involves Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS).

Analyze the Proposals (The Mismatch):

Incoming Proposal (Remote Peer):

The remote peer sends a proposal containing two Diffie-Hellman groups: type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP2048 (Group 14) and type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP1536 (Group 5).

My Proposal (Local FortiGate):

The local FortiGate configuration expects: type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP3072 (Group 15).

Result of the Negotiation:

The debug output concludes with: no proposal chosen and Negotiate SA Error.

This error occurs because the local FortiGate cannot find a common Diffie-Hellman group between what it requires (Group 15) and what the peer is offering (Groups 14 or 5).

While this is technically a mismatch occurring during the Phase 2 (Child SA) creation, " A Diffie-Hellman mismatch " (Option A) is the precise root cause identified in the logs.

Why other options are incorrect:

B: The log shows received create-child request, confirming that UDP traffic is reaching the device and is not blocked.

C: The failure is in the CREATE_CHILD exchange (Phase 2/Rekey), not the IKE_SA_INIT or IKE_AUTH (Phase 1) exchanges.

D: While the mismatch is occurring within the Phase 2 definitions, Option A is the specific technical reason for the no proposal chosen error shown in the DH_GROUP lines.

To solve this high CPU usage scenario involving the ipsengine, we must understand the specific functions of the diagnose test application ipsmonitor commands shown in the troubleshooting steps.

Analyze the Situation:

Exhibit: The diagnose sys top output shows the ipsengine process is in a run state (R) consuming 99% CPU.

Previous Action: The administrator already ran diagnose test application ipsmonitor 5.

Result: The CPU usage did not drop.

Understand the Commands:

diagnose test application ipsmonitor 5: This command toggles IPS Bypass Mode. When enabled, the IPS engine lets traffic pass through without inspection.

Implication: If the CPU was high due to traffic volume, enabling bypass would drop the CPU load immediately.

Failure: Since the CPU remained at 99% after bypass, the ipsengine process is likely frozen, stuck, or in an internal infinite loop unrelated to the current traffic flow. The process itself is the problem, not the traffic volume.

Evaluate the Solution (Option B):

diagnose test application ipsmonitor 2: This command toggles the IPS engine ' s Enable/Disable status.

Because the engine is stuck (bypass failed to relieve pressure), the " Immediate action " required is to stop or restart the process entirely.

Running option 2 effectively disables/kills the stuck IPS engine instance, which will immediately drop the CPU usage to near zero. (It can then be toggled again to restart it).

Why other options are incorrect:

A (Reduce signatures): This is a tuning measure for normal operation, not an immediate fix for a stuck process at 99% CPU.

C (Disable IPS on policies): This is a configuration change that takes time and requires a commit; it is not the most immediate diagnostic tool available.

D (Bypass all IPS engines): This describes the action of command 5 (Bypass), which the prompt explicitly states was already performed and failed.

To capture encrypted IPsec phase 2 (ESP) traffic between two FortiGate devices, the correct protocol filter to use is ip proto 50. According to the Fortinet official sniffing and debugging documentation, ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) is used for encrypted phase 2 payload transfer and always uses IP protocol number 50. Running the command diagnose sniffer packet any ' ip proto 50 '  captures only ESP packets, which represent the encrypted traffic—whether originating or transiting the device.

If there is no NAT device between FortiGates, ESP is not encapsulated in UDP (thus not on UDP port 4500; if NAT-T were required, packets would be UDP-encapsulated, but the scenario explicitly says NAT is not in use). UDP port 500 is for IKE control (negotiation) traffic, and AH (Authentication Header, ip proto 51) is not used for encryption in standard IPsec phase 2 with ESP.

This matches the official CLI reference from Fortinet for VPN and traffic analysis.

**

The correct answer is B .

The study guide explicitly states: “IKE version 2 does not interoperate with IKE version 1, but they share enough of the header format that both versions can unambiguously operate over the same UDP port.”

That directly proves B .

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because the study guide shows authentication methods as Asymmetric for IKEv2 and Symmetric for IKEv1

C is wrong because the study guide does not say they use the same TCP port; instead, it specifically says they can operate over the same UDP port

D is wrong because the study guide states: “IKEv2 does not use the concept of phase 1 or phase 2” , even though FortiOS CLI/GUI still uses those terms for configuration purposes

The correct answer is A .

The debug output is for an HTTPS request and shows a hostname value. The study guide explains that with SSL certificate inspection, FortiGate extracts the FQDN from either:

“TLS extension server name indication (SNI)”

“SSL certificate common name (CN)”

So the hostname shown in the real-time web-filter debug can be derived from the SNI in the client request or, if needed, from the CN in the server certificate. That makes A correct.

Why the other options are wrong:

B is wrong because the study-guide example for web-filter real-time debug explicitly says: “This slide shows an example of real-time debug output when the URL to categorize isn ' t in the FortiGuard cache.” In these debugs, cat=255 appears before the final lookup result, so this does not indicate a local-cache hit.

C is wrong because ftgd-allow is the action , not the profile name. The debug line shows the action as action=9 (ftgd-allow) while the profile shown is profile= ' default ' . FortiOS web-filter logs also use the profile field separately from the action field

D is wrong because the final category shown is url_cat=52 , not 255. The study guide’s example shows the same pattern: an initial cat=255 in the request line, followed by the resolved result cat=52 url_cat=52

So the verified answer is: A .