FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Fortinet NSE 6 - Network Security 7.6 Support Engineer Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

The diagnose debug authd fsso server command is the primary tool for troubleshooting communication between the FortiGate and the FSSO Collector Agent. This debug output reveals the status of the connection and the reasons for failure. The three most common connectivity issues identified by this debug are:

FortiGate cannot reach the IP address of the collector agent (Option C): The debug will show connection timeouts or "host unreachable" errors if the Layer 3 connectivity is missing.

The connection was refused / Port mismatch (Option B): If the FortiGate can reach the IP but the Collector Agent is not listening on the specified port (default 8000), the debug will display "Connection refused." This often happens if the port configured on the FortiGate does not match the listening port on the agent.

The pre-shared key does not match (Option D): If the IP and Port are correct, the next step is authentication. If the password configured on the FortiGate does not match the one on the Collector Agent, the debug will explicitly show an "Authentication failed" or "password mismatch" error during the handshake.

Note on other options: Option A (SSL) is less common than basic connectivity/auth mismatches. Option E (Group filters) relates to user processing logic, which occurs after connectivity is established.

According to Fortinet’s LDAP authentication workflow as described in the FortiOS Administration Guide and the official LDAP debug log interpretation, each authentication attempt is split into several key steps: Bind Request, Search Request, and then, if successful, a Bind as the found user DN. In the provided debug output, we see "start search_dn-base" with a filter "sAMAccountName=jsmith" and the log line "Going to SEARCH state," confirming that FortiOS is in the second step—the Search Request (Option D). Official documentation highlights this exact phrase "SEARCH state" as indicative of Step 2 within the LDAP process (“Bind → Search → Bind”).

Additionally, the last line “Found DN 1: CN=John Smith, CN=Users, DC=TAC, DC=ottawa, DC=fortinet, DC=com” verifies that the system has successfully mapped the username to the Distinguished Name (DN) and this user is “John Smith.” The authentication will now proceed using this mapped user (Option B). Fortinet’s logs record the found DN after a successful search, which is a strong confirmation that the user’s credentials can be validated against the found DN.

Options A and C are not supported directly by the debug output shown:

The server name "Lab" is referenced as part of the request, but not explicitly as the LDAP server’s configured name in this output.

Step 3 (Bind Request) would follow finding the DN, but the log here demonstrates the Search and DN found—per Fortinet, this precedes the actual Bind/validation step.

We must analyze the flags (*, >, S, O, B) and Administrative Distances (AD) shown in the get router info routing-table database exhibit to determine the correct statements.

Analysis for Option A (The BGP route to 10.0.4.0/24 is not in the forwarding information base):

True. Look at the entry for 10.0.4.0/24.

There is an OSPF route: O *> 10.0.4.0/24 [110/2]. The * indicates it is in the FIB, and > indicates it is the selected route.

There is a BGP route: B 10.0.4.0/24 [200/10]. This line lacks the * flag.

Reason: The OSPF route has an Administrative Distance of 110. The BGP route (iBGP) has an AD of 200. Since 110 is lower than 200, OSPF wins, and the BGP route is not installed in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB).

Analysis for Option B (The default static route through 10.200.1.254 is in the forwarding information base):

True. Look at the 0.0.0.0/0 entries.

The first entry is S *> 0.0.0.0/0 [10/0] via 10.200.1.254.

The * flag confirms this specific route is installed in the FIB.

The second static route (via 10.200.2.254) has a higher distance ([20/0]) and no * flag, so it is inactive.

Why C is False: ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path) requires routes to have the same cost/priority. Here, one static route has AD 10 and the other has AD 20. They are not equal, so ECMP is not performed.

Why D is False: The routing table database shows active routes, not the raw Link State Advertisement (LSA) database. You cannot determine the number of LSAs received solely from this output.

To display debug output on FortiGate devices, you must always run both the application-specific debug command and the global debug enable command. The command diagnose debug application ike -1 sets up the detail level for the IKE daemon debug, but it does not display any debug output on its own. As described in the FortiOS CLI debugging manuals, the command diagnose debug enable activates debug output on the console, making all previously set debugs visible. This is especially important for VPN troubleshooting—without the enable command, no output appears even if there is VPN traffic.

The correct diagnostic sequence is:

diagnose debug application ike -1

diagnose debug enable

This procedure is found in every FortiOS CLI debug tutorial and troubleshooting workflow.

FortiOS Admin Guide: Static Routing, SNAT Route Change Feature

To determine the correct conclusions, we analyze the specific lines in the IKE real-time debug output provided in the exhibit:

Analysis for Option A (The remote peer is the initiating peer):

Evidence: The very first line of the debug output reads: ike 0:624000:98: responder: main mode get 1st message...

The keyword responder indicates that this local FortiGate is receiving the connection request. Consequently, the remote peer must be the initiator sending the request. The phrase "get 1st message" confirms the local unit is receiving the initial packet of the negotiation sequence.

Conclusion: This statement is True.

Analysis for Option B (This is a phase 1 negotiation):

Evidence: The same line mentions main mode.

In IPsec VPNs, Main Mode and Aggressive Mode are exclusively used for Phase 1 (IKE SA) negotiations. Phase 2 (Child SA) negotiations use Quick Mode. The presence of "main mode" definitively identifies this as a Phase 1 exchange.

Conclusion: This statement is True.

Analysis for Option C (There is a Diffie-Hellman group mismatch):

Evidence:

Incoming proposal (Remote): Lists type=OAKLEY_GROUP, val=MODP2048 (Group 14) in the first proposal proposal.

My proposal (Local): Lists type=OAKLEY_GROUP, val=MODP2048 (Group 14).

Since both the remote peer and the local gateway support and are proposing MODP2048 (Group 14), there is no Diffie-Hellman group mismatch. The actual mismatch visible in the logs is between the Encryption/Hash algorithms (Remote proposes AES-256/SHA2-256, while Local proposes AES-128/SHA), but the DH groups match.

Conclusion: This statement is False.

Analysis for Option D (This is a phase 2 negotiation):

As established in the analysis for Option B, "Main Mode" is a Phase 1 protocol. If this were Phase 2, the debug would show "Quick Mode".

Conclusion: This statement is False.