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

When the FortiGate enters Conserve Mode due to high memory pressure (specifically reaching the Extreme Threshold at 95% memory usage, or the Red Threshold for proxy traffic), the system prioritizes stability and preventing a system crash (kernel panic).

D. FortiGate begins dropping all new sessions to protect resources:

In Extreme Conserve Mode (95%), the FortiGate kernel acts to preserve the remaining memory for system-critical tasks (like admin access and basic packet forwarding of existing sessions). To achieve this, it drops all new session initiation requests regardless of the inspection type.

In Red Conserve Mode (88%), it specifically drops new sessions that require proxy-based inspection (as these consume the most memory), while often still allowing flow-based traffic.

Among the provided choices, "dropping new sessions" is the only standard protective mechanism FortiOS employs to stop memory usage from climbing further.

Why other options are incorrect:

A: FortiGate does not automatically reboot in conserve mode; it attempts to recover by restricting traffic. (Reboot is a last-resort crash, not a configured action).

B: Inspection modes (Proxy vs. Flow) are defined in firewall policies and cannot be dynamically switched by the system during runtime.

C: The system does not arbitrarily stop "non-essential processes" like logging or AV. Logging is critical for audit trails. While av-failopen can be configured to bypass scanning, the system typically defaults to "Fail-Close" (dropping traffic) rather than stopping the engines themselves.

Parallel Path Processing (PPP) in FortiOS refers to the system’s ability to evaluate and select among multiple processing paths—often involving dedicated network processors, content processors, or CPU-based workflows—to optimally process packets. The official documentation highlights that the PPP engine dynamically selects which hardware or software path to use for each session based on session characteristics, policy configuration, and traffic type. This dynamic selection results in optimal throughput and resource utilization.

The document specifies that PPP assesses several processing paths in parallel, using decision logic to determine whether a session should be offloaded to specialist hardware (like NP6, CP9, etc.) or stay in the CPU path, ensuring that each packet is handled by the most efficient available method under current load and policy. Hardware and software configurations both influence this outcome, but it is the PPP engine's decision-making that defines the optimal path per session.

For Option A:In Fortinet BGP (and standard BGP), when a prefix is displayed with an "i" (lowercase i) in the Path column, it represents an internal prefix that originated from the local router, typically configured via the BGP "network" command. In the exhibit, the prefix 10.20.30.0/24 is listed with a Path value of i, indicating it was injected into BGP by the local router using the network statement, not via redistribution from another routing protocol. The same logic applies to i as documented: "Origin code 'i' means the route was injected via the network command."

For Option D:The get router info bgp network output is a summary table displaying both local and received BGP routes. It lists all known routes to the BGP process, whether received from peers or originated locally. The exhibit shows all BGP prefixes known to the local router, matching the official admin guide’s description of this command’s output.

Explanation for B and C:

The phrase “legacy route advertisement” is not formalized in BGP documentation or Fortinet’s admin guide; the output uses standard BGP mechanics.

If a route was redistributed into BGP from another routing protocol, the Path field would display a "?" (question mark) for incomplete (redistributed) origin. Here the /24 route has "i" so it is NOT a redistribution.

The Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol simplifies the negotiation process compared to IKEv1. It is defined by a specific sequence of message exchanges to establish a secure IPsec tunnel.

The correct chronological order of the IKEv2 exchanges is:

IKE_SA_INIT (Initial Exchange):

This is the first exchange. It negotiates the security parameters for the IKE Security Association (IKE SA), sends nonces, and performs the Diffie-Hellman key exchange. At the end of this exchange, the communication is encrypted, but the peers are not yet authenticated.

IKE_AUTH (Authentication Exchange):

This is the second exchange. It authenticates the previous messages, exchanges identities and certificates (if used), and establishes the first Child SA (the actual IPsec Security Association used for data traffic).

CREATE_CHILD_SA (Subsequent Exchanges):

This exchange occurs after the IKE SA and the initial Child SA are established. It is used to create additional Child SAs (for different traffic selectors) or to perform re-keying for the IKE SA or existing Child SAs.

Why other options are incorrect:

A & B: Incorrect because CREATE_CHILD_SA cannot happen before the SA is initialized (IKE_SA_INIT) and authenticated (IKE_AUTH).

D: Incorrect because IKE_AUTH cannot occur before IKE_SA_INIT.

Therefore, the protocol flow is IKE_SA_INIT $\rightarrow$ IKE_AUTH $\rightarrow$ CREATE_CHILD_SA.

From the exhibit, you can observe that the debug output captures an IKEv1 negotiation in aggressive mode. Let's break down the supporting details in line with official Fortinet IPsec VPN troubleshooting resources and debug guides:

For Option B:

The very first line of the debug output shows:

comes 10.0.0.2:500->10.0.0.1:500, ifindex=7.

This indicates the traffic direction—from the remote IP (10.0.0.2) with port 500 to the local IP (10.0.0.1) with port 500. According to Fortinet's documentation, the right side of the arrow always represents the local FortiGate gateway. Thus, 10.0.0.1 is the local gateway IP address.

For Option D:

You see the statement:

negotiation result "remote"

and

received peer identifier FQDNCE88525E7DE7F00D6C2D3C00000000

Official debug documentation describes that the "peer identifier" or peer ID sent by the initiator is displayed here. In the context of IKE/IPsec negotiation, this value is used as the IPsec peer ID for authentication and identification purposes. The initiator is providing "remote" as the peer ID for its connection.

Why Not A or C:

Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS): The debug does not show any DH group negotiation in phase 2 (no reference to group2, group5, etc., for phase 2), so you cannot deduce the presence of PFS solely from this output.

Phase 2 negotiation: The log focuses on IKE (phase 1) negotiation and establishment; there’s no reference to ESP protocol, Quick Mode, or other identifiers that would show phase 2 SA negotiation and establishment.

This interpretation aligns with the explanation in the FortiOS 7.6.4 Administration Guide's VPN section and the official debug command output samples published in Fortinet’s documentation. It demonstrates how to distinguish between local and remote addresses and how to identify the use of peer IDs.

The exhibit displays the output from the diagnose debug rating command on a FortiGate device. This command is used to display information about FortiGuard Web Filtering or other security-related queries performed by FortiGate to FortiGuard servers. Official Fortinet documentation outlines the meaning of each field in the server list. The FortiGate maintains a list of available FortiGuard servers, selecting the optimal server based on factors such as weight, round-trip time (RTT), and regional settings.

The very first entry in the server list after "Server List" is the server FortiGate initially uses, prioritized by factors such as proximity and RTT. Here, 64.26.151.37 is listed first, and the FortiGuard-requests value confirms that this server handled the highest number of requests.

The IPs, weights, and lost/failed counters are monitored for server performance and selection over time. FortiGate's default operational logic is to try the first entry for contract validation and use the next in the list if the first is unavailable or has high latency or packet loss.

There is no direct correlation between the Weight and the number of FortiGuard-requests. The servers with higher or lower weights may still handle different request volumes based on availability and performance.

The TZ (time zone) value's sign (positive or negative) does not affect server preference; it is informational, showing the server's location relative to UTC, not a rating metric.

DNS query results for FortiGuard servers are not shown here, and the provided servers are not returned in DNS query order.

This command and interpretation are detailed in the FortiOS Administration Guide’s section describing FortiGuard server selection and contract validation processes.

According to RFC 7296 (IKEv2) and Fortinet's official documentation, the IKE_SA_INIT exchange is responsible for negotiating cryptographic parameters, performing the initial Diffie-Hellman exchange, and implementing the cookie challenge mechanism for DoS protection. When the responder suspects a DoS attack (such as mass requests by the same source), it includes a cookie in the IKE_SA_INIT response. The initiator must return the cookie in its next request to prove that it truly exists at the IP address it claims, thereby mitigating resource exhaustion attacks.

This two-step exchange ensures the responder only allocates resources after successful proof of address, aligning with best security practices. Fortinet documentation confirms that this process occurs strictly in the IKE_SA_INIT phase, not in subsequent IKE_Auth or CHILD_SA exchanges.

The session output reveals a session with proto=1 (ICMP) and the origin and reply directions show address and NAT translations. Specifically, the hook=post dir=org act=snat shows that source NAT is performed for outgoing packets, where the source 10.1.10.10:40602 is translated to 10.200.5.1:8 (likely ICMP id 8, not a TCP/UDP port). The reply direction, hook=pre dir=reply act=dnat, indicates destination NAT for incoming packets: packets incoming for 10.200.5.1:60430 are destination-NATed to 10.1.10.10:40602. The gateway (gwy) is listed as 10.200.1.254/10.1.0.1, which for outgoing traffic means that return traffic is directed to the gateway (10.200.1.254), per the NAT policy. This is confirmed by the FortiOS Session Table Guide, which explains that the returned ICMP reply will be routed out to this NAT gateway. The session statistics and logical flow (SNAT out, matching DNAT in) reinforce that reply traffic to the initiator traverses via 10.200.1.254.

To identify the reason for the lack of prefixes, we must interpret the State/PfxRcd and Up/Down columns in the get router info bgp summary exhibit.

Analyze Neighbor Status:

Neighbor 10.125.0.60: State is OpenSent. This session is not established. It is stuck in the negotiation phase.

Neighbor 100.64.3.1: State is Active. This session is not established. The router is actively trying to initiate a TCP connection.

Neighbor 10.127.0.75:

Up/Down: 02:45:55. This indicates the BGP session has been Up (Established) for almost 3 hours.

State/PfxRcd: 0. This number represents the count of prefixes received. The session is fully established, but the neighbor has sent zero routes.

Determine the Cause:

Since the session with 10.127.0.75 is established, connectivity and handshakes (Options A, B, C) are not the issue for this neighbor.

The fact that it is Up but sending 0 prefixes strongly implies that the neighbor is configured to filter out its routes before sending them to the local FortiGate.

Option D correctly identifies this as a RIB-OUT (Routing Information Base - Outbound) configuration issue on the neighbor (Router 10.127.0.75), which prevents it from advertising its routes.

IKEv1 (Internet Key Exchange version 1) and IKEv2 are protocols used for establishing IPsec VPN tunnels, and both protocols share the conceptual division into two phases, as clearly described in Fortinet VPN documentation:

Phase 1 handles negotiation and establishment of a secure IKE Security Association (SA) between peers.

Phase 2 negotiates parameters for the IPsec Security Association, which secures actual data traffic between peers.

While IKEv2 streamlines and improves upon IKEv1 by merging some message exchanges and simplifying configuration, it maintains the same core two-phase concept: Phase 1 (IKE SA) and Phase 2 (IPsec SA). This is a foundational VPN concept referenced widely in both IKEv1 and IKEv2 literature.

Other statements are incorrect:

Asymmetric authentication is possible, but not mandatory for both.

Both protocols commonly use UDP port 500, sometimes 4500 for NAT traversal, but they are not designed to run on TCP.

The protocol feature compatibility over TCP/UDP is not correctly described in the other options.

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.

According to the official Fortinet documentation (Technical Tip: Useful FSSO Commands), heartbeat messages play a crucial role in communication between the FSSO Collector Agent and FortiGate. These messages are regularly sent from the Collector Agent to verify its status, maintain session awareness, and confirm connectivity between the authentication infrastructure and FortiGate appliances.

Option B is confirmed by Fortinet, as the collector agent logs on Windows or its management console will specifically note heartbeat events, connection status, and any issues maintaining contact with FortiGate units.

Option C is validated by both official CLI documentation and the technical tip linked. On FortiGate, heartbeat messages from the collector agent are visible using real-time debug tools such as diagnose debug application authd or FSSO-specific commands. These enable administrators to monitor live logon states, session status, and connection health directly from the FortiGate CLI. The debug stream shows heartbeats received and their effect on active logons, associating health monitoring with active sessions.

Heartbeat operation is fully automated once FSSO is set up—there is no requirement for manual enablement or configuration, aligning with Fortinet’s philosophy of seamless integration and centralized management across the Security Fabric. This ensures that both FortiGate and the collector agent can quickly and reliably detect any miscommunication or outage, addressing authentication issues proactively.

Intermittent behavior (working sometimes, failing others) points to resource or connectivity fluctuations rather than static misconfigurations.

B. Check that FortiGate is not entering conserve mode:

Reason: When FortiGate enters Conserve Mode (due to high memory usage), it changes its inspection behavior to save resources. Depending on the av-failopen setting, it may either bypass inspection (allowing blocked sites) or drop traffic (blocking valid sites) temporarily until memory recovers. This flapping between states causes intermittent filtering issues.

D. Check that the communication between FortiGate and FortiGuard is stable:

Reason: The Web Filter engine relies on real-time queries to the FortiGuard Distribution Network (FDN) to categorize URLs that are not in the local cache. If the internet connection or the specific path to FortiGuard is unstable (packet loss, latency), queries will time out. This results in "Rating Errors," which can block or allow traffic unpredictably based on the "Allow websites when a rating error occurs" setting.

Why other options are incorrect:

A: A mismatch in inspection mode (e.g., Profile set to Proxy, Policy set to Flow) is a static configuration error. It would typically result in the profile not being selectable or consistently failing/not applying, rather than working intermittently.

C: If the wrong port is mapped (e.g., HTTP on 8080 is not mapped), the inspection engine will consistently ignore traffic on that port. It would not be intermittent.