PSE-Strata-Pro-24 Paloalto Networks Palo Alto Networks Systems Engineer Professional - Hardware Firewall Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

The question asks how Palo Alto Networks (PANW) Strata Hardware Firewalls enable the mapping of transactions as part of Zero Trust principles, requiring a systems engineer (SE) to provide two narratives for a customer RFP response. Zero Trust is a security model that assumes no trust by default, requiring continuous verification of all transactions, users, and devices—inside and outside the network. The Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), part of the Strata portfolio, supports this through its advanced visibility, decryption, and policy enforcement capabilities. Below is a detailed explanation of why options B and D are the correct narratives, verified against official Palo Alto Networks documentation.

Step 1: Understanding Zero Trust and Transaction Mapping in PAN-OS

Zero Trust principles, as defined by frameworks like NIST SP 800-207, emphasize identifying and verifying every transaction (e.g., network flows, application requests) based on context such as user identity, application, and data. For Palo Alto Networks NGFWs, "mapping of transactions" refers to the ability to identify, classify, and control network traffic with granular detail, enabling verification and enforcement aligned with Zero Trust.

The PAN-OS operating system achieves this through:

App-ID: Identifies applications regardless of port or protocol.

User-ID: Maps IP addresses to user identities.

Content-ID: Inspects and protects content, including decryption for visibility.

Security Policies: Enforces rules based on these mappings.

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' PAN-OS supports API keys for authentication when interacting with the firewall’s RESTful and XML-based APIs. By default, API keys do not have an expiration time set, but the expiration time for API keys can be configured by an administrator to meet specific requirements, such as a time-based deactivation after two hours. This is particularly useful for compliance and security purposes, where API keys should not remain active indefinitely.

Here’s an evaluation of the options:

Option A: This is incorrect because the default setting for API keys does not include an expiration time. By default, API keys are valid indefinitely unless explicitly configured otherwise.

Option B: This is incorrect because PAN-OS fully supports API keys. The API keys are integral to managing access to the firewall's APIs and provide a secure method for authentication.

Option C: This is incorrect because PAN-OS does support API key expiration when explicitly configured. While the default is "no expiration," the feature to configure an expiration time (e.g., 2 hours) is available.

Option D (Correct): The correct response to the RFP clause is that the default API key settings need to be modified to set the expiration time to 120 minutes (2 hours). This aligns with the customer requirement to enforce API key deactivation based on time. Administrators can configure this using the PAN-OS management interface or the CLI.

How to Configure API Key Expiration (Steps):

Access the Web Interface or CLI on the firewall.

Navigate to Device > Management > API Key Lifetime Settings (on the GUI).

Set the desired expiration time (e.g., 120 minutes).

Alternatively, use the CLI to configure the API key expiration:

set deviceconfig system api-key-expiry

commit

Verify the configuration using the show command or by testing API calls to ensure the key expires after the set duration.

When planning a firewall deployment with SSL/TLS decryption enabled, it is crucial to consider the additional processing overhead introduced by decrypting and inspecting encrypted traffic. Here are the details for each statement:

Why "SSL decryption traffic amounts vary from network to network" (Correct Answer A)?SSL decryption traffic varies depending on the organization’s specific network environment, user behavior, and applications. For example, networks with heavy web traffic, cloud applications, or encrypted VoIP traffic will have more SSL/TLS decryption processing requirements. This variability means each deployment must be properly assessed and sized accordingly.

Why "Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) ephemeral key exchange algorithms such as Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (DHE) and Elliptic-Curve Diffie-Hellman Exchange (ECDHE) consume more processing resources than Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithms" (Correct Answer C)?PFS algorithms like DHE and ECDHE generate unique session keys for each connection, ensuring better security but requiring significantly more processing power compared to RSA key exchange. When decryption is enabled, firewalls must handle these computationally expensive operations for every encrypted session, impacting performance and sizing requirements.

Why not "Large average transaction sizes consume more processing power to decrypt" (Option B)?While large transaction sizes can consume additional resources, SSL/TLS decryption is more dependent on the number of sessions and the complexity of the encryption algorithms used, rather than the size of the transactions. Hence, this is not a primary best practice consideration.

Why not "Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) certificate authentication method consumes more resources than Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), but ECDSA is more secure" (Option D)?This statement discusses certificate authentication methods, not SSL/TLS decryption performance. While ECDSA is more efficient and secure than RSA, it is not directly relevant to sizing considerations for firewall deployments with decryption enabled.

Create a New Threat Profile (Answer B):

Performance tuning in Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) involves ensuring that only the most relevant and necessary signatures are enabled for the specific environment.

Palo Alto Networks allows you to create custom threat profiles to selectively enable signatures that match the threats most likely to affect the environment. This reduces unnecessary resource usage and ensures optimal performance.

By tailoring the signature set, organizations can focus on real threats without impacting overall throughput and latency.

Why Not A:

Leaving all signatures turned on is not a best practice because it may consume excessive resources, increasing processing time and degrading firewall performance, especially in high-throughput environments.

Why Not C:

While working with TAC for debugging may help identify specific performance bottlenecks, it is not a recommended approach for routine performance tuning. Instead, proactive configuration changes, such as creating tailored threat profiles, should be made.

Why Not D:

Disabling irrelevant threat signatures can improve performance, but this task is effectively accomplished by creating a new threat profile. Manually disabling signatures one by one is not scalable or efficient.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Threat Prevention Best Practices

Custom Threat Profile Configuration

The CN-Series firewalls are Palo Alto Networks’ containerized Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) designed to secure Kubernetes clusters. Unlike the Strata Hardware Firewalls (e.g., PA-Series), which are physical appliances, the CN-Series is a software-based solution deployed within containerized environments. The question focuses on the specific files used to deploy CN-Series firewalls in Kubernetes clusters. Based on Palo Alto Networks’ official documentation, the two correct files are PAN-CN-MGMT-CONFIGMAP and PAN-CN-MGMT. Below is a detailed explanation of why these files are essential, with references to CN-Series deployment processes (noting that Strata hardware documentation is not directly applicable here but is contextualized for clarity).

Step 1: Understanding CN-Series Deployment in Kubernetes

The CN-Series firewall consists of two primary components: the CN-MGMT (management plane) and the CN-NGFW (data plane). These components are deployed as containers in a Kubernetes cluster, orchestrated using YAML configuration files. The deployment process involves defining resources such as ConfigMaps, Pods, and Services to instantiate and manage the CN-Series components. The files listed in the question are Kubernetes manifests or configuration files used during this process.

CN-MGMT Role: The CN-MGMT container handles the management plane, providing configuration, logging, and policy enforcement for the CN-Series firewall. It requires a dedicated YAML file to define its deployment.

CN-NGFW Role: The CN-NGFW container handles the data plane, inspecting traffic within the Kubernetes cluster. It relies on configurations provided by CN-MGMT and additional networking setup (e.g., via CNI plugins).

ConfigMaps: Kubernetes ConfigMaps store configuration data separately from container images, making them critical for passing settings to CN-Series components.

To secure and protect your traffic using CDSS, Cloud NGFW for AWS provides Palo Alto Networks protections such as:

App-ID. Based on patented Layer 7 traffic classification technology, the App-ID service allows you to see the applications on your network, learn how they work, observe their behavioral characteristics, and understand their relative risk. Cloud NGFW for AWS identifies applications and application functions via multiple techniques, including application signatures, decryption, protocol decoding, and heuristics. These capabilities determine the exact identity of applications traversing your network, including those attempting to evade detection by masquerading as legitimate traffic by hopping ports or using encryption.

Threat Prevention. The Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention service protects your network by providing multiple layers of prevention to confront each phase of an attack. In addition to essential intrusion prevention service (IPS) capabilities, Threat Prevention possesses the unique ability to detect and block threats on any ports—rather than simply invoking signatures based on a limited set of predefined ports.

Advanced URL Filtering. This critical service built into Cloud NGFW for AWS stops unknown web-based attacks in real-time to prevent patient zero with the industry’s only ML-powered Advanced URL Filtering. Advanced URL Filtering combines the renowned Palo Alto Networks malicious URL database with the industry’s first real-time web protection engine so organizations can automatically and instantly detect and prevent new malicious and targeted web-based threats.

DNS. DNS Security gives you real-time protection, applying industry-first protections to disrupt attacks that use DNS. Tight integration with a Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) gives you automated protections, prevents attackers from bypassing security measures, and eliminates the need for independent tools or changes to DNS routing. DNS Security gives your organization a critical new control point to stop attacks.

WildFire. Palo Alto Networks Advanced WildFire® is the industry’s largest cloud-based malware prevention engine that protects organizations from highly evasive threats using patented machine learning detection engines, enabling automated protections across network, cloud, and endpoints. Advanced WildFire analyzes every unknown file for malicious intent and then distributes prevention in record time—60 times faster than the nearest competitor—to reduce the risk of patient zero.

https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/cloud-ngfw-aws/administration/protect/cloud-delivered-security-services

The question asks for three use cases specific to Policy Optimizer, a feature in PAN-OS designed to enhance security policy management on Palo Alto Networks Strata Hardware Firewalls. Policy Optimizer helps administrators refine firewall rules by leveraging App-ID technology, transitioning from legacy port-based policies to application-based policies, and optimizing rule efficiency. Below is a detailed explanation of why options A, C, and E are the correct use cases, verified against official Palo Alto Networks documentation.

Step 1: Understanding Policy Optimizer in PAN-OS

Policy Optimizer is a tool introduced in PAN-OS 9.0 and enhanced in subsequent versions (e.g., 11.1), accessible under Policies > Policy Optimizer in the web interface. It analyzes traffic logs to:

Identify applications traversing the network.

Suggest refinements to security rules (e.g., replacing ports with App-IDs).

Provide insights into rule usage and optimization opportunities.

Its primary goal is to align policies with Palo Alto Networks’ application-centric approach, improving security and manageability on Strata NGFWs.

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

The Strata 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.

The problem provides several constraints and design requirements that must be carefully considered:

Bandwidth Requirement:

The customer needs an NGFW capable of handling a total throughput of 72 Gbps.

The PA-5445 is specifically designed for high-throughput environments and supports up to 81.3 Gbps Threat Prevention throughput (as per the latest hardware performance specifications). This ensures the throughput needs are fully met with some room for growth.

Interface Compatibility:

The customer mentions that their core switches support up to 40 Gbps interfaces. The design must include aggregate links to meet the overall bandwidth while aligning with the 40 Gbps interface limitations.

The PA-5445 supports 40Gbps QSFP+ interfaces, making it a suitable option for the hardware requirement.

No Change to IP Address Structure:

Since the customer cannot modify their IP address structure, deploying the NGFW in Layer-2 or Virtual Wire mode is ideal.

Virtual Wire mode allows the firewall to inspect traffic transparently between two Layer-2 devices without modifying the existing IP structure. Similarly, Layer-2 mode allows the firewall to behave like a switch at Layer-2 while still applying security policies.

Threat Prevention, DNS, and Sandboxing Requirements:

The customer requires advanced security features like Threat Prevention and potentially sandboxing (WildFire). The PA-5445 is equipped to handle these functionalities with its dedicated hardware-based architecture for content inspection and processing.

Aggregate Interface Groups:

The architecture should include aggregate interface groups to distribute traffic across multiple physical interfaces to support the high throughput requirement.

By aggregating 2 x 40Gbps interfaces on both sides of the path in Virtual Wire or Layer-2 mode, the design ensures sufficient bandwidth (up to 80 Gbps per side).

Why PA-5445 in Layer-2 or Virtual Wire mode is the Best Option:

Option A satisfies all the customer’s requirements:

The PA-5445 meets the 72 Gbps throughput requirement.

2 x 40 Gbps interfaces can be aggregated to handle traffic flow between the core switches and the NGFW.

Virtual Wire or Layer-2 mode preserves the IP address structure, while still allowing full threat prevention and DNS inspection capabilities.

The PA-5445 also supports sandboxing (WildFire) for advanced file-based threat detection.

Why Not Other Options:

Option B:

The PA-5430 is insufficient for the throughput requirement (72 Gbps). Its maximum Threat Prevention throughput is 60.3 Gbps, which does not provide the necessary capacity.

Option C:

While the PA-5445 is appropriate, deploying it in Layer-3 mode would require changes to the IP address structure, which the customer explicitly stated is not an option.

Option D:

The PA-5430 does not meet the throughput requirement. Although Layer-2 or Virtual Wire mode preserves the IP structure, the throughput capacity of the PA-5430 is a limiting factor.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Palo Alto Networks PA-5400 Series Datasheet (latest version)

Specifies the performance capabilities of the PA-5445 and PA-5430 models.

Palo Alto Networks Virtual Wire Deployment Guide

Explains how Virtual Wire mode can be used to transparently inspect traffic without changing the existing IP structure.

Aggregated Ethernet Interface Documentation

Details the configuration and use of aggregate interface groups for high throughput.

A. Discuss the PAN-OS Policy Optimizer feature as a means to safely migrate port-based rules to application-based rules.

PAN-OS includes the Policy Optimizer tool, which helps migrate legacy port-based rules to application-based policies incrementally and safely. This tool identifies unused, redundant, or overly permissive rules and suggests optimized policies based on actual traffic patterns.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B: The migration wizard does not automatically convert port-based rules to application-based rules. Migration must be carefully planned and executed using tools like the Policy Optimizer.

C: Running two firewalls in parallel adds unnecessary complexity and is not a best practice for migration.

D: While port-based rules are supported, relying on them defeats the purpose of transitioning to application-based security.

Understanding the Problem:

The issue is that Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP) logs are visible on the firewall but are not being ingested into the company’s SIEM.

This implies that the ATP subscription is working and generating logs on the firewall but the logs are not being forwarded properly to the SIEM.

Action to Resolve:

Log Forwarding Configuration:

Verify that the Security policy rules configured to inspect traffic using Advanced Threat Prevention are set to forward logs to the SIEM instance.

This is a common oversight. Even if the logs are generated locally, they will not be forwarded unless explicitly configured.

Configuration steps to verify in the Palo Alto Networks firewall:

Go to Policies > Security Policies and check the "Log Forwarding" profile applied.

Ensure the "Log Forwarding" profile includes the correct settings to forward Threat Logs to the SIEM.

Go to Device > Log Settings and ensure the firewall is set to forward Threat logs to the desired Syslog or SIEM destination.

Why Not the Other Options?

A (Enable the Threat Prevention license):

The problem does not relate to the license; the administrator already confirmed the license is active.

B (Check with the SIEM vendor):

While verifying SIEM functionality is important, the first step is to ensure the logs are being forwarded correctly from the firewall to the SIEM. This is under the systems administrator’s control.

C (Have the SIEM vendor troubleshoot):

This step should only be taken after confirming the logs are forwarded properly from the firewall.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

Log Forwarding and Security Policy Configuration

Advanced Threat Prevention Configuration Guide

5G Security (Answer A):

In this scenario, the mining company operates on a private mobile network, likely powered by 5G technology to ensure low latency and high bandwidth for controlling robots and vehicles.

Palo Alto Networks 5G Security is specifically designed to protect private mobile networks. It prevents exploitation of vulnerabilities in the 5G infrastructure and ensures the control signals sent to the machines are not compromised by attackers.

Key features include network slicing protection, signaling plane security, and secure user plane communications.

IoT Security (Answer C):

The mining operation depends on machines and remote-controlled vehicles, which are IoT devices.

Palo Alto Networks IoT Security provides:

Full device visibility to detect all IoT devices (such as robots, remote vehicles, or sensors).

Behavioral analysis to create risk profiles and identify anomalies in the machines' operations.

This ensures a secure environment for IoT devices, reducing the risk of a device being exploited.

Why Not Cloud NGFW (Answer B):

While Cloud NGFW is critical for protecting cloud-based applications, the specific concern here is protecting control signals and IoT devices rather than external access into the cloud service.

The private mobile network and IoT device protection requirements make 5G Security and IoT Security more relevant.

Why Not Advanced CDSS Bundle (Answer D):

The Advanced CDSS bundle (Advanced Threat Prevention, Advanced WildFire, Advanced URL Filtering) is essential for securing web traffic and detecting threats, but it does not address the specific challenges of securing private mobile networks and IoT devices.

While these services can supplement the design, they are not the primary focus in this use case.

References from Palo Alto Networks Documentation:

5G Security for Private Mobile Networks

IoT Security Solution Brief

Cloud NGFW Overview

Step 1: Understand the Best Practice Assessment (BPA)

Purpose: The BPA assesses NGFW (e.g., PA-Series) and Panorama configurations against best practices, including Center for Internet Security (CIS) Critical Security Controls, to enhance security and feature adoption.

Process: Requires a Tech Support File (TSF) upload or telemetry data from onboarded devices to generate the report.

Evolution: Historically available via the Customer Support Portal, the BPA has transitioned to newer platforms like AIOps and Strata Cloud Manager.

Policy Optimizer is a feature designed to help administrators improve the efficiency and effectiveness of security policies on Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs). It focuses on identifying unused or overly permissive policies to streamline and optimize the configuration.

Why "Identify Security policy rules with unused applications" (Correct Answer C)?Policy Optimizer provides visibility into existing security policies and identifies rules that have unused or outdated applications. For example:

It can detect if a rule allows applications that are no longer in use.

It can identify rules with excessive permissions, enabling administrators to refine them for better security and performance.By addressing these issues, Policy Optimizer helps reduce the attack surface and improves the overall manageability of the firewall.

Why not "Recommend best practices on new policy creation" (Option A)?Policy Optimizer focuses on optimizing existing policies, not creating new ones. While best practices can be applied during policy refinement, recommending new policy creation is not its purpose.

Why not "Show unused licenses for Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscriptions and firewalls" (Option B)?Policy Optimizer is not related to license management or tracking. Identifying unused licenses is outside the scope of its functionality.

Why not "Act as a migration tool to import policies from third-party vendors" (Option D)?Policy Optimizer does not function as a migration tool. While Palo Alto Networks offers tools for third-party firewall migration, this is separate from the Policy Optimizer feature.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of exploitation by newly announced vulnerabilities is through Advanced Threat Prevention (ATP). ATP uses inline deep learning to identify and block exploitation attempts, even for zero-day vulnerabilities, in real time.

Why "Advanced Threat Prevention’s command injection and SQL injection functions use inline deep learning against zero-day threats" (Correct Answer B)?Advanced Threat Prevention leverages deep learning models directly in the data path, which allows it to analyze traffic in real time and detect patterns of exploitation, including newly discovered vulnerabilities being actively exploited in the wild. It specifically targets advanced tactics like:

Command injection.

SQL injection.

Memory-based exploits.

Protocol evasion techniques.

This functionality lowers the risk of exploitation by actively blocking attack attempts based on their behavior, even when a signature is not yet available. This approach makes ATP the most valuable solution for addressing new and actively exploited vulnerabilities.

Why not "Advanced URL Filtering uses machine learning (ML) to learn which malicious URLs are being utilized by the attackers, then block the resulting traffic" (Option A)?While Advanced URL Filtering is highly effective at blocking access to malicious websites, it does not provide the inline analysis necessary to prevent direct exploitation of vulnerabilities. Exploitation often happens within the application or protocol layer, which Advanced URL Filtering does not inspect.

Why not "Single Pass Architecture and parallel processing ensure traffic is efficiently scanned against any enabled Cloud-Delivered Security Services (CDSS) subscription" (Option C)?Single Pass Architecture improves performance by ensuring all enabled services (like Threat Prevention, URL Filtering, etc.) process traffic efficiently. However, it is not a feature that directly addresses vulnerability exploitation or zero-day attack detection.

Why not "WildFire loads custom OS images to ensure that the sandboxing catches any activity that would affect the customer's environment" (Option D)?WildFire is a sandboxing solution designed to detect malicious files and executables. While it is useful for analyzing malware, it does not provide inline protection against exploitation of newly announced vulnerabilities, especially those targeting network protocols or applications.