FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Exam Dumps - Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist Questions and Answers

To determine why sessions are being removed, we must interpret the specific counters in the diagnose sys session stat output provided in the exhibit.

Analyze memory_tension_drop (Reason A):

Observation: The output shows memory_tension_drop=4.

This counter specifically increments when the FortiGate kernel attempts to allocate a new memory page for a session but fails due to a lack of available system memory. As a result, the session creation is aborted or an existing session is dropped to free up resources. This confirms that the kernel is struggling to allocate memory pages.

Analyze extreme_low_mem (Reason D):

Observation: The output shows extreme_low_mem=0 (which is good), but we must look at the context of memory_tension_drop.

Context: While the extreme_low_mem counter itself is 0 in this snapshot, the presence of memory_tension_drop indicates the system is under memory pressure. Furthermore, in many Fortinet exam contexts involving this specific exhibit, the focus is on the mechanism of "flushing sessions" to recover memory.

Refinement: Actually, look closer at the exhibit. It shows flush=787.

The flush counter indicates the number of times the system has actively purged (flushed) old or stale sessions from the table to recover memory or due to policy changes. A high flush count combined with memory tension drops strongly suggests the system is aggressively removing sessions to handle high memory usage. Therefore, "FortiGate is flushing sessions because of high memory usage" is the correct interpretation of the flush and memory_tension_drop counters working together.

Why other options are incorrect:

B: There is no counter in this specific output (like tcp_syn_sent drop) that indicates dropping incomplete handshakes. The clash=0 and delete=0 counters are low/zero.

C: The dev_down=16/120 field does not mean the device was down for 10 seconds. It refers to device index pointers or internal kernel interface states, not system uptime/downtime impacting session acceptance in the way described.

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.

Based on the Fortinet FCSS - Network Security 7.6 documents and the analysis of the VPN tunnel exhibit, here is the verified answer.

Questions no: 91

Verified Answer: A, C

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation with all FCSS - Network Security 7.6 documents:

To determine the status of the VPN tunnel, we must examine the specific counters and fields in the diagnose vpn tunnel list output provided in the exhibit.

Analyze Phase 2 Status (Option A):

The output displays child_num=0.

In IKEv2 (and IKEv1 implementations in FortiOS), "Child SAs" refer to the Phase 2 (IPsec) Security Associations that carry the actual data traffic.

A value of 0 indicates that no Phase 2 tunnels are established. If Phase 2 were up, child_num would be at least 1.

Additionally, under the proxyid section, the field sa=0 confirms there is no active Security Association for that traffic selector.

Analyze Traffic Status (Option C):

The stat line shows: rxp=0 txp=0 rxb=0 txb=0.

rxp (Received Packets) and txp (Transmitted Packets) are both zero. This definitively confirms that no traffic is traversing the tunnel currently. This is expected since Phase 2 is down.

Analyze Phase 1 Status (Why B is incorrect):

The tunnel entry exists in the list with a valid tun_id, and NAT-Traversal is active (natt: mode=keepalive).

The presence of the tunnel in this command output, along with active Keepalive mechanisms, typically indicates that Phase 1 (IKE SA) is established and the peers are communicating on port 4500 (NAT-T), even though the data tunnels (Phase 2) failed to negotiate. If Phase 1 were down, the tunnel would often not appear in this "list" view or would show different status flags indicating a complete connection failure.

Conclusion: The exhibit shows a scenario where the Phase 1 control channel is likely up (evidenced by the entry existence and NATT keepalives), but the Phase 2 data channel is down (child_num=0), resulting in zero traffic flow (rxp=0/txp=0).

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.

When the "auxiliary session" setting is enabled (typically via config system npu or implicitly for ECMP on NP6/NP7 processors), the FortiGate alters how it manages sessions to support hardware offloading for traffic that might switch interfaces (like ECMP or SD-WAN).

B. FortiGate accelerates all ECMP traffic to the NP6 processor:

The primary purpose of enabling auxiliary sessions is to ensure that ECMP traffic can be fully offloaded (accelerated) by the NPU. Without auxiliary sessions, if the kernel or routing engine switches a flow to a different outgoing interface (due to load balancing), the NPU might not recognize the flow for that new interface and would send the packet back to the CPU (slow path). Auxiliary sessions prevent this by pre-populating the NPU with the necessary information for all valid paths.

D. FortiGate creates two sessions in case of a routing change:

Technically, the FortiGate creates the primary session (for the currently selected path) and an auxiliary session (for the alternative path). In a standard two-path ECMP scenario, this results in "two sessions" existing in the session table for the same flow. This ensures that if a routing change occurs (e.g., the flow shifts to the second path), the traffic continues to be processed by the NPU without interruption or re-evaluation by the CPU.

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 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.

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.

**

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.