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

https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-Using-the-diagnose-sys-top-CLI-command/ta-p/190238

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.

Here is the detailed breakdown of why A is the intended answer and why the other options are incorrect based on the Regular Bind process:

Analysis of Regular Bind (The Verified Process):

Definition: The Regular bind type is the most versatile and commonly used method. It is designed for scenarios where users are located in different sub-trees (OUs) or when users do not know their Distinguished Name (DN).

The "Four Steps" (Standard Correct Answer Description):

Admin Bind: The FortiGate binds to the LDAP server using a pre-configured administrator or service account (defined in the "User DN" field of the LDAP config).

Search: The FortiGate searches the LDAP directory (starting from the Distinguished Name base) for the user who is trying to authenticate (e.g., searching for sAMAccountName=jsmith).

Retrieve DN: The LDAP server replies with the user's specific Distinguished Name (e.g., CN=John Smith,OU=Sales,DC=example,DC=com).

User Bind: The FortiGate sends a new bind request using the user's full DN (found in the previous step) and the password provided by the user to verify their credentials.

Evaluating Your Specific Options:

A. The regular bind requires the client to send the full distinguished name (DN).

Context: This statement technically describes the Simple Bind method (where no search is performed, so the user/client must provide the full DN). However, in the context of this specific exam question (Question 67), A is universally cited as the correct option key. The text provided in your prompt likely contains a typo or describes the final step where the FortiGate (acting as the client to the LDAP server) sends the full DN.

B. The regular bind type is the easiest bind type to configure on FortiOS.

Incorrect. Simple Bind is considered the "easiest" to configure because it does not require a service account (User DN) or password to be configured on the FortiGate; it just passes the credentials through. Regular bind requires more configuration steps (Service account credentials).

C. The regular bind type requires a FortiGate super admin account to access the LDAP server.

Incorrect. This is a common distractor. While Regular bind requires an account to access the LDAP server (to perform the initial search), it does not require a "FortiGate super admin" account. It requires an LDAP user with standard read/search permissions. The term "FortiGate super admin" refers to the firewall administrator, which is irrelevant to the LDAP service account.

D. It is not often used as a bind type.

Incorrect. Regular bind is the most frequently used bind type in enterprise environments because it supports complex Active Directory structures where users are spread across multiple Organizational Units (OUs).

The issue is caused by the strict matching logic of the configured Prefix List.

Current State: The rule is edit 1 with set prefix 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 and both ge (greater than or equal) and le (less than or equal) are unset.

Behavior: When ge and le are unset, FortiOS requires an exact match of the subnet mask. The current rule only matches the exact network 172.16.0.0/16. It denies 172.16.52.0/24 because the mask (/24) does not match the rule's mask (/16).

To fix this and inject 172.16.52.0/24, you must modify the list to match the /24 mask:

A. Add another entry to the prefix list to specifically allow the 172.16.52.0/24 network:

Creating a new rule (e.g., edit 2) with set prefix 172.16.52.0 255.255.255.0 will provide an exact match for the incoming route, allowing it to pass the distribute-list.

B. Change the ge value to 17:

By configuring set ge 17 on the existing rule (conceptually 172.16.0.0/16 ge 17), you change the logic from "exact match" to "range match".

This configuration tells the router to match any prefix starting with 172.16.x.x that has a subnet mask length of 17 or greater.

Since the incoming route is a /24, and 24 is greater than 17, the route will match the prefix list and be accepted.

Why other options are incorrect:

C: The option text appears to read "Change the ... value to 16". If this refers to le 16, it would enforce the mask to be exactly /16 or less, which still excludes /24.

D: Changing the default behavior to implicit allow defeats the purpose of a filter (security control) and is not a standard configuration step for fixing a single missing route.

The get router info ospf database brief output on FGT-2 clearly indicates that Area 0.0.0.5 is configured as a [Stub] area.

In OSPF, a Stub Area is specifically designed to reduce the size of the Link State Database (LSDB) on internal routers. The primary behavior of a Stub area is that it does not accept Type 5 (AS External) LSAs.

FGT-3 is the ASBR (Autonomous System Border Router) and is importing static routes, which are generated as Type 5 LSAs in the OSPF domain.

FGT-1 acts as the ABR (Area Border Router). Because Area 0.0.0.5 is a Stub area, FGT-1 blocks these Type 5 LSAs from entering Area 0.0.0.5.

Consequently, FGT-2 will not receive the specific external routes advertised by FGT-3. Instead, the ABR (FGT-1) injects a default route (0.0.0.0/0) into the Stub area to allow connectivity to the external world, which is visible in the database output.

While the question text mentions FGT-3 not receiving routes, the definitive configuration shown in the exhibit is the Stub area setting, which directly corresponds to the blocking of Type 5 LSA propagation (Option A).

To determine the correct reasons for the adjacency failure, we must analyze the standard OSPF real-time debug output (diagnose ip router ospf all enable or diagnose sniffer packet) typically provided in this exam exhibit.

Analyze the Debug Output:

The debug output in this specific question scenario typically displays an incoming Hello packet line: OSPF: RECV[Hello]: ... auth-type 0 ...

"RECV": Indicates the packet is coming from the Remote peer.

"auth-type 0": Indicates the Remote peer is sending "Null" (No) authentication.

Analyze the Failure:

The adjacency fails because the Local FortiGate is rejecting this packet.

If the Local FortiGate accepts "No Authentication", it would match auth-type 0 and form the adjacency.

Since it is failing (and producing a debug log), the Local FortiGate must be expecting a different authentication type (Type 1 Cleartext or Type 2 MD5).

Evaluate the Options:

A. The remote peer has either OSPF cleartext or MD5 authentication configured.

Incorrect. The debug shows auth-type 0 (No Auth) coming from the remote peer.

B. There is an OSPF authentication configuration mismatch.

Correct. One side is sending "No Auth" (Remote), and the other expects "Auth" (Local). This is a definition of a mismatch.

C. The local FortiGate does not have OSPF authentication configured.

Incorrect. If the Local unit had "No Auth" configured, it would match the Remote's auth-type 0, and the adjacency would come up. The failure implies the Local unit does have auth configured.

D. The local FortiGate has either OSPF cleartext or MD5 authentication configured.

Correct. Because the Local unit is rejecting the "No Auth" packet from the remote peer, it confirms that the Local unit has authentication enabled (expecting Type 1 or 2).

Conclusion: The breakdown of the OSPF negotiation shows that the Remote peer is sending no authentication (Type 0), while the Local FortiGate expects authentication, resulting in a mismatch.

The output on FGT-01 confirms that the device is actively encapsulating traffic and sending it as ESP packets (Protocol 50) out of port1 towards the IP address 97.86.16.52. The logs show outgoing packets, which confirms FGT-01 is attempting to initiate or maintain the tunnel and that NAT-Traversal is not being used (as it uses raw ESP).

The output on FGT-02, however, displays (no packets captured). This is significant because the sniffer command diagnose sniffer packet any 'esp' captures traffic at the network interface level (ingress), regardless of whether a matching VPN configuration exists on the receiving unit. The absence of packets proves that the ESP traffic generated by FGT-01 is physically not arriving at FGT-02's interface.

This behavior is explained by two primary factors:

Option A (Blocking): An intermediate device, such as an ISP router or firewall, is dropping Protocol 50 traffic. Unlike UDP 500/4500, raw ESP is often blocked by default on many networks or legacy devices.

Option C (Routing/Misconfiguration): If the administrator configured the wrong remote peer IP on FGT-01, the packets are being routed to a different destination entirely. Consequently, they never arrive at FGT-02 to be captured.

Option B is incorrect because even without a configured VPN tunnel, the sniffer would still display the incoming ESP packets if they were reaching the interface. Option D is incorrect because FGT-01 is sending ESP, making 'esp' the correct filter.