Fortinet FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

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.

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.

The reported symptom—users unable to access any websites despite no explicit blocks in the profile—points to systemic connectivity or configuration issues rather than specific URL filtering rules.

Option B (SSL/TLS Inspection): When Deep Inspection is enabled, the FortiGate acts as a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) and re-signs server certificates using its own CA. If the clients (browsers) do not trust this CA (i.e., the certificate is not installed in their Trusted Root store), they will reject the connection with certificate errors, effectively preventing access to all HTTPS websites.

Option D (DNS): Web browsing relies on DNS resolution. If the configured DNS server is unreachable or failing, the FortiGate (or the client) cannot resolve FQDNs to IP addresses. Consequently, browsers will fail to load any page, resulting in a total loss of web access.

Option E (License): If the FortiGuard Web Filtering license expires, the FortiGate can no longer query the FortiGuard Distribution Network (FDN) for ratings. By default, or if the allow-when-rating-error setting is disabled (a common security practice), the FortiGate will block all web traffic that it cannot rate, often displaying a "Web Filter Service Error" or invalid license page.

Option A is incorrect because clearing the cache only increases latency, it does not block traffic. Option C is incorrect because webfilter-force-off is typically used to disable the service (often allowing traffic to bypass checks if the service is down), rather than blocking it.