JN0-636 Exam Dumps : Security, Professional (JNCIP-SEC)

To troubleshoot the traffic problem using the match criteria, you need to use the show security match-policies CLI command. The other options are incorrect because:

• A. The show security policy-report CLI command displays the policy report, which is a summary of the policy usage statistics, such as the number of sessions, bytes, and packets that match each policy. It does not show the match criteria or the reason why the traffic is not hitting the policy1.
• B. The show security application-tracking counters CLI command displays the application tracking counters, which are the statistics of the application usage, such as the number of sessions, bytes, and packets that match each application. It does not show the match criteria or the reason why the traffic is not hitting the policy2.
• D. The request security policies check CLI command checks the validity and consistency of the security policies, such as the syntax, the references, and the conflicts. It does not show the match criteria or the reason why the traffic is not hitting the policy3.

Therefore, the correct answer is C. You need to use the show security match-policies CLI command to troubleshoot the traffic problem using the match criteria. The show security match-policies CLI command displays the policies that match the specified criteria, such as the source and destination addresses, the zones, the protocols, and the ports. It also shows the action and the hit count of each matching policy. You can use this command to verify if the traffic is matching the expected policy or not, and if not, what policy is blocking or rejecting the traffic4

The appropriate mitigation actions for the selected incident are to block malware IP addresses (download server or CnC server) and to deploy IVP integration (if configured) to confirm if the endpoint has executed the malware and is infected. This is because the incident shows a progression level of “Download” in the kill chain, which means that the malware has been downloaded and is likely to be executed. Blocking the malware IP addresses can prevent further communication with the malicious server and stop the malware from receiving commands or exfiltrating data. Deploying IVP integration can help verify the infection status of the endpoint and provide additional information about the malware behavior and impact. IVP integration is an optional feature that allows the ATP Appliance to interact with third-party endpoint security solutions such as Carbon Black, Cylance, and CrowdStrike. References:

• Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance Solution Brief
• Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance Datasheet
• [Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance Mitigation Actions]
• [Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance IVP Integration]

The exhibit shows the configuration of filter-based forwarding on an SRX Series device. Filter-based forwarding is a feature that allows the device to use firewall filters to direct traffic to different routing instances based on the match criteria. In this scenario, the device has two routing instances - ISP-1 and ISP-2 - and two firewall filters - FBF and FBF-ISP-1. The FBF filter is applied to the ge-0/0/1 interface as an input filter. The FBF filter has one term that matches the traffic from the 172.25.0.0/24 network and directs it to the ISP-1 routing instance. The ISP-1 routing instance has a static route to the next hop 172.20.0.2. The FBF-ISP-1 filter is applied to the ge-0/0/0 interface as an output filter. The FBF-ISP-1 filter has one term that matches the traffic to the 172.20.0.2 next hop and sets the forwarding class to expedited-forwarding.

The problem in this scenario is that the traffic from the other network (172.25.1.0/24) is not being forwarded to the upstream 172.21.0.2 neighbor. This is because the FBF filter does not have a term that accepts the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network. The FBF filter only has one term that matches the traffic from the 172.25.0.0/24 network and directs it to the ISP-1 routing instance. The traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network does not match this term and is therefore discarded by the implicit deny action at the end of the filter. The traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network should be forwarded to the ISP-2 routing instance, which has a static default route to the next hop 172.21.0.2.

To solve this problem, you must add another term to the FBF filter to accept the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network. This term should have the action accept, which means that the traffic will be forwarded according to the routing table of the master routing instance. The master routing instance has a static default route to the ISP-2 routing instance, which in turn has a static default route to the next hop 172.21.0.2. By adding this term, the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network will be forwarded to the upstream 172.21.0.2 neighbor as expected.

The configuration of the new term in the FBF filter could look something like this:

[edit firewall family inet filter FBF] term 2 { from { source-address { 172.25.1.0/24; } } then { accept; } }

References: Juniper Security, Professional (JNCIP-SEC) Reference Materials source and documents: