New Release FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist Questions

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 8.8.8.8/32 route is visible in the OSPF database on FGT-B but not installed into the routing table—the most likely explanation is that FGT-B is filtering it from being installed.

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.