FCP_FAZ_AN-7.4 Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

In FortiOS 7.4.1 and FortiAnalyzer 7.4.1, the "Unhandled" status in logs typically signifies that the FortiGate encountered a security event but did not take any specific action to block or alter it. This usually occurs in the context of Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) logs.

IPS logs with action=pass: When the IPS engine inspects traffic and determines that it does not match any known attack signatures or violate any configured policies, it assigns the action "pass". Since no action is taken to block or modify this traffic, the status is logged as "Unhandled."

Let's look at why the other options are incorrect:

An AV log with action=quarantine: Antivirus (AV) logs with the action "quarantine" indicate that a file was detected as malicious and moved to quarantine. This is a definitive action, so the status wouldn't be "Unhandled."

A WebFilter log will action=dropped: WebFilter logs with the action "dropped" indicate that web traffic was blocked according to the configured web filtering policies. Again, this is a specific action taken, not an "Unhandled" event.

An AppControl log with action=blocked: Application Control logs with the action "blocked" mean that an application was denied access based on the defined application control rules. This is also a clear action, not "Unhandled."

The objective is to create a filter that identifies all login attempts to the FortiAnalyzer web interface (GUI) coming from Laptop1 (IP 10.1.1.100) and excludes the admin user. This filter should match any user other than admin.

Filter Components Analysis:

Operation-login: This portion of the filter will target login actions specifically, which is correct for filtering login attempts.

performed_on==’’GUI(10.1.1.100)’: This indicates that the login attempt must occur on the GUI interface and originate from the specified IP, which matches Laptop1's IP address (10.1.1.100). This ensures that the filter only matches GUI logins from this specific device.

user!=admin: This part excludes logins by the admin user, meeting the requirement to capture only non-admin users.

Option Analysis:

Option A: Correctly specifies the Operation-login, performed_on==’’GUI(10.1.1.100)’, and user!=admin. This setup effectively filters login attempts to the GUI from Laptop1, excluding the admin user.

Option B: Uses the incorrect IP 10.1.1.120 in the performed_on filter, which does not match Laptop1's IP (10.1.1.100).

Option C: This option includes srcip==10.1.1.100 and dstip==10.1.1.210 but incorrectly specifies user==admin instead of user!=admin, which does not match the requirement to exclude admin users.

Option D: This option does not specify the performed_on field to restrict it to the GUI and only includes dstip (destination IP) without srcip. It also incorrectly uses user!-admin instead of the correct syntax user!=admin.

Conclusion:

Correct Answer: A. Operation-login and performed_on==’’GUI(10.1.1.100)’ and user!=admin

This filter precisely captures the required conditions: login attempts from Laptop1 to the GUI interface by any user except admin.

In a FortiAnalyzer Fabric, devices can participate in a cluster or grouping if they meet specific compatibility criteria. Based on the outputs provided, let’s evaluate these criteria:

Version Compatibility:

All three devices, FortiAnalyzer1, FortiAnalyzer2, and FortiAnalyzer3, are running version v7.4.1-build0238, which is the same across the board. This version alignment is crucial because FortiAnalyzer Fabric requires that devices run compatible firmware versions for seamless communication and management.

Platform Type and Configuration:

All three devices are configured as Standalone in the HA mode, which allows them to operate independently but does not restrict their participation in a FortiAnalyzer Fabric. Each device is also on the FAZVM64-KVM platform type, ensuring hardware compatibility.

Global Settings:

Key settings such as adm-mode, adm-status, and adom-mode are consistent across all devices (adm-mode: normal, adm-status: enable, adom-mode: normal), which aligns with requirements for fabric integration and role assignment flexibility.

Each device also has the log-forward-cache-size set, which is relevant for forwarding logs within a fabric environment.

Based on the above analysis, all devices (FortiAnalyzer1, FortiAnalyzer2, and FortiAnalyzer3) meet the requirements to be part of a FortiAnalyzer Fabric.

The exhibit shows a graph that tracks two metrics over time: Receive Rate and Insert Rate. These two rates are crucial for understanding the log processing behavior in FortiAnalyzer.

Understanding Receive Rate and Insert Rate:

Receive Rate: This is the rate at which FortiAnalyzer is receiving logs from connected devices.

Insert Rate: This is the rate at which FortiAnalyzer is indexing (inserting) logs into its database for storage and analysis.

Data Point at 21:20:

At 21:20, the Insert Rate line is above the Receive Rate line, indicating that FortiAnalyzer is inserting logs into its database at a faster rate than it is receiving them. This situation suggests that FortiAnalyzer is able to keep up with the incoming logs and is possibly processing a backlog or temporarily received logs faster than new logs are coming in.

Option Analysis:

Option A - FortiAnalyzer is Indexing Logs Faster Than Logs are Being Received: This accurately describes the scenario at 21:20, where the Insert Rate exceeds the Receive Rate. This indicates that FortiAnalyzer is handling logs efficiently at that moment, with no backlog in processing.

Option B - The fortilogd Daemon is Ahead in Indexing by One Log: The data does not provide specific information about the fortilogd daemon’s log count, only the rates. This option is incorrect.

Option C - SQL Database Requires a Rebuild: High receive lag would imply a backlog in receiving and indexing logs, typically visible if the Receive Rate were significantly above the Insert Rate, which is not the case here.

Option D - FortiAnalyzer is Temporarily Buffering Logs to Index Older Logs First: There is no indication of buffering in this scenario. Buffering would usually occur if the Receive Rate were higher than the Insert Rate, indicating that FortiAnalyzer is storing logs temporarily due to indexing lag.

Conclusion:

Correct Answer: A. FortiAnalyzer is indexing logs faster than logs are being received.

The graph at 21:20 shows a higher Insert Rate than Receive Rate, indicating efficient log processing by FortiAnalyzer.