NSE6_EDR_AD-7.0 Questions and Answers

The correct answer is A. Core.

For FortiAnalyzer / FortiAnalyzer Cloud integration, the FortiEDR 7.0.0 Administration Guide states that one prerequisite is “A Jumpbox with connectivity to FortiAnalyzer.” The same section says to refer to Setting up the FortiEDR Core for details about installing a FortiEDR Core and configuring it as a Jumpbox. In the connector configuration, the guide also states that the Jumpbox field is used to select the FortiEDR Jumpbox that will communicate with FortiAnalyzer or FortiAnalyzer Cloud.

So, the FortiEDR component associated with JumpBox capability is the Core. The Central Manager must have connectivity to Fortinet Cloud Services, but it is not the component configured as the JumpBox. The Aggregator handles registration, configuration, and monitoring between Collectors/Cores and Central Manager, and the Reputation Server is unrelated to FortiAnalyzer JumpBox communication in this context.

=========

The correct answers are A. Device and user name and D. IP address and MAC address .

The FortiEDR 7.0.0 Administration Guide states that the GDPR feature is implemented in Administration > Settings > Personal Data Handling . It is used to remove relevant data for an employee or FortiEDR user who no longer has access to or uses the FortiEDR system. The guide explicitly identifies the personal data as device name, IP address, MAC address, and user name . It further states: “You must remove all device name, IP address, MAC address, and user name data from FortiEDR in order to fully comply with the GDPR standard.”

Therefore, installed applications and installed OS name are not the required GDPR personal data types in this FortiEDR procedure. The required removal is performed iteratively for the employee’s/user’s device name , IP address , MAC address , and user name . The guide also instructs administrators to continue removing the other required data: IP address, MAC address, and user name , and to delete any reports that may contain the user’s data.

The correct answers are B and D .

The exhibit shows a Process Creation activity event where cmd.exe is the source process and PING.EXE is the target process. The displayed Executing user is R2D2-KVM63\fortinet, and the command line shows fortinet.com, which means the user fortinet executed a ping command targeting fortinet.com.

The FortiEDR guide explains that Threat Hunting activity events consist of a source , an action , and a target . It also states that Process Actions have another process as the target and include process-related actions such as Process Creation .

The exhibit also shows file-related details for the executable, including the executable path, product, SHA1 hash, and command line. In FortiEDR Threat Hunting, process execution events are tied to executable-file metadata, so the event is associated with the executable file involved in the process action. This supports B in the exam’s intended wording.

Option A is not reliable because the screenshot does not prove MITRE details are unavailable; it only shows that no MITRE detail is visible in the current portion of the details pane. The guide states that MITRE indications appear when an activity event has related MITRE information.

Option C is wrong because the screenshot shows the process status as Running and does not show a block indicator. A green check does not mean blocked; it indicates a trusted/signed/allowed status context. There is no evidence that PING.EXE was blocked.

The correct answers are C and D .

The exhibit shows the incident classification as Malicious . In the Activity Audit, the entry from FortinetCloudServices states: “Classification change: Malicious” and also says the file is classified as malicious. This directly proves that FCS classified the event as malicious . The FortiEDR guide explains that the audit history shows the chronology for classifying the security event and displays details when FortiEDR Cloud Service (FCS) reclassifies a security event after its initial classification by the Core.

The exhibit also states that the file was “Detected as Unknown malware.” This supports option D in the exam wording: FortiEDR/FCS has classified the file as malicious, but it is being identified as unknown malware , meaning it was not recognized as a known malware family/signature at the time of classification. The guide explains that FCS enhances classification using data enrichment, automated and manual analysis, file analysis, sandboxing, machine learning flow analysis, commonality analysis, crowdsourced data deduction, and other methods, so “unknown malware” can still be classified malicious by FCS.

Option A is wrong because the exhibit shows Malicious , not Suspicious. Option B is wrong because the incident status is Unhandled , not resolved or handled.

=========

The correct answer is D .

The FortiEDR 7.0.0 Administration Guide explains that FortiEDR displays two severity ratings for applications: NIST Severity and ACI Severity . NIST Severity is based on FortiEDR’s vulnerability scoring system using the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. ACI Severity, however, is Adversary Centric Intelligence provided by FortiRecon and FortiGuard Threat Analysts, covering dark web, open-source, and technical threat intelligence, including threat actor insights . This helps administrators proactively assess risk, respond faster to incidents, understand attackers, and protect assets.

The guide also states that FortiEDR helps analysts prioritize alerts and incidents using risk factors such as severity of vulnerabilities , relevance of threat intelligence feeds , and severity of affected endpoints , so effort is focused on the most significant organizational risks.

Therefore, the application with Medium NIST severity but active ACI evidence of adversary targeting should be prioritized over an application with Critical NIST severity but Unknown ACI rating , because active adversary-centric intelligence indicates current attacker interest or exploitation relevance. In plain terms: a theoretical critical vulnerability matters, but an actively targeted vulnerability is the fire you put out first.

Option B is tempting but incomplete because it relies only on NIST/CVSS severity. FortiEDR’s ACI rating exists specifically to add adversary context to prioritization. Option A is wrong because FortiEDR does not treat all vulnerable applications equally. Option C is wrong because asset criticality can matter, but the guide does not say prioritization depends only on asset criticality.

=========