Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Fortinet Exam NSE7_LED-7.0 Topic 1 Question 40 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE7_LED-7.0 exam
Question #: 40
Topic #: 1
[All NSE7_LED-7.0 Questions]

Exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit showing a network topology and SSID settings.

FortiGate is configured to use an external captive portal However wireless users are not able to see the captive portal login page

Which configuration change should the administrator make to fix the problem?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

According to the exhibit, the network topology and SSID settings show that FortiGate is configured to use an external captive portal hosted on FortiAuthenticator, which is connected to a Windows AD server for user authentication. However, wireless users are not able to see the captive portal login page, which means that they are not redirected to the external captive portal URL. Therefore, option B is true because adding the FortiAuthenticator and WindowsAD address objects as exempt destinations services will allow the wireless users to access the external captive portal URL without being blocked by the firewall policy. Option A is false because enabling NAT in the firewall policy with the ID 13 will not affect the redirection to the external captive portal URL, but rather the source IP address of the wireless traffic. Option C is false because enabling the captive-portal-exempt option in the firewall policy with the ID 12 will bypass the captive portal authentication for the wireless users, which is not the desired outcome. Option D is false because removing the guest.portal user group in the firewall policy with the ID 12 will prevent the wireless users from being authenticated by FortiGate, which is required for accessing the external captive portal.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Delsie
1 months ago
This question is like a game of 'Captive Portal Escape Room'. I bet the answer is hidden in the fine print somewhere.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
1 months ago
I have a hunch that Option C is the way to go. Enabling the captive-portal-exempt option might do the trick, but I'd also check the wireless SSID settings just to be sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luisa
1 months ago
Hmm, Option D seems a bit counterintuitive. Why would you remove the guest.portal user group? That doesn't sound like the right solution to me.
upvoted 0 times
Luisa
18 days ago
User 3: Yeah, removing the guest.portal user group doesn't seem like the best solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cyril
1 months ago
User 2: I agree, enabling the captive-portal-exempt option could fix the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Agustin
1 months ago
User 1: I think Option C might be the right choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tamekia
2 months ago
Hmm, that's an interesting point. I'll have to reconsider my answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Martha
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is D) Remove the guest.portal user group in the firewall policy with the ID 12.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margot
2 months ago
I'm leaning towards Option B. If the wireless users can't see the captive portal, it might be an issue with the authentication process. Adding the FortiAuthenticator and WindowsAD address objects could help bypass that.
upvoted 0 times
Kimbery
18 days ago
I'm not sure, but I think Option B is more likely to address the issue with the captive portal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Junita
1 months ago
But what about enabling NAT in the firewall policy with the ID 13? Could that also fix the problem?
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
1 months ago
I agree, adding the FortiAuthenticator and WindowsAD address objects might solve the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Micah
2 months ago
I think Option B is a good choice. It could help with the authentication process.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tamekia
2 months ago
I think the answer is C) Enable the captive-portal-exempt option in the firewall policy with the ID 12.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nakisha
2 months ago
Option C looks promising, but I'm not sure if that's the right approach. Shouldn't we also check the captive portal settings on the FortiGate?
upvoted 0 times
Lili
1 months ago
Yeah, that's a good point. Let's make sure everything is configured correctly there as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
1 months ago
I think we should also check the captive portal settings on the FortiGate.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77