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 NSE8_812 Topic 4 Question 37 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE8_812 exam
Question #: 37
Topic #: 4
[All NSE8_812 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

Given the exhibit, which two statements about FortiGate FGSP HA cluster behavior are correct? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B, D

Bis correct because the OCSP check of the certificate can be combined with a certificate revocation list (CRL). This means that the FortiGate will check the OCSP server to see if the certificate has been revoked, and it will also check the CRL to see if the certificate has been revoked.

Dis correct because if the OCSP server is unreachable, authentication will succeed if the certificate matches the CA. This is because the FortiGate will fall back to using the CRL if the OCSP server is unreachable.

The other options are incorrect. Option A is incorrect because OCSP checks can go to other OCSP servers, not just the FortiAuthenticator. Option C is incorrect because OCSP certificate responses can be cached by the FortiGate.

References:

Configuring SSL VPN authentication using digital certificates | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.2.0 - Fortinet Document Library

Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.2.0 - Fortinet Document Library

Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.2.0 - Fortinet Document Library


Contribute your Thoughts:

Hector
1 months ago
Hmm, I wonder if the answer key includes a secret 'E' option that says 'All of the above, plus a dance routine to distract the enemy during failover.' *chuckles* Gotta be ready for anything in this industry, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Felicitas
11 days ago
C) Yeah, you never know what surprises might come up in the world of networking!
upvoted 0 times
...
Loren
13 days ago
B) I wish there was an option like that, it would make HA clusters a lot more fun.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merissa
23 days ago
A) Haha, that would definitely make things more interesting during failover!
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tracey
2 months ago
A and C seem like the right answers. I mean, who wouldn't want to run VRRP and FGSP together? The more redundancy, the better, right? *laughs* Though I'm not sure I'd want to be the one upgrading those clusters!
upvoted 0 times
Lorrie
22 days ago
Lanie: I can only imagine the stress of upgrading one cluster member at a time and hoping for a smooth failover.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lanie
23 days ago
User 2: Definitely, the more redundancy, the better. But upgrading those clusters does sound like a daunting task.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgiann
1 months ago
User 1: Yeah, I agree. Having both VRRP and FGSP running together sounds like a solid plan.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Maryann
2 months ago
B is definitely wrong. Session synchronization over Layer 2? That's just asking for trouble. Layer 3 is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chana
2 months ago
Option D sounds like the way to go. Upgrading one at a time and failover during firmware upgrades sounds like it would minimize downtime. Very practical!
upvoted 0 times
Janey
1 months ago
Definitely, having a failover plan in place is key for maintaining continuous network availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ryan
1 months ago
I agree, it's important to have a smooth upgrade process to avoid disruptions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Holley
1 months ago
Yes, minimizing downtime is crucial for network reliability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenna
2 months ago
Option D sounds like the way to go. Upgrading one at a time and failover during firmware upgrades sounds like it would minimize downtime. Very practical!
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Shad
2 months ago
I think option C is correct, as it allows you to choose which sessions to synchronize between FGSP cluster members. That's a really useful feature.
upvoted 0 times
Heidy
28 days ago
Yes, it gives you more control over the synchronization process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anglea
1 months ago
I agree, option C is really useful for selectively synchronizing specific sessions between FGSP cluster members.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Paris
2 months ago
I'm not sure about VRRP high availability. Can someone explain why A is correct?
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
2 months ago
I agree with Kristine. Session synchronization over Layer 3 makes sense for high availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristine
2 months ago
I think the correct statements are B and D.
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