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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Palo Alto Networks Exam PCNSC Topic 3 Question 72 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's Palo Alto Networks Certified Network Security Consultant exam
Question #: 72
Topic #: 3
[All Palo Alto Networks Certified Network Security Consultant Questions]

Which three user authentication services can be modified in to provide the Palo Alto Networks NGFW with both username and role names? (Choose three.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C, D, E

by Harrison at Apr 10, 2024, 04:57 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium PCNSC Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Georgiann
5 hours ago
I think the answer is LDAP, TACACS+, and RADIUS.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chauncey
22 days ago
Yeah, TACACS+ is a solid option too. I'm just hoping they don't throw us a curve ball and include something obscure like Kerberos. That would really put my authentication protocol knowledge to the test!
upvoted 0 times
...
Eun
22 days ago
Wait, isn't PAP like, the most basic authentication protocol out there? I don't think that would be a good fit for the Palo Alto NGFW. But I could be wrong, so I'm open to input from the group.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yun
23 days ago
Good point. SAML does seem like a more logical choice compared to RADIUS. Although, TACACS+ could also potentially work since it's often used for network access control and can provide user role information.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catalina
24 days ago
I agree with you on LDAP and Kerberos, but I'm not sure about RADIUS. Wouldn't SAML be a better choice since it's a popular identity federation protocol that can pass along user attributes like roles?
upvoted 0 times
...
Hayley
24 days ago
Ooh, TACACS+ - I remember that one from my networking class. I think that might be a good choice too, along with LDAP and SAML.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buck
25 days ago
Hmm, this is an interesting question. It's testing our knowledge of user authentication services and which ones can provide both username and role information to the Palo Alto Networks NGFW. I'm thinking LDAP, RADIUS, and Kerberos are the three correct answers here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanna
25 days ago
I'm leaning towards LDAP, RADIUS, and Kerberos. But I'm curious to see if anyone has a different perspective on this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurel
26 days ago
SAML, LDAP, and RADIUS - those are my picks. I feel pretty confident about those, but I'm open to hearing what the others think too.
upvoted 0 times
Quinn
4 days ago
SAML, LDAP, and RADIUS seem to be the popular choices here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elbert
5 days ago
I'm pretty confident it's SAML, LDAP, and Kerberos that can do the job.
upvoted 0 times
...
Albert
6 days ago
I'm leaning towards LDAP, RADIUS, and TACACS+ as the correct options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Timothy
7 days ago
I believe it's PAP, SAML, and RADIUS that can provide both username and role names.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
8 days ago
I think TACACS+, LDAP, and Kerberos could be the right ones.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miles
9 days ago
I'm not too sure about RADIUS, but SAML and LDAP seem like good options for sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Germaine
10 days ago
I agree with you, I also think SAML, LDAP, and RADIUS are the correct choices.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Bronwyn
28 days ago
Hmm, I think I've worked with a few of these authentication services before, but I'm not sure which ones can be modified for the Palo Alto NGFW. This is going to require some careful thinking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Renea
30 days ago
Man, this question looks tricky. I'm not sure I know the exact answer, but I'm going to give it my best shot.
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