-- Exhibit --
Apr 27 19:11:09 company-fw init: low_mem_signal_processes: send signal 16 to routing
Apr 27 19:11:09 company-fw /kernel: KERNEL_MEMORY_CRITICAL: System low on free memory, notifying init (#4).
Apr 27 19:11:09 company-fw rpd[1268]: Processing low memory signal
Apr 27 19:11:09 company-fw init: low_mem_signal_processes: send signal 16 to idp-policy
Apr 27 19:11:09 company-fw idpd[1295]: Processing low memory signal
Apr 27 19:11:10 company-fw idpd[1987]: IDP_SECURITY_INSTALL_RESULT: security package install result
Done;Install aborted due to system reaching low memory condition!)
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You are troubleshooting a problem where the IDP signature database update on your Junos device has failed.
Referring to the exhibit, which action will resolve this problem?
Answer : C
References: http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB27082
-- Exhibit --
[edit security utm]
user@host# show
custom-objects {
url-pattern {
blocklist {
value [ http://badsite.com http://blocksite.com ];
}
acceptlist {
value http://juniper.net;
}
}
custom-url-category {
blacklist {
value blocklist;
}
whitelist {
value acceptlist;
}
}
}
feature-profile {
web-filtering {
url-whitelist whitelist;
url-blacklist blacklist;
type juniper-local;
juniper-local {
profile web-filter {
custom-block-message "Site is not allowed";
fallback-settings {
default log-and-permit;
}
}
}
}
}
utm-policy utm1 {
web-filtering {
http-profile web-filter;
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You set up Web filtering to allow employees to only access your internal website. You notice that employees are still able to reach websites outside of the blacklists.
Referring the exhibit, which parameter must be changed?
Answer : C
Incorrect:
A, D: These are options for content filtering as opposed to web filtering.
B: Fallback is for error conditions.
-- Exhibit --
user@host> show configuration security utm
custom-objects {
url-pattern {
block-juniper {
value *.spammer.com;
}
}
custom-url-category {
blacklist {
value block-juniper;
}
}
}
feature-profile {
anti-spam {
address-blacklist block-juniper;
sbl {
profile myprofile {
no-sbl-default-server;
spam-action block;
}
}
}
}
utm-policy wildcard-policy {
anti-spam {
smtp-profile myprofile;
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You added a blacklist to your antispam policy to block any e-mails from the spammer.com domain. However, your users are complaining that they are still receiving spam e-mails from that domain. You run the utm test-string test and confirm that the blacklist is not working.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing this problem?
Answer : A
You can configure entries on either list by IP address, e-mail address, or domain name. You can use asterisk * orquestion mark ? wildcards on the local lists. You must precede all wildcard URLs with http://. You can only use the asterisk * wildcard character if it is at the beginning of the URL and is followed by a period. You can only use the question mark ? wildcard character at the end of the URL. The following wildcard syntax is supported: http://*.juniper.net. The following wildcard syntax is not supported: http://*.
References:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/nsm2012.2/topics/task/configuration/threat-mitigation-local-list-antispam-configuring-nsm.html
-- Exhibit --
{hold:node0}
user@host1> show chassis cluster status
Cluster ID. 1 -
Node Priority Status Preempt Manual failover
Redundancy group: 0 , Failover count: 0
node0 1 hold no no node1 0 lost n/a n/a
{hold:node0}
user@host1> show configuration | no-more
system {
host-name host1;
root-authentication {
encrypted-password "$1$KI99zGk6$MbYFuBbpLffu9tn2.sI7l1"; ## SECRET-DATA
}
name-server {
172.16.10.100;
}
services {
ssh;
telnet;
web-management {
http;
}
}
syslog {
user * {
any emergency;
}
file messages {
any any;
authorization info;
}
file interactive-commands {
interactive-commands any;
}
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.210.14.131/26;
}
}
}
ge-0/0/8 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 172.16.1.1/24;
}
}
}
ge-0/0/9 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 172.16.10.1/24;
}
}
}
}
security {
policies {
default-policy {
permit-all;
}
}
zones {
functional-zone management {
interfaces {
ge-0/0/0.0;
}
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
ssh;
telnet;
ping;
traceroute;
http;
snmp;
}
}
}
security-zone Trust {
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
any-service;
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/9.0;
}
}
security-zone Untrust {
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
any-service;
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/8.0;
}
}
}
}
----------------
{hold:node1}
user@host2> show chassis cluster status
Cluster ID. 1 -
Node Priority Status Preempt Manual failover
Redundancy group: 0 , Failover count: 0
node0 0 lost n/a n/a node1 1 hold no no
{hold:node1}
user@host2> show configuration | no-more
system {
host-name host2;
root-authentication {
encrypted-password "$1$KI99zGk6$MbYFuBbpLffu9tn2.sI7l1"; ## SECRET-DATA
}
name-server {
172.16.10.100;
}
services {
ssh;
telnet;
web-management {
http;
}
}
syslog {
user * {
any emergency;
}
file messages {
any any;
authorization info;
}
file interactive-commands {
interactive-commands any;
}
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.210.14.132/26;
}
}
}
ge-0/0/8 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 172.16.1.1/24;
}
}
}
ge-0/0/9 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 172.16.10.1/24;
}
}
}
}
security {
policies {
default-policy {
permit-all;
}
}
zones {
functional-zone management {
interfaces {
ge-0/0/0.0;
}
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
ssh;
telnet;
ping;
traceroute;
http;
snmp;
}
}
}
security-zone Trust {
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
any-service;
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/9.0;
}
}
security-zone Untrust {
host-inbound-traffic {
system-services {
any-service;
}
}
interfaces {
ge-0/0/8.0;
}
}
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
A user attempted to form a chassis cluster on an SRX240; however, the cluster did not form. While investigating the problem, you see the output shown in the exhibit.
What is causing the problem?
Answer : D
Before we enable the SRX chassis, we need delete the configuration under ge-0/0/0 /. ge-0/0/0 will be fxp0.
-- Exhibit ""
Answer : D
The reth MAC addresses are calculated based on the cluster IDs and two similar cluster IDs in the same network might cause a network impact due to overlapping virtual MAC entries.
-- Exhibit --
{primary:node0}
user@host> show configuration chassis | display inheritance
cluster {
redundancy-group 1 {
node 0 priority 200;
node 1 priority 100;
interface-monitor {
ge-0/0/12 weight 255;
ge-5/0/12 weight 255;
}
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
A customer reports that their SRX failover is not working as expected. They expected node1 to become the primary node for the control plane when interface ge-
0/0/12 failed. However, when ge-0/0/12 failed, node0 remained the primary node. They send you the output shown in the exhibit.
What is causing this problem?
Answer : A
Node 0 remains the master for the routing engine and therefore the "control plane", because the configuration applies to RG1 not RG0. The data plane or the forwarding for RG1 would failover in this instance which might mean nothing for the customer.
Click the Exhibit Button.
Answer : D
Note: Preempt -
Yes: Mastership can be preempted based on priority.
No: Change in priority will not preempt the mastership.
References:
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB20672&actp=search http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.1x44/topics/reference/command-summary/show-chassis-cluster-status.html
Click the Exhibit button.
Answer : BC
B: If the Control Link is SFP-type port, change the transceiver on both ends. Ensure that the transceivers are same type (LX, SX, etc.) and that they are Juniper- branded parts.
C: Change the cable that you are using for control link. Is the interface link light GREEN now?
Yes - Previous link cable was faulty. Recommend to now reboot both the nodes simultaneously.
References:
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=kb20698&actp=search
Network users mention that they are having an issue downloading files. You determine that the issue began after you configured the full file-based antivirus feature on your SRX Series device. After reviewing the UTM antivirus statistics, you do not find any signs of blocked traffic because of threats.
Which configuration change solves this problem?
Answer : B
Enable intelligent prescreening and set its timeout setting to 1800 seconds and trickling setting (applicable only to HTTP) to 600 seconds. This means that if the device receives a packet within a 600-second period during a file transfer or while performing an antivirus scan, it should not time out.
References:
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.1x46/topics/example/utm-antivirus-full-feature-profile-configuring-cli.html
Click the Exhibit button.
Answer : C
Is the SMTP traffic delivered directly to you, or are you maybe using a trusted relay server in the cloud? If everything comes from a trusted server it might be a problem.
References:
https://forums.juniper.net/t5/SRX-Services-Gateway/anti-spam-no-working/m-p/272484
A customer downloaded and installed the IDP policy template. After copying the recommended templates and creating the needed policy, the customer deleted the templates. After the commit, the templates return.
Which command will prevent the templates from appearing again?
Answer : D
Delete or deactivate the commit script file. By deleting the commit script file, you avoid the risk of overwriting modifications to the template when you commit the configuration. Run one of the following commands: user@host# delete system scripts commit file templates.xsl user@host# deactivate system scripts commit file templates.xsl
References:
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.1x47/topics/task/configuration/idp-predefined-policy-template-downloading-and-using-cli.html
Click the exhibit button.
Answer : C
An interface for a security zone can be thought of as a doorway through which TCP/IP traffic can pass between that zone and any other zone.
Through the policies you define, you can permit traffic between zones to flow in one direction or in both. With the routes that you define, you specify the interfaces that traffic from one zone to another must use
Note: A security zone is a collection of one or more network segments requiring the regulation of inbound and outbound traffic through policies. Security zones are logical entities to which one or more interfaces are bound.
References:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1x44/information-products/pathway-pages/security/security-basic-zone-interface.pdf
Click the Exhibit button.
Answer : B
Assume that inbound ssh, ftp, and ping traffic should be permitted from the untrusted zone. Then you should do the following:
[edit security zones]
root# set security zone untrust host-inbound-traffic ssh
root# set security zone untrust host-inbound-traffic ftp
root# set security zone untrust host-inbound-traffic ping
Note: For SRX Series branch devices, a factory default security policy is provided that:
Allows all traffic from the trust zone to the untrust zone.
Allows all traffic between trusted zones, that is from the trust zone to intrazone trusted zones.
Denies all traffic from the untrust zone to the trust zone.
References:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-configure-srx-security-zones-with-junos.html http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.3x48/topics/concept/security-srx-device-zone-and-policy-understanding.html
Click the exhibit button.
Answer : B
Example of IKE proxy-id mismatch (see line 11 onwards):
1 [Apr 2 10:57:34]SA-CFG lookup for Phase 2 failed for local:172.16.123.2, remote:172.16.123.1 IKEv1
2. [Apr 2 10:57:34]ikev2_fb_spd_select_qm_sa_cb: IKEv2 SA select failed with error TS unacceptable
3. [Apr 2 10:57:34]ikev2_fb_spd_select_qm_sa_cb: SA selection failed, no matching proposal (neg df6800)
.
.
.
11 [Apr 2 10:57:34]iked_pm_ike_spd_notify_received: Negotiation is already failed. Reason: TS unacceptable.
[Apr 2 10:57:34]QM notification `(null)' (40001) (size 8 bytes) from 172.16.123.1 for protocol Reserved spi[0...3]=eb 7b b2 b4
[Apr 2 10:57:34]ike_st_i_private: Start
[Apr 2 10:57:34]ike_st_o_qm_hash_2: Start
[Apr 2 10:57:34]ike_st_o_qm_sa_values: Start
Note: "A proxy-ID is used during phase 2 of Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Virtual Private Network (VPN) negotiations. Both ends of a VPN tunnel either have a proxy-ID manually configured (route-based VPN) or just use a combination of source IP, destination IP, and service in a tunnel policy. When phase 2 of IKE is negotiated, each end compares the configured local and remote proxy-ID with what is actually received. The configured proxy ID must match with what is received from the other device that is negotiating an IKE/IPsec tunnel.
References: http://www.twine-networks.com/blog/posts/5-troubleshooting-ipsec-log-messages
Click the Exhibit button.
Answer : A
The SOFTWARE on both standalone devices must be the same Junos OS version.
Verify using this command on both devices:
root> show version
Model: srx220h -
JUNOS Software Release [11.4R7.5]
References: http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21312&actp=search
Have any questions or issues ? Please dont hesitate to contact us