Most Recent Juniper JN0-636 Exam Dumps

According to the Juniper documentation, the local identity for an IPsec VPN tunnel must match the remote identity of the peer device. The local identity can be configured as an IP address, a hostname, a distinguished name, or an advpn identifier. The advpn identifier is used for dynamic VPNs that support multiple remote endpoints. In the exhibit, the corporate device has the local identity configured as inet advpn, which means it expects the branch1 device to have the same remote identity. However, the branch1 device has the local identity configured as inet, which does not match the corporate device's remote identity. Therefore, the IKE negotiation fails and the IPsec tunnel is not established.To solve this problem, the local identity on the branch1 device should be changed to inet advpn, so that it matches the corporate device's remote identity.Reference: [Configuring an IKE Gateway]1, [Configuring Local and Remote Identities]2

1: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-ipsec/topics/task/configuration/security-ike-gateway-configuring.html2: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-ipsec/topics/topic-map/security-ipsec-vpn-identities.html

The exhibit shows the configuration of filter-based forwarding on an SRX Series device. Filter-based forwarding is a feature that allows the device to use firewall filters to direct traffic to different routing instances based on the match criteria. In this scenario, the device has two routing instances - ISP-1 and ISP-2 - and two firewall filters - FBF and FBF-ISP-1. The FBF filter is applied to the ge-0/0/1 interface as an input filter. The FBF filter has one term that matches the traffic from the 172.25.0.0/24 network and directs it to the ISP-1 routing instance. The ISP-1 routing instance has a static route to the next hop 172.20.0.2. The FBF-ISP-1 filter is applied to the ge-0/0/0 interface as an output filter. The FBF-ISP-1 filter has one term that matches the traffic to the 172.20.0.2 next hop and sets the forwarding class to expedited-forwarding.

The problem in this scenario is that the traffic from the other network (172.25.1.0/24) is not being forwarded to the upstream 172.21.0.2 neighbor. This is because the FBF filter does not have a term that accepts the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network. The FBF filter only has one term that matches the traffic from the 172.25.0.0/24 network and directs it to the ISP-1 routing instance. The traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network does not match this term and is therefore discarded by the implicit deny action at the end of the filter. The traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network should be forwarded to the ISP-2 routing instance, which has a static default route to the next hop 172.21.0.2.

To solve this problem, you must add another term to the FBF filter to accept the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network. This term should have the action accept, which means that the traffic will be forwarded according to the routing table of the master routing instance. The master routing instance has a static default route to the ISP-2 routing instance, which in turn has a static default route to the next hop 172.21.0.2. By adding this term, the traffic from the 172.25.1.0/24 network will be forwarded to the upstream 172.21.0.2 neighbor as expected.

The configuration of the new term in the FBF filter could look something like this:

[edit firewall family inet filter FBF] term 2 { from { source-address { 172.25.1.0/24; } } then { accept; } }

According to the Juniper documentation, the infected host score is a global setting that determines the minimum threat level required for a host to be considered infected and blocked by Juniper ATP Cloud. The infected host score can be configured from 1 to 10, where 1 is the lowest and 10 is the highest. The default infected host score is 5, which means that any host with a threat level of 5 or higher will be automatically blocked by Juniper ATP Cloud. However, the infected host score can be changed to a higher value, such as 6 or 7, to reduce the number of false positives and allow more traffic to pass through. In the exhibit, the host has a threat level of 5, which indicates that it is infected with malware and has attempted to contact command-and-control servers. However, some of the events have not been automatically mitigated, which means that the host has not been blocked by Juniper ATP Cloud. A possible reason for this behavior is that the infected host score is globally set above a threat level of 5, such as 6 or 7, which means that the host does not meet the minimum threshold for blocking. Therefore, the correct answer is C.The infected host score is globally set above a threat level of 5.Reference: [Configuring the Infected Host Score]1, [Compromised Hosts: More Information]2

1: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/sky-atp/atp-cloud-user-guide/topics/task/sky-atp-infected-host-score.html2: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/sky-atp/atp-cloud-user-guide/topics/concept/sky-atp-infected-host-overview.html