Q: 9
After correcting a policy package configuration issue, you want to prevent administrators from
repeating the mistake that caused the issue.
Which FortiManager approach best meets this need?
Options
Discussion
Makes sense to pick D here. Workflow approval actually blocks the same misconfig from being applied again. Pretty confident on this one.
Option D but does "best" here mean totally prevents or just reduces risk? If repeat mistakes aren't critical, C might work too.
Honestly I'd go with C, since requiring change notes at least flags when configs are updated for review.
D , workflow approval actually stops repeat errors while C is just documentation. A is a distractor here.
Anyone tried implementing workflow approval in a real FortiManager lab? Official docs and hands-on labs explain this approach well, as it really blocks repeat misconfigs. I think D makes sense here but open to other experiences.
Makes sense to me that D is the best fit. Workflow approval adds a real checkpoint before any policy changes get pushed, so mistakes can't slip through as easily. Change notes (C) just capture what happened, but don't actually prevent someone from making the same config error again. Pretty sure workflow is what you'd want here, agree?
Why not workflow (D), since change notes (C) just document instead of actually stopping the same config mistake happening again?
D imo, saw a similar question in practice and workflow approval is what actually prevents repeat mistakes. Confident that's what they're testing.
Tricky one but I'd go with D since workflow adds an approval layer. Not 100% sure though.
Be respectful. No spam.