You've got to add both a custom hash allowlist (A) and a blocklist (D) when making your own malware detection profile in Netskope. It lets you tune false positives and make sure known threats get blocked. Pretty sure remediation and quarantine are handled elsewhere, not as core detection profile steps. Anyone see it different?
Q: 11
You use Netskope to provide a default Malware Scan profile for use with your malware policies. Also,
you want to create a custom malware detection profile.
In this scenario, what are two additional requirements to complete this task? (Choose two.)
Options
Discussion
Not sure why C isn't right here. Option B and C.
D imo, but is the focus on 'default' or 'custom' profile requirements? That would totally change which two I pick.
Option B and C. The question asks for additional requirements, so remediation or quarantine profiles sound needed when customizing detection.
I see why a lot of folks think B or C, but I keep coming back to A and D. The profile setup part asks for hash lists, not remediation stuff. I think that's the trick here. Disagree?
A and D here. Custom detection profile setup in Netskope always needs hash lists for allow/deny, not remediation or quarantine profiles, those are separate steps. Pretty sure that's what the question is aiming at, but let me know if you disagree.
A and D tbh, C trips people up but remediation isn’t required to build the profile itself.
Probably A and D here, since creating a custom malware detection profile is all about adding custom hash allowlist and blocklist. Remediation or quarantine steps come afterwards, not at this setup stage. Pretty sure this lines up with Netskope docs but open if anyone disagrees.
Isn’t B a common distractor here? You really just need the hash allowlist and blocklist for custom profiles, not remediation steps.
No doubt here, A and D are the two you need for a custom malware detection profile setup.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 12
You are implementing tenant access security and governance controls for privileged users. You want
to start with controls that are natively available within the Netskope Cloud Security Platform and do
not require external or third-party integration.
Which three access controls would you use in this scenario? (Choose three.)
Options
Discussion
A B C
My pick: A B C. D (MFA) looks tempting but it's not native here.
ABC fits since IP allowlisting, login attempt limits, and RBAC are all built into Netskope without extra integrations. D (MFA) needs a third-party connector, not native. Pretty sure that's what they're after but open to corrections.
Option D (MFA) seems like a solid pick too, since it's recommended, but pretty sure Netskope requires external integration for MFA. Trap option there. ABC fits native controls best.
C or D, labs and official doc help but I'm stuck on which is truly native here.
Definitely A, B, C on this one. Those are all native controls in Netskope without pulling in outside integrations for MFA or advanced behavior analytics. Not 100% if E might've tripped me up at first but pretty sure it's not an option here. Disagree?
A B C for sure, official docs and exam samples both call these out as native controls.
B tbh, official guide and practice labs both highlight only A B C for built-in controls.
Yeah, looks like A B C to me. Only those are natively built into the platform, the others need extra setup or aren’t available. Pretty sure that's how Netskope expects it, but ok if someone disagrees.
A B C imo. Only those are natively available in Netskope, since MFA (D) requires external integration. Saw a similar question in some practice tests, and it always points to built-in features first. If I remember right, E isn't a native option either. Correct me if I'm missing anything.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 13
You are currently migrating users away from a legacy proxy to the Netskope client in the company’s
corporate offices. You have deployed the client to a pilot group; however, when the client attempts
to connect to Netskope, it fails to establish a tunnel.
In this scenario, what would cause this problem?
Options
Discussion
Makes sense to pick B, since UDP 443 is needed for the DTLS tunnel with Netskope. If the firewall blocks it, no tunnel forms at all. Pretty sure that's the main reason, unless TCP fallback's in use.
Option B for this one. UDP 443 is required for the initial DTLS tunnel, and if that’s blocked, the client can’t even negotiate a fallback unless TCP fallback is enabled (which isn’t mentioned here). Pretty sure C would only matter if all access to EPoT was denied, not just DTLS. Open to arguments if anyone sees it differently.
Pretty sure it's B, since UDP 443 needs to be open for the DTLS tunnel and that's usually blocked by firewalls in corporate environments. Nothing else here would fully prevent the client from connecting at this stage. Agree?
I think it's B. Blocking UDP 443 stops the DTLS tunnel so Netskope can't connect at all.
B, not C. Saw a similar question in an exam report and blocking UDP 443 breaks the DTLS tunnel every time, no tunnel forms without it.
C/D? If TCP fallback is disabled on the pilot config, C starts to make more sense. Otherwise B.
B makes the most sense here. If the firewall is blocking UDP 443, Netskope's DTLS tunnel won't even get off the ground. No mention of TCP fallback, so C isn't it. Pretty sure that's what breaks the pilot group, unless I'm missing something.
B tbh. Official guides plus lab testing around firewalls and protocol handling helped me spot UDP 443 as the showstopper here.
Sounds like B here. Blocking UDP 443 stops DTLS entirely, so the tunnel won't come up if fallback isn't allowed on the client. Pretty sure that's what they're asking for, but I get why some folks think C too depending on config. Agree?
C , had something like this in a mock where blocking EPoT caused tunnel fail.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 14
Your organization has three main locations with 30.000 hosts in each location. You are planning to
deploy Netskope using iPsec tunnels for security.
What are two considerations to make a successful connection in this scenario? (Choose two.)
Options
Discussion
Definitely has to be C and D here. With 30k hosts per site, you're gonna need to consider tunnel load and redundancy-browser or OS type doesn't really flip the answer unless it was about endpoint support.
Feels like C and D
These Netskope exam questions always spin in circles, it's C and D.
Had something like this in a mock. Pretty sure C and D are right since you need to plan for enough capacity (host count) and have redundancy with multiple POPs. Don't think browsers or OS come into play for IPsec tunnel sizing. Anyone disagree?
B tbh, OS compatibility can mess with IPsec tunnels so I'd pick B and D.
C/D tbh, tunnel capacity and redundant POPs are what you need for big envs like this.
C and D tbh. Option B is tempting but it's a trap for tunnel planning on this scale.
I don’t think B is right here, even though OS can matter. The question is about making the IPsec tunnels work reliably at scale, so C (redundant POPs) and D (number of hosts) are what really count. OS/browser come into play more for client-side app issues. Agree?
D imo, you gotta consider number of hosts and redundant POPs for large scale. C and D.
B and D. OS compatibility can cause headaches in big rollouts especially with IPsec client configs, plus you always have to plan for the number of hosts scaling.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 15
Your company asks you to use Netskope to integrate with Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
vendors such as Crowdstrike.
Which two requirements are needed for a successful integration and sharing of threat data? (Choose
two.)
Options
Discussion
A and C. Device classification (B) feels like a decoy since it's not really needed for the EDR integration itself, just for separate device-based controls. You definitely need an API Client ID for Crowdstrike integration and a remediation profile to decide on response actions. Open to other views if I'm missing something though.
I don’t think it’s A. B and C make more sense to me since API Client ID handles the connection, and device classification seems important for identifying what endpoints are actually reporting threats. Correct me if I’m off base.
Not convinced by B, it's easy to mix up device classification with policy stuff, but for threat exchange the actual requirements are A and C.
Its A and C
Option B, Device classification. Thought that was needed to sync devices before threat sharing, but not positive.
B and C
Pretty sure it's A and C. You need the remediation profile to define what actions to trigger in Crowdstrike, and the API Client ID for the integration itself. B looks like a trap here since device info isn't needed just for threat data sharing. Disagree?
I’d say B and C here. Device classification seems like a step before you can share threat intel, plus you always need the API Client ID. A looks tempting but not sure it's strictly needed.
A and C tbh. You need a remediation profile to define the actions, and API Client ID is standard for connecting to another platform like Crowdstrike. Device classification or custom log parser aren't required for this integration.
Its A and C for this one, right? I remember something about needing an API Client ID for the data-sharing connection, and remediation profiles sound familiar from a similar question. Not totally sure on the log parser or device classification parts. If anyone has actually set this up let me know if that matches your experience.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 11 of 20 · Page 2 / 2