NSE7_CDS_AR-7.6 Exam Dumps - Fortinet NSE 7 - Public Cloud Security 7.6.4 Architect

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From FortiOS 7.6, FortiWeb 7.4 Exact Extract study guide:

According to the FortiOS 7.6 AWS Administration Guide and the Public Cloud Security documentation regarding AWS VPC Flow Logs, the level at which a flow log is created determines the scope of the data collected:

Flow Log Scope and Hierarchy (Option A): AWS VPC Flow Logs can be created at three different levels: VPC, Subnet, or Network Interface (ENI).

As seen in the exhibit (VPC flow log wizard), the flow log is being created for the resource vpc-09d6e4631cd49d2b3. When a flow log is created at the VPC level, it captures IP traffic for all network interfaces within that VPC.

To isolate traffic specifically for a single FortiGate EC2 instance and avoid seeing traffic from other instances in the same VPC or subnet, the administrator must create a flow log at the Network Interface level. This provides the most granular visibility and ensures the logs only contain traffic associated with the specific ENIs of that FortiGate instance.

Why other options are incorrect:

Option B: Changing the maximum aggregation interval from 10 minutes to 1 minute increases the frequency of log delivery and captures shorter-lived flows more accurately, but it does not change the scope of the resources being monitored.

Option C: This is a general troubleshooting statement and not a configuration action within the AWS Flow Log wizard that would filter the traffic by instance.

Option D: Changing the destination to Amazon Data Firehose changes how the logs are processed and delivered (e.g., for streaming to a SIEM), but the source data is still determined by the resource level selected (VPC vs. Interface).

According to the FortiOS 7.6 AWS Administration Guide and the Fortinet 7.4 Public Cloud Security study materials regarding infrastructure as code (IaC) for cloud deployments:

JSON Format Limitations (Option B): The exhibit shows an AWS CloudFormation template in JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format. JSON, by its official specification, does not support comments. There is no native syntax (like // or /* */) to include remarks that are ignored by the CloudFormation parser.

YAML Support: To add descriptive comments—such as instructing other regional administrators to update the AMI ID—the administrator must convert the template into YAML format. YAML is a superset of JSON and specifically supports comments using the # character.

Best Practice for Multinational Deployments: For organizations operating across multiple AWS regions, using YAML is the recommended standard because it allows for inline documentation, making templates more maintainable and easier for different teams to understand regional requirements.

Why other options are incorrect:

Option A: Comments are part of the template file itself, not a parameter or flag within the aws cloudformation update-stack CLI command.

Option C: While # is the correct character for comments in YAML, it is invalid syntax in JSON and would cause the CloudFormation stack creation to fail with a parsing error.

Option D: The AWSTemplateFormatVersion "2010-09-09" is currently the only valid version for CloudFormation templates; updating it does not add JSON comment support.

According to the FortiOS 7.6 AWS Administration Guide and the Fortinet Public Cloud Security 7.4 training materials regarding centralized security inspection:

Multiple Route Tables (Option B): A single AWS Transit Gateway is designed to support multiple TGW route tables. By default, there is a soft limit of 20 route tables per Transit Gateway, which allows administrators to implement sophisticated network segmentation and granular routing policies. In a FortiGate-centric "Security Hub" or "Transit VPC" architecture, multiple route tables are used to separate "Spoke" traffic from "Security" traffic, ensuring all inter-VPC traffic is forced through the FortiGate-VM for inspection.

Associations and Propagations: * Association: Each individual TGW attachment (VPC, VPN, or Direct Connect) can be associated with exactly one TGW route table at any given time. This table dictates where packets coming from that attachment will be sent. Because of this 1:1 relationship, Option C is incorrect.

Propagation: An attachment can propagate its routes to one or many TGW route tables. This flexibility allows a VPC's prefix to be known in multiple routing domains, meaning that association and propagation do not need to occur in the same table, making Option A incorrect.

Default Route Table Management: When creating an AWS Transit Gateway, the options for "Default route table association" and "Default route table propagation" are enabled by default, but they can be disabled during or after creation. Disabling these is a security best practice when deploying FortiGate-VMs to prevent the TGW from automatically creating a "full-mesh" connectivity that bypasses the firewall, making Option D incorrect.