HP Updated HPE7-A02 Exam Questions and Answers by iona

When transitioning from Intrusion Detection System (IDS) mode to Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) mode, it’s critical to review and refine configurations to ensure legitimate traffic is not blocked. Here's the reasoning behind each option:

A. Disable traffic inspection and reboot before re-enabling traffic inspection with the new mode.

Incorrect:

Transitioning to IPS mode does not require a full reboot or disabling traffic inspection.

This step is unnecessary and could lead to downtime that impacts network operations.

B. Change the mode on one gateway at a time to establish a smoother transition period.

Incorrect:

While a phased approach might help in some large deployments, it does not directly address the potential for legitimate traffic to be blocked by IPS mode.

IPS operates in real-time, so misconfigured rules or policies need to be addressed before enabling IPS on any gateway.

C. Consider applying a stricter IPS policy to minimize issues during the transition period.

Incorrect:

A stricter IPS policy increases the likelihood of false positives, which could disrupt legitimate business-critical traffic.

During the transition, the focus should be on minimizing disruptions by fine-tuning policies, not making them stricter.

D. Check for legitimate traffic that has been flagged as a threat and allow list the associated rules.

Correct:

In IDS mode, the system only detects and logs suspicious traffic but does not block it. Reviewing these logs for false positives allows the organization to fine-tune policies and allow list legitimate traffic before transitioning to IPS mode.

By doing this, the company ensures that IPS mode will block actual threats while permitting legitimate traffic.

This is a proactive step to prevent unnecessary disruptions to normal operations when IPS mode is enabled.

References

HPE Aruba Gateway IDS/IPS Configuration Guide.

Best Practices for Transitioning from IDS to IPS Modes in Aruba Networks.

Aruba Network Threat Management Documentation.

An HPE Aruba Networking Secure Web Gateway (SWG) is designed to provide secure internet access by monitoring and controlling web traffic. It primarily focuses on protecting users from malicious content and ensuring compliance with corporate security policies, particularly for hybrid and remote workers.

Explanation of Each Option

A. The organization needs a faster way to quarantine clients that have generated threats, as detected by third-party firewalls.

Incorrect:

Quarantining clients based on detected threats is typically managed by endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions or next-generation firewalls (NGFWs).

While an SWG can monitor and block risky web activity, it does not manage threat quarantine actions directly.

B. Hybrid workers are exposing their computers to risky internet sites and infection by malware when they work from home.

Correct:

SWGs monitor and control web traffic to block malicious websites and prevent exposure to malware.

They enforce web usage policies even when users work remotely, protecting against phishing, drive-by downloads, and other web-based threats.

With the proliferation of hybrid work environments, an SWG ensures that users are protected from risky sites regardless of their location.

C. Remote workers need access to private data center applications without exposing those applications to unauthorized users.

Incorrect:

This use case falls under secure access service edge (SASE) solutions with Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), not an SWG.

ZTNA focuses on granting secure, conditional access to applications, while SWGs focus on internet traffic security.

D. The organization currently has no way to prevent users from exfiltrating sensitive data from SaaS applications.

Incorrect:

Data loss prevention (DLP) tools or cloud access security brokers (CASBs) are designed for monitoring and preventing data exfiltration from SaaS applications.

While SWGs can block access to specific websites or categories, they do not offer advanced DLP capabilities for SaaS environments.

References

Aruba Secure Web Gateway Documentation.

HPE Aruba SASE Solutions Guide.

Best Practices for Hybrid Workforce Security with Aruba SWG.

After installing an HPE Aruba Networking Network Analytic Engine (NAE) script on an AOS-CX switch, the additional step required to start the monitoring is to create an agent from the script. The agent is responsible for executing the script and collecting the monitoring data as defined by the script parameters.

1.Script Installation: Installing the script provides the logic and parameters for monitoring.

2.Agent Creation: Creating an agent from the script activates the monitoring process, allowing the NAE to begin tracking the specified function.

3.Operational Step: This step ensures that the monitoring logic is applied and the data collection starts as per the script’s configuration.

The exhibit reveals duplicate IP addresses detected for 10.1.140.6, associated with two different MAC addresses:

88:56:56:ab:c6:89

88:13:30:a3:02:00

Key observations:

Duplicate IP Address Detection:

The message "Duplicate IP address detected for 10.1.140.6" clearly indicates two devices claiming the same IP address.

This typically occurs when one device spoofs the MAC address of another device to intercept or disrupt traffic.

MAC Spoofing Context:

MAC spoofing is a tactic used to impersonate another device's hardware address to gain unauthorized access to a network.

By spoofing a legitimate IP-MAC pairing, an attacker can bypass security mechanisms or cause denial-of-service conditions.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B (Mirroring Misconfigured): While mirroring misconfiguration can duplicate traffic, it does not lead to a "duplicate IP detected" alert.

Option C (Misconfigured DHCP): Misconfigurations usually result in DHCP conflicts, but they do not typically involve two different MAC addresses for the same IP.

Option D (ARP Poisoning/MITM): ARP poisoning involves falsified ARP tables, but it does not directly trigger duplicate IP address detection. Instead, ARP packets flood the network.

Conclusion:

The evidence strongly suggests MAC spoofing, as two different MAC addresses are claiming the same IP address (10.1.140.6). This behavior is typical of attempts to gain unauthorized access or disrupt network operations.