Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Juniper Exam JN0-335 Topic 4 Question 49 Discussion

Actual exam question for Juniper's JN0-335 exam
Question #: 49
Topic #: 4
[All JN0-335 Questions]

Which two statements are correct about security policy changes when using the policy rematch feature? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C, D

policy rematch is a feature that enables the device to reevaluate an active session when its associated security policy is modified. The session remains open if it still matches the policy that allowed the session initially.The session is closed if its associated policy is renamed, deactivated, or deleted1.


by Sabra at Apr 07, 2025, 12:50 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium JN0-335 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Chaya
20 days ago
Haha, this is like a trick question, isn't it? I'm just going to guess C and D and hope for the best. Security policies are no joke, though, so I'd better study up!
upvoted 0 times
...
Karrie
21 days ago
This question is a bit tricky, but I think the key is understanding how the policy rematch feature works. Based on that, I'd go with B and D as the correct answers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
25 days ago
C is the right answer, for sure. If you change the policy action from permit to deny, there's no way those existing sessions should be maintained. That would totally defeat the purpose of the policy change!
upvoted 0 times
...
Andree
1 months ago
I'm not sure about that. I think it's B and C because changing the address match condition would drop existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Susana
1 months ago
I agree with Graciela. Changing the action to deny maintains existing sessions, and changing the address match condition reevaluates sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Solange
2 months ago
I agree with Shaun on this one. The policy rematch feature is meant to ensure the network is secured, so it makes sense that changes to the policy would impact existing sessions. B and D sound like the logical choices.
upvoted 0 times
Annalee
21 days ago
User 2: I agree, changing the source or destination address should reevaluate existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luisa
1 months ago
User 1: I think B and D are the correct statements.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Shaun
2 months ago
Hmm, I think B and D are the correct answers here. When you change the policy's source or destination address, it makes sense that all existing sessions would be dropped. And if you change the action from permit to deny, I'd expect the sessions to be reevaluated.
upvoted 0 times
Marti
So, it seems like both B and D are the correct statements regarding security policy changes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janey
4 days ago
Yes, that makes sense. And changing the action from permit to deny would trigger a reevaluation of existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
5 days ago
I think B and D are the correct answers too. Changing the address match condition would drop existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Weldon
15 days ago
Agreed. It's important to understand how policy changes can impact existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cammy
16 days ago
So, it seems like both B and D are the correct statements regarding security policy changes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shizue
26 days ago
Yes, that makes sense. And changing the action from permit to deny would trigger a reevaluation of existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Taryn
29 days ago
I think B and D are the correct answers too. Changing the address match condition would drop existing sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Graciela
2 months ago
I think the correct statements are A and D.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel