MENU
You just deployed the Netskope client in Web mode and several users mention that their messenger application is no longer working. Although you have a specific real-time policy that allows this application, upon further investigation you discover that it is using proprietary encryption. You need to permit access to all the users and maintain some visibility.
In this scenario, which configuration change would accomplish this task?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium NSK101 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
When designing an architecture with Netskope Private Access, the Netskope Publisher is the element that guarantees connectivity between the Netskope cloud and the private application. The Publisher acts as a gateway, securely connecting users to private applications hosted on-premises or in data centers.
Netskope Publisher: This component facilitates secure access to private applications by connecting the Netskope cloud with the internal network. It ensures that users can access private applications seamlessly while maintaining security and compliance.
Netskope documentation on Private Access and the role of the Publisher.
Best practices for configuring and deploying Netskope Publisher to ensure secure connectivity to private applications.
37 comments · newest first
RU
Ruthann
10 months ago
Blocking the app is definitely not the solution here!
DE
Delmy
11 months ago
I agree, steering exceptions might just complicate things more.
DE
Deane
11 months ago
Wait, are we sure the messenger app is really using proprietary encryption?
RO
Ronnie
11 months ago
I think bypassing the SSL decryption could work too.
GA
Gail
11 months ago
Sounds like a custom connector is the way to go!
HA
Harris
12 months ago
I recall something about steering exceptions, but I can't quite remember if that would actually solve the issue with the encryption.
KI
Kiley
12 months ago
I feel like bypassing the messenger domain could work, but I’m not entirely confident if that would maintain visibility as well.
DI
Dick
12 months ago
I think creating a custom cloud application might be the right approach, similar to what we practiced in the last session.
GA
Gail
1 year ago
I remember we discussed how proprietary encryption can complicate visibility, but I'm not sure which option would best address that.
DE
Dean
1 year ago
I'm a little confused on the difference between options B and D. Both seem like they could work, but I'm not sure which one is the better approach in this scenario.
FA
Fatima
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got it. Option C to bypass the SSL decryption for the messenger domain is probably the way to go here. That should let the traffic through while still giving us some visibility.
JO
Joye
1 year ago
Hmm, the question mentions proprietary encryption, so I'm guessing that means we can't just block the app. Option B seems like the best approach to maintain visibility.
GL
Glory
1 year ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the options carefully to make sure I understand the implications of each.
HE
Herman
1 year ago
A? Oh, come on! Blocking the messenger app? That's like trying to catch the wind with a butterfly net.
KA
Kaitlyn
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
OR
Ora
1 year ago
A? Oh, come on! Blocking the messenger app? That's like trying to catch the wind with a butterfly net.
FR
Freeman
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
LI
Lillian
1 year ago
A) Change the real-time policy to block the messenger application.
JO
Joesph
1 year ago
B is the way to go! A custom connector will give you full visibility and control over that proprietary encryption.
CH
Cheryl
1 year ago
B is the way to go! A custom connector will give you full visibility and control over that proprietary encryption.
AL
Albina
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
TH
Thurman
1 year ago
B) Create a new custom cloud application using the custom connector that can be used in the real-time policy.
AF
Afton
1 year ago
D? Really? Steering exceptions for a messenger app? That's like trying to herd cats with a laser pointer.
KI
Kizzy
1 year ago
That sounds like a good solution too, it would give more control over the application.
HA
Hana
1 year ago
B) Create a new custom cloud application using the custom connector that can be used in the real-time policy.
AS
Ashleigh
1 year ago
I think that could work, it would allow access while still maintaining visibility.
NA
Nada
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
AS
Ashlyn
1 year ago
C seems like the right choice here. Bypassing the SSL decryption for the messenger domain should do the trick.
MA
Mariko
1 year ago
Agreed, it's a good balance between security and functionality.
JA
Jacki
1 year ago
Exactly, it's important to maintain visibility while still permitting access.
RA
Raina
1 year ago
That makes sense, it would allow the messenger application to work without interference.
FA
Fannie
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
OL
Oliva
1 year ago
That makes sense, it should allow the messenger application to work while still maintaining visibility.
MA
Malcolm
1 year ago
C) Add a policy in the SSL decryption section to bypass the messenger domain(s).
CA
Carmelina
2 years ago
I'm not sure, but maybe creating a custom cloud application with a custom connector could also solve the issue.
XE
Xenia
2 years ago
I agree with Derrick, option C seems like the best choice to permit access while maintaining visibility.
DE
Derrick
2 years ago
I think option C would work because we need to bypass the encryption used by the messenger application.