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

Palo Alto Networks NGFW-Engineer Exam - Topic 2 Question 11 Discussion

When configuring a Zone Protection profile, in which section (protection type) would an NGFW engineer configure options to protect against activities such as spoofed IP addresses and split handshake session establishment attempts?
B) Protocol Protection
A) Flood Protection
C) Packet-Based Attack Protection
D) Reconnaissance Protection

Palo Alto Networks NGFW-Engineer Exam - Topic 2 Question 11 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's NGFW-Engineer exam
Question #: 11
Topic #: 2
[All NGFW-Engineer Questions]

When configuring a Zone Protection profile, in which section (protection type) would an NGFW engineer configure options to protect against activities such as spoofed IP addresses and split handshake session establishment attempts?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

In the context of a Zone Protection profile, Protocol Protection is the section used to configure protections against activities such as spoofed IP addresses and split handshake session establishment attempts. These types of attacks typically involve manipulating protocol behaviors, such as IP address spoofing or session hijacking, and are mitigated by the Protocol Protection settings.


by Raylene at Jul 31, 2025, 09:18 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NGFW-Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Gabriele
9 months ago
Split handshake? Really? That sounds a bit far-fetched.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gayla
9 months ago
100% agree with B, it's all about those protocols!
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
9 months ago
Wait, are we sure it's not C? Sounds like packet stuff too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catalina
9 months ago
Definitely B, Protocol Protection is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ira
10 months ago
I thought it was A at first, but B makes more sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Albina
10 months ago
I thought Reconnaissance Protection was more about scanning and probing, so I don't think that's it, but I could be wrong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefanie
10 months ago
I feel like Packet-Based Attack Protection could be the answer, but I can't recall if that specifically covers those types of attacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
11 months ago
I remember practicing a similar question, and I think spoofed IPs are often related to Flood Protection, but that doesn't seem right for split handshake.
upvoted 0 times
...
Afton
11 months ago
I think it might be Protocol Protection since it deals with session establishment issues, but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Giovanna
11 months ago
I've seen questions like this before, and from what I remember, Packet-Based Attack Protection is the right place to configure defenses against spoofing and session-level attacks. So I'm pretty confident C is the answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elise
11 months ago
I'm a little confused by the wording of this question. Is there a difference between "Packet-Based Attack Protection" and "Protocol Protection"? I'm not sure which one would be the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katie
11 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. Spoofed IPs and session establishment attempts sound like they'd be covered under Packet-Based Attack Protection, so I'm going to go with C on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm not totally sure about this one. I'm thinking it might be B - Protocol Protection, since that's where you'd configure stuff related to protocol-level attacks. But I'm not 100% confident on that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Genevive
12 months ago
This one seems pretty straightforward. I think the answer is C - Packet-Based Attack Protection, since that's where you'd configure options to protect against spoofed IPs and session establishment attempts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Troy
1 year ago
Ah, the age-old question of where to configure NGFW protection against IP shenanigans. I'd go with C. Packet-Based Attack Protection, but I'm still waiting for an option that says 'Protect against the zombie apocalypse' just in case.
upvoted 0 times
Bo
8 months ago
Haha, zombie apocalypse protection would be epic! But I’d stick with B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashandra
8 months ago
A is what I’d pick. Flood Protection seems relevant too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Truman
9 months ago
I think B is the right choice. Protocol Protection covers those issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Helga
10 months ago
I agree with Truman. Protocol Protection is key for spoofing.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Antione
1 year ago
That's a good point, Jaime. But I still think C) Packet-Based Attack Protection makes more sense in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaime
1 year ago
I'm not sure, but I think it could also be A) Flood Protection, since it deals with excessive traffic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karl
1 year ago
I'm pretty sure it's C. Packet-Based Attack Protection. Protecting against those sneaky IP spoofing tricks is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blair
1 year ago
I agree with Antione, because protecting against spoofed IP addresses and split handshake attempts sounds like packet-based attacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlette
1 year ago
Definitely C. Packet-Based Attack Protection. Gotta keep those pesky hackers out, am I right? *wink wink*
upvoted 0 times
...
Helene
1 year ago
Hmm, I think the answer is C. Packet-Based Attack Protection, that's where you'd configure options to defend against spoofed IPs and split handshake attempts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antione
1 year ago
I think the answer is C) Packet-Based Attack Protection.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel