PCNSA Policy Evaluation and Management Practice Question
Exhibit
admin@PA-500> show log traffic | match allow | head -10 1: 2019-05-15 10:00:00, allow, trust, untrust, 10.10.1.10, 8.8.8.8, web-browsing, http, rule1, ... 2: 2019-05-15 10:00:01, allow, trust, untrust, 10.10.1.11, 8.8.8.8, web-browsing, http, rule1, ... 3: 2019-05-15 10:00:02, deny, trust, untrust, 10.10.1.12, 8.8.8.8, web-browsing, http, rule2, ... 4: 2019-05-15 10:00:03, allow, dmz, untrust, 10.20.1.1, 8.8.8.8, web-browsing, http, rule3, ...
Refer to the exhibit. The administrator sees that traffic from 10.10.1.12 is being denied by rule2. Which action should the administrator take to allow this traffic while maintaining security?
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Create a new rule above rule2 that allows the specific traffic with appropriate security profiles.
Creating a new rule above rule2 that specifically allows traffic from 10.10.1.12 with appropriate security profiles will permit the desired traffic without affecting other rules. Rule order matters in Palo Alto firewalls; a rule placed higher in the list is evaluated first. Option A would broaden rule1's source, potentially allowing unintended traffic. Option B would change rule2 to allow, which could permit traffic that should still be denied. Option D would move rule2 above rule1, but since rule2 is a deny rule, the traffic would still be denied. Thus, adding a new allow rule above the deny rule is the best approach.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Add 10.10.1.12 to rule1's source address.
Why it's wrong here
Adding the address to rule1's source does not help, because rule2 still matches the traffic and denies it before any later rule is evaluated. It is tempting because widening a permit rule's source is the usual fix when a legitimate host is blocked by an implicit deny rather than an explicit one.
- ✗
Change rule2 to allow.
Why it's wrong here
Changing rule2 to allow removes the deny that blocks this traffic, but it also permits every other source and service rule2 covers, weakening the security posture the scenario requires. It is tempting because editing the offending rule's action is the quickest way to stop a denial.
- ✓
Create a new rule above rule2 that allows the specific traffic with appropriate security profiles.
Why this is correct
Placing a new rule above rule2 lets the firewall match 10.10.1.12's traffic before the deny rule evaluates it, since PAN-OS processes rules top-down and stops at the first match. Attaching security profiles to that rule preserves inspection, satisfying the requirement to allow the traffic while maintaining security.
- ✗
Move rule2 above rule1.
Why it's wrong here
Reordering places rule2 above rule1, so the deny still matches 10.10.1.12 first and the traffic remains blocked. It is tempting because rule order determines evaluation in Palo Alto security policies, and moving a permit above a deny is the standard remedy when the permit is shadowed.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This PCNSA question is part of Courseiva's 385-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This PCNSA practice question is part of Courseiva's free Palo Alto Networks certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the PCNSA exam.