FCSS_LED_AR-7.6 Dumps With Exact Questions and Answers

From the FortiManager NAC policy:

Category =Device

Match criteria includeMAC addressandOperating System = Linux

Action =Assign VLAN “Students”

From the FortiGate CLI:

diagnose switch-controller switch-info mac-table ...

MAC: 70:88:6b:8c:4a:ce VLAN: 4089 Port: port2

diagnose switch-controller mac-device mac onboard­ing

VLAN 4089 MAC 70:88:6b:8c:4a:ce

So the device is stuck inVLAN 4089, which is theonboarding VLAN. No NAC policy is matched.

For a NAC policy to match, FortiGate needsdevice-identity information, which comes fromdevice detection on the VLAN / FortiLink interfaceplus theattributes that the policy expects(OS, MAC, etc.).

A. Device detection is not enabled on VLAN 4089.

If device detection is disabled on the interface/VLAN where the endpoint lives, FortiGate cannot learn OS / device info.

Without this, the NAC engine cannot compare against the NAC policy (which relies on OS and other attributes), so the device remains in the onboarding VLAN.✅This is a valid root cause.

B. The device operating system detected by FortiGate is not Linux.

The NAC policy explicitly requiresOperating System = Linux.

If the endpoint is actually Windows/macOS, or the OS fingerprint is still “Unknown”, the policy will never match, and the device stays in onboarding.✅Also a valid reason.

C. Management communication between FortiGate and FortiSwitch is down.

CLI output (switch-info mac-table and mac-device) proves FortiGate is talking to the switch and sees MAC/VLAN/port information.❌Not a valid reason.

D. The MAC address configured on the NAC policy is incorrect.

The exhibits show the MAC in the NAC policy matches the MAC appearing in the MAC table.❌Not the cause here.

A FortiGate interface can operate with different types of captive portal modes.

The available portal types that require user interaction or login include:

✔A. Terms Acknowledgment Without Authentication

Forces users to accept terms before accessing the network

No credentials required

Still considered a captive portalCommon in guest Wi-Fi.

✔E. Authentication

Requires username/password

Supports local users, RADIUS, LDAP, OAuth, etc.

Why the other options are incorrect

❌B. Email Notification Only

Not a valid captive portal mode on FortiGate.

❌C. Disclaimer + Authentication

This is not a selectable mode; disclaimers are part of the captive portal customization but not a standalone option.

❌D. Guest Pass Access

Guest pass authentication exists onFortiAuthenticator, not as a direct portal type on FortiGate.

In this scenario:

FortiGate + FortiAnalyzer are part of theSecurity Fabric

AnAutomation Stitchis configured:

Trigger:Compromised Host – High(IOC from FortiAnalyzer)

Action:Quarantine on FortiSwitch + FortiAP

A test device10.0.2.1visits a malicious website.

FortiAnalyzer logs show the event, butFortiGate does NOT quarantine the device.

This means theautomation did not receive an IOC trigger, OR theFabric did not classify it as a compromise.

Let's evaluate each answer option.

✅C. The malicious website is not recognized as an indicator of compromise (IOC) by FortiAnalyzer.

✔Correct.

For FortiGate to quarantine a device:

FortiAnalyzer must classify the event as aCompromised Host → High / Medium / Critical

FortiAnalyzer must generate anIOC event

FortiGate must receive that IOC through the Fabric

Even though the FAZ log shows:

Action = blocked

Category = Malicious Websites

→ That doesNOTautomatically mean an IOC was generated.

A blocked website event isnot always an IOCunless:

It is included in theIOC database

FAZ’sAnalytics / UTM / IOCengine marks it as a compromise

Thus, if FAZ only logs a “Malicious Website” event butdoes not classify it as an IOC,