The correct answer is A.

The LAN Edge 7.6 Architect study guide explicitly explains the difference between the two quarantine actions:

“IP ban: Traffic from the compromised device IP address is blocked on FortiGate, but intra-VLAN traffic is still allowed.”

It also states:

“Access-layer quarantine: Inter-VLAN and intra-VLAN traffic from the compromised device MAC address is blocked using FortiGate and FortiSwitch.”

That exactly matches the symptom in the question. The device has lost internet and inter-VLAN access, but it can still communicate with devices in the same VLAN. That behavior is the expected result of an IP Ban action, not full access-layer quarantine.

The study guide further explains MAC-based quarantine behavior:

“Isolation means that a quarantined device can communicate only with FortiGate. If the device tries to communicate with any other host on the network, the communication is blocked.”

And it adds:

“In both modes: Intra-VLAN traffic is blocked automatically by FortiGate.”

So to block same-VLAN communication as well, the automation action must use Access Layer Quarantine instead of IP Ban.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Incorrect. There is no separate “IP Ban settings to the Quarantine action” correction described in the study guide. The fix is to use the correct automation action type, which is Access Layer Quarantine

C. Incorrect. The IOC has already worked well enough to trigger the stitch. The issue is not IOC detection, but the wrong quarantine action being used, as shown by the behavior and the log/widget evidence.

D. Incorrect. The study guide does not describe a separate setting to “enable intra-VLAN traffic blocking” for Security Fabric quarantine. Instead, intra-VLAN blocking is achieved by using Access Layer Quarantine, not IP Ban

Final verified conclusion:

Because the current behavior matches IP Ban, and same-VLAN traffic is still allowed, the required fix is to replace the IP Ban action with Access Layer Quarantine.

So the correct answer is A.

The LAN Edge 7.6 Architect Study Guide defines exactly four captive portal types in the " Captive Portal Types " section:

" There are four types of captive portals that you can enable on an interface: Authentication, Disclaimer + Authentication, Disclaimer Only, and Email Collection. "

The guide further describes each:

Authentication — " Authentication type captive portals request users to authenticate before they are allowed access to the network. " This requires a login, satisfying the tracking requirement.

Disclaimer + Authentication — " Disclaimer + Authentication captive portals present users with a disclaimer page and an authentication page. The user must accept a disclaimer and authenticate successfully in order to get network access. " This also requires a login, satisfying the tracking requirement.

Disclaimer Only — Users accept a disclaimer but do NOT authenticate. No login required.

Email Collection — Users provide an email address only; no username/password authentication.

Since the requirement is specifically to require visitors to log in for tracking purposes, only the two types that enforce login credentials qualify: Authentication (E) and Disclaimer + Authentication (C).

Why the other options are wrong:

A is incorrect — " Terms Acknowledgment Without Authentication " does not exist as a captive portal type in FortiOS. This matches Disclaimer Only, which does NOT require login.

B is incorrect — " Email Notification Only " is not one of the four captive portal types. The study guide names it " Email Collection " — and even that only collects an email address, not a full login credential.

D is incorrect — " Guest Pass Access " is not listed as a captive portal type in the LAN Edge 7.6 study guide. It is not one of the four defined types.

???? Typing Error Corrections Made: " racking purposes " in the original question corrected to " tracking purposes. "

Analysis of the VAP Configuration (Image 1): The VAP named " Corporate " has set vlan-pooling wtp-group, which maps directly to the Managed AP Group VLAN pooling method. The study guide states: " The Managed AP Group load balance method assigns VLANs from pools based on AP location. " This means VLAN assignment is NOT load-balanced (no round-robin or hash) — instead, it is determined by which WTP (Wireless Termination Point) group the AP physically belongs to:

APs in wtp-group " Floor_1 " → assigned VLAN 101 (Corp.101)

APs in wtp-group " Office " → assigned VLAN 102 (Corp.102)

Why C is CORRECT: From Image 2, the interface Corp.101 (VLAN 101 — assigned to the Floor_1 AP group) shows an IP address of 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0, meaning no IP address or DHCP server is configured on that interface. Therefore, clients connecting to APs in the Floor_1 group will be placed on VLAN 101 but will not be able to obtain an IP address — confirming option C.

Why D is CORRECT: The VAP configuration explicitly maps wtp-group " Office " to VLAN 102. The study guide confirms that with the Managed AP Group method, VLANs are assigned based on AP group membership. APs belonging to the " Office " group will have all their clients assigned to VLAN 102 (Corp.102), which has a configured IP of 10.0.20.1/255.255.255.0 — confirming option D.

Why the other options are wrong:

A is incorrect — The wtp-group pooling method does not load balance; it assigns VLANs based on AP group location. Round-robin or hash would be needed for load balancing. Additionally, the subnet 10.0.3.0/24 does not exist anywhere in either exhibit.

B is incorrect — Corp.zone contains both Corp.101 and Corp.102. Since Corp.101 has no IP configured (0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0), clients on Floor_1 APs (VLAN 101) will not receive any IP address, let alone one from the 10.0.20.0/24 subnet. Only Corp.102 clients (Office group) receive addresses from 10.0.20.0/24.

Context: You’re troubleshootingSyslog-based SSOonFortiAuthenticator:

Devices (typically firewalls, WLAN controllers, VPN gateways) sendsyslog messagescontaining usernames, IPs, login/logout events.

FortiAuthenticator parses those logs usingSyslog SSO rulesand injects logon sessions intoFSSOfor FortiGate.

When users are not mapping correctly, you need to see:

Did the syslog message arrive?

Which matching rule (if any) caught it?

What username and IP were extracted?

Why was a message ignored or rejected?

FortiAuthenticator has a dedicated debug area for this:

Debug logs → Single Sign-On → Syslog SSO

This view shows:

Raw syslog lines received

Thematching ruleapplied (or “no match”)

Parsed fields (username, IP, group)

Any parsing errors

This is exactly the tool designed totroubleshoot and diagnose Syslog SSO issues.

Why the other options are not the best for this issue

A. Debug logs > Remote Servers > Syslog Viewer

Lets you see syslog traffic in general, but doesnotshow how SSO rules are applied or why they fail. Good for connectivity checks, not SSO logic.

B. Parsing Test Tool

Useful totestpatterns and rules manually by pasting sample log lines, but it doesn’t show live traffic or running SSO sessions.

C. Debug logs > SSO Sessions page

Shows existing SSO sessions (who is logged in), but notwhya particular syslog message did not create a session.