The layered browser-protection model separates prevention, runtime detection, and post-compromise mitigation. CORS protection belongs in the first stage because it restricts which origins can interact with protected resources, helping prevent unauthorized cross-origin access before exploitation occurs. Subresource integrity belongs in the second stage because it detects whether externally loaded scripts or resources have been modified at runtime by comparing them against expected integrity values. HTTP header-based protection belongs in the mitigation stage because security headers can limit the impact of browser-side compromise by controlling browser behavior, enforcing restrictions, and reducing exploit capability. The correct sequence is therefore CORS first, subresource integrity second, and HTTP header request last.

================

A FortiWeb server policy binds the listener, destination pool, and service handling required for traffic flow. The virtual server defines the public-facing listener where client traffic arrives. The server pool defines the real back-end servers or load-balanced pool where FortiWeb forwards accepted traffic. The service or port settings define whether FortiWeb handles HTTP, HTTPS, or another configured service. A WAF profile is important for security inspection, but the question asks for the three components needed to complete the forwarding policy. DNS resolver, URL rewrite, health checks, IPsec tunnels, and static routes may be useful in some deployments, but they are not the required core components of the server policy.

================

Option D is the strongest SQL injection example because it uses SQL syntax with a comment marker -- to neutralize the password condition. In a vulnerable login query, that could cause the database to evaluate only the username portion and ignore the password check, creating an authentication bypass. Option C is not SQL injection; it is cross-site scripting because it executes JavaScript in the browser. Option B is fake XML-like markup and not a realistic SQL payload. Option A contains a SQL-like subquery, but it is not the best authentication-bypass pattern shown. FortiWeb’s injection defenses are designed to detect SQL injection and XSS as malicious input patterns targeting application logic.

================

FortiWeb bot mitigation separates malicious bots from useful bots such as legitimate search engine crawlers. The FortiGuard Known Search Engines category is designed for this exact use case: allowing recognized search engines to crawl and index protected websites without being treated as hostile automation. Adding a source IP to a general trusted IP list may allow the crawler, but it is broader than necessary because it can bypass more protections than intended. An inline profile exception is more manual and less clean. User-agent exceptions are weak because user-agent strings are easy to spoof. The best FortiWeb-native approach is to use the known search engine handling within bot mitigation so legitimate indexing remains available while malicious bots remain controlled.

================

To validate HA synchronization, the administrator should compare the configuration areas that affect traffic handling and security enforcement. Network configuration, such as interface and routing alignment, is important because HA peers must process traffic consistently. Policy configuration is also critical because server policies, protection profiles, rules, and related web security settings determine how FortiWeb inspects and blocks requests. Logs are not the right synchronization target for this question; log files are used for investigation, not for proving configuration synchronization. Firmware images and upgrade history are also not the normal operational configuration areas used to verify HA policy behavior. The correct verification focus is network configuration consistency and web protection/server policy consistency across the HA cluster.

================

The exhibits show a mismatch between the configured server pool and the server pool referenced by the server policy. The server pool containing the two back-end servers is named app-server-pool1 , but the server policy is selecting server-pool1 . In reverse proxy mode, FortiWeb receives traffic on the virtual server and then forwards it to the server pool selected in the server policy. If the policy points to the wrong or empty pool, traffic will not be forwarded to the intended back-end servers, even if health checks for the correct pool are healthy. Client Real IP affects source IP preservation, not pool selection. The FortiGate should forward traffic to FortiWeb, not directly bypass it. The correct fix is to select the correct server pool.

================

True transparent proxy mode is the correct fit when the organization cannot change the current IP addressing or client-server communication flow. In this mode, FortiWeb is deployed transparently in the traffic path, usually using a Layer 2 bridge or v-zone, so clients still send traffic to the original web server IP address rather than to a FortiWeb virtual server IP. Unlike transparent inspection, true transparent proxy mode can more reliably block malicious traffic inline before forwarding it to the server. Reverse proxy mode normally requires clients or upstream devices to send traffic to FortiWeb’s virtual server address. WCCP requires redirection design changes. Decryption mirror mode is mainly passive inspection and is not the best answer for inline blocking.

================

The problem is not that the API key is invalid; the key belongs to a real user. The issue is authorization scope: group B is allowed only to access /api/v1/reports, but the request targets /api/v1/data. The correct FortiWeb control is API gateway rule enforcement using API key verification and API user grouping. FortiWeb can restrict API access by user group, sub-URL, API key verification, and configured violation actions. Blocking the endpoint for every group is too broad, moving the user to another group grants unnecessary privilege, and allowing all API keys to access all endpoints destroys endpoint-level authorization. The correct fix is group-based access control on /api/v1/data.

================

The ABP workflow begins when FortiWeb challenges the browser by injecting JavaScript used to collect behavior data. The client browser then executes that JavaScript and sends the observed behavior information to the ABP service. FortiWeb then uses the ABP service decision process to determine whether the browser behavior looks human or automated. If the ABP service identifies the activity as malicious or bot-like, FortiWeb blocks the request before it reaches the protected application. If the request is validated as coming from a real user, FortiWeb allows the traffic to continue to the back-end server. The order is important because FortiWeb cannot allow or block based on ABP until browser behavior has first been collected and evaluated.

================

Automatic HTTP-to-HTTPS redirection should be enabled when users must be forced onto encrypted communication, especially for applications that process logins, credentials, payment data, personal data, or other sensitive information. HTTP sends traffic without transport encryption, which exposes users to interception, credential theft, session hijacking, and downgrade-style risk. FortiWeb can redirect HTTP requests to HTTPS so users who type or follow an insecure HTTP URL are automatically moved to the secure version of the application. Keeping both HTTP and HTTPS available for flexibility weakens security. Static sites without sensitive data may not require this control. A back-end server using only HTTP is a separate SSL offloading design issue and does not justify leaving client-side traffic unencrypted.