The correct answers are B and C . The study guide states that “You can use application control signatures to detect OT protocols” and that “Application control detects the protocols used in applications like Modbus, IEC 104, and the contents of the telecontrol messages” . It also shows that a Modbus application control profile can be enabled on a firewall policy “for OT protocol visibility in the monitor status.” This directly supports B , because application control is the feature used to identify and monitor OT protocols on FortiGate.

The guide also explains under IPS that “By default, OT signatures are excluded from the signatures lists on the GUI until you enable them on the CLI” using config ips global and set exclude-signatures none . Once enabled, FortiGate can use those OT signatures for OT-aware inspection and protection. That supports C as the second required configuration. A is related to device discovery, not protocol identification, and D is focused on exploit and vulnerability detection rather than the first-step goal of identifying OT protocols.

The correct answer is A. Through device profiling rules . The study guide states: “When a rogue device record is created, the device is evaluated against the enabled device profiling rules.” It further explains that “FortiNAC evaluates a device against each rule until a failed, passed, or cannot evaluate result is reached.” That is the direct evaluation mechanism used for rogue devices in FortiNAC.

The guide also adds that “Device profiling rules are used to evaluate and classify rogue devices” and that FortiNAC applies rule methods and classification settings to determine whether the device matches a known type. This is why the other options are incorrect: FortiGuard server queries and the local device database (CIDB) relate to FortiGate device detection workflows, not FortiNAC rogue-device evaluation, and importing a devices list is not the evaluation method described for rogue devices.

The correct answer is B. A firewall policy has a Virtual Patching security profile applied to it .

The decisive clue in the exhibit is the Vulnerabilities column showing KEVs and device-specific vulnerability counts. The study guide explains the virtual patching workflow in this exact way: “FortiGate performs a lookup for device-specific vulnerabilities and mitigation rules in FortiGuard,” then “FortiGuard returns specific OT virtual patching signatures,” and “FortiGate caches the signatures and mitigation rules that apply to each device.” That is the same behavior reflected by the Asset Identity List showing vulnerability information per detected device.

The guide then states that “When traffic related to the vulnerable device reaches FortiGate, the firewall policy with the virtual patching profile applies.” It also says “A virtual patching profile can be applied to firewall policies in any direction, protecting traffic from or to the vulnerable OT device.” This directly links the per-device vulnerability visibility to a Virtual Patching profile enforced through firewall policy.

The other options do not match the exhibit. Antivirus is not described in the study guide as building a device-by-device vulnerability list, Application Control is used for OT protocol and message visibility, and IPS focuses on exploit detection and prevention. The Vulnerabilities/KEVs display is the indicator that FortiGate is using Virtual Patching logic for those OT devices.

The correct answers are A and D .

Option A is correct because the study guide states that for OT protocol coverage, “a valid OT security service license is required to receive updates on both intrusion prevention and application control signatures.” It also shows “Valid license required” in the FortiGuard subscriptions section for OT protocol coverage. This confirms that a valid OT security service license is required to use and maintain the OT signatures database correctly.

Option D is also correct because the guide explicitly shows the CLI configuration used “To enable OT signatures” :

config ips global

set exclude-signatures none

end

It then states that “By default, OT signatures are excluded from the signatures lists on the GUI until you enable them on the CLI.” This directly confirms that you must set exclude-signatures to none in the CLI to enable OT signatures.

Option B is incorrect because the study guide does not say you manually import the OT signatures database. Instead, it explains that FortiGuard maintains updated OT signatures and that a valid license is required to receive updates. Option C is incorrect because the guide clearly says OT signatures are excluded by default until enabled from the CLI.

The correct answers are C and D .

Option C is correct because the study guide explains that when “a handler generates an event with the automation stitch option enabled, FortiAnalyzer sends a notification” and, in the Security Fabric workflow, “FortiAnalyzer parses the logs and notifies the root FortiGate.” This means FortiGate must first have the FortiAnalyzer connection configured so it can consume FortiAnalyzer event handlers and use them in automation. The wizard message in the exhibit also points to this requirement by indicating that a FortiAnalyzer connection must be configured.

Option D is also correct because the study guide explicitly says that in this automation flow “the root FortiGate triggers the action” and shows “Stitches configured on root FortiGate.” Therefore, if you want the FortiAnalyzer event handler to appear and be usable for automation, the trigger must be configured on the root FortiGate , not on an arbitrary downstream FortiGate.

Option A is incorrect because + Create is only a GUI control and does not solve the missing-event-handler visibility problem. Option B is not identified in the study guide as the requirement for making a FortiAnalyzer event handler available in the FortiGate automation trigger list.

The correct answer is A. FortiGate queries FortiGuard servers . The study guide explains the device detection process very clearly: “First, FortiGate attempts to detect the devices based on the information in the local device database (CIDB). If FortiGate cannot detect the devices locally, it queries the FortiGuard servers by sending data about the unknown devices to the FortiGuard servers. In response, the FortiGuard servers provide additional information about those devices.” This directly answers the question and shows that querying FortiGuard is the next step after local detection fails.

Option D is incorrect because the guide says FortiGate checks the local device database (CIDB) first, before this next step. Option B refers more to FortiNAC-style profiling logic, not FortiGate’s OT device detection flow. Option C is also incorrect because service connectors are not described here as the immediate follow-up step for unknown local device detection. The study guide specifically identifies FortiGuard servers as the next destination for device identification assistance.

The correct answers are A and C .

Option C is correct because the profile clearly contains the Operational Technology category and specific OT application signatures such as Modbus and IEC.60870.5.104 . The study guide says “You can use application control signatures to detect OT protocols” and “You can filter to a specific OT protocol.” That means OT application signatures are active in this sensor profile.

Option A is correct because the guide explains that application control works at different levels: “Detection of protocol (one detection per session)” and “Message level (one detection per protocol message).” It also says you can use application signatures for “granular message type identification.” In the exhibit, IEC.60870.5.104.Control.Functions is explicitly configured, which is a granular IEC message/control-level signature rather than only a protocol-level match. That means logging and control can occur at the IEC command level.

Option B is not correct because the profile shows Modbus configured at the parent protocol level as Monitor , while the guide states that the “parent signature takes precedence over the child signature.” Since protocol-level detection is one detection per session , that does not mean FortiGate will necessarily log each Modbus command individually.

Option D is incorrect because even though the broader Operational Technology category is set to block, the profile includes specific application and filter overrides for Modbus and IEC 104 behavior. So the resulting effect is not simply that all OT protocols are blocked .

The correct answers are C and D .

Option D is correct because the Playbook Monitor clearly shows the starter as On_Demand and the trigger as user(admin) . The study guide states that “ON_DEMAND: The playbook runs when an administrator manually starts it” and also notes that to run it manually, you select the playbook and click Run . This exactly matches the exhibit, so the playbook was manually triggered.

Option C is also correct. The study guide explains that “tasks run one after another” and that “if needed, the output of one task can be used by the tasks that follow it.” It also gives an example where workflow logic matters, such as creating an incident and then attaching details to it. In the exhibit, the sequence shown is Attach_report , then Run_report , then Create_Incident , while the incident analysis shows no report attached . Since the report must exist and the incident must already be available before it can be attached properly, the task order is wrong and must be reordered.

Option B is incorrect because the monitor shows multiple tasks completed successfully, not only Create_Incident . Option A is not the best answer because the main problem demonstrated by the exhibits is not simply waiting time, but the incorrect workflow order. The playbook completed successfully, yet the report is still not attached, which indicates a design issue in the task sequence rather than just a delay.

The correct answers are A and D . The study guide provides a direct use case called Attack Detection and Automated Alert . It states: “A downstream FortiGate detects an attack and sends logs to FortiAnalyzer. FortiAnalyzer parses the logs and notifies the root FortiGate. The root FortiGate triggers the action, which in this case, is a notification to the administrator.” The same slide also explicitly shows “Stitches configured on root FortiGate.” This confirms that to send the automated alert, you must configure the automation stitch on the root FortiGate .

The second required configuration is an event handler on FortiAnalyzer . The guide explains that “Event handlers generate events” and that “FortiAnalyzer uses event handlers to filter all incoming logs. If logs match the conditions configured in an event handler, FortiAnalyzer generates an event.” Since FortiAnalyzer must detect the attack from the received logs before notifying the root FortiGate, an event handler is required on FortiAnalyzer.

Option B is incorrect because the study guide does not identify a LOCALHOST task as the required configuration for this attack-alert flow. Option C is also incorrect because the question asks what must be configured to enable the automated alert workflow . An IPS profile may detect some attacks, but the required automation path in the study guide is specifically event handler on FortiAnalyzer + stitch on the root FortiGate .

Based on the technical data provided in the exhibits and the OT Security 7.6 Architect curriculum:

Industrial Protocol Identification (Statement A) : The log details exhibit clearly shows that the Destination Port used in the attack is 502 . According to the study guide ' s section on Industrial Protocol Protection , the standard port used by the Modbus TCP protocol is 502 . Furthermore, the attack name identifies a " Triangle.Research.Nano-10.PLC, " which are industrial controllers commonly utilizing Modbus for communications.

Attack Mitigation (Statement B) : The log details specify that the Action taken by the FortiGate (Edge-FortiGate) was dropped . In cybersecurity and Fortinet fabric operations, dropping a packet associated with an IPS signature means the traffic was blocked from reaching its target, thereby mitigating the attack.

Target IP Address (Statement E) : The log detail explicitly lists the Destination IP as 192.168.2.3 . The Incident Analysis page also titles the incident with dstip:192.168.2.3. While the " Affected Endpoint " is shown as 10.1.5.20 , in an " outgoing " attack direction (as shown in the log), this likely refers to the internal source/attacker IP, whereas the target is the destination IP (192.168.2.3). Thus, Statement E is incorrect.

Protocol Conflict (Statement C) : The IEC 104 protocol typically utilizes port 2404 . Since the log specifies port 502, Statement C is incorrect.

Severity Distinction (Statement D) : While the Incident severity is marked as High , the question specifically asks about event severity. The " Events " table at the bottom of the Incident Analysis page shows a " User login/logout failed " event with a medium severity. Because there is a distinction in the management console between the severity of individual events and the aggregated incident, and Statement A and B are technically definitive based on port and action, A and B are the correct architectural choices.