HPE7-A02 Exam Questions

1. The Need for Faster Threat Notifications

Admins need immediate alerts when threats are detected by the gateway's IDS/IPS functionality. Regularly checking the Security Dashboard is inefficient, so an automated notification system is essential for faster response times.

2. Explanation of Each Option

A . Set up Webhooks that are attached to the HPE Aruba Networking Central Threat Dashboard:

Incorrect:

Webhooks are useful for integrating alerts with third-party tools or custom workflows. However, setting up email notifications through global alert settings is faster and simpler for this purpose.

B . Use Syslog to integrate the gateways with HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Policy Manager (CPPM) event processing:

Incorrect:

Syslog integration with CPPM is typically used for logging and correlating events, not for real-time notifications about threats.

CPPM is better suited for policy enforcement, not instant threat alerts.

C . Set up email notifications using HPE Aruba Networking Central's global alert settings:

Correct:

HPE Aruba Networking Central has global alert settings that allow admins to configure email notifications for specific events, such as threat detection.

This is the simplest and most effective way to ensure admins receive immediate notifications when threats are detected by the gateways.

D . Integrate HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Device Insight (CPDI) with Central and schedule hourly reports:

Incorrect:

While CPDI integration provides enhanced device profiling, it is not directly tied to gateway IDS/IPS threat detection.

Hourly reports are not real-time notifications and would not meet the requirement for faster threat alerts.

Final Recommendation

Setting up email notifications through HPE Aruba Networking Central's global alert settings provides the most direct and efficient solution for immediate threat detection alerts.

Reference

HPE Aruba Networking Central Alert Management Documentation.

Aruba IDS/IPS and Security Dashboard Configuration Guide.

Email Notification Setup for Aruba Central Threat Alerts.

The 'Detect Valid SSID Misuse' event in Aruba's Wireless Intrusion Detection System (WIDS) indicates that a valid SSID, associated with your network, is being broadcast from an unauthorized source. This scenario often signals a potential rogue access point attempting to deceive clients into connecting to it (e.g., for credential harvesting or man-in-the-middle attacks).

1. Explanation of Each Option

A . Clients are failing to authenticate to corporate SSIDs. You should first check for misconfigured authentication settings and then investigate a possible threat:

Incorrect:

This event is not related to authentication failures by legitimate clients.

Misconfigured authentication settings would lead to events like 'authentication failures' or 'radius issues,' not 'valid SSID misuse.'

B . Admins have likely misconfigured SSID security settings on some of the company's APs. You should have them check those settings:

Incorrect:

This event refers to an external device broadcasting your SSID, not misconfiguration on the company's authorized APs.

WIDS differentiates between valid corporate APs and rogue APs.

C . Hackers are likely trying to pose as authorized APs. You should use the detecting radio information and immediately track down the device that triggered the event:

Correct:

This is the most likely cause of the 'detect valid SSID misuse' event. A rogue AP broadcasting a corporate SSID could lure clients into connecting to it, exposing sensitive credentials or traffic.

Immediate action includes:

Using the radio information from the event logs to identify the rogue AP's location.

Physically locating and removing the rogue device.

Strengthening WIPS/WIDS policies to prevent further misuse.

D . This event might be a threat but is almost always a false positive. You should wait to see the event over several days before following up on it:

Incorrect:

While false positives are possible, 'valid SSID misuse' is a critical security event that should not be ignored.

Delaying action increases the risk of successful attacks against your network.

2. Recommended Steps to Address the Event

Review Event Logs:

Gather details about the rogue AP, such as SSID, MAC address, channel, and signal strength.

Locate the Rogue Device:

Use the detecting AP's radio information and signal strength to triangulate the rogue AP's physical location.

Respond to the Threat:

Remove or disable the rogue device.

Notify the security team for further investigation.

Prevent Future Misuse:

Strengthen security policies, such as enabling client whitelists or enhancing WIPS protection.

Reference

Aruba WIDS/WIPS Configuration and Best Practices Guide.

Aruba Central Security Event Analysis Documentation.

Wireless Threat Management Using Aruba Networks.

1. Understanding CPDI Risk Score and Posture Analysis

The Risk Score in ClearPass Device Insight (CPDI) is a numerical value representing the overall risk level associated with a device. It considers factors such as:

Posture Assessment: The device's compliance with health policies (e.g., OS updates, antivirus status).

Security Analysis: Vulnerabilities detected on the device, such as known exploits or weak configurations.

A Risk Score of 90 indicates a high-risk device, suggesting that the posture is unhealthy and vulnerabilities have been detected.

2. Analysis of Each Option

A . The posture is unknown, and CPDI has detected exactly four vulnerabilities on the device:

Incorrect:

The posture cannot be 'unknown' because posture assessment is enabled in the settings.

CPDI does not explicitly indicate the exact number of vulnerabilities directly through the Risk Score.

B . The posture is healthy, but CPDI has detected multiple vulnerabilities on the device:

Incorrect:

A Risk Score of 90 is too high for a 'healthy' posture. A healthy posture would typically result in a lower Risk Score.

C . The posture is unhealthy, and CPDI has also detected at least one vulnerability on the device:

Correct:

A high Risk Score of 90 indicates an unhealthy posture.

The presence of vulnerabilities (based on Security Analysis being enabled) further justifies the high Risk Score.

This combination of unhealthy posture and detected vulnerabilities aligns with the Risk Score and configuration provided.

D . The posture is unhealthy, but CPDI has not detected any vulnerabilities on the device:

Incorrect:

If no vulnerabilities were detected, the Risk Score would not be as high as 90, even if the posture were unhealthy.

Final Interpretation

From the configuration and Risk Score provided, the device's posture is unhealthy, and at least one vulnerability has been detected by CPDI.

Reference

HPE Aruba ClearPass Device Insight Deployment Guide.

CPDI Risk Score Analysis and Security Settings Documentation.

Best Practices for Posture Assessment in Aruba Networks.

What is Zero Trust Security?

Zero Trust Security is a security model that operates on the principle of 'never trust, always verify.'

It focuses on securing resources (data, applications, systems) and continuously verifying the identity and trust level of users and devices, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the network.

The primary aim is to reduce reliance on perimeter defenses and implement granular access controls to protect individual resources.

Analysis of Each Option

A . Companies must apply the same access controls to all users, regardless of identity:

Incorrect:

Zero Trust enforces dynamic and identity-based access controls, not the same static controls for everyone.

Users and devices are granted access based on their specific context, role, and trust level.

B . Companies that support remote workers cannot achieve zero trust security and must determine if the benefits outweigh the cost:

Incorrect:

Zero Trust is particularly effective for securing remote work environments by verifying and authenticating remote users and devices before granting access to resources.

The model is adaptable to hybrid and remote work scenarios, making this statement false.

C . Companies should focus on protecting their resources rather than on protecting the boundaries of their internal network:

Correct:

Zero Trust shifts the focus from perimeter security (traditional network boundaries) to protecting specific resources.

This includes implementing measures such as:

Micro-segmentation.

Continuous monitoring of user and device trust levels.

Dynamic access control policies.

The emphasis is on securing sensitive assets rather than assuming an internal network is inherently safe.

D . Companies can achieve zero trust security by strengthening their perimeter security to detect a wider range of threats:

Incorrect:

Zero Trust challenges the traditional reliance on perimeter defenses (firewalls, VPNs) as the sole security mechanism.

Strengthening perimeter security is not sufficient for Zero Trust, as this model assumes threats can already exist inside the network.

Final Explanation

Zero Trust Security emphasizes protecting resources at the granular level rather than relying on the traditional security perimeter, which makes C the most accurate description.

Reference

NIST Zero Trust Architecture Guide.

Zero Trust Principles and Implementation in Modern Networks by HPE Aruba.

'Never Trust, Always Verify' Framework Overview from Cybersecurity Best Practices.

Why Monitoring Control Plane Policing (CoPP) with an NAE Agent Is Effective for Detecting DoS Attacks

Control Plane Policing (CoPP): AOS-CX switches use CoPP to protect the CPU from excessive traffic caused by DoS attacks (e.g., ARP floods, ICMP floods). CoPP enforces rate limits and drops malicious traffic at the control plane level.

NAE (Network Analytics Engine) Agent:

The NAE on AOS-CX switches can monitor CoPP counters in real time and trigger alerts if thresholds for certain traffic types (e.g., ICMP, ARP) are exceeded.

Admins can use NAE to automate detection and respond faster to DoS attacks.

Analysis of Each Option

A . Deploy an NAE agent on the switches to monitor control plane policing (CoPP):

Correct:

NAE agents provide real-time visibility into CoPP behavior, helping detect DoS attacks more quickly.

By analyzing CoPP statistics, the NAE can pinpoint abnormal traffic patterns and alert admins.

This is the most efficient and scalable solution for this use case.

B . Configure the switches to implement RADIUS accounting to HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass and enable HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Insight:

Incorrect:

While ClearPass can provide visibility into user authentication and device activity, it is not specifically designed to detect or mitigate DoS attacks against switches.

C . Implement ARP inspection on all VLANs that support end-user devices:

Incorrect:

ARP inspection helps mitigate ARP spoofing or poisoning, but it does not directly address detection of DoS attacks like ICMP or ARP floods.

It is a preventative measure, not a detection tool.

D . Enabling debugging of security functions on the switches:

Incorrect:

Debugging logs can help troubleshoot specific issues but are not practical for real-time detection of DoS attacks.

Enabling debugging can overload the switch and is not suitable for proactive monitoring.

Final Recommendation

Deploying an NAE agent to monitor CoPP is the best solution because it provides real-time detection, alerting, and insights into traffic patterns that indicate DoS attacks.

Reference

AOS-CX Network Analytics Engine (NAE) Configuration Guide.

HPE Aruba AOS-CX Control Plane Policing Documentation.

Best Practices for Protecting Switches Against DoS Attacks in Aruba Networks.