Score Higher on Verified NSE6_OTS_AR-7.6 | Fortinet NSE 6 - OT Security 7.6 Architect Exam Questions with Answers

The correct answer is D. Automatically by an event handler . The study guide explicitly states that “Event handlers generate events on FortiAnalyzer” and “FortiAnalyzer uses event handlers to filter all incoming logs. If the logs received match the conditions set in the event handlers, FortiAnalyzer generates an event.” It also says “You can view all generated events on the Event Monitor page.” This directly matches the exhibit, which is showing entries on the Event Monitor page. Therefore, the attack shown there was detected automatically through an event handler .

The guide also explains the detection flow: “FortiAnalyzer receives logs,” “FortiAnalyzer parses logs,” and “FortiAnalyzer generates an event if a rule is matched in an event handler.” In addition, the Event Monitor view includes the Handler column, which identifies the event handler that generated the event. That is why the attack is not considered manually detected, and it is not primarily detected by a playbook or stitch. Playbooks and stitches are used for subsequent automation actions, but the event appearing in Event Monitor is created by the event handler mechanism.

Based on the provided exhibits from the FortiAnalyzer playbook engine:

Playbook Trigger Condition : The Partial Playbook configuration exhibit shows that the playbook is set to trigger based on a condition where the Basic Handler Name is Equal To IPS_Attack_Handling.

Event vs. Log : In FortiAnalyzer, the field Basic Handler Name is a property of an Event record, indicating the specific Event Handler that generated it. A playbook configured with this condition is triggered by an Event , not directly by a raw log.

Playbook Execution Flow : The Partial Playbook Monitor view shows the execution sequence:

Event_Trigger (Starter) : This is the entry point of the playbook, which matches the condition defined in the configuration.

IPS_Attack_Incident : The first task executed after the trigger.

Run_Report : The task in question, which is executed as part of the automated workflow initiated by the starter.

Conclusion : Since the playbook's "Starter" is defined by the IPS_Attack_Handling handler name, an event produced by that handler is the root trigger for the entire playbook execution, including the Run_Report task.

Therefore, the Run_Report task was triggered (as part of the playbook) by an IPS_Attack_Handling event .

The correct answer is C. You can implement parallel redundancy protocol . The study guide explains that media redundancy involves creating a backup path that can be used when part of the network fails and specifically states that “Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) can be used for a star topology.” Since the problem described is many disconnections in the links , the issue is link availability, which is a media redundancy problem rather than a firewall virtualization or policy separation problem. PRP is designed to provide a backup communication path with low recovery time when links fail.

The other options do not fit this scenario as well. HA clusters are described in the guide as a solution for network node redundancy , where a backup firewall or switch takes over when the primary device fails. SD-WAN is recommended for remote site access across multiple WAN links, not for the local floor links shown in this topology. VDOMs provide logical segmentation, not link redundancy or higher link availability. Because the question is specifically about repeated link disconnections , the best action is to implement PRP .