Firefly Open Source Community

Title: Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE日本語、PT-AM-CPE問題数 [Print This Page]
Author: sidtate353    Time: yesterday 11:56
Title: Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE日本語、PT-AM-CPE問題数
無料でクラウドストレージから最新のPassTest PT-AM-CPE PDFダンプをダウンロードする：https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bF4l88cuMaet4n5oUHg3n1OSSgIL0aB_
私たちPing IdentityのPT-AM-CPE学習クイズは、仕上げの体系的な分析の分野での近年の試験状況のさまざまな専門家から作られ、学生の要求をできるだけ満たし、同時にチェックとレビューを行う専門スタッフがいますPT-AM-CPE実践教材、学生の学習に高品質の情報を楽しんでもらいました。 試験の多様性により、PassTestのPT-AM-CPE学習教材もさまざまな種類の学習教材にまとめられているため、学生は必要なPT-AM-CPEガイド急流の情報をすばやく見つけることができます。
Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE 認定試験の出題範囲：
トピック出題範囲
トピック 1
  • インテリジェント アクセスの強化: このドメインでは、認証メカニズムの実装、PingGateway を使用した Web サイトの保護、リソースのアクセス制御ポリシーの確立について説明します。
トピック 2
  • OAuth2 ベースのプロトコルを使用したサービスの拡張: このドメインでは、アプリケーションと OAuth 2.0 および OpenID Connect の統合、相互 TLS および所有証明による OAuth2 クライアントのセキュリティ保護、OAuth2 トークンの変換、ソーシャル認証の実装について説明します。
トピック 3
  • SAML2 を使用したエンティティ間のフェデレーション: このドメインでは、SAML v2.0 を使用したシングル サインオンの実装と、SAML2 エンティティ間の認証責任の委任について説明します。
トピック 4
  • AM のインストールと展開: このドメインには、PingAM のインストールとアップグレード、セキュリティ構成の強化、クラスター環境のセットアップ、PingOne Advanced Identity Platform のクラウドへの展開が含まれます。
トピック 5
  • アクセス管理セキュリティの向上: このドメインでは、認証セキュリティの強化、コンテキスト認識型認証エクスペリエンスの実装、ユーザー セッション全体にわたる継続的なリスク監視の確立に重点を置いています。

>> Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE日本語 <<
実用的-ハイパスレートのPT-AM-CPE日本語試験-試験の準備方法PT-AM-CPE問題数ご存知のように、私たちは今、非常に大きな競争圧力に直面しています。欲しいものを手に入れるにはもっと力が必要です。PT-AM-CPE無料の試験ガイドがこれらを提供するかもしれません。教材を使用すると、Ping Identity Certifications認定資格を取得できます。これにより、多くの競合他社の中で、あなたの能力がより明確になります。 PT-AM-CPE練習ファイルを使用することは、ソフトパワーを向上させるための重要なステップです。業界の他の製品と比較して、PT-AM-CPE学習教材が顧客を引き付けるために必要なものを理解するのに少し時間を割いていただければ幸いです。
Ping Identity Certified Professional - PingAM Exam 認定 PT-AM-CPE 試験問題 (Q15-Q20):質問 # 15
Why should module-based authentication be disabled in production?
正解：B
解説：
In PingAM 8.0.2, there is a critical distinction between Tree-based (or Chain-based) authentication and Module-based authentication. Module-based authentication is a legacy feature that allows a user to target an individual authentication module directly (e.g., .../UI/Login?module=DataStore).
According to the "Security Considerations" and "Hardening PingAM" documentation, module-based authentication poses a significant security risk and should be disabled in production. This is because it allows a user to bypass steps in an authentication chain (Option C).
If an administrator has designed a secure "Chain" that requires both a DataStore (password) check AND a One-Time Password (MFA) check, the intention is for these to be inseparable. However, if module-based authentication is enabled, a malicious user or a tester could bypass the MFA requirement by crafting a URL that calls only the "DataStore" module. This effectively circumvents the multi-factor security logic intended by the administrator.
To mitigate this, PingAM provides a global and realm-level setting to "Disable Module-based Authentication." Once disabled, PingAM will only process authentication requests that target a named Authentication Tree or Chain, ensuring that the user is forced through the entire sequence of nodes and logic defined by the security architect.

質問 # 16
Which token transformation is not supported by the REST security token service?
正解：A
解説：
The Security Token Service (STS) in PingAM 8.0.2 acts as a broker that translates security tokens from one format to another, allowing for interoperability between different security domains (e.g., translating a web-based session into a SOAP-based SAML assertion).
According to the PingAM "Security Token Service (STS)" documentation and the "Rest-Based STS" reference, the service supports a specific set of input and output token types. Supported input (source) tokens typically include Username Tokens, SAML2 Tokens, X.509 Certificates, Kerberos Tokens, and the internal PingAM Session Token (SSOToken). The service can transform these into output (target) tokens such as SAML2 Assertions or OIDC ID Tokens.
Analysis of the options:
Option A (Username token -> SAML2): Supported. This is a common use case where a client provides a username and password (WS-Security format) and receives a SAML2 assertion.
Option B (Kerberos -> SAML2): Supported. Used in Windows Desktop SSO environments where a SPNEGO/Kerberos token is exchanged for a SAML assertion for cloud applications.
Option D (PingAM SessionToken -> SAML2): Supported. This allows a user who already has a valid AM session to obtain a SAML2 token for a back-end web service.
Option C (OpenID Connect -> SAML2): Not supported by the REST STS implementation in version 8.0.2. While PingAM supports OIDC and SAML2 federation generally, the specialized STS service does not list an OIDC ID Token as a valid input token type for transformation into a SAML2 assertion within its specific state machine. OIDC to SAML "bridging" is typically handled via the standard Federation service rather than the STS broker.

質問 # 17
Which of the following would be a possible combination of fields in the JSON body when making a policy evaluation via REST?
正解：D
解説：
In PingAM 8.0.2, requesting policy decisions via the REST API involves sending a POST request to the policies endpoint with the _action=evaluate parameter. To receive an accurate decision, the request body must provide the context of the access attempt.
According to the "Request policy decisions over REST" documentation, the JSON body typically includes the following core fields:
resources: (Required) An array of strings representing the URIs the user is attempting to access.
application: (Required) This field specifies the name of the Policy Set (formerly known as the application) that contains the relevant policies for the evaluation.
subject: (Optional, but usually required for user-specific policies) This object identifies the user or entity requesting access. It can include the user's ssoToken or a set of claims if using JWT-based subjects.
Why other options are incorrect: Advices (Options A and C) are not inputs for a policy evaluation request. Instead, advices are returned by PingAM in the response if a policy condition fails (e.g., an AuthLevelConditionAdvice requesting the user to provide MFA). A request cannot "evaluate" an advice; it triggers one. Option D is incorrect because the resources field is a mandatory requirement for any evaluation; without a target resource, the engine has nothing to compare against the defined policy rules. Therefore, the combination of resources, subject, and application represents the standard, valid structure for a policy decision request in PingAM 8.0.2.

質問 # 18
Consider the following LDAP connection string:
DS1.example.com:389|01, DS2.example.com:389|01, DS2.example.com:389|02, DS1.example.com:389|02 This connection string can be used in:
A . Identity Store
B . Core Token Service
C . Configuration Data Store
Which of the above options are correct?
正解：C
解説：
The connection string format HOSTORT|SERVERID|SITEID is a specific syntax used in PingAM 8.0.2 for Affinity Load Balancing, a feature almost exclusively associated with the Core Token Service (CTS). In high-volume deployments, the CTS handles thousands of session updates per second. To avoid replication lag issues-where an AM server might try to read a session token from a directory server (DS) before the update has replicated from another DS node-PingAM uses "Affinity."16 According to the "CtsDataStoreProperties" and "CTS Deployment Architectures" documentation, this specialized string allows the AM instance to prioritize connections based on the Server ID and Site ID.17 The pipe (|) characters signify the optional affinity parameters:
01/02: These represent the Server IDs of the underlying Directory Servers.
Affinity Logic: By providing these IDs, PingAM can ensure that it always routes requests for the same CTS token to the same directory server node.18 While standard Identity Stores (Option A) and the Configuration Data Store (Option C) use LDAP connection strings, they typically utilize a comma-separated list of host:port pairs or rely on a hardware load balancer. The specific use of server and site IDs within the connection string itself to manage LDAP request routing is a hallmark of the CTS affinity configuration.19 The documentation explicitly states that "Each connection string is composed as follows: HOSTORT[|SERVERID[|SITEID]]" within the context of CTS external store configuration.20 Therefore, this complex string is specifically designed for the Core Token Service to ensure data consistency and high performance in clustered environments.

質問 # 19
What happens when an end user accesses the following login page: .../XUI/?ForceAuth=true#login?
正解：C
解説：
The ForceAuth=true parameter is a standard directive used in various authentication protocols (specifically SAML2 and OIDC) and is natively supported by the PingAM 8.0.2 XUI (the modern End-User User Interface).
According to the "Authentication and SSO" documentation:
Normally, if a user has an active, valid session cookie (iPlanetDirectoryPro), and they navigate to the AM login URL, PingAM will recognize the session and automatically redirect the user to their destination (the "Success URL") without prompting for credentials. This is the core benefit of Single Sign-On.
However, when the ForceAuth=true parameter is appended to the query string, it instructs the PingAM authentication engine to bypass the session check for the purpose of re-authentication. The engine will:
Ignore the existing valid session cookie.
Force the user back to the login page (rendering the initial nodes of the configured authentication tree).
Require the user to provide their credentials again.
This is a critical security feature for high-value transactions. For instance, if a user is already logged in but attempts to change their bank transfer details, the application can redirect them to AM with ForceAuth=true to ensure the person sitting at the computer is indeed the authorized user. Option B is incorrect because ForceAuth only forces a re-authentication; whether that includes MFA depends on the tree configuration, not the parameter itself. Option C is incorrect as PingAM explicitly processes this parameter. Therefore, the primary outcome is the redirection to the login page regardless of the current session state.

質問 # 20
......
我々PassTestはPing IdentityのPT-AM-CPE試験問題集をリリースする以降、多くのお客様の好評を博したのは弊社にとって、大変な名誉なことです。また、我々はさらに認可を受けられるために、皆様の一切の要求を満足できて喜ぶ気持ちでずっと協力し、完備かつ精確のPT-AM-CPE試験問題集を開発するのに準備します。
PT-AM-CPE問題数: https://www.passtest.jp/Ping-Identity/PT-AM-CPE-shiken.html
2026年PassTestの最新PT-AM-CPE PDFダンプおよびPT-AM-CPE試験エンジンの無料共有：https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bF4l88cuMaet4n5oUHg3n1OSSgIL0aB_




Welcome Firefly Open Source Community (https://bbs.t-firefly.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.1