Exam NetSec-Analyst Topic 3 Question 47 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's NetSec-Analyst exam
Question #: 47
Topic #: 3
You are auditing a Palo Alto Networks firewall configuration. An External Dynamic List for 'Domain' type is configured to fetch from
https://threatfeed.example.com/domains.txt
with an update interval of 1 hour. The firewall's system logs show repeated messages like 'EDL Refresh Error: ssI_error_ssI:ssI_routines: ss13_read_bytes: sslv3 alert handshake failure'. What is the most probable root cause for this specific error?

Suggested Answer: A,B Vote an answer

The error 'ssl_error_ssl: ssl_routines: ss13_read_bytes: sslv3 alert handshake failure' specifically points to an SSL/TLS handshake issue. Option B (Correct): Many modern servers disable older, insecure protocols like SSLv3. If the firewall is attempting to connect using SSLv3 and the server only supports TLS 1.2/1.3, this handshake failure will occur. This is a very common reason for this specific error message. Option A (Correct): An expired or untrusted certificate on the server side would also lead to a handshake failure, as the firewall cannot establish a secure, trusted connection. The client (firewall) rejects the server's certificate during the handshake. Option C is unlikely to cause an SSL handshake failure; it would manifest as connection refused or rate limiting. Option D would prevent any connection, not specifically an SSL handshake failure. Option E would cause parsing errors after a successful fetch, not a handshake failure during the initial connection.

by Adonis at Jun 09, 2026, 09:37 PM

Comments

Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?) , you can switch to a simple comment.
Switch to a voting comment New
Nick name: Submit Cancel
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.

Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one. So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.

0
0
0
10