156-590 Exam Questions & Answers

The correct answer is B. QoS Policy exemptions. Threat Prevention exceptions are policy constructs used to alter how Threat Prevention blades, IPS protections, files, sites, or protected-scope objects are handled. Check Point documentation explains that an exception sets a different action for an object in the protected scope than the action specified by the Threat Prevention rule, and that exceptions are generally intended to reduce the level of enforcement rather than increase it. The guide also describes creating exceptions from IPS Protections, logs, events, and exception groups, all within the Threat Prevention policy workflow.

IPS Settings Exceptions, Core Activation Exceptions, and Implied IPS Exceptions are aligned with the IPS/Threat Prevention exception model because they affect how protections are activated, tuned, or safely excluded from enforcement. QoS Policy exemptions do not belong to Threat Prevention exception taxonomy. QoS relates to traffic prioritization, bandwidth control, and quality-of-service enforcement, not malware, IPS, Anti-Bot, Anti-Virus, or blade exception handling. In certification terms, the key separation is policy domain: Threat Prevention exceptions modify security inspection behavior, while QoS exemptions belong to traffic management. Reference topics: Threat Prevention Exceptions, IPS Exceptions, Core Activation Exceptions, Implied IPS Exceptions, exception groups.

The correct answer is D. 2 million. In R81.20, Check Point expanded the supported scale for custom threat intelligence observables. The R81.20 Threat Prevention Administration Guide states that, starting from R81.20, the Security Gateway supports at least 2 million patterns/observables for URL, Domain, IP address, and Hash observable types. It also notes that the maximum number is limited by available memory and disk space on the Security Gateway, and that the gateway checks whether 50% of total memory is free before loading more patterns or observables.

This capability applies to Custom Intelligence Feeds, which let administrators fetch feeds from third-party servers directly to the Security Gateway for enforcement by Anti-Virus, Anti-Bot, and IPS blades. The feature reduces operational overhead by allowing external indicators to be managed and monitored through the Threat Prevention enforcement path. The incorrect options either understate or overstate the documented baseline. ''Unlimited'' is also incorrect because Check Point explicitly ties the upper boundary to memory and disk capacity. Reference topics: Custom Threat Indicators, External IoC Feeds, Custom Intelligence Feeds, observable scale, R81.20 Threat Prevention, URL/domain/IP/hash indicators.

The correct answer is B. Pre-infection. IPS is categorized as a pre-infection Threat Prevention blade because its primary role is to stop exploitation attempts before the protected host becomes compromised. Check Point's Threat Prevention guide describes IPS as protection against malicious and unwanted network traffic, focusing on application and server vulnerabilities, in-the-wild attacks, exploit kits, and malicious attackers. The same guide distinguishes Anti-Bot & Advanced DNS as post-infection detection of bots on hosts, while Anti-Virus is described as pre-infection detection and blocking of malware at the gateway.

IPS belongs in the pre-infection stage because it prevents the exploit chain from succeeding. It inspects network traffic for vulnerability exploitation, protocol abuse, malformed payloads, known CVE exploitation attempts, server attacks, client attacks, and suspicious patterns that could lead to compromise. ''Preventative'' is broadly true as an English description, but it is not the specific Check Point lifecycle classification tested here. ''Inline'' describes where a security function may sit in traffic flow, not the infection-stage category. ''Post-infection'' is associated with Anti-Bot, which detects and blocks command-and-control communications after a host shows signs of compromise. Reference topics: IPS Software Blade, pre-infection prevention, exploit protection, Threat Prevention architecture, Anti-Bot post-infection contrast.

The correct answer is A. Users surfing the website directly by IP address or using domains registered within the last 30 days. Anti-Bot is focused on post-infection compromise evidence: it identifies hosts that may already be infected and attempts to prevent command-and-control communication or other botnet behavior. Check Point documentation describes Anti-Bot as a Threat Prevention component that blocks botnet behavior and communication to Command and Control centers, while the broader Threat Prevention solution provides multi-layered pre- and post-infection defense.

Direct IP browsing and use of newly registered domains are suspicious because malware frequently avoids mature domain reputation controls, rotates infrastructure quickly, or contacts IP-based C2 endpoints directly to bypass domain-based filtering. Domains registered within a recent window are a common risk indicator because malicious campaigns often use disposable infrastructure with short operational lifetimes. Option B is not inherently evidence of bot infection; explicit proxy use may be a network design choice. Option C describes normal intranet access patterns. Option D may indicate weak encryption hygiene but is not specific evidence of compromise. In Anti-Bot analysis, indicators such as suspicious destinations, direct IP access, newly observed domains, and C2-like behavior help identify infected internal hosts. Reference topics: Anti-Bot, post-infection detection, Command and Control communication, suspicious domains, infected-host analysis.

The correct answer is B. The executive reports generally contain abstract information without much technical detail. You have to use Smart Event Threat Prevention Report filtered for last week data. For executive communication, the correct SmartEvent mechanism is a report rather than a raw log export or interactive operational view. Check Point documentation explains that views and reports can be exported to PDF or CSV using defined filters and time frames, and that reports summarize network activity and Security Policy enforcement generated by Check Point products such as SmartEvent.

A CEO-level security-incident briefing should emphasize risk, timeline, impact, affected assets, attack category, prevention outcome, and recommended remediation, without requiring the recipient to interpret raw logs or technical blade details. A Threat Prevention Report filtered for last week provides the appropriate time-bounded summary. Option A is overly manual and uses a view plus CSV/PDF conversion rather than the report mechanism. Option C incorrectly shifts the workflow to SmartLog filtering and an external report generator. Option D uses a view, which is better suited for live or interactive operational analysis by administrators, not executive distribution. Reference topics: SmartEvent Reports, Threat Prevention Report, report time filters, executive reporting, exporting reports.