Netskope  NSK100 Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions

Question 1:

A customer is looking to identify configuration errors in their AWS cloud environment. Which Netskope feature should you suggest for this use case?

A. Netskope Secure Web Gateway (SWG)
B. Netskope Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
C. Netskope Advanced DLP and Threat Protection
D. Netskope SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM)

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

When a customer wants to identify configuration flaws within their AWS infrastructure, the ideal solution lies in a product that provides continuous assessment, visibility, and security posture evaluation of the cloud environment. This is precisely where Netskope Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) becomes the recommended option.

CSPM is specifically built to detect and remediate misconfigurations in cloud environments, including IaaS platforms like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. It continuously scans cloud services and evaluates their configurations against industry benchmarks such as CIS (Center for Internet Security) guidelines, ensuring that they comply with security best practices and organizational policies. With CSPM, users gain actionable insights into risky permissions, overly exposed cloud storage buckets, improperly configured security groups, and many other critical cloud security concerns.

Let’s break down the incorrect options to understand why they’re not ideal in this context:

A. Netskope Secure Web Gateway (SWG):
The SWG focuses on protecting web traffic by enforcing policies, blocking malicious URLs, filtering content, and controlling unsanctioned SaaS usage. It provides visibility into web activity but does not inspect cloud infrastructure configurations, making it irrelevant for identifying AWS misconfigurations.

C. Netskope Advanced DLP and Threat Protection:
This feature suite is designed for protecting sensitive data and blocking threats like malware and phishing across web and cloud platforms. While it plays a critical role in data security and threat defense, it doesn’t evaluate or manage infrastructure-level configurations in the cloud.

D. Netskope SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM):
SSPM is tailored for monitoring and securing SaaS applications such as Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, or Salesforce. It assesses the security posture of SaaS apps but is not applicable for managing IaaS platforms like AWS.

In conclusion, CSPM is the feature purpose-built to monitor cloud configurations and identify risks or misconfigurations in AWS. Its capability to automate checks, enforce compliance, and provide detailed remediation recommendations makes it the best fit for the customer's needs.

Question 2:

After deploying the Netskope client in Web mode, users report that their messaging application has stopped working. The application uses proprietary encryption and is already allowed in a real-time policy. 

What change would best restore functionality while retaining some visibility?

A. Modify the real-time policy to block the messaging application
B. Build a custom app using the custom connector for policy enforcement
C. Configure an SSL decryption policy to bypass the messaging application’s domain
D. Add a steering exception in the configuration for the messenger app

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

In this scenario, the messaging app is already permitted by policy but is still malfunctioning due to proprietary encryption that likely interferes with SSL inspection or decryption. Netskope’s Web mode attempts to decrypt SSL traffic for policy enforcement and visibility. However, applications with custom or proprietary encryption methods can break under SSL decryption, resulting in disrupted functionality.

The most appropriate solution here is to bypass SSL decryption for the specific domain(s) used by the messaging application (Option C). This action instructs Netskope to allow encrypted traffic from the app to pass through untouched. While full content visibility may be lost, it maintains basic logging and ensures the application functions correctly. Importantly, it avoids causing SSL handshake errors or app timeouts—issues often seen when attempting to decrypt proprietary encryption formats.

Let’s assess why the other options are less suitable:

A. Modify the real-time policy to block the messaging application:
Blocking the application contradicts the requirement to maintain access. This would prevent the app from functioning altogether and provide no solution for user complaints or visibility needs.

B. Build a custom app using the custom connector:
Although creating a custom cloud app allows for advanced policy enforcement, it doesn’t address the underlying encryption conflict. The issue is not a lack of app definition but the inability to decrypt and inspect the traffic, making this option ineffective.

D. Add a steering exception in the configuration:
Steering exceptions reroute traffic around Netskope but bypass all policy controls, including visibility. While it might restore app functionality, it sacrifices too much security oversight and doesn’t address the encryption-specific problem that SSL decryption policies are designed to handle more gracefully.

To summarize, bypassing SSL decryption for the encrypted messaging domains allows the application to work without fully disabling Netskope's monitoring capabilities. It is the most balanced approach to maintain both usability and partial visibility in environments where proprietary encryption interferes with standard policy enforcement.

Question 3:

Which two statements correctly highlight the primary distinctions between inline and API-based deployments in the Netskope platform? (Select two.)

A. The API deployment model supports both authorized and unauthorized cloud applications
B. The API deployment is limited strictly to approved (sanctioned) applications
C. The inline deployment method allows real-time blocking for both approved and unapproved apps
D. The inline deployment only works effectively with approved (sanctioned) applications

Correct Answers: A and C

Explanation:

The Netskope platform provides two core modes of deployment—inline and API-based—to offer flexible cloud application security. Each method has distinct features and serves different use cases based on how organizations want to manage and monitor data traffic across cloud services.

API-based deployment leverages the built-in application programming interfaces provided by cloud service vendors (e.g., Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive) to interact with and monitor user activities. It works without rerouting network traffic and is ideal for gaining deep visibility into data at rest or user interactions within the cloud service itself.

• Option A is correct because API-based deployment allows the security team to apply control and visibility across both sanctioned (approved by IT) and unsanctioned (shadow IT) apps—as long as those apps provide compatible APIs. This flexibility is particularly useful for organizations looking to monitor behavior across a wide array of cloud services, including those not officially approved.

• Option B is incorrect because API integrations are not exclusive to sanctioned apps. While sanctioned apps are more likely to offer robust API access, some unsanctioned cloud services can also be monitored and controlled if they expose their APIs.

Inline deployment, by contrast, intercepts traffic in real-time using proxies, VPNs, or agents. This method enables live enforcement of policy decisions, such as blocking uploads, downloads, or file shares based on user, device, app, or data context.

• Option C is correct because inline deployments enable real-time blocking and policy enforcement across both sanctioned and unsanctioned cloud services. Since all traffic flows through the Netskope platform, actions can be immediately intercepted, regardless of whether the cloud app is IT-approved.

• Option D is incorrect because inline enforcement works with both app types. Unlike API-based methods, inline traffic inspection doesn’t rely on pre-established API access and can detect and block traffic from lesser-known or shadow IT services.

In conclusion, API deployments offer out-of-band monitoring and control for apps that expose APIs, while inline deployments enable immediate, in-path enforcement across a broader set of applications. The correct distinctions are captured by A and C.

Question 4:

A customer needs two real-time policies for a cloud storage app. Policy A sends alerts when users download, upload, or share files. Policy B blocks downloads on devices not running Mac or Windows OS. 

Since Policy A is less restrictive than Policy B, which policy should be applied first?

A. Policy A should be evaluated before Policy B
B. Policy B should be evaluated before Policy A
C. The order of the policies doesn’t affect how they work
D. These two policies cannot be used together in the same environment

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

Real-time policies in platforms like Netskope allow administrators to manage user activity across cloud applications by either alerting or blocking certain behaviors. These policies are processed in a sequence, and the order in which they are evaluated can significantly impact how user activities are monitored or restricted.

In this scenario, two policies are created:

• Policy A is designed to generate alerts for user actions such as downloading, uploading, or sharing files.

• Policy B is meant to block downloads if they are being made from operating systems other than Mac or Windows.

These two policies are not mutually exclusive. They operate at different levels of enforcement: Policy A is passive (monitoring and alerting), while Policy B is active (blocking unwanted activity). The policy order matters, especially when one is less restrictive than the other.

• Option A is correct because in a well-structured policy framework, less restrictive policies should be evaluated before more restrictive ones. By applying Policy A first, the system can generate alerts on user actions regardless of whether those actions are later blocked. This ensures visibility and logging of user behavior before enforcement kicks in.

• Option B is incorrect because if Policy B is evaluated first and blocks the action immediately, Policy A may never get triggered. This prevents the system from generating valuable alert data on what would have occurred, undermining the purpose of Policy A.

• Option C is incorrect because Netskope does prioritize policy execution based on their order. Policies are not inherently independent, and the enforcement logic respects the order set by administrators to ensure that logging, alerting, and blocking behaviors occur in the right sequence.

• Option D is incorrect because these two policies can absolutely coexist. There is no conflict in the rules themselves—Policy A handles alerting based on user action, while Policy B enforces restrictions based on operating system type. Together, they provide layered control.

In summary, for optimal visibility and control, you should configure Policy A (alerting) to run before Policy B (blocking). This setup ensures that all user activity is first logged and analyzed, and then selectively blocked if it violates stricter security rules. Hence, the correct answer is A.

Question 5:

Which two scenarios demonstrate CASB inline interception capabilities? (Select two.)

A. Preventing file uploads to a personal Box storage account
B. Conducting a historical scan of stored files in Google Drive
C. Alerting users through the Netskope steering client when sensitive content is posted to Slack
D. Detecting and stopping the upload of credit card data to Dropbox

Correct Answers: A and D

Explanation:

Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASBs) play a vital role in ensuring secure usage of cloud services by acting as a security enforcement point between cloud consumers and cloud providers. One of the most powerful features of a CASB is inline interception, which allows the system to apply security controls in real-time as users interact with cloud services. Inline interception enables the CASB to immediately inspect, block, or alter traffic based on defined policies, preventing data leaks or non-compliant behavior before it occurs.

Option A, which involves blocking file uploads to a personal Box account, is a textbook example of inline interception. In this use case, the CASB analyzes the user's attempt to upload content to a cloud storage provider and applies predefined policies to prevent uploads to unauthorized or personal accounts. This action occurs immediately, intercepting and blocking the data flow before the file reaches its destination.

Option D, which includes scanning for sensitive information like credit card data in Dropbox, also represents an inline use case. As a user attempts to upload a file to Dropbox, the CASB inspects the content in transit for sensitive information using Data Loss Prevention (DLP) techniques. If the scan detects something like credit card numbers, the CASB can instantly stop the upload, ensuring regulatory and organizational compliance.

By contrast, the other two options do not qualify as inline use cases:

Option B refers to retroactive scanning of data already stored in Google Drive. This type of analysis is called data-at-rest scanning, and it is classified as a non-inline activity because it does not involve real-time traffic inspection. Instead, it’s part of ongoing data hygiene and risk assessment.

Option C talks about providing alerts through the Netskope steering client when sensitive data is posted in Slack. While the steering client directs traffic to Netskope, generating an alert isn’t the same as enforcing a block or real-time inspection. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for inline interception, as no live action is taken to prevent the behavior.

In conclusion, blocking file uploads to unauthorized Box accounts and preventing credit card data from being uploaded to Dropbox are prime examples of inline CASB use cases, where real-time monitoring and policy enforcement secure cloud interactions before data leaves the endpoint.

Question 6:

Why might an organization choose to modify the default CCI (Cloud Confidence Index) scoring for a SaaS application?

A. The application has not yet been scored in the CCI database
B. The organization considers vendors that claim data ownership to pose greater business risk
C. The organization wants to penalize a vendor for unsatisfactory customer support
D. The application is currently marked as “under research”

Answer: B

Explanation:

The Cloud Confidence Index (CCI) is a framework used to evaluate the trustworthiness and security posture of cloud applications. It provides a standardized score based on factors such as data privacy, regulatory compliance, encryption, user authentication, and ownership policies. Although it starts with an objective baseline score, organizations have the flexibility to customize the scoring model to align with their own internal risk assessment policies and security priorities.

Option B is correct because it reflects a legitimate and strategic reason for adjusting the CCI score. If an organization determines that vendors asserting ownership over customer data present a higher business or compliance risk, they may decide to weight this factor more heavily in their CCI scoring. This is particularly relevant for organizations in regulated industries or those that have strict data governance policies. Adjusting the score ensures the tool aligns more closely with the organization’s risk management framework and allows them to make better-informed decisions when selecting or reviewing SaaS providers.

Let’s consider why the other options are not valid reasons:

Option A discusses an application that hasn’t yet received a CCI score. In such cases, the application will typically appear as “unrated.” While this does flag it for review, it doesn’t justify altering the scoring criteria. The correct response would be to wait for the application to be assessed by the CCI framework or to perform an internal security review.

Option C suggests modifying the CCI score as a form of retaliation for poor customer service, which is inappropriate. The CCI is focused solely on security, privacy, and compliance, not customer relations. Personal grievances or subjective experiences should not impact security evaluations, as they do not reflect technical risk.

Option D refers to a SaaS application listed as “under research” in the CCI system. This means it is being evaluated but not yet scored. Adjusting its score during this phase would be speculative and unjustified, as no comprehensive risk profile has yet been developed.

In summary, adjusting the CCI score is a valid action when it reflects an organization’s specific risk factors, such as placing higher importance on data ownership policies. Doing so helps tailor the CCI to support more effective security decision-making across cloud service usage.

Question 7:

When using the Netskope client interface, which option should you select after right-clicking the system tray icon to generate logs for submitting a support request?

A. Save logs
B. Configuration
C. Troubleshoot
D. Help

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

When encountering a client-related issue in the Netskope environment, submitting a comprehensive service request to support often requires client logs. These logs help technical teams investigate the behavior of the Netskope client, examine recent activity, and identify root causes behind connectivity, policy enforcement, or performance-related issues.

To generate these logs, the correct process begins at the Netskope client UI. You should right-click on the Netskope icon in the system tray (available on Windows or macOS). From the displayed context menu, select the option labeled “Save logs.” This is the designated command that packages detailed client-side logs into a format that can be easily submitted to Netskope support.

Let’s clarify why this is the correct action:

• Option A: Save logs (Correct)
  Choosing “Save logs” initiates a process that collects event histories, policy enforcement results, client settings, and any internal error messages. These logs are typically saved locally and can then be uploaded or attached to a service ticket. They are the most direct and accurate source of insight into client-side behavior.

Now, analyzing why the other options are not suitable:

• Option B: Configuration
  This option is generally used to view or modify client settings, such as proxy usage, server connections, or diagnostic toggles. However, it doesn’t create a log file for support, so it’s not useful for troubleshooting submissions.
  Option C: Troubleshoot
  Although this sounds appropriate, “Troubleshoot” may offer diagnostic tools or checks but does not save logs in a format suitable for Netskope’s support team. It may assist end users in identifying issues but lacks the comprehensive logging functionality needed for official service requests.

• Option D: Help
  Selecting “Help” will likely open documentation or support resources. While it may guide users to find solutions or access community forums, it won’t generate logs necessary for detailed case analysis.

In summary, if you're facing a client-side issue and need to raise a support ticket with Netskope, your first step should be to right-click the client tray icon and select “Save logs.” This ensures that the support team receives all the technical data they need to resolve the issue quickly and accurately.

Question 8:

To prevent users from uploading files into potentially unsafe collaboration platforms using Netskope’s CASB features, which component should be configured?

A. DLP Rule
B. Real-time policy
C. DLP Profile
D. Block notification

Correct Answer:  B

Explanation:

To block users from uploading data into risky or unauthorized collaboration applications, such as unapproved cloud storage services, Netskope’s CASB (Cloud Access Security Broker) provides the ideal tools through its real-time policy engine.

A real-time policy acts as the primary enforcement layer in Netskope. It allows administrators to define precise actions (such as block, allow, or alert) for user behavior based on parameters like activity type (upload, download), application category, user identity, location, or even file type. In this scenario, the action is to block all uploads to collaboration apps deemed risky — a perfect use case for a real-time policy.

Let’s assess the other options:

• Option A: DLP Rule
  A Data Loss Prevention (DLP) rule is used to detect and act upon specific types of sensitive content, such as credit card numbers, SSNs, or intellectual property. While DLP rules are powerful, they are typically content-aware and not designed to block all uploads, regardless of data type. They require context from a real-time policy to apply enforcement actions.

• Option B: Real-time policy (Correct)
  This is the correct answer. A real-time policy allows Netskope to monitor and control actions as they happen, blocking uploads based on the application, risk level, and user role. You can configure the policy to act on all files — not just sensitive ones — and to apply only to collaboration platforms flagged as risky.

• Option C: DLP ProfileA DLP profile serves as a building block for DLP rules. It outlines what kind of data is sensitive (e.g., PII or HIPAA-protected data). However, profiles do not have enforcement power on their own — they are just definitions used within rules and policies.

• Option D: Block notification
  A block notification is what users see after an action is blocked. It’s a messaging tool used to inform the user why their activity was denied. While useful for user awareness, it does not perform the blocking itself.

In conclusion, to enforce a policy that blocks all users from uploading any data to high-risk collaboration apps, the administrator must configure a real-time policy in Netskope CASB. This is the key enforcement tool that combines context, behavior, and application intelligence to secure cloud interactions.

Question 9:

Why do older security solutions such as on-premises proxies and firewalls struggle to secure modern data access compared to Netskope’s Secure Web Gateway? (Choose two.)

A. Traditional solutions cannot identify which user is accessing a cloud-based application.
B. Cloud applications hosting sensitive data are no longer stored in centralized locations.
C. Legacy systems inherently fail to meet compliance frameworks.
D. Users who access corporate data are geographically dispersed and not confined to a single location.

Correct Answers: B and D

Explanation:

Legacy security solutions like on-premises firewalls and proxies were designed during a time when enterprise data resided in centralized data centers and users primarily accessed systems from within a defined corporate perimeter. However, the evolution toward cloud computing, SaaS adoption, and remote work has rendered these traditional tools ineffective in many modern use cases.

Option B is correct because in today’s digital landscape, data is no longer housed in one physical location. Organizations increasingly use cloud-based services like Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Salesforce, and Dropbox. These services distribute data across global data centers and third-party infrastructure, which are outside the control of conventional security devices. On-premises firewalls and proxies cannot inspect, monitor, or control traffic to these cloud-hosted environments effectively. Netskope's Secure Web Gateway (SWG), being cloud-native, offers inline traffic inspection across web, cloud, and private applications—regardless of where the data resides.

Option D is also correct due to the rise of mobile workforces, remote access, and bring-your-own-device (BYOD) trends. Employees no longer work from fixed office locations using enterprise-managed endpoints. Instead, they access corporate resources from various networks, devices, and geographies. Traditional network security tools assume users are located behind a corporate firewall. Netskope addresses this gap by offering agent-based and proxy-less security that follows users wherever they go, ensuring consistent enforcement and visibility.

Let’s now address the incorrect options:

Option A is incorrect. Legacy systems often use authentication and logging tools that can identify users based on credentials, IP address, or user agent. The issue is not in identifying the user but rather in managing their access across decentralized cloud services.

Option C is also incorrect. While some legacy tools may fall short in modern compliance scenarios, many do support standards like HIPAA, PCI DSS, and ISO 27001 when implemented correctly. Their deficiency lies in cloud and SaaS visibility, not compliance compatibility.

In summary, legacy tools fail mainly because data and users are no longer centralized. Modern platforms like Netskope Secure Web Gateway are built to handle decentralized, cloud-first environments where flexible, context-aware security is essential.

Question 10:

Under what circumstance would an administrator see a tombstone file created as part of a policy enforcement action?

A. When a download is blocked due to a security policy
B. When a publicly shared file is encrypted for protection
C. When a file is moved into quarantine due to a policy violation
D. When a file is placed on legal hold for compliance reasons

Correct Answer:  C

Explanation:

In cybersecurity and data governance workflows, a tombstone file acts as a placeholder or marker that indicates a specific action has been taken on a file, such as its removal, movement, or isolation. Tombstone files are especially useful in environments where administrators must maintain awareness of what files were acted upon and why—without necessarily restoring or retaining the original file in its original location.

Option C is correct because tombstone files are typically generated when a file is moved to quarantine. This occurs when a data loss prevention (DLP), malware detection, or cloud access security broker (CASB) policy identifies a file as risky or non-compliant. Instead of simply deleting or removing the file without a trace, the system places a tombstone file in its place. This file contains metadata or a message explaining that the original file was quarantined, helping both end users and administrators understand what happened. The tombstone approach provides visibility, auditability, and traceability, all of which are essential for regulatory compliance and forensic analysis.

Let’s now examine the incorrect choices:

Option A is incorrect because blocking a download does not modify or remove the file in its source location. It only prevents a user from downloading it, and hence, there is no need for a tombstone placeholder.

Option B is not accurate. Encrypting a file modifies its content for security, but it does not result in file removal or movement that would warrant a tombstone. The file remains in place, just in a secured format.

Option D is also incorrect. When a file is put on legal hold, it is preserved in its current state to prevent deletion or modification. Legal hold processes are carefully controlled and logged, but do not involve replacing the file with a tombstone.

To summarize, tombstone files serve as evidence or placeholders when a file is removed or relocated, especially during quarantine actions prompted by security policies. They maintain transparency and help administrators trace policy enforcement actions effectively.