What's more, part of that PrepAwayExam PT-AM-CPE dumps now are free: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rRXLUZrBxLgcv7kXVGGE0H-E0fKW-y9k
This updated PT-AM-CPE exam study material consists of PT-AM-CPE PDF dumps, desktop practice exam software, and a web-based practice test. Experts have prepared the PT-AM-CPE desktop-based exam simulation software. There are PT-AM-CPE Actual Questions in the practice test to give you an exact impression of the Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE original test.
| Section | Weight | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Federation with SAML 2.0 | 18% | - Implement SAML 2.0 single sign-on and single logout - Manage trust relationships and attribute mapping - Configure identity provider and service provider roles |
| Installing, Deploying and Configuring PingAM | 25% | - Configure high availability and clustered deployments - Deploy to cloud and containerized environments - Harden security configurations and apply best practices - Install, upgrade and migrate PingAM environments |
| Extending Services with OAuth 2.0 and OIDC | 17% | - Configure OAuth 2.0 authorization server and resource server - Implement OpenID Connect authentication flows - Manage scopes, claims and token policies |
| Improving Security with Adaptive Authentication | 20% | - Implement multi-factor authentication flows - Configure context-aware and risk-based authentication - Monitor and enforce security policies during sessions |
| Enhancing Intelligent Access | 20% | - Implement authentication mechanisms - Define and manage access control policies - Use PingGateway to protect applications and resources |
>> PT-AM-CPE Practice Test Pdf <<
These Certified Professional - PingAM Exam (PT-AM-CPE) practice test questions also boost your confidence. If you have prepared well, tried all the Ping Identity Certified Professional - PingAM Exam Certification Exams, and understood each concept clearly, there is minimal or no chance of failure. Desktop Practice exam software and web-based Certified Professional - PingAM Exam (PT-AM-CPE) practice test are available at PrepAwayExam.
NEW QUESTION # 13
Which statement does not reflect best practice when configuring a PingAM cluster for secure communication with external servers?
Answer: D
Explanation:
When configuring secure communication (LDAPS, HTTPS) in PingAM 8.0.2, managing the Truststore is a critical security task. The truststore contains the public certificates (trust anchors) of the servers PingAM needs to communicate with, such as PingDS or external Identity Providers.
The PingAM "Secure Network Communication" documentation outlines several best practices:
Avoid Modifying the JVM Truststore: One should not add internal certificates (like those for PingDS) to the default JVM cacerts file (Option D is a best practice). This prevents pollution of the system-wide Java environment.
Use a Dedicated Truststore: Creating a fresh, minimal truststore containing only necessary certificates (Option B and C) ensures a "least privilege" approach to trust.
Why Statement A is NOT a best practice: Statement A suggests that you should copy the JVM truststore to isolate it from changes made to the JVM container's truststore. In a production security context, this is a dangerous anti-pattern. The JVM's default truststore (e.g., cacerts) is frequently updated by Java maintainers and OS vendors to include new Root CAs and, more importantly, to remove/revoke compromised or untrustworthy CAs. By making a static copy to "isolate" AM from these updates, an administrator inadvertently keeps obsolete or insecure certificates in AM's trust list while missing out on critical security updates provided by the platform.
Best practice dictates that AM should point to a truststore that is intentionally managed. If isolation is needed, it should be achieved by creating a new store for internal certificates and potentially using the -Djavax.net.ssl.trustStore property to manage the hierarchy, rather than cloning the system-wide CA bundle to avoid "changes." Therefore, Option A is the correct answer as it describes a maintenance and security risk.
NEW QUESTION # 14
Which of the following would be a possible combination of fields in the JSON body when making a policy evaluation via REST?
Answer: D
Explanation:
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.
NEW QUESTION # 15
Which OAuth2 flow is most appropriate to support the use case of a client application implemented in a browser using a scripted language such as JavaScript?
Answer: B
Explanation:
In PingAM 8.0.2, the recommended and most secure flow for "Public Clients"-such as Single Page Applications (SPAs) written in JavaScript-is the Authorization Code Grant Flow with PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange).
Historically, the Implicit Grant Flow (Option B) was used for browser-based apps because they could not securely store a client_secret. However, the Implicit flow is now considered legacy and insecure due to the risk of access token leakage in the browser history or via referrer headers. The Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant (Option C) is also discouraged as it requires the application to handle user credentials directly, violating the core principle of delegated authorization. Client Credentials (Option D) is reserved strictly for machine-to-machine communication where no user is involved.
The Authorization Code Grant with PKCE addresses the security limitations of public clients by replacing the static client_secret with a dynamically generated "code verifier" and "code challenge." The process works as follows:
Challenge Generation: The JavaScript app creates a cryptographically strong random string (Verifier) and transforms it (Challenge).
Authorization Request: The app sends the challenge to PingAM.21
Code Exchange: After user login, AM returns an authorization code. The app then sends the code and the original verifier to the token endpoint.
Verification: AM verifies that the verifier matches the initial challenge before issuing the Access Token.
This flow ensures that even if an attacker intercepts the authorization code, they cannot exchange it for a token without the original verifier, which never left the browser's execution context. PingAM 8.0.2 fully supports this flow and provides specific configuration options in the OAuth2 Provider settings to enforce PKCE for all public clients.
NEW QUESTION # 16
Examine the following JWT client assertion in JSON format. From the subset of claims listed below, which claim can be optional?
JSON
JSON
{
"iss": "myClient",
"sub": "myClient",
"aud": "https://am.example.com/login/oauth2/access_token",
"jti": "id012345",
"exp": 1633363568,
"iat": 1633356368
}
Answer: A
Explanation:
When an OAuth2 client uses Private Key JWT or Client Secret JWT for authentication at the PingAM 8.0.2 token endpoint, it must present a JWT (JSON Web Token) containing specific claims that identify and authorize the client. This is governed by the OIDC and OAuth2 JWT Profile specifications (RFC 7523).
According to the PingAM documentation on "OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication" and the "JWT Profile for Client Authentication":
iss (Issuer): Mandatory. This must be the client_id of the OAuth2 client.
sub (Subject): Mandatory. This must also be the client_id of the OAuth2 client (as the client is the subject of the authentication).
aud (Audience): Mandatory. This must be the URL of the PingAM OAuth2 service (the token endpoint) or the issuer URL.
exp (Expiration Time): Mandatory. This protects against the long-term use of intercepted assertions.
The jti (JWT ID) (Option A) provides a unique identifier for the token. In the context of standard JWT validation, jti is used to prevent replay attacks by ensuring that a specific token is only processed once. While highly recommended for security hardening, the PingAM 8.0.2 technical reference for OAuth2 client assertions marks jti as optional unless the server is explicitly configured to require it for replay detection. Without a jti, PingAM will still validate the iss, sub, aud, and exp claims to authenticate the client. Therefore, among the choices provided, jti is the claim that can be omitted without inherently violating the base OAuth2 JWT authentication request requirements.
NEW QUESTION # 17
Which statements are correct in relation to an OAuth2 token exchange impersonation pattern?
A) The client may want to act as the subject on another service.
B) The client is used by a subject to act on behalf of another subject.
C) The requested token exchange involves a subject token only.
D) The requested token exchange involves a subject and actor token.
Answer: D
Explanation:
In PingAM 8.0.2, the OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange (RFC 8693) supports two primary patterns: delegation and impersonation. Understanding the difference between these is critical for secure microservices architecture.
According to the "Demonstrate Impersonation" section of the PingAM documentation, impersonation is a pattern where a client (the "Actor") acts as another identity (the "Subject") in a way that the downstream resource server sees only the Subject's identity.
Statement A is correct: In an impersonation flow, the client (which has been authorized by the user or is a trusted service) requests a token where it effectively "becomes" the subject to interact with another service. The downstream service treats the request as if it were coming directly from the subject, often with the same set of permissions.
Statement D is correct: To perform a token exchange for impersonation, the client must provide specific parameters to the /oauth2/access_token endpoint. It provides the subject_token (representing the identity to be impersonated) and the actor_token (representing the identity of the client/service that is performing the impersonation). PingAM validates both tokens to ensure the "Actor" has the permission to impersonate the "Subject." Why other statements are incorrect: Statement B describes delegation (where an actor acts on behalf of a subject but maintains their own identity in the act claim). Statement C is incorrect because a token exchange inherently requires proving who the requester is (the actor) and whom they represent (the subject). Without both tokens, the AM server cannot verify the authorization relationship required for impersonation. Therefore, the combination of A and D accurately reflects the impersonation pattern in PingAM 8.0.2.
NEW QUESTION # 18
......
The PrepAwayExam is one of the leading Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE exam preparation study material providers in the market. The PrepAwayExam offers valid, updated, and real Certified Professional - PingAM Exam PT-AM-CPE exam practice test questions that assist you in your PT-AM-CPE Exam Preparation. The Ping Identity PT-AM-CPE exam questions are designed and verified by experienced and qualified Ping Identity exam trainers.
PT-AM-CPE Vce Files: https://www.prepawayexam.com/Ping-Identity/braindumps.PT-AM-CPE.ete.file.html
BONUS!!! Download part of PrepAwayExam PT-AM-CPE dumps for free: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rRXLUZrBxLgcv7kXVGGE0H-E0fKW-y9k