PT-AM-CPE Certification Exam Guide + Practice Questions

Explanation:
In PingAM 8.0.2, the management of cryptographic material has evolved toward the Secret Store framework, which allows secrets to be stored in various locations (Filesystem, HSM, or Environment Variables). However, for specific core features, the internal PingAM keystore (historically keystore.jks) remains the primary repository for the keys used to protect session integrity. According to the "Client-side Session Security" documentation, when a realm is configured for Client-side sessions, the entire state of the user's session is encapsulated within a signed and encrypted JSON Web Token (JWT). This JWT is then stored in the user's browser cookie. To ensure that this token cannot be tampered with or read by unauthorized parties, PingAM must sign and encrypt the payload. The AM engine is hardcoded to look for the specific aliases (such as am.services.session.encryption and am.services.session.signing) within the default-keystore secret store, which points directly to the PingAM keystore.
While other features like OAuth2 providers (Option D) and the Persistent Cookie node (Option B) utilize secret stores, they are designed to be highly flexible and can be configured to use keys from any defined secret store in the realm. Authentication trees (Option C) are logical constructs and do not "use" the keystore directly, although individual nodes within a tree might. The distinction for Client-side sessions is that the feature's fundamental security model is built specifically around the cryptographic keys managed within the AM keystore to provide "stateless" session management. Administrators must ensure that the same keystore and aliases are shared across all nodes in a cluster to allow any AM instance to validate a client-side session token issued by another node.

Explanation:
In PingAM 8.0.2, the Intelligent Access engine (Authentication Trees) uses a specific data-passing mechanism to move information between individual nodes within a single journey. When a journey involves collecting context―such as device metadata (OS, version, screen resolution), location data (IP, geofencing), or risk signals―this information must be stored temporarily while the tree evaluates the next steps.
According to the "Authentication Node Development" and "Nodes and Trees" documentation,
PingAM uses two primary transient storage objects during the authentication flow:
Shared State: This is the primary map used to share data between nodes in the same tree. Contextual data collected by nodes like the Device Profile Collector or Browser Capabilities nodes is stored here. It exists only for the duration of the authentication journey.
Transient State: Similar to shared state, but often used for sensitive data that should not be visible to certain types of nodes or scripts.
The documentation identifies Shared Node State (Option B) as the best practice for persisting collected context during the tree process.
Session State (Option A) is only available after the authentication is successful and a session has been created. It is not suitable for data needed by nodes within the tree to make a decision (like a risk engine node).
User Profile (Option C) is for long-term persistence (LDAP/PingDS). Storing transient device context there would cause unnecessary database write overhead and privacy concerns.
Browser Cookies (Option D) are limited in size and pose security risks if used to store raw device data that could be tampered with by the client.
Therefore, for real-time risk analysis within a journey, nodes write data to the shared state, where subsequent nodes (like a Scripted Decision Node or Adaptive Risk Node) can retrieve and analyze it.

Explanation:
In the "Additional Cookie Security" section of the PingAM 8.0.2 documentation, HttpOnly is described as a critical security attribute for session cookies (like iPlanetDirectoryPro). Its primary purpose is to mitigate the risk of session hijacking via Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks.
When a cookie is marked with the HttpOnly flag, the browser is instructed to restrict access to that cookie. Specifically, it prevents client-side scripts―such as those written in JavaScript―from accessing the cookie through the document.cookie API. If an attacker successfully injects a malicious script into a page, the script will be unable to "read" the session token, even though the cookie is still automatically sent by the browser with every valid HTTP request to the server.
Option B describes the Secure flag, which ensures cookies are only sent over encrypted (HTTPS) connections.
Option C is incorrect because the server must be able to read the cookie to validate the user's session.
Option D is a common misconception; the HttpOnly flag does not restrict the transport to "HTTP-only" (non-secure) protocols; rather, it restricts the access method within the browser environment. By default, PingAM 8.0.2 enables the HttpOnly flag for all session cookies. This is considered a best practice in modern identity management because it ensures that even if a web application has a vulnerability that allows for script injection, the user's primary authentication token remains protected from being exfiltrated by the attacker's script.

Explanation:
PingAM 8.0.2 is strictly compliant with various identity standards to ensure interoperability between different vendors and platforms. The Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0 is the cornerstone of modern XML-based federation.7
According to the PingAM "SAML 2.0 Introduction" and "Supported Standards" documentation, the SAML 2.0 standard is developed and maintained by OASIS (the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).8 Specifically, the OASIS Security Services Technical Committee (SSTC) is responsible for the specifications that define the SAML core (assertions and protocols), bindings (how SAML messages are mapped onto transport protocols like HTTP), and profiles (how SAML is used to solve specific use cases like Web Browser SSO).
Knowing the governing body is important for administrators when reviewing the "Technical Metadata" and "Schema" sections of PingAM, as AM’s implementation follows the OASIS SAML 2.0 standards for XML signing, encryption, and assertion structure. Other organizations listed, such as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), govern protocols like OAuth2 and OpenID Connect, while the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) handles general web standards like XML and WebAuthn. However, for SAML2, OASIS remains the authoritative governing body.

Explanation:
The authentication lifecycle in a Ping Identity environment follows a strict sequence to ensure that
only authorized users can access protected resources. This process is governed by the interaction between a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP), such as a Web Agent or PingGateway, and the Policy Decision Point (PDP), which is PingAM.
Following the chronological flow according to the PingAM 8.0.2 "Introduction to Authentication" and "Web Agent User Guide":
Step 2: The process begins when an unauthenticated user attempts to access a protected URL.
Step 5: The Agent/PingGateway intercepts the request, detects the absence of a valid session cookie, and redirects the user to the PingAM login URL (the UI).
Step 1: The user interacts with the AM UI, providing the necessary credentials or answering the "callbacks" (username, password, MFA) defined in the authentication tree.
Step 6: Upon successful authentication, PingAM issues a session token and redirects the user back to the original resource they were trying to access.
Step 4: The Agent/PingGateway receives the request again, but this time it contains a session token. The agent then validates the session with PingAM to ensure it is still active and possesses the correct permissions.
Step 3: Finally, the lifecycle ends when the session expires due to inactivity (Idle Timeout), reaches its Max Session Time, or the user explicitly logs out.
Sequence 2-5-1-6-4-3 (Option B) accurately captures this "Round-Trip" nature of modern web authentication. Options A and D are incorrect because they place the callback interaction before the initial redirect or the resource access.
Option C is incorrect because it suggests the session reaches a timeout before the agent has a chance to validate the session for the current request.