Free Practice Questions for Zscaler ZDTE Exam

Zscaler design guidance for GRE connectivity emphasizes three key principles: terminate GRE on border (edge) devices, avoid NAT on GRE source addresses, and scale bandwidth by using multiple tunnels. In Zscaler documentation and engineering training, each GRE tunnel is typically sized for up to about 1 Gbps of throughput. For a 2 Gbps requirement, customers are advised to deploy at least two primary GRE tunnels, with two additional backup tunnels for redundancy and failover.

These tunnels should terminate on border routers that own public IP addresses, ensuring optimal routing and simplifying troubleshooting. Zscaler specifically recommends that the public source IPs used for GRE must not be translated by NAT, because the Zscaler cloud must see the original, registered public IP to associate tunnels with the correct organization and enforce policy. Enabling NAT on GRE traffic can break tunnel establishment and lead to asymmetric or unpredictable routing.

Using internal routers introduces extra hops and complexity and often requires NAT or policy-based routing, which goes against recommended best practices. Similarly, any architecture with NAT enabled on GRE traffic conflicts with Zscaler’s published requirements. Therefore, the ideal and recommended design for 2 Gbps via GRE is two primary and two backup GRE tunnels from border routers with NAT disabled.

Zscaler Internet Access (ZIA) supports regional processing requirements through the concept of subclouds. A subcloud is defined as a subset of ZIA Public Service Edges (and optionally Private Service Edges) that operate as full-featured secure internet gateways inspecting all web traffic. ZIA administrators can create a custom pool of data centers (Public Service Edges) that are constrained to a specific geography and then associate locations or tunnels with that subcloud. This ensures that user traffic forwarded to ZIA is only terminated and inspected within that defined regional pool, helping satisfy data-residency and regulatory mandates

By contrast, Zscaler’s default behavior is to use geo-IP and DNS to send traffic to the nearest available Public Service Edge globally, which may violate regional-processing rules (making option D unsuitable in a compliance-driven scenario) Bypassing ZIA (option A) or deploying local VPNs (option C) would undermine the Zero Trust model and remove ZIA’s inline security controls. Therefore, configuring a subcloud that includes only Public Service Edges in the mandated region is the architecturally correct and exam-aligned method to keep inspection within a specific geography.

===========

Zscaler’s core architecture in the Engineer course is explained using three main layers: Central Authority, Enforcement Nodes, and Logging / Nanolog services, supported by a distributed data fabric. The Central Authority is explicitly described as the “brains” or control plane of the Zscaler platform. It is responsible for global policy management, configuration, orchestration, and the API gateway that exposes Zscaler’s administrative and automation APIs.

Enforcement nodes (such as ZIA Public Service Edges and ZPA enforcement components) form the data plane, inspecting traffic and applying policy decisions but not hosting the management APIs themselves. Nanolog clusters handle large-scale log storage and streaming, providing logging and analytics rather than control or configuration interfaces. The data fabric underpins global state and synchronization across the cloud but is not where customers interact with APIs.

In the Digital Transformation Engineer material, when you see references to OneAPI and other programmatic integrations, they are always associated with the Central Authority layer, reinforcing that APIs live in the control plane. Therefore, within the defined Zscaler Architecture levels, the APIs sit at the Central Authority.

===========

Within the Zscaler Client Connector administration portal, an App Profile defines how the client behaves for a set of users or devices. A key element of any App Profile is the associated Forwarding Profile. The Forwarding Profile tells the Zscaler Client Connector how to handle traffic in different network conditions: for example, whether to send traffic through Z-Tunnel 2.0 to ZIA and/or ZPA, rely on a PAC file, or bypass Zscaler when on trusted networks.

When you create or edit an App Profile, selecting a Forwarding Profile is mandatory because it determines how user traffic will actually reach the Zscaler cloud. Without a Forwarding Profile, the App Profile would not know which forwarding mode to use, and the client would have no consistent instructions on when and how to tunnel or bypass traffic. In practice, customers often define multiple Forwarding Profiles (for example, “ZIA-only,” “ZPA-only,” or “ZIA and ZPA”) and then bind them to different App Profiles for different user groups or device types.

“Bypass,” “authentication,” or “exception” profiles are not separate required profile objects in the ZCC policy model. Any bypass or exception behavior is defined inside the forwarding and app profile logic, not as standalone mandatory profiles. Therefore, a Forwarding Profile is the one element that every ZCC App Profile must include.

===========

Zscaler External Attack Surface Management (EASM) includes a dedicated capability called Lookalike Domains. Zscaler defines lookalike domains as fraudulent or fake domains intentionally created by threat actors to mimic your legitimate domains and brand presence, often for phishing, credential theft, or brand abuse.

Within the EASM portal, the Lookalike Domains pages and widgets present a curated list of suspicious domains that closely resemble your seed or official domains. Analysts can review exposure scores, registrar details, hosting information, and other attributes to determine which of these domains pose the highest risk and warrant takedown or additional monitoring.

This feature is specifically designed for external risk and brand-protection use cases: it highlights where attackers are impersonating your organization on the public internet, which is a core component of digital-risk and external-attack-surface management. While words such as “fake,” “mimic,” or “spoofing” may be used generically in security discussions, “Lookalike Domains” is the exact term and feature name Zscaler uses in the EASM product and documentation. Options A, B, and C do not correspond to a named EASM capability and therefore are not correct in the ZDTE context.

===========

In Zscaler, the Endpoint DLP report is specifically designed to give security teams visibility into how end users interact with sensitive data on their endpoints (laptops, desktops, etc.). This report aggregates activity such as copying, saving, printing, uploading, or otherwise handling sensitive content that is detected and classified by Zscaler Endpoint DLP. It focuses on data risk rather than just malware or traffic volumes, so it shows which files, users, and devices are involved in policy matches, along with the context of each event.

Unlike a generic malware or data usage report, the Endpoint DLP report is tightly aligned with DLP policies and data classifications you configure (such as PII, financial data, source code, or custom patterns). This allows you to quickly see which policies are triggering on endpoints, which channels or applications are most frequently involved, and where to fine-tune rules or add additional controls. Because it is endpoint-focused, it covers scenarios even when users are off the corporate network, giving a unified view across inline and endpoint DLP enforcement. For exam purposes, this is why Endpoint DLP report is the correct answer.

===========

The Domain Joined posture element in ZPA evaluates whether a device belongs to a specific Active Directory domain. ZPA performs this evaluation using the device’s local posture signals, either through the Zscaler Client Connector posture engine or through the browser-based posture evaluation framework used in ZPA Browser Access. When a user connects via Browser Access, ZPA can still determine domain membership by inspecting the allowed browser posture attributes provided by the endpoint, enabling device-based Zero Trust controls without requiring a full Client Connector installation.

Linux endpoints do not support domain-joined posture verification, making option A incorrect. Domain join validation is performed at the device level, not through the Identity Provider, because IdPs validate users, not device domain status, eliminating option D. ZPA’s posture configuration allows you to define multiple domains within a single posture profile, so creating a second posture profile is unnecessary, making option C incorrect.

Therefore, the correct statement is that ZPA Browser Access can determine whether the device is joined to the specified domain, which aligns with the expected behavior of the domain-joined posture element.

In Zscaler’s SaaS Security and Data Protection services, a Custom Zscaler Connector (for example, for Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Salesforce) is designed so that Zscaler can connect to a specific SaaS tenant using only the minimum set of required credentials and scopes. The documentation for onboarding custom connectors explicitly emphasizes that, instead of providing full administrator rights, you authorize narrowly scoped API/OAuth permissions that allow Zscaler to scan data at rest and enforce security controls while adhering to least-privilege principles.

This minimal-credential approach reduces risk if the connector credentials are ever compromised, simplifies compliance audits, and aligns with modern security best practices. Zscaler needs just enough access to read, classify, and (where applicable) remediate or quarantine sensitive content in sanctioned SaaS applications, not broad tenant-wide admin access. Options suggesting temporary credentials, broad cross-tenant access, or full administrator rights contradict this design philosophy and the way the connectors are documented. Therefore, the primary benefit—and the key phrase you should associate with Custom Zscaler Connectors for the exam—is that they enable Zscaler to operate using a minimum set of required credentials for each SaaS Application tenant.

===========

Zscaler’s application segmentation is the feature that delivers granular, per-application control over which users can access which private apps. In the ZDTE study material and cyberthreat protection quick reference guides, Zscaler explains that application segmentation makes apps and servers completely invisible to unauthorized users, thereby minimizing the attack surface while allowing authorized users to reach only the specific applications they are entitled to.

Zscaler Private AppProtection builds on this segmentation foundation: policies are defined at the application layer using identity (user, group), context, and app attributes, instead of broad network constructs like IP ranges or subnets. This enables security teams to create fine-grained rules that tightly bind users to individual applications, rather than to entire networks. While Private AppProtection adds inline inspection, virtual patching, and exploit prevention, segmentation is the part that dictates who can talk to what.

Threat intelligence integration (option A) enriches detection but does not itself define access. Role-based access control (option C) applies mainly to admin and management roles in consoles, not to runtime user-to-application paths. User behavior analysis (option D) informs risk but is not the primary enforcement mechanism. The specific feature that provides granular control over user access to particular private applications is application segmentation.

===========