Free Amazon Web Services SAP-C02 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 13

You can use the management account of the organization in AWS Billing and Cost Management console to turn off RI sharing for the HR department's production AWS account. This will prevent other departments from sharing the RI discounts and ensure that only the HR department can use the RIs purchased in their production account.

The company should create an Amazon CloudFront distribution with the ALB as the origin. The company should add a custom header and random value on the CloudFront domain. The company should configure the ALB to conditionally forward traffic if the header and value match. The company should also deploy an AWS WAF web ACL that includes an appropriate rule group. The company should associate the web ACL with the Amazon CloudFront distribution. This solution will meet the requirements most cost-effectively because Amazon CloudFront is a fast content delivery network (CDN) service that securely deliversdata, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally with lowlatency, hightransfer speeds, all within a developer-friendly environment1. By creating an Amazon CloudFront distribution with the ALB as the origin, the company can improve the performance andavailability of its application by caching static content at edge locations closer to end users. By adding a custom header and random value on the CloudFront domain, the company can prevent direct access to the ALB and ensure that only requests from CloudFront are forwarded to the ECS tasks. By configuring the ALB to conditionally forward traffic if the header and value match, the company can implement origin access identity (OAI) for its ALB origin. OAI is a feature that enables you to restrict access to your content by requiring users to access your content through CloudFront URLs2. By deploying an AWS WAF web ACL that includes an appropriate rule group, the company can prevent attacks and ensure business continuity with minimal service interruptions during an ongoing attack. AWS WAF is a web application firewall that lets you monitor and control web requests that are forwarded to your web applications. You can use AWS WAF to define customizable web security rules that control which traffic can access your web applications and which traffic should be blocked3. By associating the web ACL with the Amazon CloudFront distribution, the company can apply the web security rules to all requests that are forwarded by CloudFront.

The other options are not correct because:

Deploying the application in two AWS Regions and configuring Amazon Route 53 to route to both Regions with equal weight would not prevent attacks or ensure business continuity. Amazon Route 53 is a highly available and scalable cloud Domain Name System (DNS) web service that routes end users to Internet applications by translating names like www.example.com into numeric IP addresses4. However, routing traffic to multiple Regions would not protect against attacks or provide failover in case of an outage. It would also increase operational complexity and costs compared to using CloudFront and AWS WAF.

Configuring auto scaling for Amazon ECS tasks and creating a DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) cluster would not prevent attacks or ensure business continuity. Auto scaling is a feature that enables you to automatically adjust your ECS tasks based on demand or a schedule. DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) is a fully managed, highly available, in-memory cache for DynamoDB that delivers up to a 10x performance improvement. However, these features would not protect against attacks or provide failover in case of an outage. They would also increase operational complexity and costs compared to using CloudFront and AWS WAF.

Configuring Amazon ElastiCache to reduce overhead on DynamoDB would not prevent attacks or ensure business continuity. Amazon ElastiCache is a fully managed in-memory data store service that makes it easy to deploy, operate, and scale popular open-source compatible in-memory data stores. However, this service would not protect against attacks or provide failover in case of an outage. It would also increase operational complexity and costs compared to using CloudFront and AWS WAF.

The company has many S3 buckets and many identities across multiple AWS accounts. It currently uses S3 bucket policies for granular authorization. As requirements grow, the bucket policies have become very large and have hit the maximum size limits. The company needs a way to express granular, identity-based access to S3 resources without relying on increasingly complex bucket policies.

AWS provides S3 Access Grants to centrally manage S3 data access based on identities. S3 Access Grants integrate with IAM Identity Center and external identity providers such as Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD). With S3 Access Grants, you define grants that associate specific identities or groups (from IAM Identity Center) with permissions on specific S3 buckets, prefixes, or objects. Access Grants maintain a mapping between identities and S3 resources without requiring large, per-bucket policies.

Option A describes exactly this approach. You create an S3 Access Grant configuration associated with the IAM Identity Center instance that is already integrated with the company’s IdP. You then define S3 Access Grants for the various user groups according to business requirements, specifying the appropriate S3 buckets and prefixes. When users access S3 through AWS tools that support S3 Access Grants, temporary credentials are issued that reflect the grants. This centralizes authorization management, reduces the size and complexity of S3 bucket policies, and minimizes operational overhead because you manage permissions per identity group rather than constantly editing long bucket policies.

Option B uses S3 access points and Object Lambda Access Points with a Lambda function for data filtering. This is more suitable for content transformation or redaction rather than primary authorization management. It adds operational complexity by requiring custom Lambda code and Object Lambda configuration, and it does not directly solve the problem of large bucket policies for fine-grained permissions.

Option C uses per-bucket S3 access points with attached policies. While access points can simplify some aspects of access control and allow per-application policies, using many access points with detailed policies can still lead to significant policy complexity. It also does not take advantage of the existing IAM Identity Center integration and does not centrally align permissions with identity groups.

Option D uses AWS Organizations service control policies (SCPs). SCPs are intended to define high-level guardrails and maximum permissions at the account or organizational unit level, not detailed, per-bucket or per-prefix access control for individual users or groups. Using SCPs to express granular S3 bucket permissions would be complex, hard to maintain, and not aligned with the purpose of SCPs.

Therefore, using S3 Access Grants integrated with IAM Identity Center (option A) provides a centralized, identity-aware, low-overhead way to manage granular S3 access without hitting S3 bucket policy size limits.

https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/implementations/disaster-recovery-for-aws-iot/

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/cross-account-access-s3/

B: Outbound Resolver endpoints enable EC2 instances tosendDNS queries to external resolvers (i.e., on-prem DNS servers).

C: A forwarding rule must be created to forward the internal.company.com domain to the on-prem resolver.

E: You must associate the rule withevery VPCthat needs to forward the queries.

Incorrect:

A: Inbound endpoints are forreceivingDNS queries from on-prem to AWS, not vice versa.

D: There’s no such thing as a "System" rule type.

F: Limiting to one VPC won't meet the requirement.