Q: 11
A company has a large fleet of Amazon Linux 2 Amazon EC2 instances that run an application
processing sensitive dat
a. Compliance requirements include no exposed management ports, full session logging, and
authentication through AWS IAM Identity Center. DevOps engineers occasionally need access for
troubleshooting.
Which solution will provide remote access while meeting these requirements?
Options
Discussion
C. I've seen this setup is the only way to avoid open ports and log sessions. Disagree?
C . D looks tempting but even a second of open ports violates the "no exposed management ports" part.
Hard to say, C, but if compliance is really strict on never exposing ports then D can't be it.
Option C. D tries to trick you with "temporarily open remote access" but that's not compliant for sensitive data, pretty sure.
C tbh. Only Session Manager setup (C) hits all requirements with zero management port exposure. I don't see the others fitting compliance.
Saw something just like this in a mock, C is correct. Meets every compliance item without opening management ports at all.
Makes sense to me, C. No open ports at any time and session logging works cleanly with SSM Session Manager. Disagree?
Its C. Session Manager is designed for secure, compliant remote access without opening management ports. D is a trap since you should never open ports just for troubleshooting in sensitive environments. IAM Identity Center works smoothly with SSM roles too. Seen similar Qs in practice tests.
Its C since even a brief opening of ports (like D) breaks the "no exposed management ports" rule, pretty sure that's what flips it for strict compliance cases.
D , but C is probably safer for strict compliance since D still exposes ports briefly.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 12
A company is using AWS Organizations with nested OUs to manage AWS accounts. The company has
a custom compliance monitoring service for the accounts. The monitoring service runs as an AWS
Lambda function and is invoked by Amazon EventBridge Scheduler.
The company needs to deploy the monitoring service in all existing and future accounts in the
organization. The company must avoid using the organization's management account when the
management account is not required.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
C vs B here, but B nails the "all existing and future accounts" via StackSet org integration and delegated admin, which is what AWS suggests. C’s tempting since SSM Automation is powerful, but it’s missing the auto-deploy to future accounts piece. Pretty sure B is the one, unless I missed a detail. Agree?
B
Its B, C is tempting since Systems Manager can work org-wide if set up right but B actually hits all future accounts and uses delegated admin like AWS recommends.
Its B since StackSets with a delegated admin will push to all current and future org accounts automatically. You only need to use management account for initial setup, after that the delegated admin manages everything. This matches what AWS recommends for org-wide deployments and avoids overusing the management account. Pretty sure that's what the question is after, but open if anyone sees it differently.
B , this is straight out of the official AWS docs and I've seen similar in practice exams. Review the CloudFormation StackSets section and maybe do some hands-on labs for deploying org-wide resources.
Wouldn’t C miss new accounts since StackSets auto-deploy with B but not C?
B tbh
B
B
C or D had something like this in a mock, went with C.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 13
A company has AWS accounts in an organization in AWS Organizations. An Amazon S3 bucket in one
account is publicly accessible. A security engineer must remove public access and ensure the bucket
cannot be made public again.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
C . PublicAccessBlock handles the immediate lock, and denying s3:PutPublicAccessBlock with an SCP prevents anyone from removing it later. D is tempting but Object Lock is about retention, not access. B misses long-term prevention.
Option B looks right to me. If you enable PublicAccessBlock and then deny s3:GetObject at the org level with an SCP, that should stop public reads, and Block Public Access covers other risks. Had something like this in a mock and B was the answer there. Maybe I'm missing something?
C vs B, but C is better protection. PublicAccessBlock needs to stay enforced, so denying s3:PutPublicAccessBlock in the SCP keeps it locked down. B only blocks current access but admins could disable the block later. Pretty sure C is the intent here.
Nah, I think D makes more sense here. Object Lock seems like it would block changes to public access too.
Pretty sure it's C. Had something like this in a mock and blocking public access plus using an SCP to deny changes to the PublicAccessBlock is what locks it down long term. B doesn't stop someone from reversing the block. Agree?
B
C/D? Not sure, feels like C but D has Object Lock. Kinda tricky.
Nah, B is a trap since you could still turn off PublicAccessBlock after. C.
C over B every time here. You need to not only block public access now but prevent anyone from turning it back on, and denying s3:PutPublicAccessBlock with an SCP (like in C) is the way AWS recommends. B is a common trap for missing the long-term prevention part.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 14
A company needs to scan all AWS Lambda functions for code vulnerabilities.
Options
Discussion
That one's B. No explanation needed here, Inspector Lambda scanning handles this.
Not D, it’s B. D is for runtime issues but the question wants code scanning.
Ugh, AWS naming drives me nuts, always sounds so similar. Probably B here.
D here. Lambda Protection sounds like it covers vulnerabilities, so I'd pick that for code scanning over Inspector. Maybe a trap but seems logical to me.
B makes sense since Inspector targets Lambda code itself, not just runtime stuff. Pretty sure that's what AWS intends for this scenario. Let me know if you see it differently.
Its B here, not D. D is a trap since it's more about runtime detection, Inspector does the actual code scanning.
B , Inspector is made for Lambda code scanning so fits the ask.
B tbh here. D looks attractive but that's for runtime threats, not code scanning. Seen similar on practice, B's correct.
Seen questions like this in official practice sets, always points to B.
Option D is tempting because GuardDuty sounds security-focused, but it's actually a trap. Inspector (B) does Lambda code vuln scans. Not 100 percent though, someone else might see it differently.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 15
A company has security requirements for Amazon Aurora MySQL databases regarding encryption,
deletion protection, public access, and audit logging. The company needs continuous monitoring and
real-time visibility into compliance status.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
B , saw something like this in a mock, Config managed rules hit all the Aurora MySQL points needed.
C
Not C, since Security Hub config policies won't give deep Aurora MySQL rule checks. B is correct.
Probably B here, Config managed rules directly track those Aurora settings. C is more for aggregating results across services.
B imo. AWS Config's managed rules cover encryption, public access, deletion protection, and logging right out of the box for Aurora MySQL. You get real-time compliance without custom code. Pretty sure that's what they're asking for but let me know if I'm missing something.
Yeah, B. Config managed rules fit Aurora MySQL compliance checks.
B tbh, Config managed rules are made for this kind of continuous compliance on Aurora MySQL. Simple and does exactly what's needed.
B , since managed Config rules do all the compliance checks listed for Aurora MySQL. Keeps monitoring continuous and real-time.
Probably B here. AWS Config has those managed rules for Aurora MySQL that actually check encryption, public access, deletion protection, and audit logging individually. Security Hub is broader but doesn't give that Aurora-level granularity out of the box. Pretty confident but open to other thoughts if someone's seen a new Security Hub update.
B , Config managed rules are Aurora MySQL aware so fits the compliance ask better than C I think.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 11 of 20 · Page 2 / 2