SAP-C02 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/use-cloudformation-stacksets-to-provision-resources-across-multiple-aws-accounts-and-regions/

D is correct because AWS Private CA supports resource sharing through AWS RAM, which allows you to share the CA across accounts in your AWS Organization securely. It ensures the CA private key remains secure and is never exported.

A is invalid because you cannot export a CA’s private key, and importing/exporting CAs this way is unsupported.

B is incorrect — IAM policies alone are not sufficient to share Private CAs across accounts.

C is not applicable because resource-based delegation policies do not apply to AWS Private CA.

The company should download the data from the Amazon Redshift tables to an Amazon S3 bucket periodically and use AWS Data Exchange for S3 to share data with customers. The company should configure subscription verification and require the data customers to subscribe to the data product. This solution will meet the requirements with the least operational overhead because AWS Data Exchange for S3 is a feature that enables data subscribers to access third-party data files directly from data providers’ Amazon S3 buckets. Subscribers can easily use these files for their data analysis with AWS services without needing to create or manage data copies. Data providers can easily set up AWS Data Exchange for S3 on top of their existing S3 buckets to share direct access to an entire S3 bucket or specific prefixes and S3 objects. AWS Data Exchange automatically manages subscriptions, entitlements, billing, and payment1.

The other options are not correct because:

Using AWS Data Exchange for APIs to share data with customers would not work because AWS Data Exchange for APIs is a feature that enables data subscribers to access third-party APIs directly from data providers’ AWS accounts. Subscribers can easily use these APIs for their data analysis with AWS services without needing to manage API keys or tokens. Data providers can easily set up AWS Data Exchangefor APIs on top of their existing API Gateway resources to share direct access to an entire API or specific routes and stages2. However, this feature is not suitable for sharing data from Amazon Redshift tables, which are not exposed as APIs.

Creating an Amazon API Gateway Data API service integration with Amazon Redshift would not work because the Data API is a feature that enables you to query your Amazon Redshift cluster using HTTP requests, without needing a persistent connection or a SQL client3. It is useful for building applications that interact with Amazon Redshift, but not for sharing data files with customers.

Creating an AWS Data Exchange datashare by connecting AWS Data Exchange to the Redshift cluster would not work because AWS Data Exchange does not support datashares for Amazon Redshift clusters. A datashare is a feature that enables you to share live and secure access to your Amazon Redshift data across your accounts or with third parties without copying or moving the underlying data4. It is useful for sharing query results and views with other users, but not for sharing data files with customers.

Publishing the Amazon Redshift data to an Open Data on AWS Data Exchange would not work because Open Data on AWS Data Exchange is a feature that enables you to find and use free and public datasets from AWS customers and partners. It is useful for accessing open and free data, but not for confirming the identities of the customers or charging them for the data.

Deploying the application on Amazon EKS with managed node groups simplifies the operational overhead of managing the Kubernetes cluster. Running the web servers and application as Kubernetes deployments ensures that the desired number of pods are always running and can scale up or down as needed. Storing the frontend web server session data in an Amazon DynamoDB table provides a fast, scalable, and durable storage option that can be accessed across multiple Availability Zones. Creating an Amazon EFS volume that all applications will mount at the time of deployment allows the application to share data that is frequently accessed between the web and application tiers. References:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/eks/latest/userguide/managed-node-groups.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/eks/latest/userguide/deployments.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/Introduction.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/mounting-fs.html

To enhance the network connectivity solution's availability, fault tolerance, and security in a cost-effective manner, adding a dynamic private IP AWS Site-to-Site VPN as a secondary path is a viable option. This VPN serves as a resilient backup for the Direct Connect connection, ensuring continuous data flow even if the primary path fails. Implementing MACsec (Media Access Control Security) on the Direct Connect connection further secures the data in transit by providing encryption, thus addressing the security requirement. This solution strikes a balance between cost and operational efficiency, avoiding the higher expenses associated with provisioning an additional Direct Connect connection.

AWS Documentation on AWS Direct Connect and AWS Site-to-Site VPN provides insights into setting up resilient and secure network connections. Additionally, information on MACsec offers guidance on how to implement encryption for Direct Connect connections, aligning with best practices for secure and highly available network architectures.

Using Tag Editor to remediate untagged resources is a Best Practice (Page 14 or AWS Tagging Best Practices WhitePaper). However, that is were answer A stops. It doesn't address the requirement of "Management requires cost center numbers and project ID number for all existing and future DynamoDB tables and RDS instances". That is where Answer C comes in and addresses that requirement with SCPs in the company's AWS Organization. AWS Tagging Best Practices -https://d1.awsstatic.com/whitepapers/aws-tagging-best-practices.pdf

Cross-zone load balancing enables traffic to be distributed evenly across all registered instances in all enabled Availability Zones. However, this also increases data transfer charges between Availability Zones. By turning off cross-zone load balancing, the serviceprovider applications can reduce inter-Availability Zone data transfer costs. Similarly, by using the Availability Zone-specific endpoint service, the service consumer applications can ensure that they connect to the nearest service provider application in the same Availability Zone, avoiding cross-Availability Zone data transfer charges. References:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/network/load-balancer-target-groups.html#cross-zone-load-balancing

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpce-interface.html#vpce-interface-dns

 The company should create a resource-based IAM policy that includes conditions for specific DynamoDB attributes (fine-grained access control). The company should attach the policy to the DynamoDB table. In the marketing team’s account, the company should create an IAM role that has permissions to access the DynamoDB table in the finance team’s account. This solution will meet the requirements because a resource-based IAM policy is a policy that you attach to an AWS resource (such as a DynamoDB table) to control who can access that resource and what actions they can perform on it. You can use IAM policyconditions to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes. For example, you can allow or deny access to specific attributes of all items in a table by matching on attribute names1. By creating a resource-based policy that allows access to only specific attributes of the DynamoDB table and attaching it to the table, the company can restrict access to confidential data. By creating an IAM role in the marketing team’s account that has permissions to access the DynamoDB table in the finance team’s account, the company can enable cross-account access.

The other options are not correct because:

Creating an SCP to grant the marketing team’s AWS account access to the specific attributes of the DynamoDB table would not work because SCPs are policies that you can use with AWS Organizations to manage permissions in your organization’s accounts. SCPs do not grant permissions; instead, they specify the maximum permissions that identities in an account can have2. SCPs cannot be used to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes.

Creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account by using IAM policy conditions for specific DynamoDB attributes and establishing trust with the marketing team’s account would not work because IAM roles are identities that you can create in your account that have specific permissions. You can use an IAM role to delegate access to users, applications, or services that don’t normally have access to your AWS resources3. However, creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account would not restrict access to specific attributes of the DynamoDB table; it would only allow cross-account access. The company would still need a resource-based policy attached to the table to enforce fine-grained access control.

Creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account to access the DynamoDB table and using an IAM permissions boundary to limit the access to the specific attributes would not work because IAM permissions boundaries are policies that you use to delegate permissions management to other users. You can use permissions boundaries to limit the maximum permissions that an identity-based policy can grant to an IAM entity (user or role)4. Permissions boundaries cannot be used to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes.