SCS-C03 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Security – Specialty

AWS Secrets Manager is a regional service that is accessed through private AWS endpoints. In a VPC without internet access, AWS recommends using AWS PrivateLink through interface VPC endpoints to enable secure, private connectivity to supported AWS services. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, interface VPC endpoints allow resources within a VPC to communicate with AWS services without traversing the public internet, NAT devices, or internet gateways.

An interface VPC endpoint for Secrets Manager creates elastic network interfaces (ENIs) within the VPC subnets and assigns private IP addresses that route traffic directly to the Secrets Manager service. Because the VPC has private DNS enabled, the standard Secrets Manager DNS hostname resolves to the private IP addresses of the interface endpoint, allowing the Lambda rotation function to communicate securely and transparently.

Option A introduces unnecessary complexity and expands the attack surface by allowing outbound internet access. Option B is incorrect because gateway VPC endpoints are supported only for Amazon S3 and Amazon DynamoDB. Option D violates the security requirement by exposing the VPC to the internet.

AWS security best practices explicitly recommend interface VPC endpoints as the most secure connectivity method for private VPC workloads accessing AWS managed services.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Secrets Manager Security Architecture

AWS PrivateLink and Interface VPC Endpoints Documentation

AWS CloudFormation supports dynamic references to AWS Secrets Manager, which allow sensitive values to be retrieved securely at stack runtime. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, dynamic references prevent secrets from being stored in plaintext in templates, stack metadata, or logs.

Using dynamic references ensures that secrets remain encrypted at rest and are accessed only when required. CloudFormation does not support SecureString parameters for Secrets Manager references, and encrypting templates does not prevent exposure during execution.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS CloudFormation Dynamic References

AWS Secrets Manager Best Practices

AWS best practices recommend using a shared secret header between CloudFront and ALB origins to prevent direct access. CloudFront injects a custom header, and the ALB listener rules validate its presence.

IP-based controls are brittle due to CloudFront IP changes. PrivateLink and internal ALBs are not supported as CloudFront origins. Header validation is the most reliable and widely recommended pattern.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

CloudFront Origin Protection

AWS WAF and ALB Integration

Network Load Balancers operate at Layer 4 and are optimized for extreme performance, ultra-low latency, and handling sudden traffic spikes. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, using a TCP listener on an NLB allows TLS traffic to pass through directly to backend containers without termination, preserving true end-to-end encryption.

This approach eliminates the overhead of decrypting and re-encrypting traffic at the load balancer, reducing latency and maximizing throughput. NLBs scale automatically to handle volatile traffic patterns and millions of requests per second.

Application Load Balancers operate at Layer 7 and introduce additional latency due to TLS termination and HTTP processing. Route 53 multivalue routing does not provide load balancing at the transport layer and does not ensure encryption handling.

AWS recommends NLB TCP pass-through for high-performance, end-to-end encrypted container workloads.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Elastic Load Balancing Architecture

Network Load Balancer Performance Characteristics

AWS IAM Access Analyzer policy generation is specifically designed to help security engineers generate least-privilege IAM policies based on actual usage recorded in AWS CloudTrail. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, policy generation analyzes historical CloudTrail data to identify the exact API actions and resources that a role has accessed over a specified time period.

Because the role has been actively used for three months, there is sufficient CloudTrail data for IAM Access Analyzer to generate a refined customer managed policy automatically. This significantly reduces manual effort and eliminates the need to analyze logs or infer permissions. The generated policy can be reviewed and attached directly to the role, ensuring least privilege access with minimal engineering effort.

Option B only validates existing policies for security warnings and does not reduce permissions. Option C requires manual analysis of CloudWatch logs, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Option D does not analyze real usage and cannot generate role-specific least privilege policies.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends IAM Access Analyzer policy generation as the fastest and most accurate method to refine IAM permissions based on observed behavior.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS IAM Access Analyzer Policy Generation

AWS IAM Least Privilege Best Practices

AWS KMS provides condition keys that can be used to tightly scope how and where a customer managed key can be used. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, the kms:ViaService condition key is specifically designed to restrict key usage to requests that originate from a particular AWS service in a specific Region.

By configuring the key policy to allow KMS cryptographic operations only when kms:ViaService equals s3..amazonaws.com, the security engineer ensures that the key can be used exclusively by Amazon S3. Even if other IAM principals have permissions to use the key, the key cannot be used by other services such as Amazon EC2, Amazon RDS, or AWS Lambda.

Option A is incorrect because AWS services do not assume identities in key policies. Options C and D modify IAM role policies, which do not control how a KMS key is used by AWS services. AWS documentation clearly states that service-level restrictions must be enforced at the KMS key policy level using condition keys.

This approach enforces strong separation of duties and limits blast radius, which aligns with AWS security best practices.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS KMS Key Policy Condition Keys

AWS KMS Best Practices

AWS best practices strongly discourage the use of long-term credentials and recommend cross-account IAM roles with temporary credentials for third-party access. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, creating an IAM role in the resource-owning account and allowing a trusted external AWS account to assume that role is the recommended pattern for external access.

By creating the IAM role in the company’s production account and specifying the consultant agency’s AWS account as the trusted principal, the company retains full control over permissions. The trust policy can enforce MFA by using the aws:MultiFactorAuthPresent condition key, ensuring that all access requires MFA. Access is granted through AWS Security Token Service (STS), which issues short-lived credentials.

Option A violates the requirement to avoid long-term credentials. Option B is designed for application user authentication, not AWS account access. Option C incorrectly places the role in the consultant’s account, reducing the company’s control over access.

This solution satisfies MFA enforcement, eliminates long-term credentials, and aligns with AWS third-party access best practices.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS IAM Cross-Account Access

AWS STS and MFA Enforcement

Amazon S3 Block Public Access configured at the AWS account level is the recommended and most effective approach to protect data stored in Amazon S3 while minimizing operational overhead. AWS Security Specialty documentation explains that S3 Block Public Access provides centralized, preventative controls designed to block public access to S3 buckets and objects regardless of individual bucket policies or object-level ACL configurations. When enabled at the account level, these controls automatically apply to all existing and newly created buckets, significantly reducing the risk of accidental exposure caused by misconfigured permissions.

The AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide emphasizes that public access misconfiguration is a leading cause of data leaks in cloud environments. Account-level S3 Block Public Access acts as a guardrail by overriding any attempt to grant public permissions through bucket policies or ACLs. This eliminates the need to manage security settings on a per-bucket or per-object basis, thereby reducing administrative complexity and human error.

Configuring Block Public Access at the object level, as in option B, requires continuous monitoring and manual configuration, which increases operational overhead. Disabling ACLs alone, as described in option C, does not fully prevent public access because bucket policies can still allow public permissions. Using AWS PrivateLink, as in option D, controls network access but does not protect against public exposure through misconfigured S3 policies.

AWS security best practices explicitly recommend enabling S3 Block Public Access at the account level as the primary mechanism for preventing unintended public data exposure with minimal management effort.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon S3 Security Best Practices Documentation

Amazon S3 Block Public Access Overview

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar