SAP-C02 AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional Question and Answers

This solution requires the least amount of effort as it only requires to update the API endpoint to private in API Gateway and create an interface VPC endpoint. Then create a resource policy and attach it to the API. This will make the API only accessible from the VPC and still keep the authentication mechanism intact. Reference:

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/private-api-gateway-vpc-endpoint/

https://aws.amazon.com/api-gateway/features/

Option C is correct because hosting the web application in Amazon S3, storing the uploaded videos in Amazon S3, and using S3 event notifications to publish events to the SQS queue reduces the operational overhead of managing EC2 instances and EBS volumes. Amazon S3 can serve static content such as HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and media files directly from S3 buckets. Amazon S3 can also trigger AWS Lambda functions through S3 event notifications when new objects are created or existing objects are updated or deleted. AWS Lambda can process the SQS queue with an AWS Lambda function that calls the Amazon Rekognition API to categorize thevideos. This solution eliminates the need for custom recognition software and third-party dependencies345

Using a DHCP options set in AWS allows EC2 instances to automatically receive network configuration information, including the IP address of the on-premises NTP server.

This ensures that all EC2 instances in the VPC consistently use the on-premises atomic clock as their authoritative time source, maintaining the same time synchronization as the existing environment.

By allowing NTP traffic over the Direct Connect connection and ensuring proper security group and network ACL configurations, this approach eliminates the need to manually configure each EC2 instance’s NTP settings, significantly reducing administrative overhead and ensuring consistent, accurate time across the environment.

This aligns with AWS best practices for extending on-premises time synchronization to EC2 instances in a hybrid environment.

The requirement is to estimate total cost of ownership before migration. This includes comparing current on-premises costs with projected AWS costs for compute, storage, databases, and related services, and producing a consolidated business-focused TCO view.

AWS Migration Evaluator is the AWS service specifically designed to help customers build data-driven business cases for migrating workloads to AWS. Migration Evaluator collects inventory and utilization data from on-premises environments by using a collector. It then allows architects to model different migration scenarios, map on-premises resources to AWS services such as Amazon EKS managed node groups and Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, and generate reports that estimate costs, savings, and TCO impacts. The Quick Insights report provides a summarized, executive-level view of the estimated AWS costs, on-premises costs, and projected savings, which directly satisfies the requirement.

Option B is not sufficient because AWS DMS assessment reports focus on database migration feasibility and compatibility, not full workload TCO. The AWS Pricing Calculator can estimate AWS service costs, but it does not automatically incorporate on-premises cost data or provide a consolidated TCO comparison without significant manual effort.

Option C is incorrect because AWS Application Migration Service focuses on rehosting servers and testing migrations. It does not produce comprehensive TCO reports comparing on-premises and AWS environments for container platforms like EKS and managed databases.

Option D is incorrect because the AWS Cloud Economics Center and Cloud Value Framework provide conceptual guidance and methodology, not a workload-specific TCO report. AWS Cost and Usage Reports are used to analyze existing AWS usage, not to estimate costs for workloads that have not yet been migrated.

Therefore, using Migration Evaluator to collect on-premises data, model the target EKS and RDS architecture, and export a Quick Insights TCO report is the correct solution.

Option A is correct because using an Elastic Load Balancer and an Auto Scaling group with a minimum capacity of two instances can improve the availability and scalability of the EC2 instances that host the application. The load balancer can distribute traffic across multiple instances and the Auto Scaling group can replace any unhealthy instances automatically1

Option D is correct because modifying the DB instance to create a Multi-AZ deployment that extends across two Availability Zones can improve the availability and durability of the RDS for MariaDB database. Multi-AZ deployments provide enhanceddata protection and minimize downtime by automatically failing over to astandby replica in another Availability Zone in case of a planned or unplanned outage4

Option F is correct because creating a replication group for the ElastiCache for Redis cluster and enabling Multi-AZ on the cluster can improve the availability and fault tolerance of the in-memory data store. A replication group consists of a primary node and up to five read-only replica nodes that are synchronized with the primary node using asynchronous replication. Multi-AZ allows automatic failover to one of the replicas if the primary node fails or becomes unreachable6

Migrating the containers that run the application to AWS Fargate for Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) will meet the requirement of not administering the Docker hosting environment. AWS Fargate is a serverless compute engine that runs containerswithout requiring any infrastructure management3. Creating an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system and adding a volume to the Fargate task definition to point to the EFS file system will meet the requirement of low-latency storage that will automatically scale throughput to meet increased demand. Amazon EFS is a fully managed file system service that provides shared access to data from multiple containers, supports NFSv4 protocol, and offers consistent performance and high availability4. Amazon EFS also supports automatic scaling of throughput based on the amount of data stored in the file system5.

The company should attach a policy to the S3-access group to deny all S3 actions unless MFA is present. The company should request temporary credentials from AWS Security Token Service (AWS STS). The company should attach the temporary credentials in a profile that Amazon S3 will reference when the user performs actions in Amazon S3. This solution will meet the requirements because AWS STS is a service that enables you to request temporary, limited-privilege credentials for IAM users or for users that you authenticate (federated users). You can use MFA with AWS STS to provide an extra layer of security when requesting temporary credentials1. You can use the sts get-session-token AWS CLI command to request temporary credentials that include an MFA token2. You can then use these credentials with the AWS CLI to access Amazon S3 resources. To do this, you need to attach a policy to the IAM group that denies all S3 actions unless MFA is present3.You also need to create a profile in the AWS CLI configuration file that references the temporary credentials.

The other options are not correct because:

Attaching a policy to the S3 bucket to prompt the IAM user for an MFA code when the IAM user performs actions on the S3 bucket would not work because policies attached to S3 buckets cannot enforce MFA authentication. Policies attached to S3 buckets are resource-based policies that define what actions can be performed on the bucket and by whom. They do not have any logic to prompt for an MFA code or verify it.

Updating the trust policy for the S3-access group to require principals to use MFA when principals assume the group would not work because trust policies are used for roles, not groups. Trust policies are policies that define which principals can assume a role. They do not apply to groups, which are collections of IAM users that share permissions.

Creating an Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall domain list that contains the allowed domains and configuring a DNS Firewall rule group with rules to allow or block requests based on the domain list would not help with enforcing MFA authentication for Amazon S3 actions. Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall is a feature that enables you to filter and regulate outbound DNS traffic for your VPC. You can create reusable collections of filtering rules in DNS Firewall rule groups and associate them with your VPCs. You can specify lists of domain names to allow or block, and you can customize the responses for the DNS queries that you block. This feature is useful for controlling access to sites and blocking DNS-level threats, but not for requiring MFA authentication.

https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/ecs-fargate-service-auto-scaling

Provision an Aurora Replica in a different Region will meet the requirement of the application being able to recover to a separate AWS Region in the event of an application failure, and no data can be lost, with the least amount of operational overhead.

The company should configure Amazon FSx for Lustre with an import and export policy. The company should link the new file system to an S3 bucket. The company should install the Lustre client and mount the document store to an Amazon EC2 instance by using NFS. This solution will meet the requirements with the least amount of effort because Amazon FSx for Lustre is a fully managed service that provides a high-performance filesystem optimized for fast processing of workloads such as machine learning, highperformance computing, video processing, financial modeling, and electronic design automation1. Amazon FSx for Lustre can be linked to an S3 bucket and can import data from and export data to the bucket2. The import and export policy can be configured to automatically import new or changed objects from S3 and export new or changed files to S33. This will ensure that the files are available to the public for download within 30 minutes. Amazon FSx for Lustre supports NFS version 3.0 protocol for Linux clients.

The other options are not correct because:

Migrating the application to an AWS Lambda function would require a lot of effort and may not be feasible for the existing server that generates many documents. Lambda functions have limitations on execution time, memory, disk space, and network bandwidth.

Setting up an Amazon S3 File Gateway would not work because S3 File Gateway does not support write-back caching, which means that files written to the file share are uploaded to S3 immediately and are not available locally until they are downloaded again. This would not provide fast local access to the files that the server generates and modifies.

Configuring AWS DataSync to connect to an Amazon EC2 instance would not meet the requirement of making the files available to the public for download within 30 minutes. DataSync is a service that transfers data between on-premises storage systems and AWS storage services over the internet or AWS Direct Connect. DataSync tasks can be scheduled to run at specific times or intervals, but they are not triggered by file changes.

Step B is necessary so that the user in the destination account has the necessary permissions to access the source bucket and list its contents, read its objects. Step D is needed so that the user in the destination account has the necessary permissions to access the destination bucket and list contents, put objects, and set object ACLs Step F is necessary because the aws s3 sync command needs to be run using the IAM user credentials from the destination account, so that the objects will have the appropriate permissions for the user in the destination account once they are copied.

The correct solution is to use the authenticate-oidc action for the ALB listener rule and configure it with the details of the AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory directory. This way, the ALB can use OpenID Connect (OIDC) to authenticate users against the directory and grant them access to the intranet web application. The app client in the directory is used to register the ALB as an OIDC client and provide the necessary credentials and endpoints. The callback URL is the URL that the ALB redirects the user to after a successful authentication. This solution does not require any additional services or roles, and it leverages the existing directory accounts for all users.

The other solutions are incorrect because they either use the wrong action for the ALB listener rule, or they involve unnecessary or incompatible services or roles. For example:

Solution B is incorrect because it uses Amazon Cognito user pool, which is a separate user directory service that does not integrate with AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory. To use this solution, the company would have to migrate or synchronize their users from the directory to the user pool, which is not required by the question. Moreover, the authenticate-cognito action for the ALB listener rule only works with Amazon Cognito user pools, not with federated identity providers (IdPs) that have metadata from the directory.

Solution C is incorrect because it uses IAM as an identity provider (IdP), which is not compatible with AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory. IAM can only be used as an IdP for web identity federation, which allows users to sign in with social media or other third-party IdPs, not with Active Directory. Moreover, the authenticate-oidc action for the ALB listener rule requires an OIDC IdP, not a SAML 2.0 federation IdP, which is what IAM provides.

Solution D is incorrect because it uses AWS IAM Identity Center (AWS Single Sign-On), which is a service that simplifies the management of SSO access to multiple AWS accounts and business applications. This service is not needed for the scenario in the question, which only involves a single intranet web application. Moreover, the authenticate-cognito action for the ALB listener rule does not work with external IdPs that use SAML, such as AWS IAM Identity Center.

Authenticate users using an Application Load Balancer

What is AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory?

Using OpenID Connect for user authentication

The correct answers are C and D. The IAM user appears to have read-only S3 permissions, but AWS authorization is the result of multiple policy layers. In AWS Organizations, a service control policy can set the maximum permissions available to principals in member accounts. If an OU-level SCP denies or does not allow S3 actions, the IAM user’s read-only policy will not be enough. A permissions boundary can also restrict the maximum permissions an IAM user can exercise, even if an identity-based policy appears to allow access. Bucket policies can affect access to specific buckets and objects, but the symptom says no buckets are listed in the console, which points more strongly to identity-side effective permission limits. ACLs are legacy resource controls and are not the primary place to troubleshoot this issue. (AWS Documentation)

===============

Amazon Connect is a cloud-based contact center service that allows you to set up a virtual call center for your business. It provides an easy-to-use interface for managing customer interactions through voice and chat. Amazon Connect integrates with other AWS services, such as Amazon S3 and Amazon Kinesis, to help you collect, store, and analyze customer data for insights into customer behavior and trends. On the other hand, Amazon Pinpoint is a marketing automation and analytics service that allows you to engage with your customers across different channels, such as email, SMS, push notifications, and voice. It helps you create personalized campaigns based on userbehavior and enables you to track user engagement and retention. While both services allow you to communicate with your customers, they serve different purposes. Amazon Connect is focused on customer support and service, while Amazon Pinpoint is focused on marketing and engagement.

https://aws.amazon.com/s3/features/access-points/

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/managing-amazon-s3-access-with-vpc-endpoints-and-s3-access-points/

Generally, unstructured data should be converted structured data before querying them. AWS Glue can do that. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/glue/latest/dg/schema-relationalize.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/athena/latest/ug/glue-athena.html

The company is building an active-active, multi-Region architecture for an ECS-based web application behind ALBs, with shared container images in ECR and a relational database in Aurora MySQL. The goal is to duplicate the setup in a second Region with minimal operational overhead while allowing minor replication latency.

A is required because ACM certificates are Regional for use with Regional resources like an Application Load Balancer. An ALB in the secondary Region needs an ACM certificate that exists in that same Region to terminate HTTPS. Requesting (or importing) a certificate in the secondary Region and attaching it to the ALB HTTPS listener is the standard managed approach with low operational overhead.

B is not correct because ACM certificates are not shared “across Regions” for direct use by a Regional ALB in another Region. Sharing via AWS RAM is used for sharing resources across accounts within a Region (and for supported resource types), but it does not provide a mechanism to use an ACM certificate issued in one Region directly on an ALB in a different Region.

D is required because the application runs in both Regions and must be able to pull container images locally with minimal operational work. Amazon ECR supports cross-Region replication so images pushed in the primary Region can be replicated automatically to the secondary Region’s ECR repositories. This avoids building custom copy pipelines and reduces the chance of drift. Once replication is enabled, updating images in the primary Region can automatically populate the secondary Region repository.

C is not the best fit. A VPC endpoint for ECR is about private connectivity to ECR within a Region. It does not solve the multi-Region image availability problem by itself, and it introduces the idea of pulling images from the primary Region, which is unnecessary and less optimal when cross-Region replication can keep images local to each Region.

E is required because the database must support multi-Region application operation with tolerable replication latency. Aurora Global Database is the managed feature designed to replicate an Aurora cluster to a secondary Region with low-latency replication and minimal operational overhead compared to custom replication. Enabling write forwarding allows applications in the secondary Region to send write requests to the secondary cluster endpoint, with Aurora forwarding those writes to the primary writer. This reduces application changes compared to forcing all writes to go directly to the primary Region endpoints, and it supports an active-active application deployment pattern where both Regions can accept traffic.

F is not correct because “cross-Region writes between DB clusters” and “multiple writer instances in the primary Region” do not provide a managed, multi-Region, multi-writer Aurora design as described. Aurora’s managed multi-Region pattern is Aurora Global Database with a single primary writer in one Region (with the option to promote a secondary Region during failover) and optional write forwarding from a secondary Region to the primary. The option’s described cross-Region multi-writer behavior is not a standard supported Aurora configuration and would not be the least operational overhead approach.

Therefore, the least operational overhead combination that correctly addresses HTTPS termination in the secondary Region, image availability in both Regions, and managed multi-Region database replication is A, D, and E.

Connect to RDS outside of Lambda handler method to improve performancehttps://awstut.com/en/2022/04/30/connect-to-rds-outside-of-lambda-handler-method-to-improve-performance-en/

Using RDS Proxy, you can handle unpredictable surges in database traffic. Otherwise, these surges might cause issues due to oversubscribing connections or creating new connections at a fast rate. RDS Proxy establishes a database connection pool and reuses connections in this pool. This approach avoids the memory and CPU overhead of opening a new database connection each time. To protect the database against oversubscription, you can control the number of database connections that are created.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/rds-proxy.html

Ais the correct best-practice approach:

Activate cost allocation tags inmanagement/payer account.

Enable AWS Cost and Usage Report (CUR) to dump usage to S3.

Query CUR withAmazon Athena, and visualize withAmazon QuickSight.

Other options either duplicate CURs (C, D) or misuse tools (B: CloudWatch is not a cost analysis tool).

Amazon Route 53 Resolver is a managed DNS resolver service from Route 53 that helps to create conditional forwarding rules to redirect query traffic1. By associating the private hosted zone to all the VPCs, the solutions architect can enable DNS resolution for cloud.example.com within the VPCs. By creating a Route 53 inbound resolver in the shared services VPC, the solutions architect can enable DNS resolution for cloud.example.com from on-premises systems. By attaching all VPCs to the transit gateway, the solutions architect can enable connectivity between the VPCs and the on-premises network through AWS Direct Connect. By creating forwarding rules in the on-premises DNS server for cloud.example.com that point to the inbound resolver, the solutions architect can direct DNS queries for cloud.example.com to the Route 53 Resolver endpoint in AWS. This solution will provide the highest performance as it leverages Route 53 Resolver’s optimized routing and caching capabilities.

This option allows the solutions architect to use Aurora global database to replicate data across multiple AWS Regions with low latency and high availability1. By launching the solution in the target Region, the solutions architect can ensure that the API Gateway, Lambda functions, and other resources are ready to serve traffic in case of a disaster in the source Region. By configuring the two Regional solutions to work in an active-passive configuration, the solutions architect can minimize costs and avoid data conflicts by having only one primary Region that accepts write operations and one secondary Region that serves as a standby2. The RTO and RPO requirements can be met by using Aurora global database, which supports sub-second failover times and near real-time replication1.

Working with Amazon Aurora global database

Active-passive failover

Auto Scaling Group with Application Load Balancer:

Moving the Tomcat server to an Auto Scaling group ensures that the number of instances adjusts dynamically based on the traffic load. An Application Load Balancer (ALB) distributes incoming traffic across multiple instances, improving the application ' s reliability and availability.

Migrate to Amazon Aurora with Replica:

Migrating the MySQL database to Amazon Aurora and adding an Aurora Replica enhances the database ' s scalability and availability. Aurora is optimized for performance, and replicas help distribute read traffic, reducing the load on the primary instance.

Additional Public Subnet:

Creating an additional public subnet in a different Availability Zone enhances fault tolerance. This ensures that the website remains accessible even if one Availability Zone experiences issues.

References

AWS Well-Architected Framework

Amazon Aurora Documentation

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-dead-letter-queues.html

Option B is correct because AWS Organizations allows a company to create a new organization from a chosen payer account and define an organizational unit hierarchy. This way, the finance department can have a centralized method for payment but also maintain visibility into each group’s spending to allocate costs. The company can also invite the existing accounts to join the organization and create new accounts using Organizations, which simplifies the account management process.

Option D is correct because enabling all features of AWS Organizations and establishing appropriate service control policies (SCPs) that filter IAM permissions for sub-accounts allows the security team to have a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage in all the company’s accounts. SCPs are policies that specify the maximum permissions for an organization or organizational unit (OU), and they can be used to restrict access to certain services or actions across all accounts in an organization.

Option A is incorrect because using a collection of parameterized AWS CloudFormation templates defining common IAM permissions that are launched into each account requires more effort than using SCPs. Moreover, it does not provide a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage, as each account would have to launch the appropriate stacks to enforce the least privilege model.

Option C is incorrect because requiring each business unit to use its own AWS accounts does not provide a centralized method for payment or a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage. Tagging each AWS account appropriately and enabling Cost Explorer to administer chargebacks may help with cost allocation, but it is not as efficient as using AWS Organizations.

Option E is incorrect because consolidating all of the company’s AWS accounts into a single AWS account does not provide visibility into each group’s spending or a way to control IAM usage for different business units. Using tags for billing purposes and the IAM’s Access Advisor feature to enforce the least privilege model may help with cost optimization and security, but it is not as scalable or flexible as using AWS Organizations.

AWS Organizations

Service Control Policies

AWS CloudFormation

Cost Explorer

IAM Access Advisor

This option uses Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) with the Fargate launch type to deploy the application containers. Amazon ECS is a fully managed container orchestration service that allows running Docker containers on AWS at scale. Fargate is a serverless compute engine for containers that eliminates the need to provision or manage servers or clusters. With Fargate, the company only pays for the resources required to run its containers, which reduces costs and operational overhead. This option also uses Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) for shared storage. Amazon EFS is a fully managed file system that provides scalable, elastic, concurrent, and secure file storage for use with AWS cloud services. Amazon EFS supports NFS version 4 protocol, which is compatible with the application’s requirements. To use Amazon EFS with Fargate containers, the company needs to reference the EFS file system ID, container mount point, and EFS authorization IAM role in the ECS task definition.

The company wants logging that helps troubleshoot email delivery issues and also wants to search by recipient, subject, and time sent. Amazon SES provides event publishing for email sending and delivery events through configuration sets. With a configuration set, SES can publish sending events such as send, delivery, bounce, complaint, reject, and rendering failure to destinations such as Amazon CloudWatch, Amazon SNS, or Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. For building a searchable log store, delivering these events into Amazon S3 through Kinesis Data Firehose is an effective approach because S3 provides durable storage and integrates well with query services.

Option A creates an SES configuration set with a Kinesis Data Firehose destination that delivers logs to an S3 bucket. This captures detailed SES event data that is directly useful for troubleshooting delivery issues and retaining historical records for analysis.

Once logs are stored in Amazon S3, Amazon Athena can query the data using SQL. Athena is designed to query data in S3 and is well suited for ad hoc searches. This meets the requirement to search based on recipient, subject, and time sent, assuming the event schema includes these fields (or they are included in the published event payload). Therefore, option C completes the solution by enabling searches over the stored log dataset.

Option B (CloudTrail) records API activity, such as calls made to SES APIs, but it is not designed to capture per-message delivery outcomes (deliveries, bounces, complaints) in a way that supports troubleshooting delivery behavior and detailed email event searching. CloudTrail is useful for auditing who called SES APIs, not for tracking message-level delivery events and outcomes.

Option D (CloudWatch log group) is another valid SES event publishing destination, but if the requirement is to perform flexible searches by multiple dimensions over a potentially large historical dataset, storing the logs in S3 and querying with Athena is a more direct and scalable pattern. Also, the provided option E is incorrect because Athena queries data in S3, not in CloudWatch Logs. CloudWatch Logs has its own query mechanism, but Athena is not used to query CloudWatch Logs directly in the way described.

Option E is incorrect because Amazon Athena does not query CloudWatch Logs as a log store. The typical searchable pattern for Athena is S3-backed datasets.

Therefore, the best combination to satisfy logging and searchable analysis requirements is to publish SES events to S3 via Kinesis Data Firehose (option A) and query those logs with Athena (option C).

The correct solution is to use an Amazon S3 File Gateway to store the copy of the SMB file share on AWS. An S3 File Gateway enables on-premises applications to store and access objects in Amazon S3 using the SMB protocol. The S3 File Gateway can also be accessed from AWS using the SMB protocol, which provides the ability to use the data from either the data center or AWS if a disaster occurs. The S3 File Gateway supports tiering of data to different S3 storage classes based on the file type. This allows the company to optimizethe storage costs by using S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) for the metadata files, which are rarely accessed but must be available within 5 minutes, and S3 Glacier Deep Archive for the image files, which are the lowest-cost storage class and suitable for long-term retention of data that is rarely accessed. This solution is the most cost-effective because it does not require any additional hardware, software, or replication services.

The other solutions are incorrect because they either use more expensive or unnecessary services or components, or they do not meet the requirements. For example:

Solution A is incorrect because it uses AWS Outposts with Amazon S3 storage, which is a very expensive and complex solution for the scenario in the question. AWS Outposts is a service that extends AWS infrastructure, services, APIs, and tools to virtually any data center, co-location space, or on-premises facility. It is designed for customers who need low latency and local data processing. Amazon S3 storage on Outposts provides a subset of S3 features and APIs to store and retrieve data on Outposts. However, this solution does not provide SMB access to the data on Outposts, which requires a Windows EC2 instance on Outposts as a file server. This adds more cost and complexity to the solution, and it does not provide the ability to access the data from AWS if a disaster occurs.

Solution B is incorrect because it uses Amazon FSx File Gateway and Amazon FSx for Windows File Server Multi-AZ file system that uses SSD storage, which are both more expensive and unnecessary services for the scenario in the question. Amazon FSx File Gateway is a service that enables on-premises applications to store and access data in Amazon FSx for Windows File Server using the SMB protocol. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is a fully managed service that provides native Windows file shares with the compatibility, features, and performance that Windows-based applications rely on. However, this solution does not meet the requirements because it does not provide the ability to use different storage classes for the metadata files and image files, and it does not provide the ability to access the data from AWS if a disaster occurs. Moreover, using a Multi-AZ file system that uses SSD storage is overprovisioned and costly for the scenario in the question, which involves rarely accessed data that must be available within 5 minutes.

Solution D is incorrect because it uses an S3 File Gateway that uses S3 Standard-IA for both the metadata files and image files, which is not the most cost-effective solution for the scenario in the question. S3 Standard-IA is a storage class that offers high durability, availability, and performance for infrequently accessed data. However, it is more expensive than S3 Glacier Deep Archive, which is the lowest-cost storage class and suitable for long-term retention of data that is rarely accessed. Therefore, using S3 Standard-IA for the image files, which are likely to be larger and more numerous than the metadata files, is not optimal for the storage costs.

What is S3 File Gateway?

Using Amazon S3 storage classes with S3 File Gateway

Accessing your file shares from AWS

Option A is correct because placing the EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB) and associating an SSL certificate from AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) with the ALB enables encryption in transit between the client and the ALB. Exporting the SSL certificate and installing it on each EC2 instance enables encryption in transit between the ALB and the web server. Configuring the ALB to listen on port 443 and to forward traffic to port 443 on the instances ensures that HTTPS is used for both connections. This solution achieves end-to-end encryption in transit for the web application12

https://aws.amazon.com/aws-transfer-family/faqs/

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/transfer/latest/userguide/what-is-aws-transfer-family.html

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/11/aws-transfer-for-sftp-fully-managed-sftp-for-s3/?nc1=h_ls

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/AWSHowTo.cloudwatch.html Elastic Beanstalk automatically uses Amazon CloudWatch to help you monitor your application and environment status. You can navigate to the Amazon CloudWatch console to see your dashboard and get an overview of all of your resources as well as your alarms. You can also choose to view more metrics or add custom metrics.

The IAM policy simulator will generate a policy that contains only the necessary permissions for the application to access Secrets Manager, providing the least privilege necessary to get the job done. This is the most efficient solution as it will not require additional steps such as analyzing CloudTrail events or manually creating and testing an IAM policy.

You can use the IAM policy simulator to generate an IAM policy for an IAM role by specifying the role and the API actions and resources that the application or service requires. The simulator will then generate an IAM policy that grants the least privilege access to those actions and resources.

Once you have generated an IAM policy using the simulator, you can replace the existing SecretsManagerReadWnte policy that is attached to the IAM role with the newly generated policy. This will ensure that the application or service has the least privilege access to the Secrets Manager actions that it requires.

You can access the IAM policy simulator through the IAM console, AWS CLI, and AWS SDKs. Here is the link for more information:https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/access_policies_simulator.html

The best option is to use Amazon SQS and AWS Lambda to create a serverless order processing application. Amazon SQS is a fully managed message queue service that can decouple the order receiving and processing components, making the application more scalable and fault-tolerant. AWS Lambda is a serverless compute service that can automatically scale to handle the incoming messages from the SQS queue and process them according to the business logic. AWS Lambda can also integrate with Amazon DynamoDB to store the processed orders in a fast and flexible NoSQL database. This approach eliminates the need to provision, manage, or scale any servers or containers, and reduces the operational overhead and cost.

Option A is not reliable because using an EC2-hosted database to receive the orders introduces a single point of failure and a scalability bottleneck. EC2 instances also require more management and configuration than serverless services.

Option C is not reliable because using AWS Step Functions to receive the orders adds unnecessary complexity and cost to the application. AWS Step Functions is a service that coordinates multiple AWS services into a serverless workflow, but it is not designed to handle high-volume, sporadic, or unpredictable traffic patterns. AWS Step Functions also charges per state transition, which can be expensive for a large number of orders. Launching an ECS container to process each order also requires more resources and management than invoking a Lambda function.

Option D is not reliable because using Amazon Kinesis Data Streams to receive the orders is not suitable for this use case. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is a service that enables real-time processing of streaming data at scale, but it is not meant for asynchronous message queuing. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams requires consumers to poll the data from the stream, which can introduce latency and complexity. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams also charges per shard hour, which can be expensive for a sporadic traffic pattern.

Amazon SQS

AWS Lambda

Amazon DynamoDB

AWS Step Functions

Amazon ECS

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.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/UsingWithRDS.IAMDBAuth.html

Transit GW + Direct Connect GW + Transit VIF + enabled SiteLink if two different DX locationshttps://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-aws-direct-connect-sitelink/

migrating the data processing script to an AWS Lambda function and using an S3 event notification to invoke the Lambda function to process the objects when the company uploads the objects. This solution meets the company ' s requirements of high availability and scalability, as well as reducing long-term management overhead, and is likely to be the most cost-effective option.

Cross account role should be created in destination(member) account. The role has trust entity to master account.

https://joe.blog.freemansoft.com/2020/04/protect-data-in-cloud-with-s3-access.html

CloudFormation cannot delete an S3 bucket that contains objects. When the developers attempt to delete temporary stacks, the delete operation fails if the associated S3 bucket still has objects. Because the bucket name is derived from the stack name, failed deletions can also prevent re-creation of stacks with the same names until the bucket is manually emptied and deleted. This causes friction for development and continuous integration workflows.

To resolve this, the solution must ensure that, during stack deletion, all objects are removed from the S3 bucket so that CloudFormation can delete the bucket successfully. CloudFormation does not natively support automatic deletion of bucket contents. However, CloudFormation custom resources can be used to perform custom actions during stack lifecycle events.

Option A proposes associating a Lambda function with a CloudFormation custom resource. The custom resource can be invoked during stack deletion to list and delete all objects (and object versions if versioning is enabled) in the specified bucket. Once the bucket is emptied by the Lambda function, the standard CloudFormation deletion process can successfully delete the bucket resource.

In addition to emptying the bucket, the IAM role used by CloudFormation must have permissions to delete objects in the bucket. If CloudFormation uses an execution role that lacks s3:DeleteObject (and potentially s3:ListBucket) permissions, the bucket-cleanup Lambda function or CloudFormation itself would not be able to remove objects. Option D ensures that CloudFormation operations are invoked by a role that has s3:DeleteObject permissions on bucket objects, enabling the custom resource to perform the deletions.

Option B is incorrect because, although DeletionPolicy can be set to Delete, there is no such capability as CAPABILITY_DELETE_NONEMPTY in CloudFormation, and DeletionPolicy alone does not override the S3 service requirement that buckets must be empty before deletion.

Option C’s Retain DeletionPolicy leaves the bucket behind when the stack is deleted. While an external AWS Config rule could clean up stale buckets, it complicates the design and does not directly solve the problem of re-creating stacks with the same bucket name in a predictable, immediate way.

Option E configures a bucket policy to grant s3:DeleteObject permissions, but this is not sufficient alone. CloudFormation still must assume a role with the appropriate permissions. Bucket policy and IAM role permissions must both be considered, but the key action to resolve the deletion failure is to explicitly empty the bucket through a custom resource, as in option A, and ensure the execution role has delete permissions, as in option D.

Therefore, implementing a Lambda-backed custom resource to empty the S3 bucket during stack deletion (option A) and ensuring the CloudFormation execution role has s3:DeleteObject permissions (option D) resolves the deletion errors and allows developers to delete and recreate stacks freely.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

This question is testing the correct load balancing design for a stateful web application that:

runs on multiple EC2 instances,

must scale horizontally,

uses browser cookies for session management,

requires session affinity.

The correct solution is to place the EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group behind an Application Load Balancer and enable sticky sessions on the target group. This allows the application to scale out across multiple instances while ensuring that repeat requests from the same client are routed to the same target for the duration of the stickiness configuration.

Why C is correct

An Application Load Balancer is designed for Layer 7 HTTP/HTTPS traffic, which is exactly what a browser-based web application uses. Because the application uses cookies and requires session affinity, ALB is the correct AWS service since it supports sticky sessions for target groups. The EC2 instances can be placed in an Auto Scaling group so the application can add or remove instances as demand changes. This directly satisfies the horizontal scaling requirement.

ALB also integrates natively with Auto Scaling groups, health checks, and target groups. For web applications that rely on session persistence, ALB stickiness is the standard design choice. The application is third-party, so changing the application to externalize sessions may not be possible. Therefore, keeping requests bound to the same backend instance is the appropriate architecture.

Why A is incorrect

Route 53 does not provide cookie-based session affinity to specific EC2 instances. Multivalue answer routing can return multiple healthy records, but it is a DNS-level mechanism, not an HTTP session persistence mechanism. Route 53 Resolver rules also do not inspect browser cookies and do not ensure that a given cookie value maps consistently to one EC2 instance.

In addition, exposing each EC2 instance with a public IP is not the right scalable architecture for a horizontally scaled web application. This option lacks proper load balancer behavior and does not provide real application-layer stickiness.

Why B is incorrect

CloudFront cannot use an Auto Scaling group directly as an origin. CloudFront origins are typically an Application Load Balancer, Network Load Balancer, S3 bucket, custom HTTP origin, or similar endpoint. An Auto Scaling group itself is not a valid origin endpoint for CloudFront.

Also, CloudFront Functions are used for lightweight request and response manipulation at the edge. They are not the correct mechanism to implement instance-level session affinity for a fleet of EC2 instances. Even if cookies are forwarded, CloudFront is not the service that should manage sticky routing among application servers. That role belongs to the load balancer.

Why D is incorrect

Gateway Load Balancer is designed for deploying, scaling, and managing third-party virtual appliances such as firewalls, IDS, and deep packet inspection systems. It is not intended to front standard web applications for browser traffic.

Flow stickiness on GWLB is not the same as HTTP cookie-based session affinity for a web application. GWLB operates for appliance insertion use cases, not for traditional user-facing web application request distribution. Therefore, it does not meet the application requirement appropriately.

B: Archiving inactive user uploads toGlacier Deep Archiveoffers the lowest storage cost.

E: Since the users are in Europe only, usingPrice Class 200reduces CloudFront delivery cost without affecting performance.

A (expiration) deletes data — not suitable.

C is invalid (App Runner does not support Spot).

D might save little unless read traffic is high.

The best solution is to turn on the Concurrency Scaling feature for the Amazon Redshift cluster. This feature allows the cluster to automatically add additional capacity to handle bursts of read queries without affecting the performance of write queries. The additional capacity is transparent to the users and is billed separately based on the usage. This solution meets the business requirements of servicing read and write queries at all times andis also cost-effective compared to the other options, which involve provisioning additional resources or resizing the cluster. References: Amazon Redshift Documentation, Concurrency Scaling in Amazon Redshift

Kinesis Data Streams is a real-time streaming service and provide near-real-time analytics. Also the question " Deliver results of processing to a data warehouse " and this option has redshift cluster which is a powerful data warehousing solution that can handle large-scale analytics workloads.

All features – The default feature set that is available to AWS Organizations. It includes all the functionality of consolidated billing, plus advanced features that give you more control over accounts in your organization. For example, when all features are enabled the management account of the organization has full control over what member accounts can do. The management account can apply SCPs to restrict the services and actions that users (including the root user) and roles in an account can access.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_getting-started_concepts.html#feature-set

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/waf-analyze-count-action-rules/

The correct answer is C. To add an existing standalone AWS account to an organization, the invitation must be initiated from the organization’s management account. The invited account then accepts the invitation. For accounts that are invited into an organization, the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role is not automatically created in the same way it is when an account is created through Organizations. AWS documentation explains that an equivalent administrator role can be created manually in the invited member account. Option A reverses the invitation flow. Option B is unnecessary because AWS Support is not required for the standard account invitation process. Option D is incomplete because a standalone account cannot independently configure itself as a member without accepting an invitation from the management account. (AWS Documentation)

===============

The Auto Scaling group can automatically launch and terminate EC2 instances based on the demand and health of the web application. The launch template can specify the configuration of the EC2 instances, such as the AMI, instance type, security group, and user data. The existing ALB can distribute the traffic to the EC2 instances in the Auto Scaling group. The existing EC2 instances can be attached to the Auto Scaling group without deleting them or the ALB. This option minimizes downtime and preserves the current setup of the web application. References: [What is Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling?], [Launch templates] , [Attach a load balancer to your Auto Scaling group], [Attach EC2 instances to your Auto Scaling group]

Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) on AWS Fargate is a fully managed service that allows you to run containers without having to manage the underlying infrastructure. When you launch tasks on Fargate, resources are automatically allocated based on the number of tasks running, which reduces the operational overhead.

Using ECS on Fargate allows you to assign custom tags to tasks using the --tags option in the run-task command, as described in the documentation:https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/ecs/run-task.htmlYou can also set enableECSManagedTags to true, which allows the service to automatically add the cluster name and service name as tags.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/task-placement-constraints.html#tag-based-scheduling

it will use the ALB to handle the unpredictable bursts of traffic and route it to the SQS queue. The SQS queue will act as a buffer to store incoming data temporarily and the container running in Amazon ECS with the Fargate launch type will process messages in the queue. This approach will ensure that all data is processed and prevent data loss.

The requirement is to test IPv6 connectivity in an AWS VPC. When a VPC is associated with an IPv6 CIDR block, subnets can be configured to assign IPv6 addresses to resources, and routing must be correctly configured to allow IPv6 traffic to flow.

For public IPv6 connectivity, IPv6 traffic must be routed through an internet gateway. Unlike IPv4, IPv6 addresses are globally routable by default, and there is no concept of NAT for IPv6 egress through a NAT gateway. Therefore, for an EC2 instance in a public subnet that needs inbound and outbound IPv6 connectivity, the subnet route table must include a route that sends IPv6 traffic (::/0) to an internet gateway. Option C correctly describes this configuration and is a standard pattern for enabling IPv6 access for public subnets.

For private subnets that require outbound-only IPv6 connectivity (for example, instances that must initiate connections to the internet but must not accept inbound connections), AWS provides an egress-only internet gateway. An egress-only internet gateway allows outbound IPv6 traffic while blocking unsolicited inbound IPv6 traffic, similar in intent to how a NAT gateway is used for IPv4. Option E correctly uses an egress-only internet gateway for IPv6 traffic from a private subnet, making it the correct choice for private IPv6 connectivity testing.

Option A focuses on Direct Connect integration. Although Direct Connect can support IPv6, associating a virtual private gateway with a Direct Connect gateway is not required simply to test IPv6 connectivity to customers worldwide. This option also does not explicitly configure IPv6 internet routing and therefore does not directly meet the stated requirement.

Option B is incorrect because NAT gateways do not support IPv6. NAT gateways are IPv4-only services, so routing IPv6 traffic to a NAT gateway is not a valid configuration.

Option D is also incorrect because NAT instances do not provide a supported or recommended solution for IPv6 traffic. NAT-based designs are intended for IPv4 address translation and are not used for IPv6 connectivity in AWS.

Therefore, using an internet gateway for public IPv6 subnets and an egress-only internet gateway for private IPv6 subnets is the correct and supported approach.

This solution will meet the requirements of the company as it provides a secure, cost-effective and fast way of transferring large data sets from on-premises to AWS. Snowball Edge devices encrypt the data during transfer, and the devices are shipped back to AWS for import into S3. This option is more cost effective than using Direct Connect or VPN connections as it does not require the company to pay for long-term dedicated connections.

" The S3 buckets have millions of objects " If there are million of objects then you should use Batch operations. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/encrypting-objects-with-amazon-s3-batch-operations/

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

The requirements call for an event-driven redesign that uses serverless services and provides near real-time analytics updates. The current architecture relies on weekly ETL jobs, which is incompatible with near real-time analytics.

A serverless, event-driven architecture on AWS typically uses a managed event bus for decoupling producers and consumers and enabling routing/filtering to multiple targets. The analytics requirement suggests that events (orders, returns, updates) should be streamed to an analytics store continuously rather than copied on a weekly schedule.

Option C aligns with these goals. It modernizes the application components into microservices on a serverless compute substrate (AWS Fargate) and modernizes the databases to managed serverless offerings where possible. Aurora Serverless for MySQL provides an on-demand relational database option that reduces operational overhead for the transactional store. Redshift Serverless provides a managed data warehousing service suitable for analytics without provisioning clusters. Using Amazon EventBridge provides a serverless event routing layer that can deliver events from multiple sources to multiple targets, which supports near real-time propagation of business events from the applications into analytics ingestion and processing.

Option A is not fully aligned: it retains the transactional MySQL database on EC2 (not serverless/managed for the database layer) and moves analytics to Amazon Neptune, which is a graph database, not the typical replacement for an OLAP analytics database. SQS is a queue suited for point-to-point message processing, not a flexible event bus for fan-out to multiple analytics consumers and routing based on event patterns.

Option B is not serverless because it uses EC2 Auto Scaling groups for application compute. Although SNS can distribute messages, this option keeps compute server-based and does not directly provide a near real-time analytics warehouse pattern; it also uses Aurora MySQL for analytics, which is not a typical OLAP warehouse replacement compared to Redshift.

Option D is not appropriate: Amazon AppStream 2.0 is a service for streaming desktop applications to users, not for hosting microservices. AWS IoT Core is optimized for IoT device messaging and telemetry and is not the standard integration backbone for business application event routing across microservices and analytics.

Therefore, option C best satisfies the requirement for an event-driven, serverless architecture with near real-time analytics.

Amazon AppStream 2.0 offers a streamlined solution for rehosting a Windows-based desktop application on AWS with minimal development effort. By creating an AppStream 2.0image that includes the application and using an On-Demand fleet for streaming, the application becomes accessible from any device, including Linux machines. AppStream 2.0 user pools can be used for authentication, simplifying access management without the need for extensive changes to the application or infrastructure.

AWS Documentation on Amazon AppStream 2.0 provides insights into setting up application streaming solutions. This approach is recommended for delivering desktop applications to diverse operating systems without the complexity of managing virtual desktops or extensive application refactoring.

Amazon SageMaker is a fully managed machine learning service that allows users to build, train, and deploy machine learning models quickly and easily1. Users can export their existing TensorFlow models and store the model artifacts in Amazon S3, a highly scalable and durable object storage service2. Users can then deploy the model to Amazon SageMaker and create an endpoint that can be invoked by the web application to provide recommendations3. This way, the solution can leverage the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker without having to rewrite the personalization model.

AWS Elastic Beanstalk is a service that allows users to deploy and manage web applications without worrying about the infrastructure that runs those applications. Users can host their Java application in AWS Elastic Beanstalk and configure it to communicate with the Amazon SageMaker endpoint. This way, the solution can reduce the operational overhead of managing servers, load balancers, scaling, and application health monitoring.

AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) is a service that helps users migrate databases to AWS quickly and securely. Users can use AWS DMS to migrate their SQL Server database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, a fully managed relational database service that offers high availability, scalability, security, and compatibility. This way, the solution canreduce the operational overhead of managing database servers, backups, patches, and upgrades.

Option A is incorrect because using AWS Server Migration Service (AWS SMS) to migrate the on-premises physical application server and the web application VMs to AWS is not cost-effective or scalable. AWS SMS is a service that helps users migrate on-premises workloads to AWS. However, for this use case, migrating the physical application server and the web application VMs to AWS will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon RDS.

Option C is incorrect because using AWS Application Migration Service to migrate the on-premises personalization model and VMs to Amazon EC2 instances in Auto Scaling groups is not cost-effective or scalable. AWS Application Migration Service is a service that helps users migrate applications from on-premises or other clouds to AWS without making any changes to their applications. However, for this use case, migrating the personalization model and VMs to EC2 instances will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon RDS.

Option D is incorrect because containerizing the personalization model and the Java application and using Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) managed node groups to deploy them to Amazon EKS is not necessary or cost-effective. Amazon EKS is a service that allows users to run Kubernetes on AWS without needing to install, operate, and maintain their own Kubernetes control plane or nodes. However, for this use case, containerizing and deploying the personalization model and the Java application will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Moreover, using S3 Glacier Deep Archive as a storage class for images will incur a high retrieval fee and latency for accessing them.

This option allows the company to use Amazon CloudFront to improve the latency and availability of the API requests by caching the responses at the edge locations closest to the clients1. By enabling caching in the production stage, the company can reduce the number of calls made to the backend services, such as Lambda functions and Aurora Serverless DB cluster, and save on costs and resources2. This option also helps to handle traffic spikes and reduce database memory errors by serving cached responses instead of querying the database repeatedly.

Choosing an API endpoint type

Enabling API caching to enhance responsiveness

This option allows the solutions architect to use a DeletionPolicy attribute to specify how AWS CloudFormation handles the deletion of an S3 bucket when the stack is deleted1. By setting the value of Delete, the solutions architect can instruct CloudFormation to delete the bucket and all of itscontents1. This option does not require any major changes to the application’s architecture or any additional resources.

Deletion policies

The requirement is to continuously scan all AWS resources in this solution for security vulnerabilities with the least operational overhead. The environment includes Amazon EKS worker nodes in a managed node group and an Amazon ECR repository that stores container images used by the EKS cluster.

Amazon Inspector is a managed vulnerability scanning service that integrates directly with multiple AWS resource types. It can automatically discover Amazon EC2 instances (including EKS managed node group instances) and perform continuous vulnerability assessments against them, using software inventory and known CVE databases. Inspector also integrates with Amazon ECR to scan container images for vulnerabilities when images are pushed to the repository and periodically thereafter, providing continuous assessment of image security posture without requiring separate scanners or infrastructure.

By activating Amazon Inspector for the account and region, the service will automatically start tracking supported resources, including EKS-managed EC2 instances and ECR repositories, and will begin scanning them for known vulnerabilities. Findings are provided through the Inspector console and can be integrated with other services such as AWS Security Hub or Amazon EventBridge for further aggregation and automation, but no separate infrastructure deployment or maintenance is required.

Option B, therefore, provides end-to-end vulnerability scanning for both the EKS nodes and the ECR images with minimal operational overhead, because it leverages a fully managed AWS service that automatically discovers and scans supported resources.

Option A is not correct because AWS Security Hub does not itself perform vulnerability scanning. Security Hub aggregates and normalizes security findings from various AWS services, including Amazon Inspector, GuardDuty, and others. It is a security posture management and aggregation service, not a vulnerability scanner.

Option C introduces additional operational overhead by requiring the company to provision, configure, secure, and maintain a separate EC2 instance running a third-party vulnerability scanning tool. While ECR basic scan-on-push can detect some image vulnerabilities, the EC2-based scanner must be managed, updated, and scaled by the customer, which violates the requirement for the least operational overhead when a fully managed alternative exists.

Option D is incorrect because the Amazon CloudWatch agent is used for metrics and log collection from EC2 instances and other environments; it does not perform vulnerability scanning or CVE analysis. Configuring CloudWatch for monitoring and logging does not meet the requirement to continuously scan for security vulnerabilities. ECR basic scans also provide only image-level scanning and do not cover the EKS nodes themselves.

Therefore, enabling Amazon Inspector to scan both the EKS nodes and the ECR repository, as described in option B, is the solution that meets the continuous vulnerability scanning requirement with the least operational overhead.

This option allows the company to use a private repository in Amazon ECR to store and manage its Docker images securely and efficiently1. By creating a permissions policy for the repository that allows only required ECR operations, such as ecr:GetDownloadUrlForLayer, ecr:BatchGetImage, ecr:BatchCheckLayerAvailability, ecr:PutImage, and ecr:InitiateLayerUpload2, the company can restrict access to the repository and prevent unauthorized actions. By including a condition to allow the ECRoperations if the value of the aws:PrincipalOrgID condition key is equal to the ID of the company’s organization, the company can ensure that only accounts that are within its organization can access the images3. By adding a lifecycle rule to the ECR repository that deletes all untagged images over the count of five, the company can reduce storage costs and retain only the most recent untagged images4.

Amazon ECR private repositories

Amazon ECR repository policies

Restricting access to AWS Organizations members

Amazon ECR lifecycle policies

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/access-control-block-public-access.html

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/vpc-analyze-inbound-traffic-nat-gateway/ by Cloudxie says " select appropriate log "

To restrict IAM actions to only administrator roles across all AWS accounts in an organization, the most operationally efficient solution is to create a Service Control Policy (SCP) that allows IAM actions exclusively for administrator roles and apply this SCP to the root Organizational Unit (OU) of AWS Organizations. This method ensures a centralized governance mechanism that uniformly applies the policy across all accounts, thereby minimizing the need for individual account-level configurations and reducing operational complexity.

AWS Documentation on AWS Organizations and Service Control Policies offers comprehensive information on creating and managing SCPs for organizational-wide policy enforcement. This approach aligns with AWS best practices for managing permissions and ensuring secure and compliant account configurations within an AWS Organization.

The company should use AWS IoT Greengrass to deploy the ML model to the local server and provide local feedback to the factory workers. AWS IoT Greengrass is a service that extends AWS cloud capabilities to local devices, allowing them to collect and analyze data closer to the source of information,react autonomously to local events, and communicate securely with each other on local networks1. AWS IoT Greengrass also supports MLinference at the edge, enabling devices to run ML models locally without requiring internet connectivity2.

The other options are not correct because:

Setting up an Amazon Kinesis video stream from each IP camera to AWS would not work if the factory’s internet connectivity is down. It would also incur unnecessary costs and latency to stream video data to the cloud and back.

Ordering an AWS Snowball device would not be a scalable or cost-effective solution for deploying the ML model. AWS Snowball is a service that provides physical devices for data transfer and edge computing, but it is not designed for continuous operation or frequent updates3.

Deploying Amazon Monitron devices on each IP camera would not work because Amazon Monitron is a service that monitors the condition and performance of industrial equipment using sensors and machine learning, not cameras4.

" Save your custom error pages in a location that is accessible to CloudFront. We recommend that you store them in an Amazon S3 bucket, and that you don’t store them in the same place as the rest of your website or application’s content. If you store the custom error pages on the same origin as your website or application, and the origin starts to return 5xx errors, CloudFront can’t get the custom error pages because the origin server is unavailable. " https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/GeneratingCustomErrorResponses.html

https://aws.amazon.com/kinesis/data-firehose/faqs/

https://aws.amazon.com/dms/schema-conversion-tool/

AWS Schema Conversion Tool (SCT) can automatically convert the database schema from Microsoft SQL Server to Amazon RDS for MySQL. This allows for a smooth transition of the database schema without any manual intervention. AWS DMS can then be used to migrate the data from the on-premises databases to the newly created Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. This service can perform a one-time migration of the data or can set up ongoing replication of data changes to keep the on-premises and AWS databases in sync.

S3 Event Notifications is a feature that allows users to receive notifications when certain events happen in an S3 bucket, such as object creation or deletion1. Users can configure S3 Event Notifications to invoke an AWS Lambda function when a user stores an image in the bucket. Lambda is a serverless compute service that runs code in response to events and automatically manages the underlying compute resources2. The Lambda function can resize the image in place and store the original file in the same S3 bucket. This way, the solution can handle significant variance in demand and be reliable at enterprise scale. Thesolution can also rerun processing jobs in the event of failure by using the retry and dead-letter queue features of Lambda2.

S3 Lifecycle is a feature that allows users to manage their objects so that they are stored cost-effectively throughout their lifecycle3. Users can create an S3 Lifecycle policy to move all stored images to S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) after 6 months. S3 Standard-IA is a storage class designed for data that is accessed less frequently, but requires rapid access when needed4. It offers a lower storage cost than S3 Standard, but charges a retrieval fee. Therefore, moving the images to S3 Standard-IA after 6 months can reduce the storage cost for the solution.

Option A is incorrect because using AWS Step Functions to process the S3 event that occurs when a user stores an image is not necessary or cost-effective. AWS Step Functions is a service that lets users coordinate multiple AWS services into serverless workflows. However, for this use case, a single Lambda function can handle the image resizing task without needing Step Functions.

Option B is incorrect because using Amazon EventBridge to process the S3 event that occurs when a user uploads an image is not necessary or cost-effective. Amazon EventBridge is a serverless event bus service that makes it easy to connect applications with data from a variety of sources. However, for this use case, S3 Event Notifications can directly invoke the Lambda function without needing EventBridge.

Option D is incorrect because using Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) to process the S3 event that occurs when a user stores an image is not necessary or cost-effective. Amazon SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that enables users to decouple and scale microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications. However, for this use case, S3 Event Notifications can directly invoke the Lambda function without needing SQS. Moreover, storing the resized file in an S3 bucket that uses S3 Standard-IA will incur a retrieval fee every time the file is accessed, which may not be cost-effective for frequently accessed files.

IAM Access Analyzer helps you identify the resources in your organization and accounts, such as Amazon S3 buckets or IAM roles, shared with an external entity. This lets you identify unintended access to your resources and data, which is a security risk. IAM Access Analyzer identifies resources shared with external principals by using logic-based reasoning to analyze the resource-based policies in your AWS environment.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/what-is-access-analyzer.html

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

This explanation is based on AWS documentation and best practices but is paraphrased, not a literal extract.

The scenario describes a central event broker and multiple microservices running in separate AWS accounts that all need to consume the same events. The requirement is to distribute events from a central location to many microservices across accounts in a scalable and loosely coupled way, as part of modernizing to a microservices architecture.

Amazon EventBridge is a serverless event bus service designed for event-driven architectures. It supports centralized event buses, rich content-based filtering with rules, and cross-account event routing. With EventBridge, you can create an event bus in a central account and define rules that match specific event patterns (for example, by microservice or event type). Each rule can have one or more targets, including event buses in other AWS accounts. This supports the pattern of having a central event bus in one account and distributing relevant events to other accounts, where each microservice consumes events either directly from its own event bus or through additional rules and targets in its own account.

In this solution, you create a new EventBridge event bus in the central account and grant the appropriate permissions for cross-account access (option B). You then define EventBridge rules on the central event bus, filtered per microservice or per event category, and configure the rules to send events to the respective event buses or targets in the microservices’ accounts. EventBridge handles the fan-out and delivery of events across accounts in a managed, scalable way, which aligns with the modernization goal and reduces the operational overhead of managing custom routing or polling logic.

Option A uses an SNS topic with SQS queues in each account. This is a valid fan-out pattern and supports cross-account subscriptions, but it is more suited to traditional pub/sub messaging and does not provide the event routing, filtering, and observability features that EventBridge offers for modern event-driven microservices. In scenarios that explicitly mention an event broker and modernization, EventBridge is the recommended service.

Option C is incorrect because Kinesis Data Streams is designed for high-throughput streaming data and requires building and managing consumer applications. The description in the option is also technically inaccurate; Kinesis does not “invoke” microservices directly as event targets in the same way as EventBridge or SNS does. Instead, applications must read from the stream.

Option D uses a single central SQS queue that all microservices read from. SQS provides at-least-once delivery to competing consumers, which means multiple consumers reading from the same queue will typically share messages rather than each getting all messages. This does not satisfy the requirement for multiple microservices to each receive the same events independently. It also reduces decoupling and observability compared to an event bus model.

Therefore, creating an Amazon EventBridge event bus in the central account with rules to distribute events across accounts (option B) best meets the requirements for distributing events from a central broker to multiple microservices across accounts in a modernized architecture.

This option will optimize the application’s performance by reducing the overhead of opening and closing database connections for each Lambda invocation. An RDS proxy is a fully managed database proxy for Amazon RDS that makes applications more scalable, more resilient to database failures, andmore secure1. It allows applications to pool and share connections established with the database, improving database efficiency and application scalability1. By creating an RDS proxy by using the Lambda console, you caneasily configure your Lambda function to use the proxy endpoint instead of the directdatabase endpoint2. This will enable your Lambda function to reuse existing connections from the proxy’s connection pool, reducing the latency and CPU utilization caused by establishing new connections for each invocation. It will also prevent connection saturation or exhaustion on the database, which can degrade performance or cause errors3.

The best solution is to provision a new Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system that uses Max I/O performance mode and mount the EFS file system on each EC2 instance in the cluster. Amazon EFS is a fully managed, scalable, and elastic file storage service that supports the POSIX standard and can be accessed by multiple EC2 instances concurrently. Amazon EFS offers two performance modes: General Purpose and Max I/O. Max I/O mode is designed for highly parallelized workloads that can tolerate higher latencies than the General Purpose mode. Max I/O mode provides higher levels of aggregate throughput and operations per second, which are suitable for big data analytics applications. This solution meets all the requirements of the company. References: Amazon EFS Documentation, Amazon EFS performance modes

Migrate the database to Amazon Aurora MySQL. - Create an Amazon Aurora Replica. - Use RDS Proxy in front of the database. - These options are correct because they address the requirement of reducing the failover time to less than 20 seconds. Migrating to Amazon Aurora MySQL and creating an Aurora replica can reduce the failover time to less than 20 seconds. Aurora has a built-in, fault-tolerant storage system that can automatically detect and repair failures. Additionally, Aurora has a feature called " Aurora Global Database " which allows you to create read-only replicas across multiple AWS regions which can further help to reduce the failover time. Creating an Aurora replica can also help to reduce the failover time as it can take over as the primary DB instance in case of a failure. Using RDS proxy can also help to reduce the failover time as it can route the queries to the healthy DB instance, it also helps to balance the load across multiple DB instances.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/implementing-canary-deployments-of-aws-lambda-functions-with-alias-traffic-shifting/

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/configuration-aliases.html

Using Mountpoint for Amazon S3 to directly mount the S3 bucket to the EC2 instances ensures that the latest version of the pricing file is always available without repeatedly downloading it to each instance.

This eliminates stale data issues and minimizes data transfer costs since the file does not need to be copied each time an instance launches.

This solution is cost-effective and aligns with AWS best practices for accessing frequently updated shared files directly from S3.

AWS Application Migration Service:

AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) facilitates the migration of virtual machines (VMs) to AWS without installing additional software on the VMs. This agentless service helps in seamlessly migrating workloads to AWS.

AWS Migration Hub Strategy Recommendations:

AWS Migration Hub Strategy Recommendations offer insights and guidance for planning and implementing migration strategies. It helps in generating a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) report by automatically importing discovery data from the VMs.

Generating the TCO Report:

The combined use of AWS Application Migration Service and Migration Hub Strategy Recommendations enables the automatic import of discovery data and the generation of an accurate TCO report, ensuring a smooth and cost-effective migration process.

References

AWS Migration Hub Strategy Recommendations​(AWS Documentation)​.

The company should create a second target group that is referenced by the ALB. The company should deploy the new logic to EC2 instances in this new target group. The company should update the ALB listener rule to use weighted target groups. The company should configure ALB target group stickiness. This solution will meet the requirements because weighted target groups are a feature that enables you to distribute traffic across multiple target groups using a single listener rule. You can specify a weight for each target group, which determines the percentage of requests that are routed to that target group. For example, if you specify two target groups, each with a weight of 10, each target group receives half the requests1. By creating a second target group and deploying the new logic to EC2 instances in this new target group, the company can have two versions of its business logic running in parallel. By updating the ALB listener rule to use weighted target groups,the company can control how much traffic is sent to each version. By configuring ALB target group stickiness, the company can ensure that a customer uses the same version of the business logic during the testing window. Target group stickiness is a feature that enables you to bind a user’s session to a specific target within a target group for the duration of the session2.

The other options are not correct because:

Creating a second ALB and deploying the new logic to a set of EC2 instances in a new Auto Scaling group would not be as cost-effective or simple as using weighted target groups. A second ALB would incur additional charges and require more configuration and management. Updating the Route 53 record to use weighted routing would not ensure that a customer uses the same version of the business logic during the testing window, as DNS caching could affect how requests are routed.

Creating a new launch configuration for the Auto Scaling group and replacing it on the Auto Scaling group would not allow for gradual traffic shifting between versions. A launch configuration is a template that an Auto Scaling group uses to launch EC2 instances. You can specify information such as the AMI ID, instance type, key pair, security groups, and block device mapping for your instances3. However, replacing the launch configuration on an Auto Scaling group would affect all instances in that group, not just 10% of customers.

Creating a second Auto Scaling group and changing the ALB routing algorithm to least outstanding requests (LOR) would not allow for controlled traffic shifting between versions. A second Auto Scaling group would require more configuration and management. The LOR routing algorithm is a feature that enables you to route traffic based on how quickly targets respond to requests. The load balancer selects a target from the target group with the fewest outstanding requests4. However, this algorithm does not take into account customer sessions or weights.

https://aws.amazon.com/step-functions/use-cases/

This solution will meet the requirement with the least operational overhead because it directly denies the creation of the security group inbound rule with 0.0.0.0/0 as the source, which is the exact requirement. Additionally, it does not require any additional steps or resources such as invoking a Lambda function or adding a Config rule.

An SCP (Service Control Policy) is a policy that you can use to set fine-grained permissions for your AWS accounts within your organization. You can use SCPs to set permissions for the root user of an account and to delegate permissions to IAM users and roles in the accounts. You can use SCPs to set permissions that allow or deny access to specific services, actions, and resources.

To implement this solution, you would need to create an SCP that denies the ec2:AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress action when the value of the aws:SourceIp condition key is 0.0.0.0/0. This SCP would then be applied to the NonProd OU. This would ensure that any security group inbound rule that includes 0.0.0.0/0 as the source will be denied, thus meeting the requirement.

C is correct because:

AWS WAF integrates natively with API Gateway and protects against common web exploits (e.g., SQL injection, XSS).

Amazon Inspector can scan the legacy EC2 instance for known vulnerabilities.

Amazon GuardDuty is a continuous security monitoring service that detects threats butdoes not blocktraffic (B and D are incorrect because GuardDuty doesn’t block).

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:

A is correct because AWS CodeBuild is a fully managed build service that supports running tests and security scans. EventBridge can detect test failures and send notifications via SNS. AWS CDK with manifest files is a robust way to manage feature toggles. CodePipeline supports manual approval stages to allow lead developer intervention.

B is correct because the problem is caused by inconsistent query-string casing leading to CloudFront cache misses, and the best place to normalize the request is at the CloudFront edge before cache-key evaluation. CloudFront Functions run at the edge with very low latency and are intended for lightweight request manipulations (for example, normalizing URLs, headers, and query strings) on viewer request events. By sorting query parameters and converting them to lowercase on the viewer request, CloudFront will treat semantically equivalent requests as the same cache key, increasing cache hit ratio and reducing the number of origin calls to API Gateway and downstream Lambda invocations. This directly reduces latency for global users.

Why the other options are less suitable:

A (Lambda@Edge on origin request): Lambda@Edge can also modify requests, but it is heavier-weight than CloudFront Functions for simple normalization logic. Also, doing this on origin request occurs after CloudFront has already decided whether there is a cache hit. If the cache key is still based on the original mixed-case query string at the viewer side, you won’t consistently prevent cache misses. Normalization must happen before cache lookup to maximize cache hits.

C (API Gateway mapping templates): This normalizes the request only after it has already missed in CloudFront and reached the origin. It does not fix CloudFront cache fragmentation, so it does not meet the “minimal latency” goal as effectively.

D (Lambda authorizer): Lambda authorizers are for authorization/authentication decisions. Using an authorizer for query normalization adds unnecessary overhead and still happens at API Gateway (origin), not at CloudFront before cache evaluation.

The company needs centralized traffic inspection and centralized internet access for multiple workload VPCs connected by a transit gateway. The standard AWS hub-and-spoke pattern for centralized inspection is to use an inspection VPC that hosts network virtual appliances behind a Gateway Load Balancer, and to steer traffic from spoke VPCs through the transit gateway to the inspection VPC. Gateway Load Balancer endpoints are used to privately connect VPCs to the GWLB, allowing traffic to be transparently redirected to the appliances for inspection without changing application configurations.

To ensure symmetric routing for stateful inspection (so that return traffic traverses the same appliance path), appliance mode is enabled on the transit gateway attachment that connects to the inspection VPC. Appliance mode is specifically used with transit gateways and third-party appliances to preserve flow symmetry and avoid asymmetric routing issues.

Option D matches the centralized model: it creates a dedicated inspection VPC that contains the GWLB, endpoints, and the inspection appliance. It updates workload VPC routes to send traffic to the transit gateway and configures the transit gateway route tables to forward relevant traffic to the GWLB endpoints in the inspection VPC. Enabling appliance mode on the transit gateway is the key operational setting to maintain symmetric routing through the appliance fleet for inspected traffic.

Option A is incorrect because it places the inspection components inside an existing workload VPC rather than using a centralized inspection VPC. This increases coupling, makes the architecture harder to manage, and does not match the typical centralized inspection pattern. It also references enabling appliance mode on the GWLB, whereas appliance mode is a transit gateway attachment feature used for routing symmetry with appliances, not a setting “on the GWLB” itself.

Option B is incorrect because it splits the GWLB and endpoints/appliances across different workload VPCs, which complicates the design and is not the intended GWLB pattern. GWLB endpoints are created in VPCs that need to send traffic to the GWLB service; the appliances sit behind the GWLB in the provider/inspection VPC. The option also refers to enabling appliance mode on endpoints, but the appliance mode setting is associated with the transit gateway attachment.

Option C is incorrect because VPC flow logs are for logging and visibility; flow logs do not route traffic. Also, separating “inspection VPC” and “internet access VPC” with the appliances in the internet VPC does not align with the standard GWLB centralized inspection architecture and introduces unnecessary complexity.

Therefore, creating a dedicated inspection VPC with GWLB and endpoints and enabling appliance mode on the transit gateway attachment is the correct centralized approach.

B is correct becauseAWS/Usagenamespace in CloudWatch provides built-in metrics for service quota usage. You can create an alarm forFargate task count usageand notify the dev team usingSNSwhen it reaches 80% of the quota.

A misuses “Sample Count” and doesn’t relate to service quota.

C is overly complex and not needed — native metrics exist.

D misuses Config (meant for compliance, not utilization).

Creating an internal ALB and configuring it as a PrivateLink endpoint service enables private connectivity between internal applications and the metadata API, ensuring that traffic does not traverse the public internet.

Internal ALB: Ensures traffic stays within the AWS network and is not exposed publicly.

PrivateLink endpoint service: Provides secure, private access to the ALB from the internal EC2 instances in other AWS accounts.

Traffic stays within the AWS global network, leveraging AWS security best practices and meeting the new policy requirements for no public internet exposure.This approach is secure, scalable, and minimizes management complexity compared to API Gateway solutions.

B:https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/HowItWorks.ReadWriteCapacityMode.html#HowItWorks.requests

D:https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/robust-serverless-application-design-with-aws-lambda-dlq/c

By breaking down the monolithic API into individual Lambda functions and using API Gateway to handle the incoming requests, the solution can automatically scale to handle the new and varying load without the need for manual scaling actions. Additionally, this option will automatically handle the traffic without the need of having EC2 instances running all the time and only pay for the number of requests and the duration of the execution of the Lambda function.

By updating the Route 53 record to point to the API Gateway, the solution can handle the traffic and also it will direct the traffic to the correct endpoint.

C is correct:AWS Compute Optimizeruses machine learning to analyze usage patterns and recommends rightsizing.Trusted Advisoradds further insights. Combining these withSavings Plansgives the best cost optimizationwithout reducing availability.

A is risky due to using Lambda for termination.

B and D offer partial or manual solutions.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/reference_policies_examples_aws_deny-requested-region.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_scps_examples_ec2.html

Transfer acceleration. S3 Transfer Acceleration utilizes the Amazon CloudFront global network of edge locations to accelerate the transfer of data to and from S3 buckets. By enabling S3 Transfer Acceleration on the centralized S3 bucket, the users in Europe will experience faster uploads as their data will be routed through the closest CloudFront edge location.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/cloudfront-https-connection-fails/

Using an Amazon S3 bucket

Using a MediaStore container or a MediaPackage channel

Using an Application Load Balancer

Using a Lambda function URL

Using Amazon EC2 (or another custom origin)

Using CloudFront origin groups

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/restrict-access-to-load-balancer.html

With the DeletionPolicy attribute you can preserve or (in some cases) backup a resource when its stack is deleted. You specify a DeletionPolicy attribute for each resource that you want to control. If a resource has no DeletionPolicy attribute, AWS CloudFormation deletes the resource by default. To keep a resource when its stack is deleted, specify Retain for that resource. You can use retain for any resource. For example, you can retain a nested stack, Amazon S3 bucket, or EC2 instance so that you can continue to use or modify those resources after you delete their stacks.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-attribute-deletionpolicy.html

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

This question tests knowledge of private access patterns to Amazon S3 from:

resources inside a VPC, and

users in an on-premises environment connected through Site-to-Site VPN.

The correct answer is B because the company has two different traffic sources with different endpoint requirements.

Why B is correct

For the EC2 instance inside the private VPC:

An S3 gateway endpoint is the standard and most cost-effective method for private access from resources in the VPC to Amazon S3. With a gateway endpoint, traffic from the VPC to S3 stays on the AWS network and does not require a NAT gateway or internet gateway. This satisfies the requirement to remove the NAT gateways for the application’s S3 access.

For the on-premises users over the Site-to-Site VPN:

Gateway endpoints are for use within the VPC and are not accessed from on-premises networks over VPN or Direct Connect. To allow on-premises clients to access S3 privately through the VPC, the architecture needs an S3 interface endpoint with private DNS enabled. Interface endpoints create elastic network interfaces in the VPC and can be reached privately from connected on-premises environments, assuming routing and DNS are configured correctly.

Therefore, the combination is required:

S3 gateway endpoint for VPC resources

S3 interface endpoint with private DNS for on-premises access through VPN

This design allows both the EC2 application and on-premises users to access S3 without using the public internet.

Why A is incorrect

An S3 gateway endpoint works for VPC resources, but it does not provide private access for on-premises users over Site-to-Site VPN. On-premises networks cannot route directly to a gateway endpoint in the way described. That makes A incomplete and incorrect.

Why C is incorrect

Mountpoint for Amazon S3 is a way to mount an S3 bucket for file-like access from an EC2 instance or similar compute environment. It does not solve the connectivity requirement for on-premises users, and it does not address the broader network design requirement of private S3 access without NAT gateways for all stated users. It also does not replace the need for appropriate VPC endpoint architecture.

Why D is incorrect

Storage Browser for S3 is not the solution to provide private network connectivity for an application and on-premises users. It is unrelated to the core architecture requirement. The question is asking about private access paths to S3, not a user interface or client-side browser tool.

Key design principle being tested

This question checks whether you know the distinction between:

S3 gateway endpoints for traffic originating from within the VPC

S3 interface endpoints for private access from on-premises environments over hybrid connectivity

It also tests whether you understand that removing NAT gateways is possible for S3 access from private subnets when a VPC endpoint is used.

Final justification

Because the company needs:

private S3 access from an EC2 instance in a private VPC, and

private S3 access from on-premises users over VPN,

while removing NAT gateways,

the correct design is to use:

an S3 gateway endpoint for the VPC application, and

an S3 interface endpoint with private DNS for the on-premises users.

That makes B the best answer.

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/11/announcing-amazon-mq-rabbitmq/

Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) is a fully managed pub/sub messaging service that enables users to send messages to multiple subscribers1. Users can sendevent details to an Amazon SNS topic and configure an AWS Lambda function as a subscriber to the SNS topic to process the events. Lambda is a serverless compute service that runs code in response to events and automatically manages the underlying compute resources2. Users can add an on-failure destination to the function and set an Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue as the target. Amazon SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that enables users to decouple and scale microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications3. This way, if a processing error occurs, the event will move into the separate queue for review.

Option B is incorrect because publishing events to an Amazon SQS queue and creating an Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling group will not have the ability to scale in and out based on the number of events that the solution receives. Amazon EC2 is a web service that provides secure, resizable compute capacity in the cloud. Auto Scaling is a feature that helps users maintain application availability and allows them to scale their EC2 capacity up or down automatically according to conditions they define. However, for this use case, using SQS and EC2 will not take advantage of the serverless capabilities of Lambda and SNS.

Option C is incorrect because writing events to an Amazon DynamoDB table and configuring a DynamoDB stream for the table will not have the ability to move events into a separate queue for review if a processing error occurs. Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed key-value and document database that delivers single-digit millisecond performance at any scale. DynamoDB Streams is a feature that captures data modification events in DynamoDB tables. Users can configure the stream to invoke a Lambda function, but they cannot configure an on-failure destination for the function.

Option D is incorrect because publishing events to an Amazon EventBridge event bus and setting an Application Load Balancer (ALB) as the event bus target will not have the ability to move events into a separate queue for review if a processing error occurs. Amazon EventBridge is a serverless event bus service that makes it easy to connect applications with data from a variety of sources. An ALB is a load balancer that distributes incoming application traffic across multiple targets, such as EC2 instances, containers, IP addresses, Lambda functions, and virtual appliances. Users can configure EventBridge to retry events, but they cannot configure an on-failure destination for the ALB.

This option allows the solutions architect to use a private hosted zone to host DNS records that are only accessible within the VPC1. By associating the private hosted zone with the VPC, the solutions architect can ensure that DNS queries from the VPC are routed to the private hosted zone2. By activating the enableDnsSupport attribute and the enableDnsHostnames attribute for the VPC, the solutions architect can enable DNS resolution and hostname assignment for instances in the VPC3. By creating a new VPC DHCP options set, and configuring domain-name-servers=AmazonProvidedDNS, the solutions architect can use Amazon-provided DNS servers to resolve DNS queries from instances in the VPC4. By associating the new DHCP options set with the VPC, the solutions architect can apply the DNS settings to all instances in the VPC5.

What is Amazon Route 53 Resolver?

Associating a private hosted zone with your VPC

Using DNS with your VPC

DHCP options sets

Modifying your DHCP options

It is the fastest when it comes to rollback and deploying changes every hour

Answer B (AWS Global Accelerator) best meets both requirements: fastest failover from application failures and the lowest response time for global users. Global Accelerator is designed for global, latency-sensitive, highly available applications. It uses static Anycast IP addresses so users enter the AWS network at the nearest edge location, then traffic is carried over the AWS global backbone to the closest healthy regional endpoint (in this case, each Region’s ALB). It continuously performs health checks and can rapidly shift traffic away from unhealthy endpoints, which helps “handle application failures quickly” without being constrained by DNS caching behavior.

Why the other options are less suitable:

C (Route 53 latency-based routing + health checks) can improve routing and failover, but it is still DNS-based. DNS-based failover can be delayed by DNS resolver caching and TTL propagation, meaning failover may not be as fast or as consistent as Global Accelerator for rapid recovery.

A (CloudFront with origin group) can provide origin failover and performance benefits mainly for cacheable or edge-optimizable content. For a payment processing API (typically dynamic and not cache-friendly), CloudFront is not the primary service for achieving the least response time globally with fast multi-Region failover compared with Global Accelerator’s Anycast + edge routing model.

D (AWS Cloud WAN) addresses private network connectivity and centralized network policy across Regions/VPCs. It does not directly optimize public user-to-application latency or provide the same kind of edge-based, Anycast-driven rapid failover for internet-facing API endpoints.

Configuring the workload to use topology spread constraints that are based on Availability Zone will maximize the node resilience of the workload node groups. This will ensure that the pods are evenly distributed across different Availability Zones, reducing the impact of failures or disruptions in one Availability Zone2. This will also improve the availability and scalability of the workload node groups, as they can leverage the low-latency, high-throughput, and highly redundant networking between Availability Zones1.

Option A, Deploy the security tool on EC2 instances in a new Auto Scaling group in the existing VPC, allows the company to use its existing security tool while still running it within the AWS environment. This ensures that all packets coming in and out of the VPC are inspected by the security tool in real time. Option D, Provision a Gateway Load Balancer for each Availability Zone to redirect the traffic to the security tool, allows for high availability within an AWS Region. By provisioning a Gateway Load Balancer for each Availability Zone, the traffic is redirected to the security tool in the event of any failures or outages. This ensures that the security tool is always available to inspect the traffic, even in the event of a failure.

   

Storing the database credentials in AWS Secrets Manager as a secret that is associated with an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key will enable encrypting and managing the credentials securely1. AWS Secrets Manager helps you to securely encrypt, store, and retrieve credentials for your databases and other services2. Attaching a role to each Lambda function to provide access to the secret will enable retrieving the credentials programmatically1. Restricting access to the secret and the customer managed key so that only members of the IT security team’s IAM user group can access them will enable meeting the security requirements1.

The best solution is to store the database credentials for both environments in AWS Secrets Manager with distinct key entry for the QA environment and the production environment. AWS Secrets Manager is a web service that can securely store, manage, and retrieve secrets, such as database credentials. AWS Secrets Manager also supports automatic rotation of secrets by using Lambda functions or built-in rotation templates. By storing the database credentials for both environments in AWS Secrets Manager, the company can avoid exposing credentials within application code and rotate passwords automatically. By providing a reference to the Secrets Manager key as an environment variable for the Lambda functions, the company can easily access the credentials from the code by using the AWS SDK. This solution meets all the requirements of the company.

A is the correct answer because it uses Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) as a key-value database that can scale based on demand and supports encryption in transit and at rest. Amazon DocumentDB is a fully managed document database service that is designed to be compatible with the MongoDB API. It is a NoSQL database that is optimized for storing, indexing, and querying JSON data. Amazon DocumentDB supports encryption in transit using TLS and encryption at rest using AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS). Amazon DocumentDB also supports provisioned IOPS volumes that can scale up to 64 TiB of storage and 256,000 IOPS per cluster. To connect to Amazon DocumentDB, you can use the instance endpoint, which connects to a specific instance in the cluster, or the cluster endpoint, which connects to the primary instance or one of the replicas in the cluster. Using the cluster endpoint is recommended for high availability and load balancing purposes. References:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/what-is.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/security.encryption.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/limits.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/connecting.html

Amazon RDS Proxy is a fully managed database proxy service for Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) that makes applications more scalable, resilient, and secure. It allows applications to pool and share connections to an RDS database, which can help reduce database connection overhead, improve scalability, and provide automatic failover and high availability.

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:

C is correct because Amazon EFS offers a scalable, elastic file system that can be mounted on both on-premises servers (via AWS Direct Connect or VPN) and EC2 instances. This allows real-time access to shared content with no migration downtime.

D is correct because AWS Snowball Edge Storage Optimized devices are designed for transferring petabyte-scale data (up to 80 TB per device). It’s a best practice for moving 200 TB of archival data when speed and bandwidth are constraints.

However A ' s explanation is incorrect -https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_scps.html

" SCPs are similar to AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) permission policies and use almost the same syntax. However, an SCP never grants permissions. "

SCPs alone are not sufficient to granting permissions to the accounts in your organization. No permissions are granted by an SCP. An SCP defines a guardrail, or sets limits, on the actions that the account ' s administrator can delegate to the IAM users and roles in the affected accounts. The administrator must still attach identity-based or resource-based policies to IAM users or roles, or to the resources in your accounts to actually grant permissions. The effective permissions are the logical intersection between what is allowed by the SCP and what is allowed by the IAM and resource-based policies.

The best solution is to use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) to migrate thedata to AWS. AWS DMS is a web service that can migrate data from various sources to various targets, including MySQL databases. AWS DMS can perform full load and change data capture (CDC) migrations, which means that it can copy the existing data and also capture the ongoing changes to keep the source and target databases in sync. This minimizes the downtime during the migration process. AWS DMS also supports encryption at rest and in transit by using AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and TLS, respectively. This ensures that the data is protected during the migration. AWS DMS can also leverage AWS Direct Connect to transfer the data over a private connection, avoiding the internet. This solution meets all the requirements of the company. References: AWS Database Migration Service Documentation, Migrating Data to Amazon RDS for MySQL or MariaDB, Using SSL to Encrypt a Connection to a DB Instance

This solution requires minimal operational overhead, as it only requires setting up AWS IoT Core and creating a thing for each device. (Reference: AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional Official Amazon Text Book, Page 537)

AWS IoT Core is a fully managed service that enables secure, bi-directional communication between internet-connected devices and the AWS Cloud. It supports the MQTT protocol and includes built-in device authentication and access control. By using AWS IoT Core, the company can easily provision and manage the X.509 certificates for each device, and connect the devices to the service with minimal operational overhead.

A is the correct answer because it uses AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory to join the Windows EC2 instances to an Active Directory domain on AWS and enable MFA. AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory, also known as AWS Managed Microsoft AD, is a fully managed service that is powered by Windows Server 2019. It allows you to run directory-aware workloads in the AWS Cloud, including Microsoft SharePoint and custom .NET and SQL Server-based applications. You can also configure a trust relationship between AWS Managed Microsoft AD in the AWS Cloud and your existing on-premises Microsoft Active Directory. AWS Managed Microsoft AD supports MFA by integrating with your existing RADIUS-based MFA infrastructure. To join the Windows EC2 instances to an Active Directory domain on AWS, you can use an Amazon Workspace, which is a fully managed, secure desktop computing service that runs on AWS. You can connect to and use the Workspace for domain security configuration tasks. References:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/directoryservice/latest/admin-guide/directory_microsoft_ad.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/directoryservice/latest/admin-guide/ms_ad_join_instance.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/amazon-workspaces.html

The most operationally efficient solution for turning on AWS CloudTrail across multiple AWS accounts managed within an AWS Organization is to create a single CloudTrail trail in the organization ' s management account and configure it to log events for all accounts within the organization. This approach leverages CloudTrail ' s ability to consolidate logs from all accounts in an organization, thereby simplifying management, reducing overhead, and ensuring consistent logging across accounts. This method eliminates the need for manual intervention in each account, making it an operationally efficient choice for organizations planning to scale their AWS usage.

AWS CloudTrail Documentation: Provides detailed instructions on setting up CloudTrail, including how to configure it for an organization.

AWS Organizations Documentation: Offers insights into best practices for managing multiple AWS accounts and how services like CloudTrail integrate with AWS Organizations.

AWS Best Practices for Security and Governance: Guides on how to effectively use AWS services to maintain a secure and well-governed AWS environment, with a focus on centralized logging and monitoring.

The correct approach involves activating the BusinessUnit cost allocation tag in the management account to ensure costs are tagged consistently across the organization.

The AWS Cost and Usage Report (CUR), delivered to a single Amazon S3 bucket in the management account, consolidates cost and usage data across all member accounts.

Amazon Athena can efficiently query the CUR data directly from S3, while Amazon QuickSight can be used to create interactive dashboards and reports that visualize the cost allocation by business unit.

This solution minimizes complexity, centralizes reporting, and leverages AWS native services for the best cost optimization and insights.

Creating an Amazon EventBridge rule that runs every business day in the evening to stop instances and another rule that runs every business day in the morning to start instances based on the tag will reduce costs with the least operational effort. This approach allows for instances to be stopped during non-business hours when they are not in use, reducing the costs associated with running them. It also allows for instances to be started again in the morning when the development and testing teams need to use them.

A. High performance computing (HPC) workload cluster should be in a single AZ.

C. Elastic Fabric Adapter (EFA) is a network device that you can attach to your Amazon EC2 instances to accelerate High Performance Computing (HPC)

F. Amazon FSx for Lustre - Use it for workloads where speed matters, such as machine learning, high performance computing (HPC), video processing, and financial modeling.

Cluster – packs instances close together inside an Availability Zone. This strategy enables workloads to achieve the low-latency network performance necessary for tightly-coupled node-to-node communication that is typical of HPC applications.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/placement-groups.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/rds-proxy.html

This option meets the RPO and RTO requirements for both the application and database tiers and uses tools like Amazon DLM and RDS automated backups to create and manage the backups. Additionally, it uses Global Accelerator to ensure low latency after failover by directing traffic to the closest healthy endpoint.

it describes a solution that uses an Application Load Balancer (ALB) and an Auto Scaling group for the MQTT broker. The ALB distributes incoming traffic across the instances in the Auto Scaling group and allows for automatic scaling based on incoming traffic. The use of an alias record in Route 53 allows for easy updates to the DNS record without changing the IP address.This solution improves the reliability of the MQTT broker by allowing it to automatically scale based on incoming traffic, reducing the likelihood of lost data due to broker overload.

The workload is a real-time leaderboard that needs extremely low latency: microsecond reads and single-digit millisecond writes. It also needs rapid failover (accepting writes in less than a minute after a primary node failure) and minimal operational overhead. Additionally, the data must be durable enough to persist and be used later for analytics through a data pipeline.

Amazon MemoryDB for Redis is a Redis-compatible, durable, in-memory database service designed for microsecond read latency and low-millisecond write latency while also providing durability through a distributed transaction log. MemoryDB is designed to be a primary database rather than a cache and supports Multi-AZ configurations with fast failover. These characteristics match the leaderboard’s latency requirements and the availability requirement to resume writes quickly after a failure. Because MemoryDB is fully managed, it has less operational overhead than running Redis on EC2.

Option C is the best choice because MemoryDB provides Redis compatibility, in-memory performance, Multi-AZ high availability, and durability that supports data persistence for downstream processing. The durability aspect is especially important for feeding analytics pipelines, because the data is not only cached but is retained as a database record.

Option A is not the best choice because Amazon ElastiCache for Redis is primarily used as a cache. While it can be configured for replication and can achieve low latency, it is not positioned as a durable primary data store in the same way as MemoryDB for Redis. For requirements that explicitly combine extremely low latency with persistence and database-like durability, MemoryDB is the more appropriate managed service with lower operational overhead than building custom durability mechanisms.

Option B is not suitable because Amazon RDS for MySQL typically cannot meet microsecond read latency, and write latencies are usually higher than single-digit milliseconds for non-trivial workloads. Also, read replicas do not provide multi-writer capability and do not ensure sub-minute write availability in all failure scenarios without additional architecture and failover handling.

Option D has the highest operational overhead because it requires the company to operate Redis on EC2: instance management, patching, scaling, replication, failover automation, monitoring, and backup/restore processes. This does not meet the requirement for the least operational overhead compared to fully managed services.

Therefore, an Amazon MemoryDB cluster in Multi-AZ mode provides the required ultra-low latency, rapid failover for write availability, durability for persistence, and least operational overhead.

https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/global-database/

A. In the production account, create a new IAM policy that allows read and write access to the S3 bucket. The policy grants the necessary permissions to access the assets in the production S3 bucket.

C. In the production account, create a role. Attach the new policy to the role. Define the development account as a trusted entity. By creating a role and attaching the policy, and then defining the development account as a trusted entity, the development account can assume the role and access the production S3 bucket with the read and write permissions.

E. In the development account, create a group that contains all the IAM users of the design team. Attach a different IAM policy to the group to allow the sts:AssumeRole action on the role in the production account. The IAM policy attached to the group allows the design team members to assume the role created in the production account, thereby giving them access to the production S3 bucket.

Step 1: Create a role in the Production Account; create the role in the Production account and specify the Development account as a trusted entity. You also limit the role permissions to only read and write access to the productionapp bucket. Anyone granted permission to use the role can read and write to the productionapp bucket. Step 2: Grant access to the role Sign in as an administrator in the Development account and allow the AssumeRole action on the UpdateApp role in the Production account. So, recap, production account you create the policy for S3, and you set development account as a trusted entity. Then on the development account you allow the sts:assumeRole action on the role in production account.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/tutorial_cross-account-with-roles.html

According to the AWS documentation1, AWS App2Container (A2C) is a command line tool for migrating and modernizing Java and .NET web applications into container format. AWS A2C analyzes and builds an inventory of applications running in bare metal, virtual machines, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances, or in the cloud. You can use AWS A2C to generate container images for your applications and deploy them on Amazon ECS or Amazon EKS.

Option A meets the requirements of the scenario because it allows you to migrate your existing Java application to AWS and minimize the administrative overhead to maintain the servers. You can use AWS A2C to analyze your application dependencies, extract application artifacts, and generate a Dockerfile. You can then store your container images in Amazon ECR, which is a fully managed container registry service. You can use AWS Fargate as the launch type for your Amazon ECS cluster, which is a serverless compute engine that eliminates the need to provision and manage servers for your containers. You can grant the ECS task execution role permission to access the ECR image repository, which allows your tasks to pull images from ECR. You can configure Amazon ECS to use an ALB, whichis a load balancer that distributes traffic across multiple targets in multiple Availability Zones using HTTP or HTTPS protocols. You can use the ALB to interact with your application.

Utilizing an IP access control group rule with the list of public addresses from branch offices and associating it with the Amazon WorkSpaces directory is the most operationally efficient solution. This method ensures that access to WorkSpaces is restricted to specified locations, aligning with the corporate security policy. This approach offers simplicity and flexibility, especially with the potential addition of a new branch office, as updating the IP access control group is straightforward.

AWS Documentation on Amazon WorkSpaces and IP Access Control Groups provides detailed instructions on how to implement access restrictions based on IP addresses. This solution aligns with best practices for securing virtual desktops while maintaining operational efficiency.

A is correct because:

App2Containersupports packaging .NET Framework apps into containers without porting to .NET Core.

ECS with EC2gives full control over the OS and patching.

ALBhandles microservice-level load balancing.

RDS for SQL Serverwith Multi-AZ ensures high availability.

Options B, C, and D involve Aurora MySQL (incompatible with SQL Server features) orrequire .NET Core, which involves more significant application changes.

Enable AWS Security Hub:

Navigate to the AWS Security Hub console in your management account and enable Security Hub. This process integrates Security Hub with AWS Control Tower, allowing you to manage and monitor security findings across all accounts within your organization.

Designate a Delegated Administrator:

In AWS Organizations, designate one of the AWS accounts as the delegated administrator for Security Hub. This account will have the responsibility to manage and oversee the security posture of all accounts within the organization.

Deploy Controls Across Accounts:

Use AWS Security Hub to automatically enable security controls across all AWS accounts in the organization. This provides a centralized view of the security state of all accounts and ensures continuous monitoring and compliance.

Utilize AWS Security Hub Features:

Leverage the capabilities of Security Hub to aggregate security alerts, run continuous security checks, and generate findings based on the AWS Foundational Security Best Practices. Security Hub integrates with other AWS services like AWS Config, Amazon GuardDuty, and AWS IAM Access Analyzer to enhance security monitoring and remediation.

By integrating AWS Security Hub with AWS Control Tower and using a delegated administrator account, you can achieve a centralized and comprehensive view of your organization’s security posture, facilitating effective management and remediation of security issues.

References

AWS Security Hub now integrates with AWS Control Tower【77】

AWS Control Tower and Security Hub Integration【76】

AWS Security Hub Features【79】

D is correct because thehealth check grace perioddefines how long Auto Scaling waits after launching an instance before checking its health status. With the larger content added to the S3 bucket, the instance initialization (via user data) is taking longer. Increasing the grace period allows the instance time to complete startup tasks before it’s marked as unhealthy.

Option A would not necessarily reduce startup time — the issue is likely network latency or the size of the content.

Option B only affects the timeout for health check responses, not the delay before they begin.

Option C is not applicable unless the health check path itself is invalid (which isn ' t mentioned).

The correct answer is A, D, and F. Existing AWS accounts can be invited into an AWS Organizations organization, and SCPs are the correct organization-level mechanism to enforce preventive controls such as required tagging. Because OUs contain accounts, not individual EC2 instances, development workloads must be recreated or migrated into an account that is placed under the development OU. Amazon Inspector is the correct service for automated EC2 vulnerability scanning, and Security Hub can aggregate and centralize findings across an organization. For patching, AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager can be managed across an organization through delegated administration and organization-wide patch policies, which reduces operational overhead compared with configuring each account separately. Trusted Advisor is not the right vulnerability scanning service, and configuring Patch Manager separately in every account creates unnecessary administration.

By reducing the number of data nodes in the cluster to 2 and adding UltraWarm nodes to handle the expected capacity, the company can reduce the cost of running the cluster. Additionally, configuring the indexes to transition to UltraWarm when OpenSearch Service ingests the data will ensure that the data is stored in the most cost-effective manner. Finally, transitioning the input data to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 1 month by using an S3 Lifecycle policy will ensure that the data is retained for compliance purposes, while also reducing the ongoing costs.

Creating the Template:

Start by creating a CloudFormation template that includes all the VPC resources. This template should accurately reflect the current state and configuration of the VPC.

Using the CloudFormation Console:

Open the AWS Management Console and navigate to CloudFormation.

Choose " Create stack " and then select " With existing resources (import resources) " .

Specifying the Template:

Upload the previously created template or specify the Amazon S3 URL where the template is stored.

Identifying the Resources:

On the " Identify resources " page, provide the identifiers for each VPC resource you wish to import. For example, for anAWS::EC2::VPCresource, use the VPC ID as the identifier.

Creating the Stack:

Complete the stack creation process by providing stack details and reviewing the changes. This will create a change set that includes the import operation.

Executing the Change Set:

Execute the change set to import the resources into the CloudFormation stack, making them managed by CloudFormation.

Verification and Drift Detection:

After the import is complete, run drift detection to ensure the actual configuration matches the template configuration.

This approach allows the company to manage their VPC and other resources via CloudFormation without the need to recreate resources, ensuring a smooth transition to automated infrastructure management.

References

Creating a stack from existing resources - AWS CloudFormation​(AWS Documentation)​.

Generating templates for existing resources - AWS CloudFormation​(AWS Documentation)​.

Bringing existing resources into CloudFormation management​(AWS Documentation)​.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/dynamodb-global-table-stream-lambda/?nc1=h_ls

Using AWS IoT Core to receive the vehicle data will enable connecting the smart vehicles to the cloud using the MQTT protocol1. AWS IoT Core is a platform that enables you to connect devices to AWS Services and other devices, secure data and interactions, process and act upon device data, and enable applications to interact with devices even when they are offline2. Configuring rules to route data to an Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose delivery stream that stores the data in Amazon S3 will enable processing and storing the vehicle data in a scalable and reliable way3. Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose is a fully managed service that delivers real-time streaming data to destinations such as Amazon S3. Creating an Amazon Kinesis Data Analytics application that reads from the delivery stream to detect anomalies will enable analyzing the vehicle data using SQL queries or Apache Flink applications. Amazon Kinesis Data Analytics is a fully managed service that enables you to process and analyze streaming data using SQL or Java.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/DownloadDistS3AndCustomOrigins.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/high_availability_origin_failover.html

You can set up CloudFront with origin failover for scenarios that require high availability. To get started, you create an origin group with two origins: a primary and a secondary. If the primary origin is unavailable, or returns specific HTTP response status codes that indicate a failure, CloudFront automatically switches to the secondary origin.

This solution meets the requirements by using Application Auto Scaling to automatically increase capacity during the peak period, which will handle the double the average load. And by purchasing reserved RCUs and WCUs to match the average load, it will minimize the cost of the table for the rest of the week when the load is close to the average.

In this solution, the company can use Amazon SES to send email messages, which will minimize operational overhead as SES is a fully managed service that handles sending and receiving email messages. The company can store the email template on Amazon SES with parameters for the customer data and use an AWS Lambda function to call the SendTemplatedEmail API operation, passing in the customer data to replace the parameters and the email destination. This solution eliminates the need to set up and manage an SMTP server on EC2 instances, which can be costly and time-consuming.

The CloudFront managed prefix list contains the IP ranges for all CloudFront edge locations. By updating the ALB security group ingress to allow access only from this prefix list, the web application will be accessible only by using the CloudFront endpoint. This solution requires the least amount of effort compared to the other options, which involve creating new resources or updating existing ones. This solution also avoids hard-coding IP addresses, which can change over time.

The analytics team wants to copy only a subset of the data, run the copy as soon as data is ready, and receive notifications when the process completes. AWS DataSync supports the use of manifest files to control exactly which files or objects are transferred. By generating a manifest file on premises that lists only the relevant data and uploading that manifest to Amazon S3, the company can precisely limit what DataSync copies, which reduces data transfer costs and processing overhead.

Option A satisfies the requirement to identify only analytics-relevant data by creating and uploading a manifest file that lists the objects to be transferred. This avoids copying unnecessary data and is cost-effective.

Option D uses Amazon S3 Event Notifications to trigger an AWS Lambda function as soon as the manifest file is uploaded. The Lambda function starts the DataSync task and references the manifest file. This ensures that the copy process begins immediately after data generation, rather than waiting for a fixed schedule, which meets the “as soon as possible” requirement.

Option E provides a fully managed and scalable notification mechanism. AWS DataSync publishes task execution state changes as events. Amazon EventBridge can capture SUCCESS or ERROR states and route those events to Amazon SNS, which can then send email notifications. This approach avoids custom polling logic and minimizes operational overhead.

Option B and C introduce Amazon DynamoDB unnecessarily. DataSync can directly consume a manifest file from Amazon S3, so loading manifest data into DynamoDB and orchestrating copy logic manually adds cost and complexity without benefit.

Option F relies on a custom Lambda function to monitor task state changes, which increases operational overhead compared to the native EventBridge integration with DataSync.

Therefore, using S3-based manifests, event-driven invocation of DataSync, and EventBridge-based notifications is the most cost-effective and operationally efficient solution.

AWSKMS multi-Region keysallow encryption in one Region and decryption in another. This is specifically built forcross-Region replication scenarios, like Amazon S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR).

With a multi-Region key, youcreate a primary keyin one Region andreplica keysin others. These replicas share the same key material and key ID.

Option B would fail because different keys = different IDs = decryption mismatch.

Option C is unrelated — Private CA is for certificates, not symmetric key encryption.

Option D is insecure and violates AWS KMS key management best practices.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cur/latest/userguide/billing-cur-limits.html

The requirement is to allow each OU (which contains multiple accounts) to view a cost breakdown across its accounts. In an AWS Organizations setup with consolidated billing, the management account is the central place where organization-level cost and usage reporting is configured and aggregated. The Cost and Usage Report is designed to produce the most detailed cost and usage dataset, and it can include charges for linked (member) accounts. A single CUR created from the management account can include all accounts in the organization, and then filtering can be applied to show cost breakdowns per OU or per team.

Once the CUR is delivered to Amazon S3, analytics tools such as Amazon Athena and Amazon QuickSight can be used to create dashboards. Teams can be provided access to the dataset or curated views and can filter by linked account, tags, and other dimensions. With appropriate cost allocation tags and organizational mapping (for example, account-to-OU mapping maintained in reporting logic), each OU can see its consolidated view.

Option B meets the requirements because it creates one CUR centrally from the management account and uses QuickSight for visualization. This approach is scalable for hundreds of accounts and avoids duplicating CUR configuration in each member account.

Option A is incorrect because AWS Resource Access Manager is not used to create CURs per OU. CUR is not an OU-scoped resource created via RAM.

Option C is not operationally efficient because it requires creating and managing CURs in each member account, producing fragmented datasets and significantly increasing overhead at hundreds of accounts. It also makes it harder to generate a single view per OU across accounts.

Option D is incorrect because Systems Manager does not create CURs, and OpsCenter dashboards are not the standard tool for cost and usage reporting.

Therefore, a centrally created CUR in the management account with QuickSight visualization is the correct solution.

Deploying the shared libraries and custom classes to a Docker image and uploading the image to Amazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR) and creating a Lambda layer that uses the Docker image as the source. Then, deploying the API ' s Lambda functions as Zip packages and configuring the packages to use the Lambda layer would meet the requirements for simplifying the deployment and optimizing for code reuse.

A Lambda layer is a distribution mechanism for libraries, custom runtimes, and other function dependencies. It allows you to manage your in-development function code separately from your dependencies, this way you can easily update your dependencies without having to update your entire function code.

By deploying the shared libraries and custom classes to a Docker image and uploading the image to Amazon Elastic Container Registry (ECR), it makes it easy to manage and version the dependencies. This way, the company can use the same version of the dependencies across different Lambda functions.

By creating a Lambda layer that uses the Docker image as the source, the company can configure the API ' s Lambda functions to use the layer, reducing the need to include the dependencies in each function package, and making it easy to update the dependencies across all functions at once.

Set Up EventBridge Event Bus:

Step 1: Open the Amazon EventBridge console and create a custom event bus. This bus will be used to handle user deletion events.

Step 2: Name the event bus appropriately (e.g.,user-deletion-bus).

Post Events on User Deletion:

Step 1: Modify the central user service to post an event to the custom EventBridge event bus whenever a user is deleted.

Step 2: Ensure the event includes relevant details such as the user ID and any other necessary metadata.

Create EventBridge Rules for Microservices:

Step 1: For each microservice that needs to delete user data, create a new rule in EventBridge that triggers on the user deletion event.

Step 2: Define the event pattern to match the user deletion event. This pattern should include the event details posted by the central user service.

Invoke Microservice Logic:

Step 1: Configure the EventBridge rule to invoke a target, such as an AWS Lambda function, which contains the logic to delete the user data from the microservice ' s data store.

Step 2: Each microservice should have its Lambda function or equivalent logic to handle the deletion of user data upon receiving the event.

Using Amazon EventBridge ensures a scalable, reliable, and decoupled approach to handle the deletion of user data across multiple microservices. This setup allows each microservice to independently process user deletion events without direct dependencies on other services.

References

AWS EventBridge Documentation

DynamoDB Streams and AWS Lambda Triggers

Implementing the Transactional Outbox Pattern with EventBridge Pipes​(AWS Documentation)​​(Amazon Web Services, Inc.)​​(Amazon Web Services, Inc.)​​(AWS Documentation)​​(AWS Cloud Community)​.

GitHub Webhooks to Trigger CodePipeline:

Configure GitHub webhooks to trigger the AWS CodePipeline pipeline. This ensures that every code push to the repository automatically triggers the pipeline, initiating the build and deployment process.

Unit Testing with Jenkins and AWS CodeBuild:

Use Jenkins integrated with the AWS CodeBuild plugin to perform unit testing. Jenkins will manage the build process, and the results will be handled by CodeBuild.

Notifications for Bad Builds:

Configure Amazon SNS (Simple Notification Service) to send alerts for any failed builds. This keeps the engineering team informed of build issues immediately, allowing for quick resolutions.

Blue/Green Deployment with AWS CodeDeploy:

Utilize AWS CodeDeploy with a blue/green deployment strategy. This method reduces downtime and risk by running two identical production environments (blue and green). CodeDeploy shifts traffic between these environments, allowing you to test in the new environment (green) while the old environment (blue) remains live. If issues arise, you can quickly roll back to the previous environment.

This solution provides seamless, zero-downtime deployments, and the ability to quickly roll back changes if necessary, fulfilling the requirements of the startup company.

References

AWS DevOps Blog on Integrating Jenkins with AWS CodeBuild and CodeDeploy【32】.

Plain English Guide to AWS CodePipeline with GitHub【33】.

Jenkins Plugin for AWS CodePipeline【34】.

The company should deploy a new Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Multi-AZ file system. The company should configure the file system for 75 MiBps of provisioned throughput. The company should implement replication to a file system in the DR Region. This solution will meet the requirements because Amazon EFS is a serverless, fully elastic file storage service that lets you share file data without provisioning or managing storage capacity and performance. Amazon EFS is built to scale on demand to petabytes without disrupting applications, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files1. By deploying a new Amazon EFS Multi-AZ file system, the company can create a single location for updates to application data for all instances. A Multi-AZ file system replicates data across multiple Availability Zones (AZs) within a Region, providing high availability and durability2. By configuring the file system for 75 MiBps of provisioned throughput, the company can ensure that it meets the peak operations requirement of 225 MiBps of read throughput. Provisioned throughput is a feature that enables you to specify a level of throughput that the file system can drive independent of the file system’s size or burst credit balance3. By implementing replication to a file system in the DR Region, the company can make a copy of the data available in another AWS Region for disaster recovery. Replication is a feature that enables you to replicate data from one EFS file system to another EFS file system across AWS Regions. The replication process has an RPO of less than 1 hour.

The other options are not correct because:

Deploying a new Amazon FSx for Lustre file system would not provide a single location for updates to application data for all instances. Amazon FSx for Lustre is a fully managed service that provides cost-effective, high-performance storage for compute workloads. However, it does not support concurrent write access from multiple instances. Using AWS Backup to back up the file system to the DR Region would not provide real-time replication of data. AWS Backup is a service that enables you to centralize and automate data protection across AWS services. However, it does not support continuous data replication or cross-Region disaster recovery.

Deploying a General Purpose SSD (gp3) Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume with 225 MiBps of throughput would not provide a single location for updates to application data for all instances. Amazon EBS is a service that provides persistent block storage volumes for use with Amazon EC2 instances. However, it does not support concurrent access from multiple instances, unless Multi-Attach is enabled. Enabling Multi-Attach for the EBS volume would not provide Multi-AZ resilience or cross-Region replication. Multi-Attach is a feature that enables you to attach an EBS volume to multiple EC2 instances within the same Availability Zone. Using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery to replicate the EBS volume to the DR Region would not provide real-time replication of data. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery (AWS DRS) is a service that enables you to orchestrate and automate disaster recovery workflows across AWS Regions. However, it does not support continuous data replication or sub-hour RPOs.

Deploying an Amazon FSx for OpenZFS file system in both the production Region and the DR Region would not be as simple or cost-effective as using Amazon EFS. Amazon FSx for OpenZFS is a fully managed service that provides high-performance storage with strong data consistency and advanced data management features for Linux workloads. However, it requires more configuration and management than Amazon EFS, which is serverless and fully elastic. Creating an AWS DataSync scheduled task to replicate the data from the production file system to the DR file system every 10 minutes would not provide real-time replication of data. AWS DataSync is a service that enables you to transfer data between on-premises storage and AWS services, or between AWS services. However, it does not support continuous data replication or sub-minute RPOs.

To meet the requirements for automatic key rotation of EC2 SSH key pairs with minimal downtime, storing the keys in AWS Secrets Manager and defining a rotation schedule is the most suitable solution. AWS Secrets Manager supports automatic rotation of secrets, including SSH keys, by invoking a Lambda function that can handle the creation of new key pairs and the replacement of public keys on EC2 instances. Updating the corresponding private keys in Secrets Manager ensures secure and centralized management of SSH keys, complying with the key rotation policy and minimizing operational overhead.

AWS Secrets Manager Documentation: Describes how to store and rotate secrets, including SSH keys, using Secrets Manager and Lambda functions.

AWS Lambda Documentation: Provides information on creating Lambda functions for custom secret rotation logic.

AWS Best Practices for Security: Highlights the importance of key rotation and how AWS services like Secrets Manager can facilitate secure and automated key management.

By splitting the 12 instances across three Availability Zones, the system can maintain high availability and availability of resources in case of a failure. Option D also uses a combination of On-Demand Instances with Capacity Reservations and Spot Instances, which allows for scheduled jobs to be run on the On-Demand instances with guaranteed capacity, while also taking advantage of the cost savings from Spot Instances for the user jobs which have lower SLA requirements.

Option Ais the most lightweight and scalable approach. By updating the VPC’sDHCP options set, you automatically configure all EC2 instances to use your on-premises NTP server. No extra software or infrastructure is required.

VPC DHCP Options Docs

This option allows the solution to decouple the API from the Lambda function and use EventBridge as an event-driven service that can handle failures gracefully1. By using two event buses, one for normal events and one for failed events, the solution can ensure that no data is lost and that data can be processed later if failures occur2. The primary event bus receives the data from the weather stations through the API integration and triggers the Lambda function through a rule. The Lambda function can then call the third-party service for data pre-processing. If the third-party service fails, the Lambda function can send an error response to EventBridge, which will route it to the secondary event bus as a failure destination3. The secondary event bus can then store the failed events in another service, such as Amazon S3 or Amazon SQS, for troubleshooting or reprocessing.

Using Amazon EventBridge with AWS Lambda

Using multiple event buses

Using failure destinations

[Using dead-letter queues]

==================

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vm-import/latest/userguide/vmimport-image-import.html

- Export an OVF Template

- Create / use an Amazon S3 bucket for storing the exported images. The bucket must be in the Region where you want to import your VMs.

- Create an IAM role named vmimport.

- You ' ll use AWS CLI to run the import commands.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/import-instances/

AWS Systems Manager State Manager is the correct service because it maintains a desired configuration state across managed nodes. An association can define that specific software, such as antivirus or monitoring agents, must be installed and running with the required configuration. This directly satisfies the requirement to ensure all 10,000 EC2 instances consistently run the latest SaaS agent configuration with the least administrative overhead. A custom Lambda that logs in to every machine is fragile, hard to secure, and operationally expensive. AWS Config is useful for evaluating resource configuration, but it is not the most direct tool for recurring software installation and configuration enforcement inside EC2 instances. Session Manager and user data are also poor choices because user data normally runs at launch and does not continuously enforce state. (AWS Documentation)

===============