Amazon Web Services SAA-C03 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Amazon Route 53 supports failover routing policies, which use health checks to route DNS queries to a secondary Region only if the primary endpoint fails. This design ensures only one Region is active for traffic at any given time. This is the recommended architecture for active-passive, multi-Region DR strategies.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“Failover routing lets you route traffic to a primary resource, such as a web server in one Region, and a secondary resource in another Region. If the primary fails, Route 53 can route traffic to the secondary resource automatically.”

(Source: Amazon Route 53 documentation, Routing Policy Types)

A, D: These options do not configure DNS failover for external users.

C: Geolocation routing is for regional distribution, not DR failover.

Key Requirements:

Host the frontend on AWS as a static website.

Protect the application from common web vulnerabilities.

Minimal operational overhead.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:

Hosting the frontend on EC2 with an ALB introduces unnecessary complexity for serving static content.

AWS WAF rules can protect the ALB, but managing EC2 instances adds operational overhead.

Incorrect Approach:High operational complexity for a simple static website.

Option B:

Amazon CloudFront:Acts as a global CDN, reducing latency and protecting against DDoS attacks.

Multiple Origins:Allows static content to be served from S3 while routing API traffic to the on-premises backend.

AWS WAF:Integrates with CloudFront to provide web application protection.

Correct Approach:Offers low operational overhead with optimal security and performance.

Option C:

Using NLB and Network Firewall is unnecessary for a static website. This approach increases cost and complexity without addressing the frontend requirements effectively.

Incorrect Approach:Over-engineered solution.

Option D:

Hosting the frontend on S3 and using API Gateway is a viable option, but managing AWS WAF rules separately for both the S3 bucket and the REST API increases complexity.

Incorrect Approach:Less efficient than using CloudFront with multiple origins.

AWS Solution Architect References:

Amazon CloudFront Overview

AWS WAF with CloudFront

AWS Lake Formationis designed for managing fine-grained access control to data in an efficient manner:

Granular Permissions: Lake Formation allows column-level, row-level, and table-level access controls, which can precisely define access to PII data.

Integration with AWS Glue Catalog: Lake Formation natively integrates with AWS Glue for seamless data cataloging and access control.

Operational Efficiency: Centralized access control policies minimize the need for separate IAM roles or policies.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option A:

Creating multiple IAM policies introduces complexity and lacks column-level access control.Not efficient.

Option B:

Managing multiple IAM roles for granular access is operationally complex.Not efficient.

Option D:

Creating views in Glue adds unnecessary complexity and may not provide the level of granularity that Lake Formation offers.Not the best choice.

AWS References:

AWS Lake Formation:AWS Documentation - Lake Formation

Fine-Grained Permissions with Lake Formation:AWS Documentation - Fine-Grained Permissions