Free and Premium Amazon Web Services SCS-C03 Dumps Questions Answers

AWS Key Management Service (KMS) customer managed keys are regional resources. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide and KMS documentation, a KMS key created in one AWS Region cannot be used directly in another Region. When copying an encrypted Amazon Aurora DB snapshot across Regions, the destination Region must have access to a KMS key that exists in that Region.

Because the original KMS key resides in us-east-1, it cannot be accessed or referenced in us-west-1. The correct and supported approach is to create a new customer managed KMS key in us-west-1 and specify that key when performing the cross-Region snapshot copy. Amazon RDS automatically decrypts the snapshot using the source Region key and re-encrypts it using the destination Region key during the copy process.

Option A is invalid because KMS keys cannot be stored or transferred through AWS Secrets Manager. Options C and D are incorrect because IAM policies cannot grant cross-Region usage of a KMS key; KMS enforces strict regional boundaries regardless of IAM permissions.

AWS documentation clearly states that cross-Region encrypted snapshot copies require a KMS key in the destination Region, making this approach mandatory for compliance and encryption continuity.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Key Management Service Developer Guide

Amazon Aurora Security Documentation

Amazon WorkSpaces is a fully managed desktop-as-a-service solution designed to minimize infrastructure and operational overhead. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, WorkSpaces supports device trust by using client certificates to restrict access to approved devices.

By deploying client certificates only to company-managed devices and enforcing restricted access at the directory level, the organization ensures that only trusted endpoints can authenticate. This approach avoids the cost and complexity of building and maintaining a custom VDI or managing individual EC2 instances.

Option A and B significantly increase management overhead. Option C is incorrect because IAM does not manage WorkSpaces authentication gateway policies or device trust.

AWS best practices highlight Amazon WorkSpaces with certificate-based device trust as the most efficient solution for secure, managed desktops.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon WorkSpaces Security Controls

Amazon WorkSpaces Device Trust

AWS WAF provides managed and custom rules that can immediately mitigate common web exploits such as SQL injection without modifying application code. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, placing AWS WAF in front of an Application Load Balancer is a recommended rapid-response control for legacy applications with known vulnerabilities.

Creating an ALB in front of the existing EC2 instances allows seamless traffic migration. AWS WAF SQL injection rules can be deployed and tested without downtime. Updating Route 53 to point to the ALB preserves normal operations. Restricting EC2 security groups afterward prevents bypassing the WAF.

Option B introduces CloudFront changes and single-origin testing, increasing complexity. Option C cannot be completed within 24 hours and risks downtime. Option D is invalid because AWS WAF cannot be attached directly to EC2 instances.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Web ACL Architecture

AWS Application Load Balancer Security

AWS CloudTrail provides a record of all API calls made in an AWS account, including calls initiated by AWS CloudFormation. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, CloudTrail is the primary source for troubleshooting authorization failures because it records denied actions and the policy type that caused the denial, including service control policies.

Reviewing CloudTrail logs allows a security engineer to identify which specific API calls failed during the CloudFormation deployment and whether the denial was caused by an SCP, an IAM policy, or a permission boundary. This evidence-based approach is the recommended first step before making any configuration changes.

Option B is unsafe and violates governance best practices by removing SCPs in production. Option C may be necessary later, but it does not identify whether SCPs are the root cause. Option D introduces unnecessary risk and bypasses the purpose of differentiated controls across OUs.

AWS documentation emphasizes observing and validating before modifying security controls, making CloudTrail log analysis the correct initial troubleshooting step.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Organizations Service Control Policies

AWS CloudTrail Authorization Failure Analysis

AWS KMS enforces a mandatory minimum waiting period of 7 days before a customer managed key can be deleted. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty incident response guidance, no method exists to immediately delete a KMS key. The fastest possible deletion is achieved by scheduling deletion with the minimum 7-day waiting period.

In this scenario, although deletion was previously scheduled, the key remains enabled and usable. The most authoritative and reliable method to regain control and reissue deletion immediately is to use the AWS account root user, which has implicit permissions to manage KMS keys regardless of compromised IAM principals.

Option B is incorrect because KMS keys are regional resources; multi-Region keys require coordinated deletion but do not shorten the waiting period. Option C is unnecessary because the key policy already allows kms:*. Option D increases the deletion waiting period to 30 days, which violates the requirement to delete the key as quickly as possible.

AWS documentation clearly states that root user access is the ultimate authority for KMS key management and that 7 days is the minimum deletion window, making this the fastest valid option.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Key Management Service Developer Guide

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

AWS Organizations service control policies (SCPs) are designed to enforce preventive guardrails across accounts without requiring application-level changes. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, SCPs can restrict specific API actions or require certain condition keys to enforce security standards centrally. AWS Lambda function URLs support two authentication modes: AWS_IAM and NONE. When the authentication type is set to NONE, the function URL becomes publicly accessible, which introduces a significant security risk in production environments.

By using an SCP that explicitly denies the lambda:CreateFunctionUrlConfig and lambda:UpdateFunctionUrlConfig actions when the lambda:FunctionUrlAuthType condition key equals NONE, the organization ensures that unauthenticated function URLs cannot be created or modified in production accounts. This enforcement occurs at the AWS Organizations level and applies automatically to all accounts within the specified organizational units (OUs). Developers are not required to change their workflows or add additional controls, satisfying the requirement of no additional developer effort.

Option A relates to browser-based access controls and does not provide authentication or authorization enforcement. Option B is not valid because AWS WAF cannot be attached directly to AWS Lambda function URLs. Option C is incorrect because SCPs do not grant permissions; they only limit permissions. AWS documentation clearly states that SCPs define maximum available permissions and are evaluated before IAM policies.

This approach aligns with AWS best practices for centralized governance, least privilege, and preventive security controls.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Organizations Service Control Policies Documentation

AWS Lambda Security and Function URL Authentication Overview

AWS KMS access control is primarily enforced through key policies (and optionally grants), and AWS recommends using key policy condition keys to restrict how keys can be used. The kms:ViaService condition key is specifically designed to restrict KMS API usage to requests that come through a particular AWS service endpoint in a specific Region. This is the most robust way to ensure a key can be used only via AWS Lambda (for example, lambda..amazonaws.com) and not via Amazon EC2 (ec2..amazonaws.com), even if IAM permissions exist elsewhere. By writing a key policy that uses the Lambda execution role as the principal and conditions on kms:ViaService, the company can tightly bind key usage to Lambda-originated cryptographic operations while preventing use through EC2 service paths. Option A is weaker because EC2 is not the only way an IAM principal might use KMS, and relying on attaching explicit deny policies broadly is harder to manage and can miss principals. Option C is incorrect because aws:AuthorizedService is not the typical mechanism for KMS service restriction, and SourceIp is unreliable for service-to-service calls. Option D is not ideal because SCPs do not provide fine-grained service-path restrictions for KMS usage and cannot “allow” beyond IAM; key policy controls still apply.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS KMS Key Policies and Condition Keys

AWS KMS Best Practices for Service-Scoped Key Usage

Amazon Cognito identity pools are designed to provide temporary AWS credentials for applications by exchanging an authenticated identity token for AWS Security Token Service (STS) credentials. AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance distinguishes between Cognito user pools (authentication) and identity pools (authorization to AWS resources). A user pool can authenticate a user and issue tokens, but an identity pool is required to obtain AWS credentials that can be used to sign AWS API requests, such as S3 API calls. The correct mechanism is for the application to use AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity through STS (which is the underlying federation method used by identity pools) to receive temporary credentials for an IAM role that grants S3 permissions. GetId alone does not provide credentials; it returns an identity identifier that is used as part of the credential exchange flow. Options C and D are incorrect because user pool tokens are not AWS credentials and cannot directly sign S3 requests. The solution therefore must use identity pools to map users to IAM roles and retrieve temporary credentials, satisfying the requirement for authenticated API calls using short-lived credentials.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Cognito Identity Pools and STS Federation

AWS STS AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity

AWS CloudFormation dynamic references provide a secure mechanism for retrieving sensitive values from AWS Secrets Manager at stack creation or update time. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, dynamic references ensure that sensitive data such as database credentials are never stored in plaintext in CloudFormation templates, parameters, stack metadata, or logs.

When a dynamic reference to Secrets Manager is used, CloudFormation retrieves the secret value at runtime and passes it securely to the resource that requires it. The secret value is not exposed to users who view the template, stack, or change sets.

Option B is insecure because parameters can be exposed through the CloudFormation console and APIs. Option C is incorrect because SecureString parameters are a feature of AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, not Secrets Manager. Option D is invalid because KMS encrypts data but does not store secrets or manage secret rotation.

AWS best practices clearly state that CloudFormation dynamic references to Secrets Manager are the recommended solution for securely handling sensitive configuration values.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS CloudFormation Security Best Practices

AWS Secrets Manager Documentation

AWS Systems Manager Session Manager requires secure outbound HTTPS connectivity from the EC2 instance to Systems Manager endpoints. In a VPC without internet access, AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation recommends using interface VPC endpoints to enable private connectivity without exposing the instance to the internet.

Creating a VPC interface endpoint for Systems Manager allows the SSM Agent to communicate securely with the Systems Manager service. The endpoint must have an attached security group that allows inbound traffic on port 443 from the VPC CIDR range. Additionally, the EC2 instance security group must allow outbound HTTPS traffic on port 443 so the agent can initiate connections.

Option C is incorrect because creating or associating key pairs enables SSH access, which can alter forensic evidence and violates forensic best practices. Option B is unnecessary because Session Manager does not require inbound rules on the EC2 instance. Option F is invalid because EC2 does not use interface endpoints for management connectivity.

This combination ensures secure, private access for forensic investigation while preserving evidence integrity and adhering to AWS incident response best practices.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Systems Manager Session Manager Architecture

AWS Incident Response and Forensics Best Practices

Amazon Inspector provides native CI/CD integration capabilities that allow security checks to occur before container images are pushed to Amazon ECR. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, Inspector does not block image pushes automatically. Instead, prevention must occur inside the CI/CD pipeline itself.

By generating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) using the Amazon Inspector SBOM generator and submitting it to Inspector for scanning, the pipeline can detect critical vulnerabilities before the image is uploaded. If vulnerabilities exceed policy thresholds, the pipeline fails, preventing deployment.

Post-push scanning solutions only detect vulnerabilities after exposure. Event-driven blocking does not prevent the initial risk.

AWS best practices require “shift-left” security controls to prevent vulnerable artifacts from entering production.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Inspector CI/CD Integration

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

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

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS CloudFormation Dynamic References

AWS Secrets Manager Best Practices

Amazon CloudWatch Logs is designed to collect, store, and analyze log data from ephemeral compute resources such as EC2 instances in Auto Scaling groups. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, using the CloudWatch agent to stream logs off instances ensures log durability even when instances are terminated during scale-in events.

CloudWatch Logs Insights provides a fully managed, serverless query engine that enables ad hoc querying, filtering, and aggregation of log data without requiring additional infrastructure. This directly satisfies the requirement to query logs for application sessions and user troubleshooting.

Option A introduces operational risk because logs could be lost between cron executions. Option B requires additional services and data pipelines, increasing cost and complexity. Option E adds storage cost and management overhead and is not necessary for log analytics.

AWS best practices recommend CloudWatch Logs and Logs Insights as the most cost-effective and scalable solution for centralized log retention and analysis in Auto Scaling environments.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon CloudWatch Logs and Logs Insights

AWS Logging Best Practices

Amazon Detective is specifically designed to help security teams investigate and visualize the root cause of security findings. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, Detective automatically aggregates and correlates data from GuardDuty, CloudTrail, and VPC Flow Logs to provide interactive visualizations and timelines.

Detective enables investigators to pivot from GuardDuty findings to IAM roles, API calls, network traffic, and resource behavior. This makes it the most efficient tool for understanding how IAM roles were used during suspicious activity.

Amazon Inspector focuses on vulnerability assessment, not behavioral investigation. Security Hub aggregates findings but does not provide deep investigation graphs. Manual analysis with Athena requires significantly more effort.

AWS guidance explicitly recommends Amazon Detective for root cause analysis and visualization of security incidents.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Detective Investigation Capabilities

AWS Threat Detection and Analysis

AWS incident response best practices emphasize rapid containment with minimal blast radius. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, isolating a compromised resource while allowing the application to continue running is the preferred initial response.

By using Amazon EventBridge to detect GuardDuty findings related to anomalous traffic and invoking a Lambda function, the security engineer can automatically remove the affected EC2 instance from the Auto Scaling group and attach a restricted security group. This immediately isolates the instance while allowing Auto Scaling to launch a replacement instance, ensuring application availability.

Option A is invalid because EC2 instance profiles do not use long-term access keys. Option C affects the entire subnet and could disrupt unrelated workloads. Option D provides notification only and does not meet the requirement for automated response.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends instance-level isolation using security groups as a best practice for initial incident containment.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty User Guide

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

Requirements and Correct Selections

Automatically collect evidence from AWS CloudTrail, AWS Config, and AWS Security Hub for an assessment report.

Correct Answer:

AWS Audit Manager controls

Why:

AWS Audit Manager is specifically designed to automatically collect, map, and organize evidence from AWS services such as CloudTrail, AWS Config, and AWS Security Hub. Audit Manager controls are used within audit frameworks to continuously gather evidence and generate assessment reports for compliance audits.

Determine which IAM principals within the AWS account have access to a specified resource.

Correct Answer:

AWS Identity and Access Management Access Analyzer internal access analyzers

Why:

IAM Access Analyzer internal access analyzers are used to identify which IAM users, roles, or services within an account or organization have access to a specific resource. This is a core access visibility and audit requirement for IAM reviews.

Download AWS security and compliance documents on demand.

Correct Answer:

AWS Artifact reports

Why:

AWS Artifact provides on-demand access to AWS security, compliance, and audit reports, including SOC reports, ISO certifications, and compliance attestations. This service is explicitly intended for audit preparation and regulatory documentation.

Amazon CloudFront includes a native geo restriction (geoblocking) capability that allows content owners to control access to their distributions based on the geographic location of the viewer. The viewer’s country is determined using the IP address from which the request originates. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide and the Amazon CloudFront Developer Guide, geo restriction is specifically designed for scenarios where organizations must comply with regional regulations, licensing requirements, or data sovereignty policies.

From a cost perspective, CloudFront geo restriction is the most cost-effective solution because it is configured directly within the CloudFront distribution and does not require AWS WAF. AWS WAF introduces additional costs for web ACLs, rules, and request processing, which is unnecessary when the requirement is limited strictly to blocking or allowing access based on country.

Option A is incorrect because maintaining IP ranges for entire countries is operationally complex, error-prone, and not scalable. Country-level IP ranges frequently change, making this approach unsuitable and inefficient. Option B, although technically valid, is not the most cost-effective choice because AWS WAF geo match rules incur additional charges and are intended for advanced Layer 7 security controls such as application-layer attacks. Option D is incorrect because geolocation headers provided by CloudFront are informational only and cannot independently enforce access control decisions.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends CloudFront geo restriction when the sole requirement is country-based access control, reserving AWS WAF for advanced security inspection and threat mitigation use cases.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon CloudFront Developer Guide – Geo Restriction

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

AWS Security Best Practices Documentation

In a properly segmented VPC architecture, public subnets route internet-bound traffic to an internet gateway, while private subnets route outbound internet traffic through a NAT gateway that resides in a public subnet. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide and Amazon VPC documentation, private subnets must never have a direct route to an internet gateway.

The issue described indicates that private subnets are incorrectly routing traffic directly to the internet gateway. To remediate this, a NAT gateway must be provisioned in each public subnet to ensure high availability across Availability Zones. This satisfies the requirement that private resources can initiate outbound connections without being directly reachable from the internet.

Next, the route tables associated with the private subnets must be updated so that the default route (0.0.0.0/0) points to the NAT gateway in the same Availability Zone. This ensures proper traffic flow and prevents cross-AZ dependencies.

Option B is incorrect because NAT gateways must reside in public subnets. Option C is unnecessary because local routes to the VPC CIDR range are automatically created. Option E is explicitly insecure, as it would reintroduce direct internet gateway access from private subnets.

AWS documentation consistently identifies NAT gateways plus correct private subnet routing as the standard design for secure VPC segmentation.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon VPC Route Table Documentation

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

AWS abuse notifications are delivered as AWS Health events. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, Amazon EventBridge integrates natively with AWS Health and can be used to detect specific event types such as AWS_ABUSE_DOS_REPORT in near real time.

By creating an EventBridge rule that filters for the abuse report event type and publishes directly to Amazon SNS, the solution remains fully managed, low latency, and cost effective.

Polling APIs introduces delay and complexity. CloudTrail does not log abuse notifications. EventBridge with AWS Health is the recommended mechanism for reacting to AWS service events.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Health and EventBridge Integration

AWS Abuse Notification Handling

Amazon GuardDuty provides fully managed threat detection across accounts when configured with delegated administration. EKS and RDS protections enable workload-aware detection with minimal setup.

Other solutions require custom pipelines and higher operational overhead.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty Multi-Account Architecture

Amazon Inspector provides native Lambda code vulnerability scanning. GuardDuty focuses on runtime threats, not static code analysis.

The correct solution is option D because it effectively prevents direct access to the internet-facing ALB while allowing legitimate traffic that originates from Amazon CloudFront. By configuring CloudFront to include a custom HTTP header (such as X-Shared-Secret) in all origin requests, and then configuring ALB listener rules to only forward requests that contain the expected header value, the ALB will reject any requests that bypass CloudFront.

This approach is a documented AWS best practice when CloudFront is placed in front of an ALB and AWS WAF is associated with the CloudFront distribution. AWS WAF only evaluates traffic that flows through CloudFront; therefore, preventing direct access to the ALB is critical to ensure that all requests are inspected by the web ACL.

Option A is invalid because CloudFront does not support AWS PrivateLink endpoints as origins. Option B is incorrect because CloudFront cannot use an internal ALB as an origin; CloudFront requires a publicly reachable origin. Option C is not recommended because CloudFront IP ranges change frequently, making IP-based allow lists operationally complex and error-prone, and AWS does not provide a supported CloudFront prefix list for ALB listener rules.

AWS Security Specialty guidance explicitly recommends using custom origin headers to restrict ALB access to CloudFront-only traffic, making option D the correct and secure solution.

AWS incident response best practices emphasize isolating compromised resources rather than immediately terminating them. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, removing an instance from an Auto Scaling group prevents replacement loops, while applying a restrictive security group isolates the instance for forensic analysis.

Using Amazon EventBridge to trigger an AWS Lambda function enables automated, consistent responses to GuardDuty findings. This approach minimizes disruption to the application because healthy instances continue serving traffic while the affected instance is isolated.

Disabling credentials or modifying network ACLs can have broader impact on unrelated workloads. SNS notifications alone do not provide response automation.

AWS recommends isolate-and-investigate patterns for EC2 incident response.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty Automated Responses

AWS Incident Response Playbooks

Amazon S3 pre-signed URLs grant temporary access based on the permissions of the principal that generates them. AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation explains that fine-grained authorization can be enforced by combining pre-signed URLs with IAM policy conditions.

By tagging each invoice object with a client identifier and adding a condition to the EC2 instance role policy using s3:ResourceTag/ClientId, the role can generate pre-signed URLs only for objects associated with a specific client. This ensures that each client can access only their own invoices, even though the URLs are temporary and unauthenticated.

Option A over-permissions clients. Option C is unnecessary because instance profiles already use temporary credentials. Option D violates AWS best practices by using long-term credentials.

AWS recommends resource tagging with IAM policy conditions for scalable, secure access control.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon S3 Pre-Signed URLs

IAM Policy Conditions and Resource Tags

Option D is the correct solution because it provides fully automated, real-time detection and mitigation of application-layer (Layer 7) DDoS attacks with no manual intervention. AWS Shield Advanced includes automatic application layer DDoS mitigation when it is enabled for supported resources such as Amazon CloudFront distributions. This feature continuously monitors traffic patterns and, when an attack is detected, automatically deploys AWS WAF rules to mitigate malicious requests.

Adding a rate-based rule to the AWS WAF web ACL further strengthens protection by automatically blocking IP addresses that exceed a defined request threshold, which is a common characteristic of Layer 7 DDoS attacks. This combination aligns directly with AWS best practices for protecting web applications against volumetric and application-layer threats.

Option A only provides alerting and visibility but does not ensure automated mitigation. Option B includes proactive engagement with the AWS DDoS Response Team, which is valuable for complex or large-scale attacks but still involves human interaction and therefore does not meet the “no manual effort” requirement. Option C introduces unnecessary complexity and is not recommended for protecting CloudFront-based applications against Layer 7 DDoS attacks.

AWS Security Specialty documentation explicitly recommends AWS Shield Advanced with automatic application layer DDoS mitigation and AWS WAF rate-based rules for fully automated, real-time protection of public web applications.

AWS CloudTrail data event logging is the correct solution because it is specifically designed to capture detailed, structured, and near–real-time API activity for Amazon S3 object-level operations. When S3 data events are enabled, CloudTrail records actions such as GetObject, PutObject, and DeleteObject, along with critical context including the IAM principal, source IP address, event time, request parameters, and response elements. These logs are delivered in JSON format, making them highly structured and suitable for security analysis, SIEM integration, and automated detection workflows.

Amazon S3 server access logging (option A) provides basic request-level information but does not include full IAM identity context and is delivered with a significant delay, which does not meet the near–real-time requirement. AWS Config (option C) focuses on resource configuration changes and compliance evaluation; it does not log object-level access events. Amazon Macie (option D) is a data security service that uses machine learning to discover and classify sensitive data in S3 and generate findings for anomalous access patterns, but it is not a comprehensive access logging solution.

AWS Security Specialty documentation clearly states that CloudTrail data events are the authoritative mechanism for auditing S3 object-level access with identity attribution and precise timestamps, making option B the correct and best-practice answer

AWS KMS keys are regional resources and cannot be used across Regions. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, applications that are deployed in multiple Regions should use region-specific customer managed keys while referencing keys by alias instead of key ID.

By creating a new customer managed key in eu-north-1 and assigning it the same alias as the key in eu-west-1, the application code can continue to reference the alias without modification. Each Region resolves the alias to the correct local key, ensuring encryption continues to function correctly.

Option A is invalid because KMS keys are regional. Option B requires application changes. Option D introduces unsupported alias patterns.

AWS best practices recommend alias-based key references for multi-Region deployments.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS KMS Regional Keys and Aliases

AWS KMS Best Practices

When an internet-facing ALB is used as a CloudFront origin, it remains directly accessible unless additional access controls are enforced. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, CloudFront IP allow lists alone are insufficient, because CloudFront IP ranges change and are not guaranteed to be exclusive.

The recommended and most secure approach is to configure CloudFront to send a custom origin header (such as X-Shared-Secret) with a secret value on every request to the origin. The ALB listener rules are then configured to forward traffic only when the header exists and matches the expected value. Requests that attempt to bypass CloudFront will not include this header and will be denied.

Option A is invalid because CloudFront does not support PrivateLink origins. Option B introduces unnecessary architectural changes and is not required. Option C is brittle and operationally risky due to changing IP ranges.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends custom origin headers as the best practice to ensure that only CloudFront can access an internet-facing ALB when AWS WAF is attached at the CloudFront layer.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon CloudFront Origin Security Documentation

AWS WAF and ALB Integration Guidance

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

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

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

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

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Secrets Manager Security Architecture

AWS PrivateLink and Interface VPC Endpoints Documentation

Amazon SQS is an AWS-managed service and does not operate within customer VPCs. Therefore, security groups and network ACLs cannot be used to control access to SQS, making options A and B invalid. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, the recommended approach to securely access AWS services from within a VPC is through interface VPC endpoints (AWS PrivateLink).

By creating interface VPC endpoints for Amazon SQS, the company ensures that traffic to SQS stays within the AWS network and does not traverse the public internet. Adding an SQS resource policy with the aws:SourceVpce condition restricts access so that only requests originating from the specified VPC endpoint are allowed. Additionally, using the aws:PrincipalOrgId condition ensures that only principals belonging to the same AWS Organization can access the queue.

Option D introduces an external tool, increasing cost and compliance complexity, which directly violates the requirement to minimize investment outside AWS.

AWS documentation clearly identifies VPC endpoints combined with IAM condition keys as a best practice for securing service access in multi-account environments.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon SQS Security Best Practices

AWS Organizations Documentation

AWS PrivateLink User Guide

AWS WAF allows security engineers to create string match rule statements that inspect specific parts of web requests, including HTTP headers such as the User-Agent header. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide and AWS WAF documentation, string match rules are ideal for blocking requests that contain known malicious identifiers, such as a distinctive user agent associated with a specific bot or IoT device brand.

In this scenario, the attack originates from a specific IoT device brand that uses a unique user agent. A string match rule that inspects the User-Agent header can precisely block malicious requests while allowing legitimate customer traffic to continue uninterrupted. This approach provides targeted mitigation for both current and future attacks originating from the same device signature.

Option A is incorrect because IP addresses cannot be derived from user agent strings, and IoT botnets frequently rotate IP addresses, making IP-based blocking ineffective. Option B is incorrect because geographic blocking is overly broad and risks blocking legitimate customers in the same regions as the attacking devices. Option C is incorrect because rate-based rules limit request volume per IP address and do not specifically identify malicious device signatures; legitimate high-traffic users could be unintentionally blocked.

AWS documentation emphasizes that header inspection with string match conditions is a best practice for mitigating attacks that use identifiable request characteristics such as custom user agents, especially in DDoS and bot mitigation scenarios.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Developer Guide – Rule Statements

AWS DDoS Resiliency Best Practices

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

AWS WAF rate-based rules are specifically designed to protect applications from traffic floods and distributed attacks that originate from large numbers of IP addresses. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, rate-based rules automatically track the number of requests coming from individual IP addresses and temporarily block IPs that exceed a defined threshold.

In this scenario, the malicious traffic originates from hundreds of IP addresses across two countries, mixed with legitimate user traffic. A rate-based rule allows the security engineer to limit excessive request rates without fully blocking access from entire geographic regions, ensuring that legitimate users can still access the application.

Option B is incorrect because geographic match rules block all traffic from selected countries, which would deny access to legitimate users and violate the stated requirement. Option C is invalid because security groups do not support geographic filtering. Option D is not scalable, as manually blocking hundreds of IP addresses is operationally inefficient and ineffective against rapidly changing attacker IPs.

AWS documentation emphasizes that rate-based rules are the recommended first-line mitigation for sudden traffic spikes and potential application-layer DDoS attacks when business continuity must be preserved.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Developer Guide – Rate-Based Rules

AWS DDoS Resiliency Best Practices

AWS WAF logs capture detailed request-level information, including source IP address, request URI, headers, and rule evaluation results. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, AWS WAF logging is a critical detection control when application-level attacks are suspected, especially when host-based logs are unreliable or can be erased by attackers.

By configuring the AWS WAF web ACL to send logs to Amazon Data Firehose, the company ensures that all future requests are centrally captured and delivered to a durable storage service such as Amazon S3. Using Amazon Athena, the security team can query these logs to identify requests targeting specific application paths such as new-user-creation.php and extract the originating client IP addresses.

Option A is incorrect because VPC Flow Logs operate at the network layer and do not capture HTTP request paths. Option B is invalid because ALBs do not support CloudWatch agents. Option C is viable but introduces additional operational complexity and cost, making it less appropriate than the native WAF logging solution.

AWS documentation highlights AWS WAF logging combined with Athena as a best practice for forensic analysis and attacker identification.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Logging Documentation

Amazon Athena User Guide

AWS Detection and Monitoring Best Practices

AWS incident response best practices emphasize rapid containment to prevent further data exposure. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, the fastest and least disruptive containment method for compromised compute resources is to immediately revoke credentials and permissions rather than modifying data or infrastructure.

Revoking the IAM role’s active sessions prevents the EC2 instance from continuing to access AWS services. Updating the S3 bucket policy to explicitly deny access to the IAM role ensures immediate enforcement, even if temporary credentials remain cached. Removing the IAM role from the instance profile further prevents new credentials from being issued.

Option A and D involve large-scale data movement or re-encryption, which is time-consuming and operationally expensive. Option B relies on network-level controls that do not prevent access through private AWS endpoints.

AWS guidance explicitly recommends credential revocation and policy-based denial as the fastest containment step during active incidents.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

AWS IAM Role Session Management

Amazon SQS is a regional service that supports AWS PrivateLink through interface VPC endpoints. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, the most secure and compliant way to restrict access to AWS services is by using VPC endpoints combined with resource-based policies.

By creating interface VPC endpoints for Amazon SQS in all VPCs, traffic to SQS remains on the AWS network and does not traverse the public internet. Using the aws:SourceVpce condition in the SQS queue policy ensures that only requests originating from approved VPC endpoints can access the queue. Adding the aws:PrincipalOrgId condition further restricts access to principals that belong to the same AWS Organization.

Security groups and network ACLs do not apply to SQS because SQS is not deployed inside a VPC. Third-party CASB tools add cost and operational overhead.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon SQS Security and VPC Endpoints

AWS Organizations Condition Keys

AWS CloudTrail provides authoritative records of KMS key creation, origin, and usage. Enabling log file validation ensures tamper detection. S3 Object Lock in compliance mode enforces immutability, which is a core audit requirement cited in AWS Certified Security – Specialty materials.

CloudWatch and DynamoDB do not provide immutable storage guarantees suitable for compliance evidence.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS CloudTrail Log File Validation

Amazon S3 Object Lock