DOP-C02 Exam Questions Tutorials

Step 1: Understanding the Deletion FailureThe most likely reason why the CloudFormation stack failed to delete is that the S3 bucket was not empty. AWS CloudFormation cannot delete an S3 bucket that contains objects, so if the website files are still in the bucket, the deletion will fail.

Issue: The S3 bucket is not empty during deletion, preventing the stack from being deleted.

Step 2: Modifying the Custom Resource to Handle DeletionTo mitigate this issue, you can modify the Lambda function associated with the custom resource to automatically empty the S3 bucket when the stack is being deleted. By adding logic to handle the RequestType: Delete event, the function can recursively delete all objects in the bucket before allowing the stack to be deleted.

Action: Modify the Lambda function to recursively delete the objects in the S3 bucket when RequestType is set to Delete.

Why: This ensures that the S3 bucket is empty before CloudFormation tries to delete it, preventing the stack deletion failure.

The correct answer is C.

Option A is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has two statements, one that allows access to the new range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets and one that denies access to the old range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets, is not a valid solution. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. SCPs can only control the actions that can be performed by the principals in the organization, not the access to specific resources. Moreover, setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets.

Option B is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has a statement that allows only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is not a valid solution, for the same reason as option A. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. Creating another SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also not a valid solution, as SCPs cannot specify the S3 buckets as resources either.

Option C is correct because it meets both requirements of changing the range of IP addresses that have permission to access the contents of the S3 buckets and revoking the permissions of two OUs in the company. On all the S3 buckets, configuring resource-based policies that allow only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is a valid way to update the IP address ranges, as resource-based policies can specify both resources and conditions. Creating a new SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also a valid way to revoke the permissions of those OUs, as SCPs can deny actions such as s3:PutObject or s3:GetObject on any resource.

Option D is incorrect because setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets. A permissions boundary is a policy that defines the maximum permissions that an IAM entity can have. However, it does not revoke any existing permissions that are granted by other policies.

B. Update the CodeBuild project role with the necessary permissions and then remove the AWS credentials from the environment variable. C. Store the DB_PASSWORD as a SecureString value in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store and then remove the DB_PASSWORD from the environment variables. E. Use AWS Systems Manager run command versus scp and ssh commands directly to the instance.