Free Professional-Cloud-Security-Engineer Questions Attempt

The problem has two key requirements:

All applications must send data to a centralized security service.

Developers need high autonomy over firewall rules within their projects.

Prevent accidental blockage of access to the central security service.

This scenario requires a mechanism to enforce critical network policies at a higher level of the resource hierarchy while still allowing project-level flexibility.

Hierarchical Firewall Policies: Google Cloud's Hierarchical Firewall Policies (HFP) are designed precisely for this purpose. They allow administrators to define firewall rules at the organization or folder level, and these rules are inherited by all projects and VPC networks within that hierarchy. Crucially, HFP rules can be prioritized. Rules with higher priority (lower numerical value) are evaluated first. This means you can create high-priority "allow" rules for critical services that cannot be overridden or blocked by project-level firewall rules.Extract Reference: "Hierarchical firewall policies allow you to define and enforce consistent network security policies across your organization. Policies can be applied at the organization or folder level, and they are inherited by all projects and VPC networks within that hierarchy." and "Rules in a hierarchical firewall policy can take precedence over VPC network firewall rules based on priority. A rule with a lower priority value takes precedence over a rule with a higher priority value." (Google Cloud documentation:

Preventing Accidental Blockage while Allowing Autonomy: By setting a high-priority "allow" rule for the central security service in a hierarchical firewall policy, you guarantee that this traffic will always be permitted, regardless of what project-level firewall rules developers might configure. This ensures the critical connectivity while still allowing developers to manage other, less critical firewall rules within their projects with high autonomy.

Let's evaluate the other options:

A. Deploy a central Secure Web Proxy and connect it to all VPC networks. Create a Secure Web Proxy policy to allow traffic to the central security service. A Secure Web Proxy is for HTTP/S outbound traffic to external web services. The central security service might not be an external web service, and this solution is focused on application-layer proxies, not general network connectivity like sending data to an internal service. Also, it doesn't directly address the challenge of developers blocking access with project-level firewall rules.

C. Create a central project to manage Shared VPC networks which will be accessible to all other projects. Administer all firewall rules centrally within this project. While Shared VPC centralizes network management, it means all firewall rules are administered centrally. This directly contradicts the requirement for developers to have "high autonomy to configure firewall rules within their projects." Shared VPC would centralize too much control for this specific scenario.

D. Use Terraform to automate the creation of the required firewall rule in all projects. Restrict rule change permissions solely to the Terraform service account. This approach automates the creation but doesn't prevent developers from creating conflicting or overriding rules in their projects (unless Terraform is used to manage all rules, again removing autonomy). It also relies on restricting IAM permissions for all firewall rules, which is against the "high autonomy" requirement for developers. Hierarchical firewall policies offer a more robust and native solution for overriding and enforcing specific rules.

Therefore, implementing a hierarchical firewall policy is the most effective solution, as it allows for the enforcement of critical security service connectivity at a higher level, while still granting developers the desired autonomy over their project-specific firewall rules.

To mitigate the risk posed by long-running Google Cloud CLI sessions, it is essential to enforce a reauthentication frequency. This ensures that users must periodically reauthenticate, reducing the window of opportunity for an attacker to exploit an open session. Setting the reauthentication frequency to one hour forces users to reauthenticate after this period, thereby limiting the duration an attacker can use a compromised session.

Access Google Cloud Console: Log in to your Google Cloud Console using your admin credentials.

Navigate to Security Settings: Go to the "Security" section of the Cloud Console.

Set Session Control: Under the session management settings, locate the "Reauthentication frequency" setting. This controls how often users must reauthenticate.

Configure Reauthentication Frequency: Set the reauthentication frequency to "1 hour". This configuration will force users to reauthenticate every hour, thus limiting the duration of each session.

Save Changes: Confirm and save your changes. This setting will now apply to all users, ensuring that open sessions are minimized to a duration of one hour.

To allow Compute Engine instances to access public repositories for security updates while an egress firewall rule is in place to deny all internet traffic, you need to create a more specific egress rule that permits traffic to the CIDR range of the repository. The priority of this rule should be lower (i.e., a higher priority number) than the deny rule.

Steps:

Identify the CIDR Range: Determine the CIDR range of the public repository from which the security updates will be fetched.

Create Egress Firewall Rule: Create a new egress firewall rule allowing traffic to the identified CIDR range with a priority less than 1000.

Apply Firewall Rule: Use the Google Cloud Console or gcloud command-line tool to apply the new firewall rule.

Understanding Organization Policies:

Organization policies are rules that can be set at different levels of the resource hierarchy in GCP to enforce governance and compliance.

These policies can be set at the organization node, folders, and projects, and they are inherited down the hierarchy unless explicitly overridden.

Hierarchy and Policy Inheritance:

The provided resource hierarchy has an organization node (Example.com), folders (Folder 1 and Folder 2), and a project (Project 2) under Folder 2 with a specific VPC (VPC A).

Each node in the hierarchy can have its own policies, and these policies are inherited by child nodes unless overridden.

Analyzing the Policies in the Hierarchy:

Organization Node Policy:

json

Copy code

{ "constraint": "constraints/compute.restrictLoadBalancerCreationForTypes", "listPolicy": { "allValues": "DENY" } }

This policy at the organization node denies all load balancer types.

Folder 2 Policy:

json

Copy code

{ "constraint": "constraints/compute.restrictLoadBalancerCreationForTypes", "listPolicy": { "deniedValues": ["INTERNAL_TCP_UDP", "INTERNAL_HTTP_HTTPS"] } }

This policy at Folder 2 denies the creation of INTERNAL_TCP_UDP and INTERNAL_HTTP_HTTPS load balancers.

Project 2 Policy:

json

Copy code

{ "constraint": "constraints/compute.restrictLoadBalancerCreationForTypes", "listPolicy": { "deniedValues": ["EXTERNAL_TCP_PROXY", "EXTERNAL_SSL_PROXY"] } }

This policy at Project 2 denies the creation of EXTERNAL_TCP_PROXY and EXTERNAL_SSL_PROXY load balancers.

Policy Application to VPC A:

Since policies are inherited, VPC A (which is within Project 2 under Folder 2) will be affected by the policies of both Folder 2 and Project 2.

Combining the denied values from both Folder 2 and Project 2:

From Folder 2: INTERNAL_TCP_UDP, INTERNAL_HTTP_HTTPS

From Project 2: EXTERNAL_TCP_PROXY, EXTERNAL_SSL_PROXY

Conclusion:

VPC A will have the following load balancer types denied: INTERNAL_TCP_UDP, INTERNAL_HTTP_HTTPS, EXTERNAL_TCP_PROXY, EXTERNAL_SSL_PROXY.