Selected SOA-C03 AWS Certified Associate Questions Answers

To analyze and visualize custom statistics such as the p90 latency (90th percentile), a CloudWatch metric must be generated from the log data. The correct method is to create a metric filter that extracts the latency value from each log event and publishes it as a CloudWatch metric. Once the metric is published, percentile statistics (p90, p95, etc.) can be displayed in CloudWatch dashboards or alarms.

AWS documentation states:

“You can use metric filters to extract numerical fields from log events and publish them as metrics in CloudWatch. CloudWatch supports percentile statistics such as p90 and p95 for these metrics.”

Contributor Insights (Option A) is for analyzing frequent contributors, not numeric distributions. Subscription filters (Option C) are used for log streaming, and Application Insights (Option D) provides monitoring of application health but not custom p90 statistics. Hence, Option B is the CloudOps-aligned, minimal-overhead solution for percentile latency monitoring.

CloudWatch Logs data protection provides native redaction/masking of sensitive data at ingestion and query. AWS documentation states it can “detect and protect sensitive data in logs” using data identifiers, and that authorized users can “use the unmask action to view the original data.” Creating a data protection policy on the log group masks PII by default for all viewers, satisfying the requirement to redact personal information. Granting only the security team permission to invoke the unmask API operation ensures that unredacted content is restricted. Option B (KMS) encrypts at rest but does not redact fields; encryption alone does not prevent plaintext visibility to authorized readers. Options A and D add complexity and latency, move data out of CloudWatch, and do not provide default inline redaction/unmask controls in CloudWatch itself. Therefore, the CloudOps-aligned, managed solution is to use CloudWatch Logs data protection with appropriate data identifiers and unmask permissions limited to the security team.

As per the AWS Cloud Operations and Content Delivery documentation, CloudFront determines cache behavior by evaluating both origin headers (e.g., Cache-Control and Expires) and distribution-level TTL settings.

When Cache-Control max-age conflicts with the Maximum TTL configured in CloudFront, the shorter TTL value takes precedence. This results in CloudFront caching content for only 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, despite the origin headers suggesting a longer duration.

AWS documentation explicitly states: “When both origin cache headers and CloudFront TTL settings are defined, CloudFront uses the most restrictive caching period.” This mismatch causes the perceived performance drop, as CloudFront frequently revalidates content.

Therefore, Option D is correct — cache-duration settings conflict with each other, leading to unexpected caching behavior.

Per the AWS Cloud Operations and Security Automation documentation, Security Hub integrates with Amazon EventBridge to publish findings in real time. These events can trigger automated responses using AWS Lambda functions or AWS Systems Manager Automation runbooks.

In this scenario, the correct CloudOps approach is to configure the existing EventBridge rule to invoke a Lambda function that inspects the event payload, identifies the affected security group, and removes the offending inbound rule (e.g., port 21 open to 0.0.0.0/0).

This event-driven remediation provides continuous compliance and eliminates manual intervention. Cron jobs (Options B and C) contradict event-driven design and add operational overhead. Stopping instances (Option A) doesn’t address the root cause — the insecure security group.

Thus, Option D aligns with AWS best practices for automated security remediation through EventBridge and Lambda.