DOP-C02 Exam Dumps : AWS Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional

To ensure that CloudTrail cannot be disabled in any member account, the control must be enforced above the individual accounts, at the organization level , and must not be overridable by local administrators. AWS Service Control Policies (SCPs) provide exactly this capability: they define permission guardrails that apply to all IAM users, roles, and even the root user in accounts within an AWS Organizations OU.

By applying an SCP that explicitly denies cloudtrail:StopLogging and cloudtrail:DeleteTrail , the organization prevents any principal in the affected accounts from disabling logging or deleting the trails, regardless of their IAM permissions. This provides strong, centralized enforcement of audit logging.

Option B uses IAM policies in each account. Local administrators with sufficient privileges could modify or detach those policies, defeating the control. Option C only sends notifications and does not prevent the action. Option D with AWS Config auto-remediation still allows a window where CloudTrail is disabled and also can be disabled or modified itself.

Therefore, the most robust and least bypassable approach is to use an SCP at the OU level to deny CloudTrail stop and delete actions.

This is a classic AWS Organizations governance design:

Restrict Regions and allowed services across all accounts

The correct Organizations mechanism for account-wide guardrails is a Service Control Policy (SCP) .

SCPs set the maximum permissions that accounts/OUs can use, making them the right tool to enforce “only these Regions” and “only these services” consistently across the org.

Authentication from Active Directory + consistent job-function roles in every account

With AD as the identity source, the standard approach is federation to AWS using an IAM identity provider (SAML) and role assumption based on job function.

AWS CloudFormation StackSets is the operationally efficient way to deploy identical IAM roles/policies into multiple accounts/OUs so job-function permissions are consistent everywhere.

The roles’ trust policies can be configured to allow federated identities (from the AD-backed IdP) to assume the correct job role in each account.

Why the other options don’t fit:

A “OU with group policies” isn’t an AWS Organizations control mechanism for restricting Regions/services. The AWS-native control for this is SCPs , not “group policies.”

B Permissions boundaries are useful to limit what an IAM principal/role can do within an account , but they are not the org-wide enforcement mechanism for “all accounts must stay in these Regions / use only these services.” That’s what SCPs do.

C AWS RAM is for sharing resources (like subnets, Transit Gateway, etc.), not for “sharing roles” across accounts as a governance baseline. Also, the question emphasizes identical permissions in each account, which is best achieved by provisioning roles in each account (StackSets), not attempting to “share” roles.

AWS X-Ray provides distributed tracing, which allows visualization of latencies and errors within microservices, pinpointing bottlenecks or delays.

Instrumenting application code with the X-Ray SDK and running the X-Ray daemon as a DaemonSet in EKS ensures tracing data is collected cluster-wide.

Container Insights (Option B) provides resource-level metrics but not detailed request tracing.

CloudWatch alarms and alerts (Option C) detect symptoms but don ' t provide root cause tracing.

Increasing timeouts (Option D) only masks the issue and does not diagnose it.