SAA-C03 Premium Exam Questions

The most suitable solution for the company’s compliance policy is to enable the restricted-ssh AWS Config managed rule and generate an Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) notification when a noncompliant rule is created. This solution has the least operational overheadbecause it uses a predefined rule that is already available in AWS Config, which is a service that enables users to assess, audit, and evaluate the configurations of their AWS resources. The restricted-ssh rule checks whether security groups that are in use have inbound rules that allow SSH from 0.0.0.0/0 addresses, and reports them as noncompliant1. Users can configure the rule to send notifications to an Amazon SNS topic when a noncompliant change occurs, and subscribe to the topic to receive alerts via email, SMS, or other methods2.

The other options are not correct because they either have more operational overhead or do not meet the requirements. Writing an AWS Lambda script that monitors security groups for SSH being open to 0.0.0.0/0 addresses and creates a notification every time it finds one is not correct because it requires custom code development and maintenance, which adds complexity and cost to the solution. Creating an IAM role with permissions to globally open security groups and network ACLs, and creating an Amazon SNS topic to generate a notification every time the role is assumed by a user is not correct because it does not prevent or detect the creation of noncompliant rules by other users or roles, and it does not address the existing rules that may violate the policy. Configuring a service control policy (SCP) that prevents non-administrative users from creating or editing security groups, and creating a notification in the ticketing system when a user requests a rule that needs administrator permissions is not correct because it does not provide an automated solution for the policy enforcement and notification, and it may limit the flexibility and productivity of the users.

The solution that meets the requirements with the most operational efficiency is to configure public subnets in the existing VPC and deploy an MSK cluster in the public subnets. This solution allows the data ingestion solution to be publicly available over the internet without creating a new VPC or deploying a load balancer. The solution also ensures that the data intransit is encrypted by enabling mutual TLS authentication, which requires both the client and the server to present certificates for verification. This solution leverages the public access feature of Amazon MSK, which is available for clusters running Apache Kafka 2.6.0 or later versions1.

The other solutions are not as efficient as the first one because they either create unnecessary resources or do not encrypt the data in transit. Creating a new VPC with public subnets would incur additional costs and complexity for managing network resources and routing. Deploying an ALB or an NLB would also add more costs and latency for the data ingestion solution. Moreover, an ALB or an NLB would not encrypt thedata in transit by itself, unless they are configured with HTTPS listeners and certificates, which would require additional steps and maintenance. Therefore, these solutions are not optimal for the given requirements.

AWS DataSync is a service that makes it easy to move large amounts of data online between on-premises storage and AWS storage services. AWS DataSync can transfer data at speeds up to 10 times faster than open-source tools by using a purpose-built network protocol and parallelizing data transfers. AWS DataSync also handles encryption, data integrity verification, and bandwidth optimization. To use AWS DataSync, users need to deploy a DataSync agent on their on-premises servers, which connects to the NFS servers and syncs the data to Amazon S3. Users can schedule periodic or one-time sync tasks and monitor the progress and status of the transfers.

The other options are not correct because they are either not cost-effective or not suitable for the use case. Setting up AWS Glue to copy the data from the on-premises servers to Amazon S3 is not cost-effective because AWS Glue is a serverless data integration service that is mainly used for extract, transform, and load (ETL) operations, not for simple data backup. Setting up an SFTP sync using AWS Transfer for SFTP to sync data from on premises to Amazon S3 is not cost-effective because AWS Transfer for SFTP is a fully managed service that provides secure file transfer using the SFTP protocol, which is more suitable for exchanging data with third parties than for backing up data. Setting up an AWS Direct Connect connection between the on-premises data center and a VPC, and copying the data to Amazon S3 is not cost-effective because AWS Direct Connect is a dedicated network connection between AWS and the on-premises location, which has high upfront costs and requires additional configuration.

This option is the only solution that meets the requirements because it allows the company to encrypt the data with its own encryption keys and tools outside the AWS Cloud. By encrypting the data at the company’s data center before storing the data in the S3 bucket, the company can ensure that the data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and that the company has full control over the encryption keys and processes. This option also avoids the need to use any AWS encryption services or features, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

A. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with server-side encryption (SSE) that uses an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key. This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. Although the company can create and use its own customer managed key in AWSKMS, the key is still stored and managed by AWS KMS, which is a service within the AWS Cloud. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

B. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with server-side encryption (SSE) that uses an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) AWS managed key. This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. In this option, the company uses the default AWS managed key in AWS KMS, which is created and managed by AWS on behalf of the company. The company has no control over the key rotation, deletion, or recovery policies. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

C. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with the default server-side encryption (SSE). This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. In this option, the company uses the default server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed keys (SSE-S3), which is applied to every bucket in Amazon S3. The company has no visibility or control over the encryption keys, which are managed by Amazon S3. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.