Except for requests that apply for the role, the Deny statement with the NotPrincipal element set to the operations IAM role will deny access to the S3 bucket. According to the scenario, the operations role has a permissions policy that permits access to the bucket.
Options C and D are inappropriate because the bucket policy refers to an IAM group rather than a role. Option D is likewise wrong since AWS suggests using default encryption rather than a bucket policy to enforce encryption. Option C also permits artifacts to be temporarily kept at rest without encryption. Option A is wrong because AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) Encrypt API actions are helpful for encrypting plaintext values like passwords but not for encrypting a build artifact file, archive, or object.
The update will generate the event, and the event will initiate the pipeline. Option D's periodic checks will work, but they won't start the pipeline until the next periodic check takes place. Option B is not an attribute supported by AWS Code Commit. Option A is not a valid way to begin the pipeline.
Patch Manager, an AWS Systems Manager function, will automatically run security fixes during a maintenance window based on a list of acceptable patches that you designate in a patch baseline. The company's security staff may check the patch compliance of the instances in the Systems Manager console or extract a summary using the AWS CLI.
Option D is wrong since AWS CodeBuild generates artifacts from your source code. Patches are not deployed to instances via CodeBuild. Option B is wrong since the Amazon Linux 2 preinstalled Systems Manager Agent (SSM Agent) does not need to be scheduled to fetch the fixes. Only a Systems Manager maintenance window has to be associated with the patching configuration. Option A is wrong because it lacks a method for the security team to verify patch compliance. The cron job also has a single point of failure as an option.
You can change the S3 event notification destination to an Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) subject to build a fanout messaging scenario for Amazon S3 event notifications of one event to multiple consumers. You may subscribe to the subject with numerous consumers, including the AWS Lambda function and the Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue, without modifying the Lambda function code.
Because of overlapping notification event prefixes and suffixes, Option D is not acceptable and will result in a "Configuration is ambiguously defined" problem. Because Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is not a viable S3 event notification destination, Option B is invalid. Option A is unacceptable since it provides an insufficient solution. You cannot subscribe a SQS queue to an Amazon CloudWatch Logs log group directly.
A blue/green deployment has two distinct settings. The blue environment has Amazon EC2 instances running the current production version of the application in an Auto Scaling group. The green environment comprises EC2 instances from a different Auto Scaling group that are running the updated version of the application. Because each Auto Scaling group is behind its own Application Load Balancer (ALB), you may create two Alias records as endpoints in Amazon Route 53 and use a weighted routing strategy to progressively move traffic from the blue ALB to the green ALB. Unless schema modifications are required for the new release, it is advisable to point both environments to the same database to ensure data consistency throughout the cutover.
Option F is wrong since it requires two ALBs as endpoints in order to utilize Route 53 to progressively transfer traffic. Option D is wrong because until a health check detects a failure, a failover routing strategy transmits all traffic to a single endpoint. As a result, this option cannot progressively shift traffic. Option A is wrong since the hot standby instance in an Amazon RDS Multi-AZ DB instance is not available for reads or writes.
Amazon DynamoDB global tables begin as single-region tables and may be expanded to support multi-region and multi-active workloads. Global tables allow low-latency data access to Region-specific workloads without having you to build or manage a replication solution.
Option D is inappropriate since using a distinct table in each Region would need the adoption of an additional replication solution. Option C is inappropriate because creating and managing a synchronization mechanism across the tables would be an unnecessary operational overhead. Option A is incorrect because global tables are multi-regional, multi-active tables without read replicates.
