Question 620
A network dashboard must alert on degraded VPN tunnel state, track ALB backend processing problems, and detect Direct Connect link-state transitions. Which metric groups meet these requirements? Choose THREE.
- Compare time-aligned service metrics with CloudTrail change records
- Alarm on per-tunnel VPN TunnelState metrics in CloudWatch
- Create a CloudWatch alarm on the relevant firewall or derived metric
- Include Direct Connect ConnectionState and appropriate error counters
- Examine TargetResponseTime and target HTTP code CloudWatch metrics
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:This component evaluates AWS-provided tunnel state against alert conditions; an aggregate monthly data-transfer chart would not identify which tunnel dropped, contributing early degraded-resiliency notification to the combined requirement for early degraded-resiliency notification and quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis and observability of hybrid physical or connection faults.
D:This component tracks link state independently of the amount of traffic transferred; low throughput can mean idle workloads, not necessarily a failed circuit, contributing observability of hybrid physical or connection faults to the combined requirement for early degraded-resiliency notification and quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis and observability of hybrid physical or connection faults.
E:This component distinguishes slow target processing and target-generated error rates; front-end DNS TTL values do not explain target application latency, contributing quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis to the combined requirement for early degraded-resiliency notification and quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis and observability of hybrid physical or connection faults.
Incorrect Answers
A:This approach combines operational signal timing with configuration mutation history; checking only current route tables omits the event that triggered the change, which helps with change-correlated network incident diagnosis instead of delivering early degraded-resiliency notification and quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis and observability of hybrid physical or connection faults.
C:Although this setting applies a threshold and evaluation window to a measured security signal, CloudWatch dashboards show data but are not themselves notification rules; this concerns automated drop-rate anomaly alerting, not the specified early degraded-resiliency notification and quantitative load-balancer-to-backend performance diagnosis and observability of hybrid physical or connection faults.
Question 621
A regulatory review finds the organization's edge path has no protection against volumetric DDoS attacks or app-layer abuse. What is the most suitable design or configuration?
- Apply appropriate NLB security-group and backend network controls where supported
- Expose the service through PrivateLink endpoint-service access
- Place the application behind an approved identity-aware access proxy or VPN
- Combine supported AWS Shield protections with WAF at the eligible web entry points
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:This configuration applies complementary network-scale and HTTP request threat mitigations; a single subnet ACL cannot inspect both global floods and web attack signatures, so it delivers layered perimeter resilience for public services under the stated constraints.
Incorrect Answers
A:Although this setting limits permitted transport connections according to source network policy, WAF is not natively an arbitrary TCP payload firewall for an NLB; this concerns restricted layer-four public ingress, not the specified layered perimeter resilience for public services.
B:The proposed action creates an approved private interface endpoint path from consumer VPCs; an internet-facing ALB would still expose a public endpoint, supporting partner-specific private application ingress but leaving layered perimeter resilience for public services unmet.
C:This approach requires authenticated access before sensitive network endpoints are reachable; allowing the entire internet CIDR through a security group does not meet access control intent, which helps with authenticated administrative ingress isolation instead of delivering layered perimeter resilience for public services.
Question 622
A single NAT gateway serves private subnets in three AZs and the team needs to reduce failure coupling. Which option should the architect select?
- Deploy an AZ-local NAT gateway in each zone and route private subnets accordingly
- Put DNS filtering and network traffic inspection at their appropriate control points
- Route approved egress through Transit Gateway to the centralized inspection and NAT path
- Omit broad internet default routes and provision approved private VPC endpoints
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:With this choice, the selected action preserves zone-local IPv4 source translation and improves fault isolation; one NAT in a different zone concentrates both outage and cross-zone dependency, providing resilient zonal outbound IPv4 access for the network described.
Incorrect Answers
B:Although this setting uses resolver domain controls and a routed firewall for separate egress risks, blocking DNS alone may be bypassed by clients using direct IP destinations or other resolvers; this concerns layered outbound destination restriction, not the specified resilient zonal outbound IPv4 access.
C:The proposed action consolidates outbound forwarding through a governed security choke point; independent NAT gateways in spokes would bypass the central inspection path, supporting controlled internet egress from multiple VPCs but leaving resilient zonal outbound IPv4 access unmet.
D:This approach exposes specific AWS service destinations without opening general egress; an internet gateway with permissive routes would create a broader network path, which helps with service-specific private outbound connectivity instead of delivering resilient zonal outbound IPv4 access.
Question 623
A campus wants its VPN-connected branch segments to exchange routes through a central AWS gateway serving many VPCs. What should the network specialist configure?
- Configure a dynamic Site-to-Site VPN with BGP-capable customer gateway
- Select an accelerated Site-to-Site VPN attachment where supported
- Terminate the Site-to-Site VPN on the VPC's virtual private gateway
- Attach Site-to-Site VPN to AWS Transit Gateway
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:The approach uses the transit routing hub to exchange routes between VPN and selected attachments; isolation still depends on transit gateway route-table design, directly enabling centralized hybrid routing for multiple networks in this situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:This approach exchanges routes dynamically over the VPN tunnel sessions; static route-only VPN connections require route changes to be maintained explicitly, which helps with adaptive route learning between branch and AWS instead of delivering centralized hybrid routing for multiple networks.
B:This alternative uses AWS Global Accelerator to improve the path into AWS VPN endpoints; the feature is not a substitute for a dedicated physical Direct Connect circuit, so it addresses accelerated internet-based hybrid VPN ingress rather than the required centralized hybrid routing for multiple networks.
C:Although this setting connects the customer gateway IPsec service to the VPC routing boundary, a TGW becomes more appropriate for many separately attached VPCs; this concerns VPC-specific managed VPN termination, not the specified centralized hybrid routing for multiple networks.
Question 624
A transport team requires untrusted transit to be encrypted without exposing application-layer credentials to network devices. What is the best next configuration decision?
- Use TLS for application connections with suitable certificate validation
- Configure ALB mutual TLS with an appropriate trust store
- Request and attach an AWS Certificate Manager public certificate to the HTTPS listener
- Rely on imported third-party certificates in ACM to renew automatically without a replacement process
- Use an eligible ACM certificate in us-east-1 for the CloudFront viewer TLS configuration
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:This configuration establishes end-to-end encrypted sessions between communicating application peers; plain TCP or GRE does not provide the required encryption semantics, so it delivers confidentiality and server authentication across untrusted networks under the stated constraints.
Incorrect Answers
B:This approach authenticates client certificate chains in addition to server-side TLS; a standard HTTPS listener without mTLS does not check a client's certificate identity, which helps with authenticated two-way TLS at application ingress instead of delivering confidentiality and server authentication across untrusted networks.
C:This alternative manages supported public certificates for integrated TLS termination; backend services may still need their own TLS settings if end-to-end encryption is required, so it addresses managed server identity for ALB client TLS rather than the required confidentiality and server authentication across untrusted networks.
D:Although this setting stores imported third-party certificates for supported service integrations but does not issue or renew them, ACM-managed renewal applies to eligible ACM-issued certificates, not imported certificate material; this concerns separately managed imported certificate lifecycle, not the specified confidentiality and server authentication across untrusted networks.
E:The proposed action meets CloudFront's certificate-region requirement for custom HTTPS domain names; an otherwise valid certificate in another Region may not be selectable for this distribution, supporting valid CDN viewer certificate configuration but leaving confidentiality and server authentication across untrusted networks unmet.
Question 625
A CI pipeline repeatedly rebuilds a NAT gateway and unexpectedly changes the public egress address. Which AWS networking approach meets this constraint?
- Run CloudFormation drift detection where supported and reconcile differences
- Add the appropriate CloudFormation dependency on the attachment
- Parameterize subnet CIDRs or integrate governed IP address allocation
- Preserve stable resources and review replacement-triggering property changes
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:With this choice, the selected action avoids unnecessary resource replacement during declarative updates; resource replacement can change dependent paths and addresses, providing predictable egress identity across IaC releases for the network described.
Incorrect Answers
A:Although this setting compares deployed resource properties with their stack definitions, re-deploying without review can overwrite intended emergency changes; this concerns identified infrastructure drift in network configuration, not the specified predictable egress identity across IaC releases.
B:The proposed action ensures route resources are created after prerequisite attachment readiness; reference resolution alone may not cover implicit lifecycle dependencies in every pattern, supporting correct IaC resource ordering for network routes but leaving predictable egress identity across IaC releases unmet.
C:This approach selects address ranges per environment under a consistent template; embedding one fixed CIDR into every account risks overlapping network plans, which helps with collision-free reusable subnet provisioning instead of delivering predictable egress identity across IaC releases.
Question 626
A security team wants a standard bundle of network compliance rules installed across selected accounts. Which action provides the required behavior?
- Deploy AWS Config conformance packs with suitable account or organization targets
- Use an AWS Config managed or custom rule evaluating the relevant SG rules
- Use Config evaluation events with EventBridge-driven notification or remediation
- Record the supported NACL resource types with AWS Config configuration history
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:The approach groups compliance rule checks into consistent policy baselines; an individual ad hoc query does not deploy the set of ongoing evaluations, directly enabling reusable multi-account network compliance assessment in this situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Although this setting checks recorded security-group configuration for a defined compliance condition, a CloudWatch CPU alarm cannot assess IAM or security-group policy semantics; this concerns automatic identification of risky admin port exposure, not the specified reusable multi-account network compliance assessment.
C:The proposed action responds to detected noncompliant resource configuration; a VPC flow log event is not a direct declaration that resource configuration violates a policy, supporting automated handling of disallowed internet exposure but leaving reusable multi-account network compliance assessment unmet.
D:This approach tracks resource configuration states and change relationships; CloudTrail helps show who invoked API calls but not every consolidated configuration snapshot, which helps with historical audit of subnet boundary policy changes instead of delivering reusable multi-account network compliance assessment.
Question 627
An ALB target group has healthy targets in three AZs, yet capacity becomes inadequate after one AZ failure. Which solution best addresses these network requirements?
- Use Global Accelerator health-based regional endpoint routing
- Use Route 53 failover records with a reliable health signal
- Perform periodic failover drills and verify DNS, routing, state and rollback
- Maintain enough spare target capacity and Auto Scaling limits in surviving AZs
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:With this choice, the selected action reserves scaling headroom for zonal failover demand; a functioning load balancer cannot process requests the remaining application nodes cannot handle, providing sufficient post-failure compute capacity for the network described.
Incorrect Answers
A:The proposed action steers flows using anycast ingress and endpoint health; preserving active connection state remains an application-level concern, supporting rapid global failover independent of DNS cache turnover but leaving sufficient post-failure compute capacity unmet.
B:This approach changes authoritative DNS answers according to health evaluation; recursive resolver caching can delay the change experienced by users, which helps with DNS-driven regional failover instead of delivering sufficient post-failure compute capacity.
C:This alternative validates the actual end-to-end recovery path under controlled failure; declared backup resources are not proof of operational recovery until exercised, so it addresses practical regional resilience rather than theoretical configuration rather than the required sufficient post-failure compute capacity.
Question 628
A public application requires AWS-managed basic infrastructure DDoS mitigation without a separately purchased premium service. How should this network requirement be implemented?
- Use AWS WAF rules alongside Shield DDoS defenses
- Use AWS Shield Standard protections built into eligible AWS infrastructure
- Subscribe to AWS Shield Advanced for the supported protected resources
- Cache eligible responses through CloudFront with suitable protections
- Use Shield Advanced event visibility and configured notifications
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:This configuration supplies baseline protection against common network and transport DDoS events; a custom WAF rule is not a general replacement for underlying network volumetric mitigation, so it delivers default AWS DDoS protection coverage under the stated constraints.
Incorrect Answers
A:Although this setting filters application-layer requests based on HTTP properties, pure network-layer shielding cannot express arbitrary header or URI rules; this concerns layer-seven request mitigation in a DDoS defense strategy, not the specified default AWS DDoS protection coverage.
C:This approach adds enhanced DDoS detection, response support, and related protections; Shield Standard lacks the same advanced incident-response features, which helps with premium response for high-risk DDoS exposure instead of delivering default AWS DDoS protection coverage.
D:This alternative distributes content delivery across the CDN edge infrastructure; forcing all requests directly to one EC2 origin retains a central bottleneck, so it addresses scalable edge absorption of repeated web requests rather than the required default AWS DDoS protection coverage.
E:Although this setting tracks observed DDoS attack events for protected resources, generic application logs alone may not classify infrastructure-level DDoS events; this concerns auditable advanced DDoS response monitoring, not the specified default AWS DDoS protection coverage.
Question 629
A shared services account owns central security resources and application accounts must consume them under delegated permissions. Which option should the architect select?
- Enable organization-wide management-event logging with protected central retention
- Use AWS Firewall Manager policies with appropriate organizational scope
- Apply an appropriately scoped AWS Organizations service control policy
- Share supported security and networking resources using AWS RAM under approved principals
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:This configuration distributes use of centrally owned network resources across accounts; RAM sharing is not a universal replacement for IAM resource authorization, so it delivers governed multi-account network resource access under the stated constraints.
Incorrect Answers
A:This alternative records who called networking control-plane APIs and when; traffic flow telemetry cannot identify the IAM principal that changed a route, so it addresses attributable network infrastructure modifications rather than the required governed multi-account network resource access.
B:Although this setting centrally manages eligible firewall protections for organization resources, creating one web ACL in the management account does not attach it to every account's ALBs; this concerns consistent multi-account WAF deployment governance, not the specified governed multi-account network resource access.
C:The proposed action establishes organization-level maximum permissions for member accounts; an SCP limits permissions but does not enable a missing logging resource by itself, supporting organization-enforced restrictions on disabling controls but leaving governed multi-account network resource access unmet.
Question 630
An IPsec tunnel is green on both ends but a workload's replies never reach a branch subnet. Which solution best addresses these network requirements?
- Inspect phase-two proposals, traffic selectors, and child SA negotiation
- Check IKE proposals, pre-shared keys, peer identity, and negotiation logs
- Alarm on per-tunnel TunnelState metrics and test alternate routing
- Compare traffic selectors, VPC return routes, and customer routes
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:With this choice, the selected action checks forwarding after tunnel establishment rather than only tunnel status; up-status on a tunnel does not guarantee application-subnet reachability, providing end-to-end routing through an established VPN for the network described.
Incorrect Answers
A:This approach targets ESP proposal and selector issues after initial IKE success; changing the NAT gateway route would not correct mismatched PFS groups, which helps with stable IPsec child security associations instead of delivering end-to-end routing through an established VPN.
B:This alternative identifies crypto and authentication mismatch before data-plane routing; ICMP reachability does not prove that IKE has compatible proposals, so it addresses restored phase-one IPsec negotiation rather than the required end-to-end routing through an established VPN.
C:Although this setting provides early warning about lost redundancy while traffic still flows, aggregate application success may mask a failed backup tunnel; this concerns observability of degraded VPN availability, not the specified end-to-end routing through an established VPN.