Question 970
An application team wants to deny Internet-originated requests to an internal ALB, but the proposed solution is to give its DNS name an obscure random prefix. Which network architecture change is materially effective?
- Use an internal load balancer in private subnets with no public ingress route
- Configure the AWS Load Balancer Controller ingress target type as ip
- Register the Lambda function as an ALB Lambda target
- Configure mutual TLS on an HTTPS listener of an Application Load Balancer
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Internal ALBs expose private addresses reachable through approved networks; secrecy of a DNS label does not prevent access to a publicly routable load balancer.
Incorrect Answers
B:IP target mode registers Pod network addresses in the load balancer target group; instance target mode instead normally directs traffic through node-level ports; it is not the action that directly makes the system remove public reachability instead of hiding hostnames.
C:An Application Load Balancer can transform supported HTTP requests into Lambda events and return its response as HTTP without an EC2 or IP target listener; that still would not establish the requested outcome: remove public reachability instead of hiding hostnames.
D:ALB mutual authentication can verify client certificates for inbound HTTPS sessions while preserving the ability to apply application-layer listener rules; the scenario instead needs an action that will remove public reachability instead of hiding hostnames.
Question 971
A security reviewer wants private application subnets to allow HTTPS only toward approved destinations without granting the entire internet CIDR. Which maintainable rule input is useful where supported?
- Review the prefix list entries and the associated VPC route-table destinations for longest-prefix interactions
- Reference an AWS-managed prefix list in compatible egress security-group rules
- Evaluate the security group rules against new flows while accounting for connection tracking
- Create AWS Config rules for the intended network ACL compliance policy and automate response where supported
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Managed prefix lists can keep approved CIDR collections current for supported AWS services, reducing manually maintained broad address rules in eligible security-group configurations.
Incorrect Answers
A:Route tables can reference customer-managed prefix lists as destinations; a changed list of prefixes can influence matching traffic even when the route itself was not individually edited; it is not the action that directly makes the system restrict HTTPS egress using maintained destination prefixes.
C:Security groups are stateful, but replacing the rules does not grant indefinite access for new flows; connection tracking and subsequent connection establishment follow allowed traffic and rule state; the scenario instead needs an action that will restrict HTTPS egress using maintained destination prefixes.
D:AWS Config records resource configuration and can evaluate it against guardrails; a workflow can then notify or trigger controlled remediation; those conditions do not produce the required result: restrict HTTPS egress using maintained destination prefixes.
Question 972
Security investigators need a list of source/destination IP pairs and ACCEPT or REJECT decisions observed at a particular ENI, not application payloads. Which log stream should be collected?
- Explain that VPC Flow Logs aggregate connection metadata and do not uniquely represent individual HTTP transactions
- Verify the VPC Flow Logs resource scope, traffic type, and aggregation interval
- Enable VPC Flow Logs for the network interface with the needed accepted and rejected traffic types
- Configure VPC Traffic Mirroring from the supported source ENI to an inspection target
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Flow Logs deliver aggregated metadata about observed IP flows and action status for the selected VPC resource; they are not packet-capture recordings.
Incorrect Answers
A:HTTP requests may share TCP connections, and flow aggregation produces network records rather than one request row, so different record counts do not inherently mean loss; that still would not establish the requested outcome: audit observed ENI-level flow decisions.
B:Flow Logs aggregate network-flow information over a time window and only cover selected ENIs, subnets, or VPCs; request logs and flow records are not guaranteed one-to-one; the scenario instead needs an action that will audit observed ENI-level flow decisions.
D:Traffic Mirroring copies selected packets so the analyzer can inspect protocol exchanges; VPC Flow Logs record connection metadata rather than full packet payload; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to audit observed ENI-level flow decisions.
Question 973
A multi-account organization requires network flow records retained in a central analytics bucket. Local accounts currently retain only temporary CloudWatch logs. Which delivery architecture is appropriate?
- Verify the VPC Flow Logs resource scope, traffic type, and aggregation interval
- Configure VPC Traffic Mirroring from the supported source ENI to an inspection target
- Explain that VPC Flow Logs aggregate connection metadata and do not uniquely represent individual HTTP transactions
- Deliver VPC Flow Logs to a governed Amazon S3 bucket in the centralized logging environment
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:S3 can retain aggregated flow-log objects for cross-account analysis and lifecycle controls when the destination and permissions are configured correctly.
Incorrect Answers
A:Flow Logs aggregate network-flow information over a time window and only cover selected ENIs, subnets, or VPCs; request logs and flow records are not guaranteed one-to-one; the scenario instead needs an action that will centralize long-term network flow records.
B:Traffic Mirroring copies selected packets so the analyzer can inspect protocol exchanges; VPC Flow Logs record connection metadata rather than full packet payload; those conditions do not produce the required result: centralize long-term network flow records.
C:HTTP requests may share TCP connections, and flow aggregation produces network records rather than one request row, so different record counts do not inherently mean loss; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to centralize long-term network flow records.
Question 974
An NLB TLS listener uses an ACM certificate, but engineers need per-connection evidence about TLS versions and handshake negotiation failures. Which log family is useful for this investigation?
- Enable Network Load Balancer access logging for the TLS listener and inspect handshake fields
- Use a TCP listener on the NLB and terminate TLS at the registered backend
- Enable client IP preservation for the supported NLB IP target group configuration
- Select a supported ALB listener security policy that excludes disallowed legacy TLS protocols
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:NLB TLS access logs provide information about TLS connections handled by supported TLS listeners, helping diagnose negotiated protocol and certificate-related handshake behavior.
Incorrect Answers
B:A TCP listener forwards transport bytes without terminating TLS; a TLS listener would negotiate TLS at the load balancer and change where end-to-end certificate handling occurs; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to examine TLS negotiation at a Network Load Balancer.
C:Depending on target type and protocol, NLB client IP preservation may need to be explicitly configured; otherwise targets can observe a translated source address; the operational gap would remain because the question requires a way to examine TLS negotiation at a Network Load Balancer.
D:ALB security policies govern the protocols and ciphers accepted by its TLS listener; rotating the certificate alone does not disable old protocol versions; it is not the action that directly makes the system examine TLS negotiation at a Network Load Balancer.
Question 975
A security team wants to know whether AWS WAF applied a block action to individual requests at a public ALB. Aggregated metric counts are insufficient. Which data capture is best?
- Add an AWS WAF rate-based rule with the intended aggregation key and block action
- Enable AWS WAF request logging and inspect the recorded actions and matching rules
- Use AWS Firewall Manager with an appropriately scoped AWS WAF policy
- Apply an AWS WAF managed or custom SQL injection match rule to the application's web ACL
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:WAF logs show per-request evaluated rule actions and relevant request attributes, supporting investigation beyond high-level web ACL metric counts.
Incorrect Answers
A:Rate-based rules count requests over a configurable evaluation window using the selected aggregation key and apply the configured action after the rate limit is exceeded; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to review exact WAF decisions for HTTP requests.
C:Firewall Manager can apply and audit centrally defined security policies across eligible accounts and resources under AWS Organizations, reducing individual distribution policy drift; it is not the action that directly makes the system review exact WAF decisions for HTTP requests.
D:WAF inspects supported HTTP request components and can block matching application-layer attack patterns before the request reaches the origin; that still would not establish the requested outcome: review exact WAF decisions for HTTP requests.
Question 976
An organization purchased Shield Advanced for eligible public resources and must alert operators to a detected DDoS event. Which telemetry and notifications can support the workflow?
- Monitor CloudFront cache statistics and origin error metrics in separate CloudWatch dashboards
- Enable AWS WAF request logging and inspect the recorded actions and matching rules
- Monitor Shield Advanced DDoS events and supported CloudWatch metrics with notification rules
- Enable CloudFront Origin Shield in a strategically chosen Region
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Shield Advanced exposes additional protection visibility for enrolled resources, while alarms and supported notifications can direct staff to a detected event.
Incorrect Answers
A:Edge hit rates describe cache behavior, whereas origin errors diagnose backend responses; combining them as one success percentage obscures different failure causes; the operational gap would remain because the question requires a way to alert on detected DDoS activity.
B:WAF logs show per-request evaluated rule actions and relevant request attributes, supporting investigation beyond high-level web ACL metric counts; it is not the action that directly makes the system alert on detected DDoS activity.
D:Origin Shield adds a centralized caching layer between regional caches and the origin, improving cache reuse for requests arriving through multiple regional caches and reducing duplicate fetches; the scenario instead needs an action that will alert on detected DDoS activity.
Question 977
An incident report requires proof that production VPCs have no permissible path from an external-facing load balancer to a regulated database subnet. Which automated control-plane analysis can assess the intended path?
- Use narrowly scoped IAM deployment roles and trace provisioning changes in AWS CloudTrail
- Use VPC Network Access Analyzer with a scope and finding condition matching the prohibited path
- Run VPC Reachability Analyzer between the source and destination path endpoints
- Review the finding type, affected resource, network details, and associated GuardDuty context
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Network Access Analyzer evaluates modeled VPC networking configurations against defined access requirements and identifies unintended access patterns without generating live application packets.
Incorrect Answers
A:IAM roles constrain which networking APIs automation can call, and CloudTrail supplies audit events for changes; storing broad permanent access keys in pipeline code weakens control; it is not the action that directly makes the system audit policy-forbidden network paths.
C:Reachability Analyzer models routing and security configuration to identify a blocking component; it is not a live probe that demonstrates application process health; the scenario instead needs an action that will audit policy-forbidden network paths.
D:GuardDuty correlates supported telemetry to generate potential threat findings, which can provide enrichment for triage but are not a packet-by-packet capture of the session; those conditions do not produce the required result: audit policy-forbidden network paths.
Question 978
A security group is accidentally opened to 0.0.0.0/0 on an administrative port. The audit team needs a historical timeline of the configuration and compliance status. Which service supplies that history?
- Evaluate the security group rules against new flows while accounting for connection tracking
- Permit DNS traffic on the outbound endpoint security group toward the corporate DNS targets
- Use AWS Config configuration history and rules for security-group exposure monitoring
- Create AWS Config rules for the intended network ACL compliance policy and automate response where supported
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:AWS Config records supported resource configuration changes and can evaluate guardrails over time; CloudWatch connection metrics do not preserve the resource's compliance timeline.
Incorrect Answers
A:Security groups are stateful, but replacing the rules does not grant indefinite access for new flows; connection tracking and subsequent connection establishment follow allowed traffic and rule state; that still would not establish the requested outcome: reconstruct historical security-group exposure.
B:Resolver forwarding generates DNS queries from the endpoint ENIs; restrictive security-group egress and return-path routing can prevent a valid forwarding rule from delivering them; the scenario instead needs an action that will reconstruct historical security-group exposure.
D:AWS Config records resource configuration and can evaluate it against guardrails; a workflow can then notify or trigger controlled remediation; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to reconstruct historical security-group exposure.
Question 979
A GuardDuty finding reports unusual outbound network communication from one EC2 instance. The responder needs a managed threat signal associated with the instance rather than raw packet capture. What evidence should be inspected?
- Create an AWS Config aggregator covering the relevant organization accounts and Regions
- Review the finding type, affected resource, network details, and associated GuardDuty context
- Use VPC Network Access Analyzer with a scope and finding condition matching the prohibited path
- Run VPC Reachability Analyzer between the source and destination path endpoints
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:GuardDuty correlates supported telemetry to generate potential threat findings, which can provide enrichment for triage but are not a packet-by-packet capture of the session.
Incorrect Answers
A:Aggregators collect configuration and compliance information across authorized accounts and Regions to support centralized queries and dashboards, while rule evaluation remains tied to the sources; the scenario instead needs an action that will triage managed EC2 network threat findings.
C:Network Access Analyzer evaluates modeled VPC networking configurations against defined access requirements and identifies unintended access patterns without generating live application packets; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to triage managed EC2 network threat findings.
D:Reachability Analyzer models routing and security configuration to identify a blocking component; it is not a live probe that demonstrates application process health; the operational gap would remain because the question requires a way to triage managed EC2 network threat findings.
Question 980
A compliance dashboard must alert when AWS Network Firewall records multiple rejected outbound connections to an embargoed subnet. Which pipeline supports quantitative notification?
- Deliver Network Firewall logs to a supported destination and derive CloudWatch metrics and alarms for matching events
- Configure supported Network Firewall TLS SNI or domain-list matching with the intended stateful rule action
- Place AWS Network Firewall endpoints in the centralized egress path and route inspected traffic through them
- Examine AWS Network Firewall alert and flow logs with the configured stateful rule action
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Firewall flow or alert logs describe inspection events, while derived metrics and alarms can notify responders when defined event counts exceed thresholds.
Incorrect Answers
B:Stateful domain inspection can examine supported protocol metadata such as TLS SNI without full TLS decryption; it cannot classify traffic lacking the inspected hostname signal; it changes a different aspect of the architecture rather than fulfilling the need to alert on logged inspection denies.
C:Network Firewall processes packets according to configured stateless and stateful policies; the surrounding subnet/TGW routing must force both relevant directions through the endpoints; the operational gap would remain because the question requires a way to alert on logged inspection denies.
D:An alert action records a match without necessarily dropping the traffic, while a drop or reject action changes data-plane delivery; rule action and event evidence must be read together; it is not the action that directly makes the system alert on logged inspection denies.