SAP-C02 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional

The best solution is to create a tag policy that contains the allowed project tag values in the organization’s management account and create an SCP that denies the cloudformation:CreateStack API operation unless a project tag is added. A tag policy is a type of policy that can help standardize tags across resources in the organization’s accounts. A tag policy can specify the allowed tag keys, values, and case treatment for compliance. A service control policy (SCP) is a type of policy that can restrict the actions that users and roles can perform in the organization’s accounts. An SCP can deny access to specific API operations unless certain conditions are met, such as having a specific tag. By creating a tag policy in the management account and attaching it to each OU, the organization can enforce consistent tagging across all accounts. By creating an SCP that denies the cloudformation:CreateStack API operation unless a project tag is added, the organization can prevent users from creating new resources without proper tagging. This solution will meet the requirements with the least effort, as it does not involve creating additional resources or modifying existing ones. References: Tag policies - AWS Organizations, Service control policies - AWS Organizations, AWS CloudFormation User Guide

D is correct because this solution modernizes the application into aserverless architectureusing API Gateway and Lambda for scalable microservices.Aurora Serverless v2supports SQL workloads and auto-scales based on demand.AWS SCTallows migration of SQL Server stored procedures to Aurora-compatible formats. This setup ensures cost efficiency, scalability, and minimal manual intervention.

A rehosts but doesn’t refactor into microservices.

B uses MySQL, which might not support the SQL Server-specific stored procedures fully.

C adds unnecessary complexity and loses relational database functionality by using DAX.

The company should create a new AWS WAF web ACL. The company should add a new rule that blocks requests that match the SQL database rule group. The company should set the web ACL to allow all other traffic that does not match those rules. The company should attach the web ACL to the ALB in front of the ECS tasks. This solution will meet the requirements because AWS WAF is a web application firewall that lets you monitor and control web requests that are forwarded to your web applications. You can use AWS WAF to define customizable web security rules that control which traffic can access your web applications and which traffic should be blocked1. By creating a new AWS WAF web ACL, the company can create a collection of rules that define the conditions for allowing or blocking web requests. By adding a new rule that blocks requests that match the SQL database rule group, the company can prevent SQL injection attacks from reaching the ECS API service. The SQL database rule group is a managed rule group provided by AWS that contains rules to protect against common SQL injection attack patterns2. By setting the web ACL to allow all other traffic that does not match those rules, the company can ensure that legitimate traffic can access the API service. By attaching the web ACL to the ALB in front of the ECS tasks, the company can apply the web security rules to all requests that are forwarded by the load balancer.

The other options are not correct because:

Creating a new AWS WAF Bot Control implementation would not prevent SQL injection attacks from reaching the ECS API service. AWS WAF Bot Control is a feature that gives you visibility and control over common and pervasive bot traffic that can consume excess resources, skew metrics, cause downtime, or perform other undesired activities. However, it does not protect against SQL injection attacks, which are malicious attempts to execute unauthorized SQL statements against your database3.

Creating a new AWS WAF web ACL to monitor the HTTP requests and HTTPS requests that are forwarded to the ALB in front of the ECS tasks would not prevent SQL injection attacks from reaching the ECS API service. Monitoring mode is a feature that enables you to evaluate how your rules would perform without actually blocking any requests. However, this mode does not provide any protection against attacks, as it only logs and counts requests that match your rules4.

Creating a new AWS WAF web ACL and creating a new empty IP set in AWS WAF would not prevent SQL injection attacks from reaching the ECS API service. An IP set is a feature that enables you to specify a list of IP addresses or CIDR blocks that you want to allow or block based on their source IP address. However, this approach would not be effective or efficient against SQL injection attacks, as it would require constantly updating the IP set with new IP addresses of attackers, and it would not block attackers who use proxies or VPNs.

Using Amazon API Gateway with an SQS queue ensures all data sent to the API is durably stored for processing, even during traffic surges.

API Gateway service integration with SQS provides a managed, serverless ingestion layer that absorbs unpredictable traffic bursts without data loss.

The AWS Lambda function processes messages from SQS, providing scalable, on-demand compute to handle environmental data efficiently.

This solution aligns with AWS best practices for building resilient, serverless, event-driven architectures that can handle high-volume, bursty workloads.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/confused-deputy.html

This is the most secure way to allow org1 to access resources in org2 because it allows for least privilege security access. The customer should create an IAM role and assign the required permissions to the IAM role. The partner company should then use the IAM role’s Amazon Resource Name (ARN) and include the external ID in the IAM role’s trust policy when requesting access to perform the required tasks. This ensures that the partner company can only access the resources that it needs and only from the specific customer account.

Amazon AppStream 2.0 offers a streamlined solution for rehosting a Windows-based desktop application on AWS with minimal development effort. By creating an AppStream 2.0image that includes the application and using an On-Demand fleet for streaming, the application becomes accessible from any device, including Linux machines. AppStream 2.0 user pools can be used for authentication, simplifying access management without the need for extensive changes to the application or infrastructure.

AWS Documentation on Amazon AppStream 2.0 provides insights into setting up application streaming solutions. This approach is recommended for delivering desktop applications to diverse operating systems without the complexity of managing virtual desktops or extensive application refactoring.

The company should download the data from the Amazon Redshift tables to an Amazon S3 bucket periodically and use AWS Data Exchange for S3 to share data with customers. The company should configure subscription verification and require the data customers to subscribe to the data product. This solution will meet the requirements with the least operational overhead because AWS Data Exchange for S3 is a feature that enables data subscribers to access third-party data files directly from data providers’ Amazon S3 buckets. Subscribers can easily use these files for their data analysis with AWS services without needing to create or manage data copies. Data providers can easily set up AWS Data Exchange for S3 on top of their existing S3 buckets to share direct access to an entire S3 bucket or specific prefixes and S3 objects. AWS Data Exchange automatically manages subscriptions, entitlements, billing, and payment1.

The other options are not correct because:

Using AWS Data Exchange for APIs to share data with customers would not work because AWS Data Exchange for APIs is a feature that enables data subscribers to access third-party APIs directly from data providers’ AWS accounts. Subscribers can easily use these APIs for their data analysis with AWS services without needing to manage API keys or tokens. Data providers can easily set up AWS Data Exchangefor APIs on top of their existing API Gateway resources to share direct access to an entire API or specific routes and stages2. However, this feature is not suitable for sharing data from Amazon Redshift tables, which are not exposed as APIs.

Creating an Amazon API Gateway Data API service integration with Amazon Redshift would not work because the Data API is a feature that enables you to query your Amazon Redshift cluster using HTTP requests, without needing a persistent connection or a SQL client3. It is useful for building applications that interact with Amazon Redshift, but not for sharing data files with customers.

Creating an AWS Data Exchange datashare by connecting AWS Data Exchange to the Redshift cluster would not work because AWS Data Exchange does not support datashares for Amazon Redshift clusters. A datashare is a feature that enables you to share live and secure access to your Amazon Redshift data across your accounts or with third parties without copying or moving the underlying data4. It is useful for sharing query results and views with other users, but not for sharing data files with customers.

Publishing the Amazon Redshift data to an Open Data on AWS Data Exchange would not work because Open Data on AWS Data Exchange is a feature that enables you to find and use free and public datasets from AWS customers and partners. It is useful for accessing open and free data, but not for confirming the identities of the customers or charging them for the data.