Amazon Exam DOP-C01 Topic 2 Question 89 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's DOP-C01 exam

Question #: 89
Topic #: 2

An application runs on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB). A DevOps engineer is using AWS CodeDeploy to release a new version. The deployment fails during the AllowTraffic lifecycle event, but a cause for the failure is not indicated in the deployment logs.

What would cause this?

AThe appspec.yml file contains an invalid script to execute in the AllowTraffic lifecycle hook.

BThe user who initiated the deployment does not have the necessary permissions to interact with the ALB

CThe health checks specified for the ALB target group are misconfigured.

DThe CodeDeploy agent was not installed in the EC2 instances that are part of the ALB target group.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Edna at Apr 09, 2024, 05:53 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium DOP-C01 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Samira

1 years ago

I see your points, but I think option C might work too by using Amazon EventBridge for monitoring and enforcement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stefania

1 years ago

I disagree, I believe option A is better as it specifically denies the creation of access keys, which is more aligned with the requirement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maryann

1 years ago

I think option B is the answer because it explicitly denies IAM user creation for those not on the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Odette

1 years ago

That's a good point, but option C) might also work by using Lambda functions to check the exception list before creating a new user.

upvoted 0 times

...

Viola

1 years ago

I prefer option A) as well, it seems more straightforward and easier to implement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Truman

1 years ago

I disagree, I believe option A) is better because it focuses on denying access key creation which is more critical for security.

upvoted 0 times

...

Odette

1 years ago

I think option B) would be the best solution, it explicitly denies creating new IAM users based on the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chuck

1 years ago

That's a good point. Option A does seem like the most reliable and straightforward solution. It's also more preventative than the EventBridge approach, which could still allow some unauthorized users to be created before they're deleted.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pok

1 years ago

Can we just agree that any solution involving deleting users after the fact is a terrible idea? That's like trying to catch a speeding bullet with your bare hands.

upvoted 0 times

Pete

1 years ago

F: Absolutely, it's all about setting up the right policies from the start to avoid unnecessary cleanup tasks later on.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ronald

1 years ago

E: B) Attach an Organizations SCP with an explicit deny for all iam:CreateUser actions with a condition that includes StringEquals for aws:username with a value of the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantell

1 years ago

D: That makes sense, preventing the issue before it occurs is definitely the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kiley

1 years ago

C: A) Attach an Organizations SCP with an explicit deny for all iam:CreateAccessKey actions with a condition that excludes StringNotEquals for aws:username with a value of the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Phuong

1 years ago

B: I agree, proactively blocking the creation of unauthorized users is much better than constantly having to cleanup after the fact.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cecily

1 years ago

A: B) Attach an Organizations SCP with an explicit deny for all iam:CreateUser actions with a condition that includes StringEquals for aws:username with a value of the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dorsey

1 years ago

I think Option A is the way to go. By using an SCP with a condition that excludes the exception list, we can effectively block the iam:CreateAccessKey action for all non-authorized users. This way, we don't have to worry about race conditions or other potential issues.

upvoted 0 times

...

Becky

1 years ago

I don't know, guys. Wouldn't Option B be simpler since we only need to worry about creating new users, not access keys? Plus, it's more direct - no need for fancy EventBridge rules or Lambda functions.

upvoted 0 times

Moira

1 years ago

In that case, maybe Option A would be more comprehensive. It covers both creating users and access keys.

upvoted 0 times

...

Florinda

1 years ago

I see your point, but what if we also want to prevent creation of access keys for unauthorized users?

upvoted 0 times

...

Pearlene

1 years ago

Option B sounds good to me. We should just deny creating new users for those not in the exception list.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dick

1 years ago

I agree, this is a complex scenario. We need to make sure the solution not only meets the requirements but also doesn't introduce any unintended consequences.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dottie

1 years ago

This question is a bit tricky. We need to carefully consider the requirements and the options provided to find the best solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Norah

1 years ago

Yeah, those options are way too complicated. Why go through all that trouble when you can just use an SCP to explicitly deny the actions you don't want? I vote for Option A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tasia

1 years ago

Ha! I like how Option C and D try to be sneaky and delete the user after they've been created. Talk about a band-aid on a bullet wound!

upvoted 0 times

...

Mertie

1 years ago

I'm not so sure about that. Option B only denies the CreateUser action, but we also need to prevent new access keys from being created. I think Option A might be a better solution since it covers both CreateUser and CreateAccessKey.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashon

1 years ago

This question seems pretty straightforward. I think Option B is the best answer here - we need to deny IAM users from being created unless they're on an exception list, and that's exactly what this option does.

upvoted 0 times

...