Amazon DOP-C02 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 20

To prevent ApplicationA from being installed on the additional instance, the deployment group configuration needs to be more specific. By changing the current single tag group to include only theEnvironment=Productiontag and adding another single tag group that includes only theName=ApplicationAtag, the deployment process will target only the instances that match both tag groups. This ensures that only instances intended for ApplicationA with the correct environment and name tags will receive the deployment, thus excluding the additional instance with theDepartment=MarketingandName=ApplicationBtags.

AWS CodeDeploy Documentation:Working with instances for CodeDeploy

AWS CodeDeploy Documentation:Stop a deployment with CodeDeploy

Stack Overflow Discussion:CodeDeploy Deployment failed to stop Application

To prevent developers from unintentionally attaching an Elastic IP address to an Amazon EC2 instance in production, the best approach is to use IAM policies and AWS Config rules. By attaching an IAM policy that denies theassociate-addresspermission to the developers' IAM group, you ensure that developers cannot perform this action. Additionally, creating a custom AWS Config rule to check for Elastic IP addresses associated with instances tagged as production provides ongoing monitoring. If the rule detects an Elastic IP address, it can trigger an alert to notify the security team.This method is proactive and enforces the necessary permissions while also providing a mechanism for detection and notification.Reference: from Amazon DevOps sources

The engineer should make the following changes to achieve a policy of least permission:

A:Add a condition to ensure that the principal making the request is an AWS Lambda function. This ensures that only Lambda functions can execute this policy.

B:Narrow down the resources by specifying the ARN of EC2 instances instead of allowing all resources. This ensures that the policy only affects EC2 instances.

D:Add a condition to ensure that this policy only applies to EC2 instances tagged with ''Environment: NonProduction''. This ensures that production environments are not affected by this policy.

AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) - AWS Documentation

Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional (DOP-C02) Study Guide(page 179)

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/09/aws-codedeploy-introduces-deployment-monitoring-with-amazon-cloudwatch-alarms-and-automatic-deployment-rollback/

The correct answer is B. Creating a new AWS CodeBuild project and configuring a test stage in the AWS CodePipeline pipeline that uses the new CodeBuild project is the best way to integrate the unit tests into the existing pipeline. Creating a CodeBuild report group and uploading the test reports to the new CodeBuild report group will produce reports about the unit tests for the company to view. Using JUNITXML as the output format for the unit tests is supported by CodeBuild and will generate a valid report.

Option A is incorrect because Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer is a service that provides automated code reviews and recommendations for improving code quality and performance. It is not a tool for running unit tests or producing test reports. Therefore, option A will not meet the requirements.

Option C is incorrect because AWS CodeArtifact is a service that provides secure, scalable, and cost-effective artifact management for software development. It is not a tool for running unit tests or producing test reports. Moreover, option C uses CUCUMBERJSON as the output format for the unit tests, which is not supported by CodeBuild and will not generate a valid report.

Option D is incorrect because uploading the test reports to an Amazon S3 bucket is not the best way to produce reports about the unit tests for the company to view. CodeBuild has a built-in feature to create and manage test reports, which is more convenient and efficient than using S3. Furthermore, option D uses HTML as the output format for the unit tests, which is not supported by CodeBuild and will not generate a valid report.

The correct answer is C. Updating the SCP in the child OU to allow all actions for Amazon EC2 will enable the DevOps engineer to launch the EC2 instance in the vendor-data account. SCPs are applied to OUs and accounts in a hierarchical manner, meaning that the SCPs attached to the parent OU are inherited by the child OU and accounts. Therefore, the SCP in the child OU overrides the SCP in the root OU and denies all actions except for DynamoDB and Lambda. By adding EC2 to the allowed actions in the child OU's SCP, the DevOps engineer can access EC2 resources in the vendor-data account.

Option A is incorrect because attaching the AmazonEC2FullAccess IAM policy to the IAM user will not grant the user access to EC2 resources. IAM policies are evaluated after SCPs, so even if the IAM policy allows EC2 actions, the SCP will still deny them.

Option B is incorrect because creating a new SCP that allows all actions for EC2 and attaching it to the vendor-data account will not work. SCPs are not cumulative, meaning that only one SCP is applied to an account at a time. The SCP attached to the account will be the SCP attached to the OU that contains the account. Therefore, option B will not change the SCP that is applied to the vendor-data account.

Option D is incorrect because creating a new SCP that allows all actions for EC2 and attaching it to the root OU will not work. As explained earlier, the SCP in the child OU overrides the SCP in the root OU and denies all actions except for DynamoDB and Lambda. Therefore, option D will not affect the SCP that is applied to the vendor-data account.

The correct solution is to create a new assertion safety rule in Route 53 ARC and apply it to the two routing controls. An assertion safety rule is a type of safety rule that ensures that a minimum number of routing controls are always enabled. The ATLEAST type of assertion safety rule specifies the minimum number of routing controls that must be enabled for the rule to evaluate as healthy. By setting the threshold to 1, the rule ensures that at least one routing control is always turned on. This prevents the scenario where both routing controls are accidentally turned off and the application becomes unavailable in both Regions.

The other solutions are incorrect because they do not use safety rules to prevent both routing controls from being turned off. A gating safety rule is a type of safety rule that prevents routing control state changes that violate the rule logic. The OR type of gating safety rule specifies that one or more routing controls must be enabled for the rule to evaluate as healthy. However, this rule does not prevent a user from turning off both routing controls manually. A resource set is a collection of resources that are tested for readiness by Route 53 ARC. A readiness check is a test that verifies that all the resources in a resource set are operational. However, these concepts are not related to routing control states or safety rules. Therefore, creating a new resource set and a new readiness check will not ensure that at least one routing control is turned on at all times.Reference:

Routing control in Amazon Route 53 Application Recovery Controller

Viewing and updating routing control states in Route 53 ARC

Creating a control panel in Route 53 ARC

Creating safety rules in Route 53 ARC

The correct answer is C. Using AWS Config to identify and audit all EC2 instances based on their host placement configuration is the most efficient and scalable solution to ensure compliance with the software licensing requirement. AWS Config is a service that enables you to assess, audit, and evaluate the configurations of your AWS resources. By creating a custom AWS Config rule that triggers a Lambda function to verify host placement, the DevOps engineer can automate the process of checking whether the instances are running on EC2 Dedicated Hosts or not. The Lambda function can return a NON_COMPLIANT result if the instance is not running on an EC2 Dedicated Host, and the AWS Config report can provide a summary of the compliance status of the instances. This solution requires the least administrative overhead compared to the other options.

Option A is incorrect because using AWS Systems Manager Configuration Compliance to scan and build a database of noncompliant EC2 instances based on their host placement configuration is a more complex and costly solution than using AWS Config. AWS Systems Manager Configuration Compliance is a feature of AWS Systems Manager that enables you to scan your managed instances for patch compliance and configuration inconsistencies. To use this feature, the DevOps engineer would need to install the Systems Manager Agent on each EC2 instance, create a State Manager association to run the put-compliance-items API action periodically, and use a DynamoDB table to store the instance IDs of noncompliant resources. This solution would also require more API calls and storage costs than using AWS Config.

Option B is incorrect because using custom Java code running on an EC2 instance to check and terminate noncompliant EC2 instances is a more cumbersome and error-prone solution than using AWS Config. This solution would require the DevOps engineer to write and maintain the Java code, set up EC2 Auto Scaling for the instance, use an SQS queue and another worker instance to process the instance IDs, use a Lambda function and an SNS topic to terminate and notify the noncompliant instances, and handle any potential failures or exceptions in the workflow. This solution would also incur more compute, storage, and messaging costs than using AWS Config.

Option D is incorrect because using AWS CloudTrail to identify and audit EC2 instances by analyzing the EC2 RunCommand API action is a less reliable and accurate solution than using AWS Config. AWS CloudTrail is a service that enables you to monitor and log the API activity in your AWS account. The EC2 RunCommand API action is used to execute commands on one or more EC2 instances. However, this API action does not necessarily indicate the host placement of the instance, and it may not capture all the instances that are running on EC2 Dedicated Hosts or not. Therefore, option D would not provide a comprehensive and consistent audit of the EC2 instances.

The best solution to meet the disaster recovery capability and allow developers to switch over to a secondary AWS Region for code development is option A. This involves creating aCodeCommit repositoryin the secondary Region and setting up anAWS CodeBuild projectto perform a Git mirror operation of the primary Region's CodeCommit repository to the secondary Region's repository. AnAWS Lambda functionis then created to invoke the CodeBuild project.Additionally, anAmazon EventBridge ruleis configured to react to merge events in the primary Region's CodeCommit repository and invoke the Lambda function12.This setup ensures that the secondary Region's repository is always up-to-date with the primary repository, allowing for a seamless transition in case of a disaster recovery event1.

AWS CodeCommit User Guide on resilience and disaster recovery1.

AWS Documentation on monitoring CodeCommit events in Amazon EventBridge and Amazon CloudWatch Events2.