Free Practice Questions for Amazon Web Services SAP-C02 Exam

The combination of changes that will meet the requirement with the least operational overhead are:

A. Deploy the API to multiple Regions. Configure Amazon Route 53 with custom domain names that route traffic to each Regional API endpoint.Implement a Route 53 multivalue answer routing policy.

B. Create a new KMS multi-Region customer managed key. Create a new KMS customer managed replica key in each in-scope Region.

C. Replicate the existing Secrets Manager secret to other Regions. For each in-scope Region’s replicated secret, select the appropriate KMS key.

These changes will enable the company to have an active-active configuration for its API across multiple Regions, while minimizing the complexity and cost of managing the secrets and keys.

A. This change will allow the company to use Route 53 to distribute traffic across multiple Regional API endpoints, based on the availability and latency of each endpoint.This will improve the performance and availability of the API for global customers12

B. This change will allow the company to use KMS multi-Region keys, which are KMS keys in different Regions that can be used interchangeably.This will simplify the encryption and decryption of secrets across Regions, as the same key material and key ID can be used in any Region34

C. This change will allow the company to use Secrets Manager replication, which replicates the encrypted secret data and metadata across the specified Regions.This will ensure that the secrets are consistent and accessible in any Region, andthat any update made to the primary secret will be propagated to the replica secrets automatically56

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/compute-optimizer/latest/APIReference/API_ExportLambdaFunctionRecommendations.html

Amazon SageMaker is a fully managed machine learning service that allows users to build, train, and deploy machine learning models quickly and easily1. Users can export their existing TensorFlow models and store the model artifacts in Amazon S3, a highly scalable and durable object storage service2. Users can then deploy the model to Amazon SageMaker and create an endpoint that can be invoked by the web application to provide recommendations3. This way, the solution can leverage the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker without having to rewrite the personalization model.

AWS Elastic Beanstalk is a service that allows users to deploy and manage web applications without worrying about the infrastructure that runs those applications. Users can host their Java application in AWS Elastic Beanstalk and configure it to communicate with the Amazon SageMaker endpoint. This way, the solution can reduce the operational overhead of managing servers, load balancers, scaling, and application health monitoring.

AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) is a service that helps users migrate databases to AWS quickly and securely. Users can use AWS DMS to migrate their SQL Server database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, a fully managed relational database service that offers high availability, scalability, security, and compatibility. This way, the solution canreduce the operational overhead of managing database servers, backups, patches, and upgrades.

Option A is incorrect because using AWS Server Migration Service (AWS SMS) to migrate the on-premises physical application server and the web application VMs to AWS is not cost-effective or scalable. AWS SMS is a service that helps users migrate on-premises workloads to AWS. However, for this use case, migrating the physical application server and the web application VMs to AWS will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon RDS.

Option C is incorrect because using AWS Application Migration Service to migrate the on-premises personalization model and VMs to Amazon EC2 instances in Auto Scaling groups is not cost-effective or scalable. AWS Application Migration Service is a service that helps users migrate applications from on-premises or other clouds to AWS without making any changes to their applications. However, for this use case, migrating the personalization model and VMs to EC2 instances will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon RDS.

Option D is incorrect because containerizing the personalization model and the Java application and using Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) managed node groups to deploy them to Amazon EKS is not necessary or cost-effective. Amazon EKS is a service that allows users to run Kubernetes on AWS without needing to install, operate, and maintain their own Kubernetes control plane or nodes. However, for this use case, containerizing and deploying the personalization model and the Java application will not take advantage of the AI/ML capabilities of Amazon SageMaker or the managed services of AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Moreover, using S3 Glacier Deep Archive as a storage class for images will incur a high retrieval fee and latency for accessing them.

migrating the data processing script to an AWS Lambda function and using an S3 event notification to invoke the Lambda function to process the objects when the company uploads the objects. This solution meets the company ' s requirements of high availability and scalability, as well as reducing long-term management overhead, and is likely to be the most cost-effective option.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/systems-manager/latest/userguide/systems-manager-patch.html

Configuring the workload to use topology spread constraints that are based on Availability Zone will maximize the node resilience of the workload node groups. This will ensure that the pods are evenly distributed across different Availability Zones, reducing the impact of failures or disruptions in one Availability Zone2. This will also improve the availability and scalability of the workload node groups, as they can leverage the low-latency, high-throughput, and highly redundant networking between Availability Zones1.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-use-aws-cloudformation-stacksets-for-multiple-accounts-in-an-aws-organization/

AWS Organizations allows the management of multiple AWS accounts as a single entity and AWS CloudFormation StackSets allows creating, updating, and deleting stacks across multiple accounts and regions in an organization. This solution allows creating a single CloudFormation template that can be deployed across multiple accounts and regions, and also allows for the management of access and permissions for the different accounts through the use of IAM roles and policies in the management account.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Why C is the best answer

This question requires all of the following:

Bidirectional access between two separate AWS Organizations

Access to S3 buckets across accounts and organizational boundaries

Encryption at rest

Logging of all S3 bucket access

Buckets exist in different Regions

Option C is the best match because S3 Access Points are purpose-built to simplify and scale access management for shared S3 datasets. For cross-account or multi-team sharing scenarios, S3 Access Points let you define dedicated access paths and policies instead of overloading a single bucket policy. For encryption at rest, customer managed AWS KMS keys are the strongest fit when cross-account access must be explicitly controlled. For logging bucket-level object access, AWS CloudTrail is the correct service because S3 data events record object-level API activity such as GetObject and PutObject.

Why the other options are not correct

A. S3 Access Grants is not the best fit here

S3 Access Grants is designed primarily to grant S3 access to identities mapped from identity sources and simplify data access at scale. It is not the standard primary design choice for bidirectional bucket sharing between two separate organizations. The exam-focused architectural pattern for controlled cross-account S3 sharing is S3 Access Points plus policies, combined with KMS permissions and CloudTrail data events. Even though SSE-KMS and CloudTrail data events are good parts of the design, the access mechanism in A is not the best answer.

B. VPC networking services do not solve the main requirement

VPC peering, PrivateLink, and endpoint access controls are network connectivity controls. Amazon S3 is not shared between organizations by building VPC peering between their VPCs. Also, VPC Flow Logs record network flow metadata, not S3 object access. That means B fails the logging requirement and uses the wrong control plane for the access-sharing requirement.

D. Replication and SCPs do not provide bidirectional shared access

S3 Cross-Region Replication copies objects; it does not establish bidirectional shared access for both organizations to each other’s buckets. Service Control Policies also do not work the way this option describes. SCPs are guardrails within an AWS Organization; they are not shared between separate organizations to grant object access. In addition, S3 server access logging is not the best answer when the requirement is to collect logs of all S3 bucket access in an auditable way for object-level API actions. CloudTrail data events are the stronger and more exam-aligned choice for logging object access activity.

Key technical reasoning

Cross-account / cross-organization S3 access:

S3 Access Points are commonly used to provide distinct permissions and simplified policy management for different consumers of the same bucket. This is especially useful in multi-account environments.

Encryption at rest:

When access spans accounts or organizations, customer managed KMS keys are preferred because key policies and grants can explicitly authorize external principals. This gives finer control than SSE-S3 when cross-account governance matters.

Logging:

For S3 object-level operations, CloudTrail data events are the standard answer in AWS architecture questions. They record API activity such as GetObject, PutObject, and DeleteObject. This is more appropriate than VPC Flow Logs or relying only on S3 server access logging.

Regional aspect:

The fact that buckets are in us-east-1 and us-west-1 does not prevent cross-account access. S3 access control, KMS permissions, and CloudTrail can be configured in the relevant Regions.

Option A is correct because IAM Access Analyzer can use the AWS Organizations organization as the zone of trust and generate findings for resources shared with principals outside that trusted boundary. This directly addresses unintended external sharing and continuous monitoring of resource-based policies. EventBridge can notify security teams when Access Analyzer creates new findings. The aws:MultiFactorAuthPresent condition key in role trust policies enforces MFA when users assume cross-account IAM roles. Option B is weaker because AWS Config is not purpose-built for external access analysis, and aws:TokenIssueTime does not enforce MFA. Option C uses ExternalId, which helps third-party delegation but does not solve broad monitoring or MFA enforcement. Option D adds federation but does not directly provide the required resource-policy analysis and trust-policy MFA control.

The current architecture uses a fleet of small EC2 instances that poll SQS for URLs and write results to EFS. Because URLs arrive only occasionally and each crawl takes 10 seconds or less, EC2 instances are often idle waiting for messages. This leads to unnecessary compute and storage costs.

This workload is naturally event-driven: each URL in the SQS queue triggers a short-lived crawl operation. AWS Lambda is well suited for such event-driven, short-duration tasks. Lambda integrates natively with Amazon SQS as an event source, which allows Lambda to poll the SQS queue automatically and invoke functions when messages arrive, scaling the concurrency up and down as needed. When there are no messages, there are no Lambda invocations and no compute charges, eliminating the cost of idle EC2 instances.

For storage of crawl results, Amazon S3 is a highly durable, cost-effective object store. The current use of an EFS file system mounted on all instances is no longer necessary if each Lambda invocation can write the output directly to S3 as objects (for example, CSV files). S3 charges only for the storage used and requests, and does not require continuously running file system infrastructure.

Option B replaces the idle fleet of EC2 instances with a Lambda function that reads from SQS. This aligns compute usage with actual work and takes advantage of serverless scaling and pricing.

Option E modifies the web-crawling process to store results in Amazon S3 instead of EFS, removing the need to maintain an EFS file system and its associated costs.

Option A increases instance size to m5.8xlarge, which greatly increases capacity and cost. Reducing the number of instances by 50% does not offset the large increase in instance size; it does not address idle capacity and likely increases overall cost.

Option C uses Amazon Neptune, which is a managed graph database service. It is not needed for storing simple CSV output; it is more complex and more expensive than S3 for this use case.

Option D uses Aurora Serverless MySQL. While Aurora Serverless can automatically scale, using a relational database to store simple crawl outputs adds unnecessary cost and operational complexity compared to S3 objects.

Therefore, moving the crawling logic to Lambda triggered by SQS (option B) and writing results directly to Amazon S3 (option E) meets the requirements in the most cost-effective way.

Option D offers the lowest latency and highest efficiency:

Amazon DynamoDB global tables replicate data across multiple Regions, ensuring that the database is available and responsive in each Region.

Lambda@Edge allows the backend logic to execute at AWS edge locations, reducing the distance between the user ' s device and the code execution environment, thereby minimizing latency.

Amazon CloudFront serves as the content delivery network, routing requests to the nearest edge location where the Lambda@Edge function is executed.

Amazon Route 53 maps the DNS name to the CloudFront distribution, ensuring that users are directed to the optimal edge location.

This architecture ensures rapid response times and high availability for a globally distributed user base.

This solution will give the Lambda function access to the internet by routing its outbound traffic through the NAT gateway, which has a public Elastic IP address. This will allow the external provider to whitelist the single public IP address associated with the NAT gateway, and enable the application to access the new service

Deploying a NAT gateway and associating an Elastic IP address with it, and then configuring the VPC to use the NAT gateway, will give the application the ability to access the new service. This is because the NAT gateway will be the single public IP address that the external provider needs for the allow list. The NAT gateway will allow the application to access the service, while keeping the underlying Lambda functions private.

When configuring NAT gateways, you should ensure that the route table associated with the NAT gateway has a route to the internet gateway with a target of the internet gateway. Additionally, youshould ensure that the security group associated with the NAT gateway allows outbound traffic from the Lambda functions.

The correct approach involves activating the BusinessUnit cost allocation tag in the management account to ensure costs are tagged consistently across the organization.

The AWS Cost and Usage Report (CUR), delivered to a single Amazon S3 bucket in the management account, consolidates cost and usage data across all member accounts.

Amazon Athena can efficiently query the CUR data directly from S3, while Amazon QuickSight can be used to create interactive dashboards and reports that visualize the cost allocation by business unit.

This solution minimizes complexity, centralizes reporting, and leverages AWS native services for the best cost optimization and insights.