Free Practice Questions for Google Professional-Cloud-Security-Engineer Exam

For a client concerned about the control of their encryption keys and not wanting to store these keys within the same cloud service provider (CSP) as the data, the following solutions are suitable:

Customer-supplied encryption keys (A):

With customer-supplied encryption keys, clients manage their own encryption keys outside of Google Cloud and supply them to encrypt and decrypt data. This ensures that the keys are not stored in Google Cloud, providing full control over the key management process.

Cloud External Key Manager (D):

Cloud External Key Manager (EKM) allows clients to integrate an external key management system (KMS) with Google Cloud services. This setup enables the client to keep their encryption keys outside Google Cloud while still allowing the data to be encrypted and decrypted within Google Cloud services. This method offers an additional layer of security and control over the encryption keys.

These options provide robust solutions for clients requiring external key management and enhanced control over their encryption processes.

References

Customer-Supplied Encryption Keys

Cloud External Key Manager

The greatest risk to regulatory compliance stems from violations of the Principle of Least Privilege and the lack of enforced configuration/hardening standards. Regulatory compliance typically mandates strict control over infrastructure and sensitive systems.

Option A (Greatest Risk): Broad IAM roles violate the principle of least privilege, which is a fundamental compliance requirement (e.g., ISO 27001, PCI DSS). Allowing users to create and manage critical resources (VMs) without a pre-defined hardening process means new resources can be deployed in a non-compliant, vulnerable state (e.g., unpatched, open ports, default configurations). This lack of control and excessive access poses an immediate and high risk to the security posture and compliance.

Option B (Risk Reduction): Uniform bucket-level access reduces risk by enforcing a consistent policy for all objects in a bucket, preventing individual object-level IAM policies that can lead to misconfigurations and unauthorized access.

Option C (Risk Reduction): Mandating CMEK is a security-enhancing control that reduces risk by giving the customer exclusive control over the encryption keys for sensitive data, which is a common requirement in regulated environments.

Option D (Necessary Control): Providing the audit team access to Cloud Audit Logs is a compliance requirement for monitoring, accountability, and forensic investigation, not a risk.

Extracts:

"The principle of least privilege states that a user should only be granted the minimum permissions necessary to perform their work. Overly permissive roles introduce a significant risk." (Source 5.1)

"Non-compliant configurations, such as unhardened virtual machines or resources with insufficient security controls, are a major source of security breaches and regulatory findings." (Source 5.2)

To validate that all data written to BigQuery was done using the App Engine Default Service Account, you can use StackDriver Logging (now known as Cloud Logging) to filter and inspect the logs for BigQuery insert jobs. By hiding the entries matching the App Engine Default Service Account, you can ensure that no other service account has written to BigQuery if the resulting list is empty.

Steps:

Open Cloud Logging: Navigate to Cloud Logging in the Google Cloud Console.

Filter Logs: Apply a filter to display logs for BigQuery insert jobs.

Inspect Entries: Click on the email address that corresponds to the App Engine Default Service Account in the authentication field.

Hide Matching Entries: Select the option to hide matching entries.

Validate: Check if the resulting list is empty, confirming that no other service account has performed write operations to BigQuery.

To address inconsistencies in your project's Identity and Access Management (IAM) configuration and gain comprehensive visibility into IAM policy changes, user activity, service account behavior, and access to sensitive projects, leveraging Google Cloud's auditing capabilities is essential.​

Option A: While Cloud Monitoring's metrics explorer can track certain metrics, it is not designed to provide detailed logs of IAM policy changes or user activities.​

Option B: Cloud Audit Logs offer detailed records of administrative activities, including IAM policy changes and authentications. By creating log export sinks, you can forward these logs to a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solution, enabling correlation with other event sources and comprehensive analysis. This approach provides the necessary visibility into IAM configurations and user activities.​

Option C: Triggering Cloud Functions based on IAM policy changes and analyzing them with a policy simulator is a proactive approach. However, it may not provide the depth of historical data and comprehensive analysis capabilities that a SIEM solution offers.​

Option D: Deploying the OS Config Management agent focuses on VM configuration and patch management, which does not directly address IAM policy monitoring or user activity tracking.​

Therefore, Option B is the most effective solution to gain detailed visibility into IAM-related activities and address the identified inconsistencies.​