Free Practice Questions for WGU Managing-Cloud-Security Exam

Once a vendor has been chosen, the onboarding phase requires confirming contractual details and arranging technical agreements. This includes specifying encryption standards, data transfer methods, SLAs, and compliance responsibilities. These discussions establish a clear foundation for the partnership.

Auditing and monitoring occur later, during ongoing vendor management. Evaluating requirements and policies occurs earlier, during vendor selection. Terminating a relationship is an offboarding activity, not onboarding.

Clarifying technical and contractual details at onboarding ensures a secure, compliant, and efficient partnership. It reduces risks of miscommunication and enforces accountability from the beginning.

The cloud controller determines whether a server has sufficient capacity and appropriate instance allocation to meet customer requirements. Managing Cloud principles explain that the cloud controller manages resource scheduling, provisioning, and allocation across the cloud infrastructure.

It evaluates available compute, memory, storage, and network resources before assigning workloads to physical or virtual servers. This ensures that customer requests are fulfilled without overcommitting resources or degrading performance.

A cloud provider delivers services, an instance provider is not a standard cloud role, and a UniFi controller manages networking devices. Therefore, the cloud controller is the correct answer.

Failover should occur prior to the crisis event when an impending disaster is identified. Managing Cloud principles explain that proactive failover allows organizations to maintain service continuity by transitioning operations to alternate systems before disruption occurs.

Early failover reduces downtime, minimizes data loss, and avoids the risks associated with reactive responses during an active crisis. Cloud environments support automated or planned failover mechanisms that can be triggered by warning systems, ensuring seamless continuity.

Failover during or after the crisis increases the likelihood of service interruption. Therefore, initiating failover before the event is the correct approach.

Resource pooling is one of the core characteristics of cloud computing defined by NIST. It refers to the provider’s ability to serve multiple customers by dynamically allocating and reallocating computing resources such as storage, processing, memory, and network bandwidth. These resources are abstracted using virtualization, ensuring that customers remain isolated from one another even though they share the same physical assets.

Rapid scalability describes elasticity, on-demand self-service allows users to provision resources without provider intervention, and measured service refers to metering usage. None of these concepts directly describe the multi-tenant model of shared resources.

Resource pooling improves efficiency, reduces costs, and provides flexibility, but it also introduces new security considerations such as data isolation and hypervisor security. Customers must ensure that providers implement strong controls to prevent data leakage or cross-tenant compromise.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) requires the greatest level of consumer responsibility for security. Managing Cloud documentation explains that in the shared responsibility model, IaaS providers supply virtualized infrastructure components such as compute, storage, and networking, while consumers manage everything above that layer.

Customers are responsible for securing operating systems, applications, data, access controls, patching, and configuration management. This includes vulnerability management, endpoint security, identity management, and monitoring. While this model provides flexibility and control, it also demands strong security expertise and governance.

In contrast, PaaS and SaaS shift more security responsibilities to the provider, and DBaaS abstracts database management. Therefore, IaaS places the highest security responsibility on the consumer.

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 was enacted to restore investor confidence after major corporate accounting scandals. It requires publicly traded corporations to maintain accurate financial reporting and implement internal controls to safeguard the integrity of disclosed information.

GLBA focuses on protecting consumer financial data, GDPR is a European regulation governing privacy, and the CLOUD Act addresses cross-border law enforcement access to data. Only SOX directly mandates financial disclosure and corporate accountability.

SOX compliance includes maintaining audit trails, securing data integrity, and ensuring that executives certify financial statements. Failure to comply carries severe penalties, both civil and criminal. For cloud environments, SOX compliance extends to ensuring IT systems used for financial data are secure, monitored, and auditable.

The Information Security Plan is a key requirement of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) designed to protect private customer data. Managing Cloud guidance explains that GLBA requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive written information security program.

This plan must describe administrative, technical, and physical safeguards used to protect customer information. It includes risk assessment, security controls, monitoring, and incident response procedures. The objective is to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive financial data throughout its lifecycle.

The other options are not explicit GLBA requirements. Independent audits and gap analyses may support compliance efforts but are not mandated components. Limited scope definition is not a GLBA safeguard. Therefore, the information security plan is the correct requirement.

Content-based discovery involves searching within the actual text or binary content of documents to find matches for keywords, phrases, or patterns. In e-discovery, when the requirement is to locate documents containing a specific phrase, searching based on content is the most direct and reliable method.

Other approaches, such as metadata-based discovery, only examine properties like creation date or author, which do not reveal the presence of specific text. Label-based discovery relies on pre-applied classification labels, which may not always be accurate. Location-based discovery limits searches to folders or storage locations but does not guarantee relevance.

Content-based discovery provides completeness in legal and regulatory investigations. It ensures that no relevant documents are overlooked simply because of inconsistent labeling or metadata, thus supporting compliance and defensibility in court proceedings.

In cloud environments, the provider’s role in the chain of custody primarily involves collecting and preserving digital evidence when incidents or investigations occur. Because providers manage the infrastructure, they have direct access to logs, storage systems, and virtual machines necessary for evidence collection.

Backup policies and incident response may involve collaboration, but they remain customer responsibilities in many service models. Data classification and analysis are business-driven tasks, which customers must handle.

Providers must ensure that evidence collection is forensically sound and documented properly to maintain legal admissibility. This responsibility is critical in maintaining trust and ensuring compliance with laws and contractual obligations. It reinforces the shared responsibility model by clearly defining which aspects of digital forensics belong to the provider.

Architecting for failure is a fundamental business continuity and disaster recovery consideration in cloud application architecture. Managing Cloud principles emphasize that cloud systems must be designed with the assumption that components will fail.

Architecting for failure involves implementing redundancy, fault tolerance, automated recovery, and failover mechanisms. Applications should be resilient to infrastructure outages and capable of continuing operation despite component failures. This approach reduces downtime and ensures service availability during incidents.

Health status pages provide visibility, compliance addresses regulatory needs, and message queues support communication but do not fully address BC/DR requirements. Therefore, architecting for failure is the correct answer.