Amazon Web Services Updated SAP-C02 Exam Questions and Answers by dominik

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/cloudfront-https-connection-fails/

Using an Amazon S3 bucket

Using a MediaStore container or a MediaPackage channel

Using an Application Load Balancer

Using a Lambda function URL

Using Amazon EC2 (or another custom origin)

Using CloudFront origin groups

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/restrict-access-to-load-balancer.html

The company has many S3 buckets and many identities across multiple AWS accounts. It currently uses S3 bucket policies for granular authorization. As requirements grow, the bucket policies have become very large and have hit the maximum size limits. The company needs a way to express granular, identity-based access to S3 resources without relying on increasingly complex bucket policies.

AWS provides S3 Access Grants to centrally manage S3 data access based on identities. S3 Access Grants integrate with IAM Identity Center and external identity providers such as Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD). With S3 Access Grants, you define grants that associate specific identities or groups (from IAM Identity Center) with permissions on specific S3 buckets, prefixes, or objects. Access Grants maintain a mapping between identities and S3 resources without requiring large, per-bucket policies.

Option A describes exactly this approach. You create an S3 Access Grant configuration associated with the IAM Identity Center instance that is already integrated with the company’s IdP. You then define S3 Access Grants for the various user groups according to business requirements, specifying the appropriate S3 buckets and prefixes. When users access S3 through AWS tools that support S3 Access Grants, temporary credentials are issued that reflect the grants. This centralizes authorization management, reduces the size and complexity of S3 bucket policies, and minimizes operational overhead because you manage permissions per identity group rather than constantly editing long bucket policies.

Option B uses S3 access points and Object Lambda Access Points with a Lambda function for data filtering. This is more suitable for content transformation or redaction rather than primary authorization management. It adds operational complexity by requiring custom Lambda code and Object Lambda configuration, and it does not directly solve the problem of large bucket policies for fine-grained permissions.

Option C uses per-bucket S3 access points with attached policies. While access points can simplify some aspects of access control and allow per-application policies, using many access points with detailed policies can still lead to significant policy complexity. It also does not take advantage of the existing IAM Identity Center integration and does not centrally align permissions with identity groups.

Option D uses AWS Organizations service control policies (SCPs). SCPs are intended to define high-level guardrails and maximum permissions at the account or organizational unit level, not detailed, per-bucket or per-prefix access control for individual users or groups. Using SCPs to express granular S3 bucket permissions would be complex, hard to maintain, and not aligned with the purpose of SCPs.

Therefore, using S3 Access Grants integrated with IAM Identity Center (option A) provides a centralized, identity-aware, low-overhead way to manage granular S3 access without hitting S3 bucket policy size limits.

C: Multipart uploads can leave incomplete parts behind, which incur storage costs. Expiring them after 7 days minimizes waste and saves cost.

E: Since objects are infrequently accessed after 180 days, transitioning toS3 Standard-IAis cost-effective, especially for large files > 128 KB (your 100 MB+ files qualify).

Ais for shifting download cost, not reducing your S3 storage expenses.

Bhelps with upload speed butincreases cost.

Dis too aggressive; Glacier is not suited for access patterns within the first few days.