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

This option uses the S3 Storage Lens default dashboard to track bucket and encryption metrics across two AWS Regions. S3 Storage Lens is a feature that provides organization-wide visibility into object storage usage and activity trends, and delivers actionable recommendations to improve cost-efficiency and apply data protection best practices. S3 Storage Lens delivers more than 30 storage metrics, including metrics on encryption, replication, and data protection. The default dashboard provides a summary of the entire S3 usage and activity across all Regions and accounts in an organization. The company can give the compliance teams access to the dashboard directly in the S3 console, which requires the least operational overhead.

In this solution, the company can use Amazon SES to send email messages, which will minimize operational overhead as SES is a fully managed service that handles sending and receiving email messages. The company can store the email template on Amazon SES with parameters for the customer data and use an AWS Lambda function to call the SendTemplatedEmail API operation, passing in the customer data to replace the parameters and the email destination. This solution eliminates the need to set up and manage an SMTP server on EC2 instances, which can be costly and time-consuming.

The company should create an Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall domain list that contains the allowed domains. The company should configure a DNS Firewall rule group with a rule that has a high numeric value that blocks all requests. The company should configure a rule that has a low numeric value that allows requests for domains in the allowed list. The company should associate the rule group with the VPC. This solution will meet the requirements because Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall is a feature that enables you to filter and regulate outbound DNS traffic for your VPC. You can create reusable collections of filtering rules in DNS Firewall rule groups and associate them with your VPCs. You can specify lists of domain names to allow or block, and you can customize theresponses for the DNS queries that you block1. By creating a domain list with the allowed domains and a rule group with rules to allow or block requests based on the domain list, the company can enforce its security policy and control access to sites.

The other options are not correct because:

Configuring a Route 53 outbound endpoint and associating it with the VPC would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A Route 53 outbound endpoint is a resource that enables you to forward DNS queries from your VPC to your networkover AWS Direct Connect or VPN connections2.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

Creating a Route 53 traffic flow policy to match the allowed domains would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A Route 53 traffic flow policy is a resource that enables you to route traffic based on multiple criteria, such as endpoint health, geographic location, and latency3.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

Creating a Gateway Load Balancer (GWLB) would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A GWLB is a service that enables you to deploy, scale, and manage third-party virtual appliances such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and deep packet inspection systems in the cloud4.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

B is correct because the requirement is to allocate shared EC2 infrastructure costs (ECS on EC2, shared cluster) down to the business groups with the least operational effort. With shared compute, the EC2 line-item charges are not naturally per “task,” so you need a cost allocation feature that can split shared costs using workload metadata. Split cost allocation data combined with the AWS Cost and Usage Report (CUR) and resource tags provides the standard AWS mechanism to distribute (“split”) shared resource costs across consumers for chargeback/showback reporting. This avoids operationally heavy changes (like redesigning clusters) and supports automated reporting.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Tagging the Auto Scaling group can only attribute costs at the ASG level, not split costs between multiple business groups sharing the same cluster capacity. It does not solve per-business-group allocation when capacity is shared.

C: Separate clusters per group would work but is higher operational overhead (more clusters to manage, scaling policies, capacity planning, governance), which violates the “least operational overhead” requirement.

D: Cost Categories are useful for mapping and organizing costs, but by themselves they do not solve the underlying need to split shared EC2 costs among multiple consumers unless you already have an accurate split basis. Option B directly targets split allocation of shared costs with tagging and CUR.