Amazon Web Services Updated SOA-C03 Exam Questions and Answers by francisco

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

The requirement is classic active-passive (production in us-east-1, DR in us-west-2 “only for failover”). The most operationally efficient and purpose-built solution is Route 53 failover routing combined with health checks. With failover routing, Route 53 designates one record as PRIMARY (us-east-1) and another as SECONDARY (us-west-2). Route 53 continuously evaluates the health check associated with the primary endpoint (commonly the ALB DNS name or a specific health-check path). If the primary fails, Route 53 automatically returns the secondary record, directing client DNS resolution to the DR region. This ensures us-west-2 is used only when us-east-1 is unhealthy, directly matching the requirement.

Latency routing (Option B) is designed to route users to the region with the lowest latency, which can actively send traffic to us-west-2 even when us-east-1 is healthy—violating the “DR only” constraint. Options C and D introduce custom automation (CloudWatch + Lambda + DNS record updates) that increases operational overhead, adds failure modes, and is unnecessary because Route 53 already provides managed health-check-based failover. Additionally, “EC2 instance terminated” is not a reliable proxy for full application availability, and DNS modification automation is more complex than using native Route 53 failover policies.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

To secure inbound web traffic over HTTPS when using an Application Load Balancer, AWS CloudOps best practices recommend terminating TLS at the load balancer. This is achieved by attaching an SSL/TLS certificate directly to the ALB listener. Therefore, option B is required. By terminating HTTPS at the ALB, traffic between clients and the load balancer is encrypted, and the ALB can then forward traffic to backend EC2 instances using HTTP or HTTPS based on design requirements.

The certificate used for a public-facing retail website must be trusted by internet browsers. AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) public certificates are specifically designed for this purpose and are trusted by common browsers and operating systems. Therefore, option D is required. ACM manages certificate provisioning, renewal, and deployment automatically, which significantly reduces operational overhead.

Option A is incorrect because attaching certificates to each EC2 instance is unnecessary and does not scale well. Option C is incorrect because private certificates are intended for internal use cases and are not trusted by public browsers. Option E is incorrect because ACM-managed public certificates cannot be exported; they must be attached directly to supported AWS services such as ALBs.

This approach aligns with AWS CloudOps guidance for secure, scalable, and highly available HTTPS architectures.

According to AWS Cloud Operations and Systems Manager documentation, Session Manager requires that each managed instance be associated with an IAM instance profile that grants Systems Manager core permissions. The required permissions are provided by the AmazonSSMManagedInstanceCore AWS-managed policy.

If this policy is missing or misconfigured, the Systems Manager Agent (SSM Agent) cannot communicate with the Systems Manager service, causing connection failures even if the agent is installed and running. This explains why other instances work—those instances likely have the correct IAM role attached.

Enabling port 22 (Option A) violates the company’s security policy, while configuring user names (Option C) and key pairs (Option D) are irrelevant because Session Manager operates over secure API channels, not SSH keys.

Therefore, the correct resolution is to attach or update the instance profile with the AmazonSSMManagedInstanceCore policy, restoring Session Manager connectivity.

The AWS Cloud Operations and Security documentation confirms that AWS WAF (Web Application Firewall) is designed to protect web applications from application-layer threats, including SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and other OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.

When integrated with an Application Load Balancer, AWS WAF inspects incoming traffic using rule groups. The AWS Managed Rules for SQL Injection Protection provide preconfigured, continuously updated filters that detect and block malicious SQL patterns.

AWS Shield (Standard or Advanced) defends against DDoS attacks, not application-layer SQL attacks, and vulnerability scanners (Option C) only detect, not prevent, exploitation.

Thus, Option D provides the correct, managed, and automated protection aligned with AWS best practices.