Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Amazon Exam SCS-C02 Topic 7 Question 22 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's SCS-C02 exam
Question #: 22
Topic #: 7
[All SCS-C02 Questions]

A company wants to configure DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) for the company's primary domain. The company registers the domain with Amazon Route 53. The company hosts the domain on Amazon EC2 instances by using BIND.

What is the MOST operationally efficient solution that meets this requirement?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

In an AWS environment where a VPC has no internet access and requires communication with AWS services such as Secrets Manager, the most secure method is to use an interface VPC endpoint (AWS PrivateLink). This allows private connectivity to services like Secrets Manager, enabling AWS Lambda functions and other resources within the VPC to access Secrets Manager without requiring an internet gateway, NAT gateway, or VPN connection. Interface VPC endpoints are powered by AWS PrivateLink, a technology that enables private connectivity between AWS services using Elastic Network Interfaces (ENI) with private IPs in your VPCs. This option is more secure than creating a NAT gateway because it doesn't expose the resources to the internet and adheres to the principle of least privilege by providing direct access to only the required service.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Luisa
1 months ago
I'd choose Option B. Migrating to Route 53 is like hiring a bouncer for your DNS - it'll keep the bad guys out while you kick back and relax.
upvoted 0 times
Ammie
3 days ago
Definitely, migrating to Route 53 with DNSSEC signing enabled is a smart move. It's like having a bodyguard for your DNS.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salena
8 days ago
I agree, Option B seems like the most efficient solution. It's like adding an extra layer of protection to your domain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gilma
16 days ago
Option B sounds like a solid choice. Route 53 with DNSSEC signing enabled is like having a security guard for your domain.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ezekiel
1 months ago
Option B is the way to go. Who wants to mess with BIND configuration and manual key management when you can let Route 53 handle it all?
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
1 months ago
Option C looks good, but using AWS KMS to secure the keys might be overkill for a small company. I'd keep it simple with Option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Serina
2 months ago
That's a valid point, Orville. Option B does seem to simplify the process by leveraging AWS services for key management. It could be a more secure and scalable solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Latricia
2 months ago
I'd go with Option D. Migrating to Route 53 with DNSSEC and using AWS KMS for the KSK is a straightforward way to meet the requirement.
upvoted 0 times
Jesusa
16 days ago
I agree, migrating to Route 53 with DNSSEC enabled and using AWS KMS for the KSK sounds like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuette
19 days ago
Option D sounds like the best choice. Using AWS KMS for the KSK seems like a secure option.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jospeh
2 months ago
Option B seems the most operationally efficient solution. Migrating the zone to Route 53 with DNSSEC signing enabled and using AWS KMS for the keys is a secure and managed approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Orville
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe option B is more efficient. Migrating the zone to Route 53 with DNSSEC signing enabled and using AWS KMS for key management seems like a better approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Serina
2 months ago
I think option A is the best solution. It involves configuring DNSSEC in BIND and creating ZSK and KSK keys.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
2 months ago
I'm leaning towards option B, it seems like a secure choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jodi
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe option C is more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donte
2 months ago
I think option A is the best solution.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel