A security team is developing an application on an Amazon EC2 instance to get objects from an Amazon S3 bucket. All objects in the S3 bucket are encrypted with an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key. All network traffic for requests that are made within the VPC is restricted to the AWS infrastructure. This traffic does not traverse the public internet.
The security team is unable to get objects from the S3 bucket
Which factors could cause this issue? (Select THREE.)
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/security-group-rules.html
To get objects from an S3 bucket that are encrypted with a KMS customer managed key, the security team needs to have the following factors in place:
The IAM instance profile that is attached to the EC2 instance must allow the s3:GetObject action to the S3 bucket or object in the AWS account. This permission is required to read the object from S3. Option A is incorrect because it specifies the s3:ListBucket action, which is only required to list the objects in the bucket, not to get them.
The KMS key policy that encrypts the object in the S3 bucket must allow the kms:Decrypt action to the EC2 instance profile ARN. This permission is required to decrypt the object using the KMS key. Option D is correct.
The security group that is attached to the EC2 instance must have an outbound rule to the S3 managed prefix list over port 443. This rule is required to allow HTTPS traffic from the EC2 instance to S3 within the AWS infrastructure. Option E is correct. Option B is incorrect because it specifies the s3:ListParts action, which is only required for multipart uploads, not for getting objects. Option C is incorrect because it specifies the kms:ListKeys action, which is not required for getting objects. Option F is incorrect because it specifies an inbound rule from the S3 managed prefix list, which is not required for getting objects. Verified Reference:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/UsingKMSEncryption.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/control-access.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpc-endpoints-s3.html
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?
To configure DNSSEC for a domain registered with Route 53, the most operationally efficient solution is to migrate the zone to Route 53 with DNSSEC signing enabled, create a key-signing key (KSK) that is based on an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key, and add a delegation signer (DS) record to the parent zone. This way, Route 53 handles the zone-signing key (ZSK) and the signing of the records in the hosted zone, and the customer only needs to manage the KSK in AWS KMS and provide the DS record to the domain registrar. Option A is incorrect because it does not involve migrating the zone to Route 53, which would simplify the DNSSEC configuration. Option B is incorrect because it creates both a ZSK and a KSK based on AWS KMS customer managed keys, which is unnecessary and less efficient than letting Route 53 manage the ZSK. Option C is incorrect because it does not involve migrating the zone to Route 53, and it requires running the dnssec-signzone command manually, which is less efficient than letting Route 53 sign the zone automatically. Verified Reference:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/domain-configure-dnssec.html
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/12/announcing-amazon-route-53-support-dnssec/
A company has a relational database workload that runs on Amazon Aurora MySQL. According to new compliance standards the company must rotate all database credentials every 30 days. The company needs a solution that maximizes security and minimizes development effort.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
To rotate database credentials every 30 days, the most secure and efficient solution is to store the database credentials in AWS Secrets Manager and configure automatic credential rotation for every 30 days. Secrets Manager can handle the rotation of the credentials in both the secret and the database, and it can use AWS KMS to encrypt the credentials. Option B is incorrect because it requires creating a custom Lambda function to rotate the credentials, which is more effort than using Secrets Manager. Option C is incorrect because it stores the database credentials in an environment file or a configuration file, which is less secure than using Secrets Manager. Option D is incorrect because it combines the drawbacks of option B and option C. Verified Reference:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/secretsmanager/latest/userguide/rotating-secrets.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/secretsmanager/latest/userguide/rotate-secrets_turn-on-for-other.html
An ecommerce company is developing new architecture for an application release. The company needs to implement TLS for incoming traffic to the application. Traffic for the application will originate from the internet TLS does not have to be implemented in an end-to-end configuration because the company is concerned about impacts on performance. The incoming traffic types will be HTTP and HTTPS The application uses ports 80 and 443.
What should a security engineer do to meet these requirements?
An Application Load Balancer (ALB) is a type of load balancer that operates at the application layer (layer 7) of the OSI model. It can distribute incoming traffic based on the content of the request, such as the host header, path, or query parameters. An ALB can also terminate TLS connections and decrypt requests from clients before sending them to the targets.
To implement TLS for incoming traffic to the application, the following steps are required:
Create a public ALB in a public subnet and register the EC2 instances as targets in a target group.
Create two listeners for the ALB, one on port 80 for HTTP traffic and one on port 443 for HTTPS traffic.
Create a rule for the listener on port 80 to redirect HTTP requests to HTTPS using the same host, path, and query parameters.
Provision a public TLS certificate in AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) for the domain name of the application. ACM is a service that lets you easily provision, manage, and deploy public and private SSL/TLS certificates for use with AWS services and your internal connected resources.
Attach the certificate to the listener on port 443 and configure the security policy to negotiate secure connections between clients and the ALB.
Configure the security groups for the ALB and the EC2 instances to allow inbound traffic on ports 80 and 443 from the internet and outbound traffic on any port to the EC2 instances.
This solution will meet the requirements of implementing TLS for incoming traffic without impacting performance or requiring end-to-end encryption. The ALB will handle the TLS termination and decryption, while forwarding unencrypted requests to the EC2 instances.
Verified Reference:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/application/introduction.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/application/create-https-listener.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/acm/latest/userguide/acm-overview.html
A company uses AWS Organizations to manage a small number of AWS accounts. However, the company plans to add 1 000 more accounts soon. The company allows only a centralized security team to create IAM roles for all AWS accounts and teams. Application teams submit requests for IAM roles to the security team. The security team has a backlog of IAM role requests and cannot review and provision the IAM roles quickly.
The security team must create a process that will allow application teams to provision their own IAM roles. The process must also limit the scope of IAM roles and prevent privilege escalation.
Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST operational overhead?
To create a process that will allow application teams to provision their own IAM roles, while limiting the scope of IAM roles and preventing privilege escalation, the following steps are required:
Create a service control policy (SCP) that defines the maximum permissions that can be granted to any IAM role in the organization. An SCP is a type of policy that you can use with AWS Organizations to manage permissions for all accounts in your organization. SCPs restrict permissions for entities in member accounts, including each AWS account root user, IAM users, and roles. For more information, see Service control policies overview.
Create a permissions boundary for IAM roles that matches the SCP. A permissions boundary is an advanced feature for using a managed policy to set the maximum permissions that an identity-based policy can grant to an IAM entity. A permissions boundary allows an entity to perform only the actions that are allowed by both its identity-based policies and its permissions boundaries. For more information, see Permissions boundaries for IAM entities.
Add the SCP to the root organizational unit (OU) so that it applies to all accounts in the organization. This will ensure that no IAM role can exceed the permissions defined by the SCP, regardless of how it is created or modified.
Instruct the application teams to attach the permissions boundary to any IAM role they create. This will prevent them from creating IAM roles that can escalate their own privileges or access resources they are not authorized to access.
This solution will meet the requirements with the least operational overhead, as it leverages AWS Organizations and IAM features to delegate and limit IAM role creation without requiring manual reviews or approvals.
The other options are incorrect because they either do not allow application teams to provision their own IAM roles (A), do not limit the scope of IAM roles or prevent privilege escalation (B), or do not take advantage of managed services whenever possible .
Verified Reference:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_scp.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/access_policies_boundaries.html
Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!