New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Google Professional Cloud Security Engineer Exam - Topic 3 Question 15 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Security Engineer exam
Question #: 15
Topic #: 3
[All Professional Cloud Security Engineer Questions]

For compliance reasons, an organization needs to ensure that in-scope PCI Kubernetes Pods reside on ''in- scope'' Nodes only. These Nodes can only contain the ''in-scope'' Pods.

How should the organization achieve this objective?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Antione at May 08, 2022, 12:51 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Professional Cloud Security Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lucia
4 months ago
D doesn't really address the node restriction, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Melissia
4 months ago
C is the best choice for strict control over pod placement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Helaine
4 months ago
Wait, can you really enforce compliance just with labels? Seems risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glenn
4 months ago
I think A is simpler and gets the job done.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristian
5 months ago
Option B sounds solid, creating a dedicated node pool is a good approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Freeman
5 months ago
Running all Pods in a specific namespace like in option D seems too broad. I feel like it wouldn’t guarantee that only in-scope Pods are on in-scope Nodes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Major
5 months ago
I’m a bit confused about option C. Taints and tolerations are something we covered, but I’m not sure if they directly apply to this compliance scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sena
5 months ago
I remember practicing a question similar to this, and I think option B might be the right choice. Creating a node pool with a specific label seems like a solid way to enforce the requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marjory
5 months ago
I think option A sounds familiar, using nodeSelector to restrict Pods to specific Nodes. But I'm not entirely sure if that's the best approach for compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernie
5 months ago
This looks like a tricky XML namespace question. I'll need to carefully analyze the namespace declarations and the usage of the "usage" attribute.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cordelia
5 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about when an organization should consider establishing its own MoV delivery capability. I think the key is to look for situations where the scale and frequency of MoV applications justifies having an internal team rather than relying on external providers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelyn
5 months ago
This is a good test of understanding the tradeoffs between synchronous and asynchronous integrations. I'll need to carefully analyze each scenario and consider factors like data criticality, volume, and system dependencies to determine the most appropriate integration approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Micaela
5 months ago
This looks like a straightforward question about default login credentials. I'll carefully review the options and select the one that seems most likely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Juan
5 months ago
Cloud ingest rate? That's an interesting one. I'll have to think about how that could impact the storage planning for these customers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Timothy
5 months ago
I'm pretty confident that one of the answers is multiple QoS policies, but I can't decide between matching individual or multiple devices.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel