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

Google Professional Cloud Security Engineer Exam - Topic 4 Question 88 Discussion

Posted by Eric on Sep 14, 2024 at 04:00 AM

You are developing a new application that uses exclusively Compute Engine VMs Once a day. this application will execute five different batch jobs Each of the batch jobs requires a dedicated set of permissions on Google Cloud resources outside of your application. You need to design a secure access concept for the batch jobs that adheres to the least-privilege principle

What should you do?

Suggested Answer: B

Get Premium Professional Cloud Security Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test
37 comments · newest first
BE
Berry 11 months ago
B is definitely the way to go for managing permissions effectively.
BO
Bobbye 11 months ago
A is too broad; we need more specific permissions.
CH
Chantay 11 months ago
Surprised that D suggests storing keys in Secret Manager.
DE
Derrick 11 months ago
I disagree, C has better security with workload identity.
BE
Beatriz 12 months ago
Option B seems like the best choice for least privilege.
LO
Lorenza 12 months ago
I feel like option D might be risky since it involves generating service account keys. I remember we talked about avoiding long-lived credentials.
MA
Marylin 1 year ago
I’m a bit confused about the workload identity pool in option C. I don’t recall how that works in relation to service accounts.
KI
Kimbery 1 year ago
I think option B sounds familiar because it involves creating separate service accounts for each job, which seems like a good way to limit permissions.
NI
Nilsa 1 year ago
I remember we discussed the importance of the least-privilege principle in our last class, but I'm not sure which option best implements that here.
HE
Hermila 1 year ago
I think option B is the way to go. Creating individual service accounts for each batch job and using a general service account to orchestrate them seems like the most straightforward and secure approach.
GR
Gracia 1 year ago
I like the idea of using Secret Manager to store the service account keys in option D. That adds an extra layer of security, and it's still following the least-privilege principle.
JO
Joaquin 1 year ago
I'm a bit confused about the workload identity pool option. Can that really be the most secure approach here? I'm not sure I fully understand how that would work.
LE
Leonardo 1 year ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the requirements correctly. Adhering to the least-privilege principle is key here.
GA
Gail 1 year ago
Okay, let me think this through. We need to design a secure access concept for the batch jobs, and the question mentions using service accounts. I'm leaning towards option B, as it seems to follow the least-privilege principle.
CL
Clare 1 year ago
I'm a little unsure about this question. There are a few different approaches, and I want to make sure I understand the implications of each one. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the potential pros and cons before making a decision.
QU
Quentin 2 years ago
I'm just glad they didn't include an option that involves manually editing a 500-line YAML file. That's the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.
DA
Darell 2 years ago
Is it just me, or does this question sound like it was written by a robot? I'm half-expecting the correct answer to be 'All of the above'.
RA
Raylene 2 years ago
I prefer option D. Storing service account keys in Secret Manager adds an extra layer of security.
ME
Melissa 2 years ago
Option D with the service account keys stored in Secret Manager is an interesting approach, but it feels a bit more complex than the other options. I'm not sure it's necessary for this use case.
OL
Olga 2 years ago
↳ replying to Melissa
Option D does seem a bit complex with storing service account keys in Secret Manager, but it could provide an extra layer of security for the batch jobs.
DE
Destiny 2 years ago
↳ replying to Melissa
I agree, Option B with individual service accounts for each batch job and using short-lived access tokens seems like a secure way to adhere to the least-privilege principle.
EM
Emmanuel 2 years ago
↳ replying to Melissa
Option A seems like a simple solution to grant permissions to a general service account for executing batch jobs.
RO
Rochell 2 years ago
I agree with Julene. Option B ensures least-privilege access for each batch job.
VA
Valene 2 years ago
I like how option C uses workload identity pools to manage the permissions for each batch job. That seems like a really elegant and scalable solution.
DE
Deeanna 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
I think option C is the way to go for secure access to the batch jobs.
MO
Mose 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
It's definitely an elegant way to handle permissions for each batch job.
BE
Bette 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
I agree, using workload identity pools seems like a scalable solution for managing permissions.
MA
Mattie 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
Option C sounds like a great choice for managing permissions with workload identity pools.
NI
Nicholle 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
It's important to follow the least-privilege principle when designing access for batch jobs. Option C seems to do that effectively.
SA
Sabra 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
I agree, using workload identity pools seems like a secure and scalable solution for managing permissions.
PR
Precious 2 years ago
↳ replying to Valene
Option C is indeed a great choice. Workload identity pools make it easy to manage permissions for each batch job.
JU
Julianna 2 years ago
Option B looks like the way to go. Creating individual service accounts for each batch job and using a general service account to orchestrate them seems like a good way to follow the least-privilege principle.
AN
Anastacia 2 years ago
↳ replying to Julianna
Using a general service account to obtain short-lived access tokens for the individual batch job service accounts adds an extra layer of security to the process.
VE
Veronica 2 years ago
↳ replying to Julianna
It's a good practice to limit access to only what is needed for each job. This way, you reduce the risk of unauthorized access to other resources.
AB
Abraham 2 years ago
↳ replying to Julianna
I agree, having separate service accounts for each batch job ensures that only the necessary permissions are granted for each specific task.
HE
Herschel 2 years ago
↳ replying to Julianna
Option B looks like the way to go. Creating individual service accounts for each batch job and using a general service account to orchestrate them seems like a good way to follow the least-privilege principle.
JU
Julene 2 years ago
I think option B is the best choice. It allows for individual permissions for each batch job.
0/2000 characters

Save Cancel