Visit here for our full Amazon AWS Certified DevOps Engineer – Professional DOP-C02 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 151: 

A DevOps engineer needs automated deployment for modified microservices while respecting dependencies. What’s the solution?

A) Create single AWS CodePipeline with multiple stages building all services every commit

B) Implement AWS CodePipeline with CodeBuild per repository using Lambda and EventBridge for dependencies

C) Use AWS CodePipeline monorepo approach with CodeBuild building all services simultaneously always

D) Create individual AWS CodePipeline instances for each microservice requiring manual approval stages

Answer: B) Implement AWS CodePipeline with CodeBuild per repository using Lambda and EventBridge for dependencies

Explanation:

This scenario requires an intelligent CI/CD solution that optimizes build times and resources by building only modified microservices while maintaining proper dependency management. The correct approach involves implementing separate pipelines for each microservice repository with automated change detection and dependency orchestration.

B is correct because it provides the most efficient and scalable solution. By creating individual AWS CodePipeline instances for each microservice repository, the system maintains separation of concerns and allows independent deployment cycles. AWS Lambda functions can monitor repository changes through webhooks or Amazon EventBridge rules, triggering only the pipelines associated with modified services. This selective triggering significantly reduces build time and AWS CodeBuild resource consumption. Amazon EventBridge plays a crucial role in managing dependencies between services by orchestrating the build and deployment sequence. When a service is updated, EventBridge can trigger dependent service pipelines in the correct order, ensuring that services relying on updated components are rebuilt and redeployed appropriately. This approach provides flexibility, scalability, and cost optimization.

is inefficient because building all services on every commit wastes build time and resources, especially when only one or two services have changed. This approach doesn’t leverage the microservices architecture’s benefit of independent deployments and would significantly increase AWS CodeBuild costs over time.

presents challenges associated with monorepo approaches. While consolidating all microservices into a single repository might simplify some aspects of version control, building all services simultaneously on every commit defeats the purpose of microservices independence. This approach would result in longer build times, higher resource consumption, and increased complexity in managing service-specific configurations and deployment strategies.

introduces manual approval stages, which contradicts the requirement for automation. Manual approvals create bottlenecks in the deployment pipeline, slow down release cycles, and reduce the overall efficiency of the CI/CD process. This approach doesn’t scale well with multiple microservices requiring frequent updates.

The optimal solution combines automated change detection, selective pipeline triggering, and dependency management to create an efficient, cost-effective CI/CD system for microservices architectures.

Question 152: 

A company requires automated blue-green deployment for containerized applications with instant rollback capability. Which solution works?

A) Use AWS CodeDeploy with EC2 instances and Application Load Balancer traffic shifting

B) Implement Amazon ECS with AWS CodeDeploy supporting blue-green deployment and ALB weighted targets

C) Deploy containers using AWS Elastic Beanstalk with manual traffic shifting between environment versions

D) Use Amazon EKS with manual kubectl commands for deployment and service updates

Answer: B) Implement Amazon ECS with AWS CodeDeploy supporting blue-green deployment and ALB weighted targets

Explanation:

Blue-green deployment is a critical deployment strategy that minimizes downtime and provides instant rollback capabilities by maintaining two identical production environments. The question specifically focuses on containerized applications requiring automation and quick rollback functionality, making the choice of deployment service and configuration crucial.

B is correct because AWS CodeDeploy natively integrates with Amazon ECS to provide fully automated blue-green deployments for containerized applications. This integration allows you to define deployment configurations that automatically provision a new green environment with updated container images while the existing blue environment continues serving traffic. The Application Load Balancer plays a vital role by supporting weighted target groups, enabling gradual traffic shifting from the blue environment to the green environment. You can configure the traffic shift to happen instantly, linearly over time, or using canary deployment patterns. If issues arise during deployment, AWS CodeDeploy can automatically trigger rollbacks by redirecting traffic back to the original blue environment within seconds. The entire process is automated through AWS CodePipeline integration, eliminating manual intervention and reducing human error. Amazon ECS manages container orchestration, health checks, and task placement, while AWS CodeDeploy handles the deployment lifecycle, monitoring, and rollback mechanisms.

uses EC2 instances rather than containers, which doesn’t align with the requirement for containerized applications. While AWS CodeDeploy supports blue-green deployments on EC2, managing containerized workloads directly on EC2 without orchestration services like ECS or EKS adds operational complexity and reduces deployment efficiency.

involves AWS Elastic Beanstalk, which does support Docker containers, but requires manual traffic shifting between environments. This manual intervention contradicts the automation requirement and increases the risk of errors during deployment and rollback operations. Manual processes also slow down deployment cycles and don’t provide the instant rollback capability needed.

suggests using Amazon EKS with manual kubectl commands, which lacks automation entirely. While EKS is excellent for container orchestration, relying on manual commands doesn’t meet the requirement for automated deployment and instant rollback. This approach is error-prone and doesn’t scale well for production environments requiring frequent deployments.

Question 153: 

A DevOps team needs centralized secrets management with automatic rotation for multiple AWS accounts. What’s recommended?

A) Store secrets in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store with manual rotation scripts

B) Use AWS Secrets Manager with automatic rotation and cross-account access through resource policies

C) Implement HashiCorp Vault on EC2 instances with custom rotation scripts and replication

D) Store encrypted secrets in Amazon S3 buckets with AWS KMS encryption only

Answer: B) Use AWS Secrets Manager with automatic rotation and cross-account access through resource policies

Explanation:

Managing secrets across multiple AWS accounts presents significant challenges regarding security, accessibility, and operational overhead. The requirement for centralized management with automatic rotation necessitates a solution that provides native integration with AWS services while maintaining security best practices and reducing manual intervention.

B is correct because AWS Secrets Manager is specifically designed for centralized secrets management with built-in automatic rotation capabilities. It provides comprehensive features for storing, retrieving, and rotating database credentials, API keys, and other sensitive information. The automatic rotation feature uses AWS Lambda functions to periodically update secrets without manual intervention, significantly reducing security risks associated with long-lived credentials. AWS Secrets Manager supports various rotation strategies for different secret types, including Amazon RDS databases, Amazon Redshift clusters, and custom applications. For multi-account environments, Secrets Manager integrates seamlessly with AWS Organizations and supports cross-account access through resource-based policies. You can define granular permissions allowing specific accounts, roles, or services to access secrets stored in a central account, maintaining security while enabling sharing. The service automatically encrypts secrets using AWS KMS, provides audit logging through AWS CloudTrail, and integrates with AWS Identity and Access Management for fine-grained access control.

uses AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which is excellent for configuration data but lacks native automatic rotation capabilities. While you can implement custom rotation using Lambda functions and EventBridge rules, this approach requires significant development effort and ongoing maintenance. The manual rotation scripts introduce complexity and potential points of failure that could compromise security.

suggests implementing HashiCorp Vault, which is a powerful third-party secrets management solution. However, running Vault on EC2 instances requires substantial operational overhead, including infrastructure management, high availability configuration, backup strategies, and security hardening. Custom rotation scripts and replication mechanisms add further complexity that AWS Secrets Manager handles natively.

simply stores encrypted secrets in Amazon S3, which doesn’t provide secrets management capabilities like versioning, rotation, or access auditing. While S3 with KMS encryption ensures data protection at rest, it lacks the dynamic secrets management features required for production environments, particularly automatic rotation functionality.

Question 154: 

A company needs monitoring solution with anomaly detection for distributed microservices using machine learning capabilities. Choose best option.

A) Use Amazon CloudWatch with standard metrics and static threshold alarms for monitoring

B) Implement Amazon CloudWatch with CloudWatch Anomaly Detection using machine learning for dynamic baselines

C) Deploy Prometheus on EC2 instances with Grafana dashboards and manual threshold configuration

D) Use AWS X-Ray for tracing with manual analysis of performance patterns

Answer: B) Implement Amazon CloudWatch with CloudWatch Anomaly Detection using machine learning for dynamic baselines

Explanation:

Modern distributed microservices architectures generate vast amounts of metrics data with patterns that fluctuate based on business cycles, traffic patterns, and seasonal variations. Traditional static threshold-based monitoring often results in alert fatigue from false positives or fails to detect subtle anomalies that indicate emerging problems. Machine learning-based anomaly detection addresses these challenges by establishing dynamic baselines and identifying deviations automatically.

B is correct because Amazon CloudWatch Anomaly Detection leverages machine learning algorithms to analyze metric data and automatically create expected value bands based on historical patterns. This feature continuously learns from metric behavior, adapting to seasonal patterns, weekly cycles, and long-term trends without manual intervention. When actual values deviate significantly from expected ranges, CloudWatch can trigger alarms automatically. This approach is particularly valuable for microservices environments where normal behavior varies across services and time periods. CloudWatch Anomaly Detection integrates seamlessly with existing CloudWatch metrics, requiring minimal configuration changes. You can apply anomaly detection to custom metrics, AWS service metrics, and cross-account metrics. The machine learning models consider factors like trend, seasonality, and historical anomalies to establish accurate baselines. This eliminates the need for constant threshold adjustments and reduces false positive alerts that plague traditional monitoring approaches. Additionally, CloudWatch provides visualization of expected value bands alongside actual metrics, making it easy to understand normal versus anomalous behavior.

relies on static threshold alarms, which require manual configuration and constant adjustment as application behavior changes. Static thresholds don’t account for legitimate variations in traffic patterns or seasonal changes, leading to either excessive false alarms or missed anomalies when thresholds are set too conservatively. This approach doesn’t leverage machine learning capabilities.

involves deploying and managing Prometheus infrastructure on EC2 instances, which adds operational complexity and doesn’t provide built-in machine learning-based anomaly detection. While Prometheus is powerful for metrics collection and Grafana offers excellent visualization, implementing machine learning-based anomaly detection requires additional tools and significant configuration effort.

focuses on AWS X-Ray for distributed tracing, which provides valuable insights into request flows and service dependencies but doesn’t offer comprehensive metrics monitoring or machine learning-based anomaly detection. Manual analysis of performance patterns is time-consuming and doesn’t scale effectively for distributed microservices architectures.

Question 155: 

A DevOps engineer must implement infrastructure as code with drift detection and automatic remediation. What’s the solution?

A) Use AWS CloudFormation with manual drift detection and correction through console updates

B) Implement AWS CloudFormation with drift detection enabled and EventBridge triggering Lambda for remediation

C) Deploy Terraform with manual terraform plan commands to identify and fix drift

D) Use AWS CDK without drift detection relying on regular redeployment cycles

Answer: B) Implement AWS CloudFormation with drift detection enabled and EventBridge triggering Lambda for remediation

Explanation:

Infrastructure drift occurs when the actual state of cloud resources diverges from the desired state defined in infrastructure as code templates. This drift can result from manual changes made through the console, API calls outside the IaC workflow, or external factors. Undetected drift leads to configuration inconsistencies, security vulnerabilities, and unpredictable infrastructure behavior. Implementing automated drift detection and remediation is essential for maintaining infrastructure integrity and compliance.

B is correct because it provides a comprehensive automated solution using AWS CloudFormation’s native drift detection capabilities combined with event-driven remediation. AWS CloudFormation drift detection compares the current state of stack resources against the template definition, identifying any discrepancies. You can schedule regular drift detection using Amazon EventBridge rules that trigger AWS Lambda functions to initiate drift detection scans. When drift is detected, EventBridge can capture the drift detection completion event and trigger another Lambda function to analyze the drift results. Based on the drift type and severity, the Lambda function can automatically remediate by updating the stack, reverting manual changes, or notifying administrators for review. This approach creates a fully automated drift management system that continuously monitors infrastructure state and takes corrective action without manual intervention. The solution leverages native AWS services, minimizing operational overhead and ensuring tight integration with CloudFormation’s lifecycle management features.

uses AWS CloudFormation but relies on manual drift detection and correction, which contradicts the automation requirement. Manual processes are prone to delays, inconsistencies, and human error. Without automation, drift detection might occur infrequently or inconsistently across environments, allowing problematic drift to persist and potentially cause issues.

suggests using Terraform with manual terraform plan commands. While Terraform effectively manages infrastructure as code, this approach lacks automation for both drift detection and remediation. Running manual commands doesn’t scale across multiple environments or teams and requires constant vigilance to catch and correct drift promptly.

uses AWS CDK without any drift detection mechanism, relying instead on regular redeployments. This approach fails to address the core requirement of detecting and remediating drift. Regular redeployments might mask drift temporarily but don’t identify or alert on unauthorized changes, potentially missing critical security or compliance issues.

Question 156: 

A company requires centralized logging solution aggregating logs from multiple AWS services with real-time analysis capabilities. Choose best.

A) Store logs directly in Amazon S3 buckets and query using Amazon Athena periodically

B) Implement Amazon CloudWatch Logs with subscription filters streaming to Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose and OpenSearch

C) Use EC2 instances running ELK stack with manual log collection and forwarding

D) Store logs in Amazon RDS database with custom application querying log tables

Answer: B) Implement Amazon CloudWatch Logs with subscription filters streaming to Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose and OpenSearch

Explanation:

Centralized logging is critical for monitoring, troubleshooting, security analysis, and compliance in distributed cloud environments. The solution must efficiently collect logs from diverse AWS services, provide real-time processing capabilities, and enable powerful search and analysis features. The architecture should be scalable, manageable, and cost-effective while supporting complex queries and visualizations.

B is correct because it implements a comprehensive, scalable logging architecture using native AWS services. Amazon CloudWatch Logs serves as the central collection point for logs from AWS services like Lambda, ECS, EC2, API Gateway, and many others. CloudWatch Logs subscription filters enable real-time streaming of log data to destinations like Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. Kinesis Data Firehose buffers and transforms log data before delivering it to Amazon OpenSearch Service, which provides powerful full-text search, filtering, aggregation, and visualization capabilities through OpenSearch Dashboards. This architecture supports real-time log analysis, allowing you to create dashboards, set up alerts, and perform complex queries across massive log datasets. The solution scales automatically with log volume, requires minimal infrastructure management, and integrates seamlessly with other AWS services. You can implement log enrichment and transformation in Kinesis Data Firehose using Lambda functions, adding contextual information or filtering sensitive data before storage.

stores logs in S3 and uses Athena for querying, which works well for batch analysis and historical queries but doesn’t provide real-time analysis capabilities. Athena queries run on-demand rather than continuously processing incoming logs, creating delays between log generation and analysis. This approach is better suited for periodic compliance reporting or historical analysis rather than real-time monitoring.

requires managing EC2 infrastructure running the ELK stack, which significantly increases operational complexity and maintenance burden. You must handle scaling, high availability, patching, and backup for the ELK cluster. Manual log collection and forwarding processes are error-prone and don’t leverage native AWS service integrations available with CloudWatch Logs.

uses Amazon RDS for log storage, which is architecturally inappropriate for log data. Relational databases aren’t optimized for the high-volume, append-heavy workload patterns typical of logging systems. This approach would be expensive, difficult to scale, and wouldn’t provide the search and analysis capabilities required for effective log management.

Question 157: 

A DevOps team needs automated compliance checking ensuring infrastructure configurations meet organizational security standards before deployment. What’s recommended?

A) Manually review CloudFormation templates before each deployment using security checklist documents

B) Implement AWS CloudFormation Guard with policy-as-code rules validating templates in CI/CD pipelines

C) Deploy infrastructure first then use AWS Config rules to detect compliance issues

D) Use AWS Trusted Advisor to review infrastructure recommendations after deployment completes

Answer: B) Implement AWS CloudFormation Guard with policy-as-code rules validating templates in CI/CD pipelines

Explanation:

Ensuring infrastructure compliance before deployment is significantly more effective and cost-efficient than detecting and remediating issues after resources are created. The shift-left approach to security and compliance involves implementing automated validation early in the development lifecycle, preventing non-compliant infrastructure from ever reaching production environments. This proactive strategy reduces security risks, accelerates remediation, and maintains consistent policy enforcement across all deployments.

B is correct because AWS CloudFormation Guard provides a powerful policy-as-code framework specifically designed for pre-deployment infrastructure validation. CloudFormation Guard allows you to write declarative rules that define compliance requirements in a simple, readable syntax. These rules can enforce security best practices such as ensuring S3 buckets have encryption enabled, requiring specific IAM policy conditions, mandating VPC configurations, or verifying resource tagging standards. By integrating CloudFormation Guard into CI/CD pipelines, you can automatically validate templates during the build or pull request phase, failing deployments that violate organizational policies before any infrastructure is provisioned. This integration provides immediate feedback to developers, enabling them to correct issues quickly within their development workflow. CloudFormation Guard supports validating CloudFormation templates, Terraform plans, and Kubernetes configurations. The rules can be version-controlled alongside infrastructure code, enabling collaborative policy development and maintaining audit trails of policy changes. This approach implements true shift-left security, catching compliance issues at the earliest possible stage.

relies on manual reviews, which are slow, inconsistent, and don’t scale effectively. Manual processes are prone to human error, especially when reviewing complex templates with hundreds of resources. This approach creates bottlenecks in deployment pipelines and cannot provide the rapid feedback necessary for modern DevOps practices.

deploys infrastructure first and then detects compliance issues using AWS Config rules. While AWS Config is valuable for ongoing compliance monitoring, this reactive approach allows non-compliant resources to be created, potentially exposing the organization to security risks, compliance violations, or requiring costly remediation after deployment.

uses AWS Trusted Advisor for post-deployment review, which provides valuable recommendations but doesn’t prevent non-compliant infrastructure from being deployed. Trusted Advisor focuses on optimization recommendations across multiple categories and runs periodically rather than validating specific infrastructure configurations before deployment.

Question 158: 

A company needs disaster recovery solution with automated failover for multi-tier application achieving minimal RTO and RPO. What’s optimal?

A) Use AWS Backup to copy snapshots to another region with manual restoration procedures

B) Implement AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery with continuous replication and automated failover to secondary region

C) Deploy application in single region with regular AMI backups stored in S3

D) Use manual scripts copying data between regions with weekly backup schedule only

Answer: B) Implement AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery with continuous replication and automated failover to secondary region

Explanation:

Disaster recovery planning is critical for business continuity, particularly for applications where downtime translates directly to revenue loss or customer impact. Recovery Time Objective (RTO) measures the maximum acceptable downtime, while Recovery Point Objective (RPO) measures the maximum acceptable data loss. Achieving minimal RTO and RPO requires automated solutions with continuous data replication and rapid failover capabilities that eliminate manual intervention during disaster scenarios.

B is correct because AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery provides comprehensive disaster recovery capabilities specifically designed for minimal RTO and RPO requirements. The service continuously replicates source servers from your primary region to a staging area in your disaster recovery region using lightweight replication agents. This continuous replication ensures that RPO is measured in seconds rather than hours or days, minimizing potential data loss. The replicated servers remain in a low-cost staging state until needed for failover. When disaster strikes or during planned failover tests, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery can launch fully functional recovery instances in minutes, achieving RTOs typically measured in minutes rather than hours. The failover process is highly automated, with orchestration features that can launch entire application stacks in the correct sequence, configure networking, and redirect traffic to the recovery environment. After the primary site is restored, the service supports automatic failback with data synchronization ensuring no data loss during the recovery process. This solution provides true enterprise-grade disaster recovery capabilities with minimal operational overhead.

uses AWS Backup for snapshot management, which is valuable for data protection but doesn’t provide the continuous replication and automated failover required for minimal RTO and RPO. Snapshots are point-in-time copies taken periodically, resulting in higher RPO based on the backup frequency. Manual restoration procedures significantly increase RTO and introduce risk of errors during high-pressure disaster scenarios.

deploys the application in a single region, which fundamentally fails to address disaster recovery requirements. Regional disasters, service disruptions, or availability zone failures could render the entire application unavailable. AMI backups provide recovery options but don’t protect against regional failures and require manual intervention for restoration.

uses manual scripts and weekly backups, which results in unacceptably high RPO potentially up to seven days and high RTO due to manual processes. This approach doesn’t meet the requirement for minimal RTO and RPO and is inappropriate for business-critical applications.

Question 159:

A DevOps engineer must implement canary deployment strategy for serverless application with automatic rollback based on metrics. What’s best?

A) Use AWS Lambda aliases with manual traffic shifting between versions and CloudWatch alarms

B) Implement AWS Lambda with AWS CodeDeploy supporting linear and canary traffic shifting with automatic rollback

C) Deploy multiple Lambda versions simultaneously and use Application Load Balancer weighted target groups

D) Use AWS Step Functions to manually control traffic distribution between Lambda versions

Answer: B) Implement AWS Lambda with AWS CodeDeploy supporting linear and canary traffic shifting with automatic rollback

Explanation:

Canary deployments are a progressive delivery strategy that reduces deployment risk by gradually shifting traffic from the current version to a new version while monitoring key metrics. For serverless applications, implementing canary deployments with automatic rollback ensures that issues with new code versions are detected and mitigated quickly, minimizing impact on end users. The solution must provide automated traffic management, metric monitoring, and rollback capabilities without requiring manual intervention.

B is correct because AWS CodeDeploy provides native integration with AWS Lambda specifically designed for implementing sophisticated deployment strategies including canary deployments. CodeDeploy supports predefined traffic shifting configurations such as LambdaCanary10Percent5Minutes, LambdaCanary10Percent10Minutes, and LambdaLinear10PercentEvery1Minute, which control how traffic transitions from the old Lambda version to the new version. You can also define custom traffic shifting patterns to match your specific requirements. During deployment, CodeDeploy automatically creates Lambda aliases pointing to specific versions and gradually shifts the alias traffic weighting according to the configured pattern. The critical advantage of CodeDeploy is its automatic rollback capability based on Amazon CloudWatch alarms. You can define CloudWatch alarms monitoring error rates, duration, throttles, or custom metrics, and configure CodeDeploy to automatically rollback the deployment if any alarm enters the ALARM state. This automation ensures that problematic deployments are reverted immediately without manual intervention, minimizing customer impact. CodeDeploy integrates seamlessly with AWS CodePipeline for end-to-end CI/CD automation and provides deployment lifecycle hooks for custom validation logic.

uses Lambda aliases with manual traffic shifting, which contradicts the requirement for automatic rollback. While Lambda aliases support traffic weighting between versions, manual shifting processes are slow and don’t provide the automated metric-based rollback capability essential for safe canary deployments.

suggests using Application Load Balancer with weighted target groups, which is architecturally inappropriate for Lambda functions invoked asynchronously or through API Gateway. ALB can invoke Lambda functions as targets, but this approach doesn’t support the fine-grained traffic shifting and automatic rollback capabilities provided by CodeDeploy’s native Lambda integration.

uses AWS Step Functions for manual traffic control, which introduces unnecessary complexity and doesn’t provide automated rollback based on metrics. Step Functions are designed for workflow orchestration rather than deployment traffic management and would require significant custom development to approximate CodeDeploy’s built-in capabilities.

Question 160: 

A company needs cost optimization solution analyzing resource usage and providing automated recommendations for multi-account AWS organization. What’s optimal?

A) Use AWS Cost Explorer manually reviewing monthly spending reports across all accounts

B) Implement AWS Compute Optimizer and AWS Cost Anomaly Detection with automated recommendations and alert notifications

C) Deploy third-party cost management tools on EC2 requiring manual configuration and reporting

D) Use AWS Budgets only to set spending limits without optimization recommendations

Answer: B) Implement AWS Compute Optimizer and AWS Cost Anomaly Detection with automated recommendations and alert notifications

Explanation:

Cost optimization in cloud environments requires continuous monitoring, analysis, and actionable recommendations based on actual resource utilization patterns. For organizations managing multiple AWS accounts, the solution must provide centralized visibility, automated analysis, and proactive recommendations that help teams make informed decisions about resource sizing, purchasing options, and usage patterns without requiring extensive manual analysis or custom development.

B is correct because it combines two powerful AWS services that work together to provide comprehensive cost optimization. AWS Compute Optimizer uses machine learning to analyze resource utilization metrics and provide right-sizing recommendations for EC2 instances, Auto Scaling groups, EBS volumes, and Lambda functions. It examines historical utilization patterns and recommends optimal resource configurations that balance performance and cost. Compute Optimizer works across multiple accounts within AWS Organizations, providing centralized recommendations for the entire organization. AWS Cost Anomaly Detection complements this by using machine learning to identify unusual spending patterns and cost spikes, alerting teams to unexpected charges that might indicate inefficient resource usage, configuration errors, or security issues. Together, these services provide both proactive optimization recommendations and reactive anomaly detection. The automated nature of these services eliminates the need for manual analysis, providing recommendations continuously as usage patterns evolve. Integration with Amazon SNS enables automated alert notifications, ensuring relevant teams receive timely information about optimization opportunities and cost anomalies. This combination addresses both planned optimization through right-sizing and unplanned cost events through anomaly detection.

relies on AWS Cost Explorer with manual review, which provides excellent cost visibility and reporting but doesn’t automatically generate optimization recommendations or analyze resource utilization patterns. Manual monthly reviews are insufficient for timely cost optimization and don’t leverage machine learning for pattern recognition.

involves deploying third-party tools on EC2 infrastructure, which adds operational complexity, cost, and maintenance burden. While some third-party tools offer valuable features, they require manual configuration, may not integrate as deeply with AWS services as native tools, and introduce additional infrastructure costs.

uses AWS Budgets only for spending limits, which provides cost control through alerts but doesn’t offer optimization recommendations or analyze resource utilization to identify cost-saving opportunities. Budgets are reactive rather than proactive for optimization purposes.

Question 161: 

A DevOps team requires automated security scanning for container images in CI/CD pipeline with vulnerability remediation before deployment. What’s best?

A) Manually review container images using open-source scanning tools before each production deployment

B) Implement Amazon ECR with image scanning enabled and AWS Lambda automating remediation in CI/CD pipeline

C) Deploy containers without scanning relying on runtime security monitoring and detection only

D) Use periodic security audits conducted quarterly to identify vulnerable container images

Answer: B) Implement Amazon ECR with image scanning enabled and AWS Lambda automating remediation in CI/CD pipeline

Explanation:

Container security is paramount in modern application architectures, as vulnerable container images can introduce significant security risks into production environments. The shift-left security approach mandates identifying and remediating vulnerabilities before deployment, integrating security scanning directly into CI/CD pipelines. The solution must automatically scan images, identify vulnerabilities, prevent deployment of high-risk images, and ideally automate remediation processes to accelerate secure deployments.

B is correct because it implements a comprehensive automated security scanning solution using Amazon Elastic Container Registry’s native image scanning capabilities integrated with automated remediation workflows. Amazon ECR supports both on-push scanning and continuous scanning for container images. On-push scanning automatically examines images immediately after they’re pushed to the registry, identifying vulnerabilities using either basic scanning powered by Clair or enhanced scanning powered by Amazon Inspector, which provides more comprehensive vulnerability detection including operating system and programming language package vulnerabilities. The scan results include severity ratings and detailed information about each vulnerability. By integrating AWS Lambda with ECR, you can automate remediation workflows triggered by scan completion events. Lambda functions can analyze scan results, automatically reject images with critical vulnerabilities from progressing through the CI/CD pipeline, create tickets for development teams, trigger rebuild processes with updated base images or patched dependencies, or quarantine vulnerable images. This automation ensures that only secure images reach production environments. ECR integrations with AWS CodePipeline, AWS CodeBuild, and third-party CI/CD tools enable seamless incorporation into existing deployment workflows, creating a robust security gate that prevents vulnerable containers from being deployed.

relies on manual review using open-source tools, which doesn’t scale effectively for organizations with frequent deployments and multiple development teams. Manual processes introduce delays, inconsistencies, and potential human errors that can allow vulnerable images to reach production environments.

completely omits pre-deployment security scanning, relying solely on runtime monitoring. While runtime security is important, it’s a reactive approach that allows vulnerable containers to be deployed, potentially exposing systems to exploitation before detection and remediation occur.

uses periodic quarterly audits, which are far too infrequent for effective container security. Quarterly reviews cannot keep pace with continuous deployment practices and leave significant time windows during which vulnerable containers could be deployed and exploited.

Question 162: 

A company needs centralized configuration management distributing application parameters across multiple environments with version control and audit. Choose optimal.

A) Store configuration files in Git repository with manual deployment to each application instance

B) Implement AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store with versioning and AWS AppConfig for configuration distribution and deployment

C) Use environment variables hardcoded in Docker images requiring rebuilds for configuration changes

D) Store configuration in Amazon DynamoDB tables with custom application code retrieving settings

Answer: B) Implement AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store with versioning and AWS AppConfig for configuration distribution and deployment

Explanation:

Configuration management is a critical operational challenge that directly impacts application reliability, security, and deployment agility. The ideal solution must provide centralized storage, version control, secure access management, and controlled distribution mechanisms that allow configuration updates without application redeployment. Additionally, audit logging and rollback capabilities are essential for maintaining configuration integrity and meeting compliance requirements.

B is correct because it leverages two complementary AWS services that together provide comprehensive configuration management capabilities. AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store offers secure, hierarchical storage for configuration data and secrets with built-in versioning that maintains complete history of parameter changes. Parameter Store integrates with AWS Key Management Service for encryption of sensitive parameters and with AWS Identity and Access Management for fine-grained access control. All parameter access and modifications are automatically logged to AWS CloudTrail, providing complete audit trails for compliance purposes. AWS AppConfig extends Parameter Store’s capabilities by adding sophisticated configuration deployment features including gradual rollouts, validation, and automatic rollback. AppConfig allows you to deploy configuration changes gradually to subsets of your application fleet, monitoring CloudWatch metrics during rollout to detect issues. If error rates increase or key metrics degrade during configuration deployment, AppConfig can automatically rollback changes to the previous configuration, preventing widespread impact. This combination provides centralized configuration storage with Parameter Store and intelligent deployment capabilities with AppConfig, creating a robust configuration management system that reduces deployment risks and operational overhead.

stores configurations in Git repositories, which provides version control but requires manual deployment processes to distribute configuration changes to application instances. This approach lacks the dynamic configuration retrieval, controlled rollout, and automatic rollback capabilities needed for modern cloud applications.

hardcodes environment variables in Docker images, which is a significant anti-pattern in containerized applications. This approach requires rebuilding and redeploying entire container images for any configuration change, eliminating agility and making configuration management cumbersome and error-prone.

uses Amazon DynamoDB for configuration storage, which requires custom application development for retrieval logic, versioning, access control, and audit logging. While technically functional, this approach involves significant development effort to replicate features that AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store and AppConfig provide natively.

Question 163: 

A DevOps engineer must implement infrastructure testing validating deployments meet functional requirements before promoting to production. What’s recommended?

A) Deploy to production directly without testing infrastructure relying on application-level testing only

B) Implement AWS CloudFormation with integration tests using AWS CodeBuild and test stack deployments in staging

C) Use manual testing procedures executed by operations team reviewing infrastructure after each deployment

D) Deploy infrastructure and wait for user-reported issues to identify infrastructure problems

Answer: B) Implement AWS CloudFormation with integration tests using AWS CodeBuild and test stack deployments in staging

Explanation:

Infrastructure testing is a critical practice that extends DevOps principles of continuous testing to infrastructure as code. Just as application code requires automated testing before production deployment, infrastructure code must be validated to ensure it creates resources with correct configurations, establishes appropriate connectivity, implements security controls, and supports application requirements. Automated infrastructure testing reduces deployment failures, catches configuration errors early, and provides confidence in infrastructure changes.

B is correct because it implements comprehensive automated testing for infrastructure code using AWS CloudFormation integrated with AWS CodeBuild in a dedicated staging environment. This approach involves deploying CloudFormation stacks in a staging environment that mirrors production configuration, then executing automated integration tests that validate infrastructure behavior. AWS CodeBuild provides a managed environment for running test scripts that can verify connectivity between resources, validate security group rules, confirm IAM permissions, test API endpoints, verify DNS resolution, and ensure applications can successfully deploy on the infrastructure. These tests can use various frameworks such as Python unittest, pytest, or specialized infrastructure testing tools like Terratest or InSpec. By deploying test stacks in staging environments, you can validate infrastructure changes without impacting production resources. Test results gate the promotion process, preventing non-functional infrastructure from reaching production. This automated testing approach catches configuration errors, permission issues, networking problems, and resource dependencies early in the deployment pipeline. Integration with AWS CodePipeline enables fully automated workflows where infrastructure changes trigger deployment to staging, automated testing, and conditional promotion to production based on test results.

deploys directly to production without infrastructure testing, which is extremely risky and likely to cause production outages from configuration errors, networking issues, or resource conflicts that could have been detected in pre-production testing.

relies on manual testing procedures, which are slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. Manual testing doesn’t scale effectively, creates deployment bottlenecks, and may miss subtle configuration issues that automated tests would detect consistently.

waits for user-reported issues to identify infrastructure problems, which is completely reactive and unacceptable for production systems. This approach guarantees that infrastructure problems will impact users, potentially causing significant business disruption and customer dissatisfaction.

Question 164: 

A company requires automated patch management for thousands of EC2 instances across multiple accounts ensuring compliance standards. What’s the solution?

A) Manually connect to each EC2 instance and apply patches using SSH sessions

B) Implement AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager with maintenance windows and patch baselines across AWS Organizations

C) Deploy custom scripts using cron jobs on each instance to download and install patches

D) Wait for AWS to automatically patch all instances without any configuration required

Answer: B) Implement AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager with maintenance windows and patch baselines across AWS Organizations

Explanation:

Patch management is a critical security and compliance requirement that becomes increasingly complex as infrastructure scales across multiple accounts and environments. Unpatched systems represent significant security vulnerabilities that attackers actively exploit. The solution must provide centralized management, automated patching workflows, compliance reporting, and minimal operational overhead while allowing controlled scheduling to minimize application impact during patch operations.

B is correct because AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager provides comprehensive, enterprise-grade patch management capabilities designed specifically for large-scale, multi-account AWS environments. Patch Manager automates the process of patching managed instances with security-related and other types of updates for both operating systems and applications. Patch baselines define which patches should be installed on your instances, with rules that automatically approve patches based on classification, severity, and age. You can create custom patch baselines that align with your organization’s security and compliance requirements or use AWS-provided predefined baselines. Maintenance windows provide controlled scheduling for patch operations, allowing you to define specific time periods when patching should occur to minimize impact on production workloads. Systems Manager provides centralized visibility and reporting across all accounts in your AWS Organization, showing patch compliance status for every managed instance. This enables security and compliance teams to quickly identify non-compliant instances requiring attention. Patch Manager supports various operating systems including Windows, Amazon Linux, Ubuntu, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux, and others. The solution integrates with AWS Config for continuous compliance monitoring and can trigger automated remediation workflows for non-compliant instances.

involves manually connecting to instances via SSH, which is completely impractical for thousands of instances across multiple accounts. This approach doesn’t scale, creates massive operational overhead, and cannot provide the consistency and compliance reporting required for enterprise patch management.

deploys custom scripts with cron jobs, which requires significant development and maintenance effort. This approach lacks centralized visibility, compliance reporting, and coordinated scheduling capabilities. Custom scripts are also prone to errors and don’t adapt easily to different operating systems and patch requirements.

incorrectly assumes AWS automatically patches instances, which is not the case. While AWS manages patching for some managed services, EC2 instances are customer-managed infrastructure requiring explicit patch management processes.

Question 165: 

A DevOps team needs implementation of chaos engineering practices testing application resilience with controlled failure injection. What’s the approach?

A) Randomly terminate production instances without any monitoring or rollback capability

B) Implement AWS Fault Injection Simulator creating controlled experiments with monitoring and automatic stop conditions

C) Manually disable services during business hours to test application behavior under failures

D) Wait for actual failures to occur naturally and observe application response

Answer: B) Implement AWS Fault Injection Simulator creating controlled experiments with monitoring and automatic stop conditions

Explanation:

Chaos engineering is a discipline of experimenting on distributed systems to build confidence in their capability to withstand turbulent conditions. Rather than waiting for failures to occur in production, chaos engineering proactively introduces controlled failures to identify weaknesses before they cause actual outages. The key principles include running experiments in a controlled manner, hypothesizing about steady state behavior, introducing real-world failure scenarios, and monitoring impact with the ability to stop experiments if conditions exceed acceptable thresholds.

B is correct because AWS Fault Injection Simulator provides a fully managed service specifically designed for conducting controlled chaos engineering experiments on AWS infrastructure. FIS allows you to create experiment templates that define specific failure scenarios such as terminating EC2 instances, throttling API calls, injecting network latency, stopping ECS tasks, or causing CPU stress on instances. The critical advantage of FIS is its built-in safety mechanisms including stop conditions that automatically halt experiments if metrics exceed defined thresholds, preventing uncontrolled failures from impacting production systems. FIS integrates with Amazon CloudWatch for comprehensive monitoring during experiments, allowing you to observe how your application responds to failures and measure impact on key metrics. Target selection allows precise control over which resources are affected by experiments, enabling gradual progression from testing individual components to broader system-level scenarios. FIS maintains detailed logs of all experiments through CloudTrail, providing audit trails for compliance and learning purposes. By using FIS, teams can systematically validate that auto-scaling configurations work correctly, failover mechanisms activate as expected, circuit breakers prevent cascading failures, and monitoring systems detect and alert on issues appropriately. This structured approach to chaos engineering builds organizational confidence in system resilience while maintaining safety through controlled experimentation.

represents dangerous and irresponsible chaos engineering by randomly terminating production instances without monitoring or rollback capabilities. This approach violates the fundamental principles of chaos engineering and could cause major production outages and customer impact.

manually disables services during business hours, which unnecessarily risks customer impact and doesn’t provide the controlled, repeatable experiments necessary for effective chaos engineering. Manual processes also lack the automation and safety mechanisms required for systematic resilience testing.

waits for natural failures, which is reactive rather than proactive. While learning from actual incidents is valuable, it doesn’t replace the systematic resilience testing that chaos engineering provides through controlled failure injection.