SCS-C03 AWS Certified Security – Specialty Questions and Answers

Amazon Detective is a purpose-built AWS service designed to analyze, investigate, and visualize security data to help identify the root cause of suspicious or malicious activity. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, Amazon Detective directly integrates with Amazon GuardDuty findings, AWS CloudTrail logs, Amazon VPC Flow Logs, and Amazon EKS audit logs to automatically create behavior graphs and timelines.

When GuardDuty generates findings related to anomalous activity, Amazon Detective enables security engineers to pivot directly to an investigation focused on a specific IAM role, user, or resource. Detective automatically correlates historical activity, identifies deviations from baseline behavior, and highlights indicators of compromise, such as unusual API calls, credential misuse, or suspicious network activity.

AWS Audit Manager (Option B) is designed for compliance and audit evidence collection, not threat investigation. Amazon Inspector (Options C and D) is focused on vulnerability scanning of compute resources and does not analyze IAM behavior or GuardDuty findings.

AWS documentation explicitly states that Amazon Detective is the recommended service for deep-dive investigations following GuardDuty alerts, providing enriched context and investigation reports for security incidents.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Detective User Guide

Amazon GuardDuty Integration Documentation

AWS Audit Manager is specifically designed to help organizations continuously audit their AWS usage against compliance frameworks and generate audit-ready reports. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, Audit Manager includes AWS managed frameworks for compliance standards, including PCI DSS v4.0.

Audit Manager automatically collects evidence from AWS services such as API Gateway, Lambda, RDS, CloudTrail, and Config, and maps the evidence directly to PCI DSS controls. Importantly, Audit Manager allows compliance teams to upload and attach manual evidence, which is a key requirement in this scenario.

Option C provides visibility into control status but does not support adding manual evidence. Option B evaluates configuration compliance but does not generate formal compliance reports. Option A requires extensive manual effort and is not aligned with PCI reporting workflows.

AWS documentation positions Audit Manager as the authoritative service for compliance reporting and audit evidence management.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Audit Manager PCI DSS Framework

AWS Compliance Reporting Best Practices

To enforce encryption in transit for Amazon S3, AWS best practice is to require HTTPS (TLS) by using a bucket policy condition that denies any request where aws:SecureTransport is false. The requirement includes both existing buckets and future buckets, so the control must continuously evaluate configuration drift and automatically remediate. AWS Config is the service intended for continuous configuration compliance monitoring across resources, and AWS Config managed rules provide standardized checks with low operational overhead. The s3-bucket-ssl-requests-only managed rule evaluates whether S3 buckets enforce SSL-only requests, aligning directly with enforcing encryption in transit. Setting the trigger type to Hybrid ensures evaluation both on configuration changes and periodically. Automatic remediation with an AWS Systems Manager Automation runbook allows the organization to apply or correct the bucket policy consistently at scale without manual work. This approach also supports governance by maintaining a measurable compliance status while actively fixing noncompliance. Option A is not the best fit because a “proactive” custom policy rule does not by itself remediate existing buckets and “block resource creation” is not how AWS Config enforces controls. Option C is incorrect because Amazon Inspector is a vulnerability management service and does not govern S3 bucket transport policies. Option D is inefficient and indirect because CloudTrail data events are not a compliance engine and would require custom processing.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Config Managed Rules for S3 Compliance

Amazon S3 Security Best Practices for SSL-only Access

When an internet-facing ALB is used as a CloudFront origin, it remains directly accessible unless additional access controls are enforced. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, CloudFront IP allow lists alone are insufficient, because CloudFront IP ranges change and are not guaranteed to be exclusive.

The recommended and most secure approach is to configure CloudFront to send a custom origin header (such as X-Shared-Secret) with a secret value on every request to the origin. The ALB listener rules are then configured to forward traffic only when the header exists and matches the expected value. Requests that attempt to bypass CloudFront will not include this header and will be denied.

Option A is invalid because CloudFront does not support PrivateLink origins. Option B introduces unnecessary architectural changes and is not required. Option C is brittle and operationally risky due to changing IP ranges.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends custom origin headers as the best practice to ensure that only CloudFront can access an internet-facing ALB when AWS WAF is attached at the CloudFront layer.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon CloudFront Origin Security Documentation

AWS WAF and ALB Integration Guidance

In a properly segmented VPC architecture, public subnets route internet-bound traffic to an internet gateway, while private subnets route outbound internet traffic through a NAT gateway that resides in a public subnet. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide and Amazon VPC documentation, private subnets must never have a direct route to an internet gateway.

The issue described indicates that private subnets are incorrectly routing traffic directly to the internet gateway. To remediate this, a NAT gateway must be provisioned in each public subnet to ensure high availability across Availability Zones. This satisfies the requirement that private resources can initiate outbound connections without being directly reachable from the internet.

Next, the route tables associated with the private subnets must be updated so that the default route (0.0.0.0/0) points to the NAT gateway in the same Availability Zone. This ensures proper traffic flow and prevents cross-AZ dependencies.

Option B is incorrect because NAT gateways must reside in public subnets. Option C is unnecessary because local routes to the VPC CIDR range are automatically created. Option E is explicitly insecure, as it would reintroduce direct internet gateway access from private subnets.

AWS documentation consistently identifies NAT gateways plus correct private subnet routing as the standard design for secure VPC segmentation.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon VPC Route Table Documentation

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

Step 1: Obtain the SAML metadata from IAM Identity Center.

Step 2: Obtain the SAML metadata from the external IdP.

Step 3: Configure the external IdP as the identity source in IAM Identity Center.

When integrating AWS IAM Identity Center (formerly AWS SSO) with an external identity provider (IdP) using SAML 2.0, AWS requires a specific sequence of steps to establish trust and federation correctly.

Step 1: Obtain the SAML metadata from IAM Identity Center

IAM Identity Center acts as the service provider (SP) in the SAML trust. The external IdP must trust IAM Identity Center, so the IdP needs IAM Identity Center’s SAML metadata first. This metadata contains critical information such as the SP entity ID, ACS (Assertion Consumer Service) URL, and signing certificate. Without this metadata, the external IdP cannot be configured to send assertions to AWS.

Step 2: Obtain the SAML metadata from the external IdP

After the external IdP is configured to trust IAM Identity Center, the IdP generates its own SAML metadata. This metadata includes the IdP entity ID, SSO endpoint, and signing certificate. IAM Identity Center requires this information to validate authentication assertions coming from the external IdP.

Step 3: Configure the external IdP as the identity source in IAM Identity Center

Once both metadata files are available, the security engineer configures the external IdP as the identity source in IAM Identity Center. At this stage, IAM Identity Center imports the IdP metadata and establishes the SAML trust relationship. After this configuration, users authenticated by the external IdP can be federated into AWS accounts and applications via IAM Identity Center.

Why the other options are incorrect:

Creating an IAM role with an IdP API endpoint is used for IAM federation, not IAM Identity Center.

Automatic provisioning (SCIM) is optional and is configured after SAML federation is established.

Automatic provisioning must be enabled on both sides, but it is not required to complete the core IdP integration.

This sequence follows AWS best practices for SAML-based federation with IAM Identity Center.

AWS WAF string match rule statements allow inspection of HTTP headers, including the User-Agent header. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, when malicious traffic can be uniquely identified by a consistent request attribute, such as a device-specific user agent, a string match rule provides precise mitigation with minimal false positives.

IP-based blocking is ineffective for globally distributed botnets. Geographic blocking risks denying access to legitimate users. Rate-based rules limit request volume but do not prevent low-and-slow attacks.

By matching the unique IoT device brand in the User-Agent header, the security engineer can block only malicious requests while preserving customer access.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Rule Statements

AWS DDoS Mitigation Best Practices

AWS WAF provides managed and custom rules that can immediately mitigate common web exploits such as SQL injection without modifying application code. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, placing AWS WAF in front of an Application Load Balancer is a recommended rapid-response control for legacy applications with known vulnerabilities.

Creating an ALB in front of the existing EC2 instances allows seamless traffic migration. AWS WAF SQL injection rules can be deployed and tested without downtime. Updating Route 53 to point to the ALB preserves normal operations. Restricting EC2 security groups afterward prevents bypassing the WAF.

Option B introduces CloudFront changes and single-origin testing, increasing complexity. Option C cannot be completed within 24 hours and risks downtime. Option D is invalid because AWS WAF cannot be attached directly to EC2 instances.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Web ACL Architecture

AWS Application Load Balancer Security

AWS Config provides managed rules that continuously evaluate resource configurations against compliance requirements. The AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation highlights AWS Config managed rules as the preferred mechanism for enforcing configuration compliance at scale. The managed rule for encrypted RDS storage automatically detects DB instances and clusters that are created without encryption enabled.

By configuring automatic remediation, AWS Config can immediately invoke corrective actions without manual intervention. Integrating remediation with an Amazon SNS topic enables automated email notifications, while an AWS Lambda function can terminate the noncompliant resource. This creates a fully automated detect-alert-remediate workflow.

Option B requires manual remediation, which increases operational effort and delays enforcement. Options C and D rely on Amazon EventBridge, which evaluates events rather than configuration state and does not provide continuous compliance monitoring. AWS Config is explicitly designed for configuration compliance and governance use cases.

This solution aligns with AWS governance best practices by combining continuous monitoring, automated remediation, and centralized alerting with minimal operational overhead.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Config Managed Rules

AWS Config Automatic Remediation

In AWS IAM Identity Center (formerly AWS Single Sign-On), users and groups do not automatically gain access to all accounts in an AWS Organization simply because the accounts exist. Access is explicitly granted by assigning a principal (user or group) to a specific AWS account along with a permission set. Permission sets define the IAM policies that are provisioned into the target account as IAM roles.

In this scenario, employees in the Cloud Active Directory group can access nearly all AWS accounts, which confirms that AD Connector synchronization is functioning correctly, eliminating option B. The fact that Account A exists but is inaccessible strongly indicates that the required account assignment is missing. Without explicitly assigning the Cloud group to Account A with a valid permission set, IAM Identity Center will not provision the necessary IAM role, and users will not see or access the account in the AWS access portal.

Option A is incorrect because accounts do not need to be placed in an OU to be accessible through IAM Identity Center. Option D is incorrect because IAM permissions boundaries do not control access to entire accounts and are not applied at the account level to block IAM Identity Center access.

AWS Security Specialty documentation emphasizes that account assignments are mandatory for IAM Identity Center access, making option C the correct answer.

AWS WAF rate-based rules are designed specifically to track the number of requests from a single IP address over a configurable time window. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, rate-based rules integrate natively with CloudFront and emit CloudWatch metrics that can trigger alarms.

CloudFront logs and VPC Flow Logs are not real-time detection tools. ASN match rules do not count request rates.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Rate-Based Rules

CloudFront and AWS WAF Integration

AWS WAF rate-based rules are specifically designed to protect applications from traffic floods and distributed attacks that originate from large numbers of IP addresses. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, rate-based rules automatically track the number of requests coming from individual IP addresses and temporarily block IPs that exceed a defined threshold.

In this scenario, the malicious traffic originates from hundreds of IP addresses across two countries, mixed with legitimate user traffic. A rate-based rule allows the security engineer to limit excessive request rates without fully blocking access from entire geographic regions, ensuring that legitimate users can still access the application.

Option B is incorrect because geographic match rules block all traffic from selected countries, which would deny access to legitimate users and violate the stated requirement. Option C is invalid because security groups do not support geographic filtering. Option D is not scalable, as manually blocking hundreds of IP addresses is operationally inefficient and ineffective against rapidly changing attacker IPs.

AWS documentation emphasizes that rate-based rules are the recommended first-line mitigation for sudden traffic spikes and potential application-layer DDoS attacks when business continuity must be preserved.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Developer Guide – Rate-Based Rules

AWS DDoS Resiliency Best Practices

Amazon GuardDuty Exfiltration:S3/AnomalousBehavior findings indicate that S3 data access patterns are consistent with data exfiltration. In this scenario, the attacker is using temporary credentials obtained from an EC2 instance profile, which are issued by AWS Security Token Service (STS).

According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, the fastest and most targeted remediation is to revoke the temporary session credentials associated with the compromised instance profile. This can be accomplished by removing or modifying the IAM role permissions, detaching the instance profile, or stopping the instance, which immediately invalidates the temporary credentials and prevents further S3 access.

Option B may limit outbound traffic but does not invalidate already issued credentials. Option C is a detection and classification service and does not prevent active exfiltration. Option D would block all access to the bucket, including legitimate access, and is considered overly disruptive for incident containment.

AWS incident response best practices emphasize credential revocation as the first containment step when compromise of temporary credentials is confirmed.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty User Guide – S3 Protection

AWS STS and IAM Role Security Documentation

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

Amazon GuardDuty provides managed threat detection and supports EKS protection features that analyze Kubernetes audit logs to detect suspicious activity, including unauthorized or unauthenticated access attempts. AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation recommends GuardDuty for low-overhead detection because it is fully managed and does not require deploying agents or modifying application code. EKS Audit Log Monitoring is designed to consume and analyze relevant control plane audit events to identify anomalous or unauthorized actions against the cluster. Compared to third-party add-ons, GuardDuty reduces operational burden and remains fully within AWS managed services. Security Hub aggregates findings from services like GuardDuty but does not itself perform the detection. CloudWatch Container Insights focuses on performance and operational metrics, not authentication security detections. Therefore, enabling GuardDuty with EKS Audit Log Monitoring provides the required detection with the least operational effort and without requiring additional configuration to the existing EKS workload beyond enabling the feature.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty EKS Protection and Audit Log Monitoring

AWS Threat Detection Best Practices for Kubernetes on AWS

AWS incident response best practices emphasize immediate containment, preservation of evidence, and safe forensic investigation. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, when an EC2 instance is suspected of compromise, security teams should avoid logging in to the instance or installing additional tools, as these actions can alter evidence and increase risk.

Terminating the compromised instance after ensuring that its Amazon EBS volumes are preserved prevents further malicious activity immediately. By setting the EBS volumes to not delete on termination, all disk data is retained for forensic analysis. Launching a new, clean EC2 instance in a different subnet or Availability Zone with preinstalled diagnostic tools allows investigators to safely attach and analyze the compromised volumes without executing potentially malicious code.

Option A introduces significant risk by logging in to the compromised instance and modifying security controls during active compromise. Option B delays containment and allows continued outbound traffic during investigation steps. Option D is invalid because AWS WAF cannot be attached directly to Amazon EC2 instances and does not control outbound traffic.

AWS documentation strongly recommends isolating or terminating compromised resources and performing offline analysis using detached storage volumes. This approach ensures immediate mitigation, preserves forensic integrity, and aligns with AWS incident response frameworks.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

Amazon EC2 and EBS Forensics Guidance

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

EventBridge natively consumes CloudTrail management events and provides near-real-time notifications.

AWS Config is a fully managed service that provides continuous monitoring and evaluation of AWS resource configurations against desired configuration baselines. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, AWS Config is the primary service used to track configuration changes, evaluate compliance in near real time, and display compliance states for individual AWS resources.

AWS Config provides managed rules that directly map to the listed Aurora MySQL security requirements, including encryption at rest, public accessibility, deletion protection, and log exports to CloudWatch Logs. These managed rules continuously evaluate resources and mark them as compliant or noncompliant whenever a configuration change occurs.

The AWS Config dashboard enables security engineers to view per-resource and per-rule compliance states at any point in time, satisfying the requirement to display compliance status for each part of the policy.

AWS Audit Manager (Option A) is designed for audit evidence collection and reporting, not continuous monitoring. AWS Security Hub (Option C) aggregates findings from other services but relies on AWS Config for configuration compliance data. Option D introduces unnecessary custom logic and does not provide a native compliance dashboard.

AWS documentation explicitly identifies AWS Config as the authoritative service for continuous compliance monitoring and visibility.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Config Developer Guide

Amazon Aurora Security Best Practices

AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Pillar

Amazon S3 Object Lock in compliance mode provides write-once-read-many (WORM) protection, which prevents objects from being modified or deleted for a specified retention period. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, compliance mode enforces immutability even for the root user and cannot be overridden.

Enabling S3 Object Lock requires S3 bucket versioning and ensures that once an object is written, it cannot be changed or removed until the retention period expires. This is the strongest protection against data modification and is commonly used for regulatory and legal retention requirements.

Option A can be bypassed by administrators. Option D only protects against deletions, not overwrites. Option C changes encryption but does not prevent modification.

AWS documentation explicitly identifies S3 Object Lock in compliance mode as the correct solution for immutable data storage.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon S3 Object Lock

Amazon S3 Data Protection and Compliance

AWS CloudFormation supports the use of a service role, which allows CloudFormation to assume a dedicated IAM role to create and manage resources on behalf of users. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, using a service role is the most secure and consistent way to ensure predictable stack deployments when users have varying permission sets.

By creating a service role with cloudformation.amazonaws.com as the trusted service principal (Option B), CloudFormation—not individual users—assumes responsibility for resource creation. Updating each stack to explicitly use this service role (Option E) ensures that all deployments use the same permission set, eliminating inconsistencies.

Granting the team members permission to pass the service role via iam:PassRole (Option F) is required so that CloudFormation can assume the role during stack operations. This approach adheres to the principle of least privilege and prevents users from gaining direct access to elevated permissions.

Composite principals (Option A) are unnecessary and insecure. Referencing stack ARNs (Option C) does not solve the root cause. While Option D reflects good policy design, it is implicit in creating the service role and is not a required standalone step.

AWS documentation clearly identifies CloudFormation service roles combined with iam:PassRole as best practice for secure, consistent infrastructure deployments.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS CloudFormation Service Role Documentation

AWS IAM Best Practices

Amazon Cognito identity pools are designed to provide temporary AWS credentials for applications by exchanging an authenticated identity token for AWS Security Token Service (STS) credentials. AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance distinguishes between Cognito user pools (authentication) and identity pools (authorization to AWS resources). A user pool can authenticate a user and issue tokens, but an identity pool is required to obtain AWS credentials that can be used to sign AWS API requests, such as S3 API calls. The correct mechanism is for the application to use AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity through STS (which is the underlying federation method used by identity pools) to receive temporary credentials for an IAM role that grants S3 permissions. GetId alone does not provide credentials; it returns an identity identifier that is used as part of the credential exchange flow. Options C and D are incorrect because user pool tokens are not AWS credentials and cannot directly sign S3 requests. The solution therefore must use identity pools to map users to IAM roles and retrieve temporary credentials, satisfying the requirement for authenticated API calls using short-lived credentials.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Cognito Identity Pools and STS Federation

AWS STS AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity

AWS best practices recommend using a shared secret header between CloudFront and ALB origins to prevent direct access. CloudFront injects a custom header, and the ALB listener rules validate its presence.

IP-based controls are brittle due to CloudFront IP changes. PrivateLink and internal ALBs are not supported as CloudFront origins. Header validation is the most reliable and widely recommended pattern.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

CloudFront Origin Protection

AWS WAF and ALB Integration

Requirements and Correct Selections

Automatically collect evidence from AWS CloudTrail, AWS Config, and AWS Security Hub for an assessment report.

Correct Answer:

AWS Audit Manager controls

Why:

AWS Audit Manager is specifically designed to automatically collect, map, and organize evidence from AWS services such as CloudTrail, AWS Config, and AWS Security Hub. Audit Manager controls are used within audit frameworks to continuously gather evidence and generate assessment reports for compliance audits.

Determine which IAM principals within the AWS account have access to a specified resource.

Correct Answer:

AWS Identity and Access Management Access Analyzer internal access analyzers

Why:

IAM Access Analyzer internal access analyzers are used to identify which IAM users, roles, or services within an account or organization have access to a specific resource. This is a core access visibility and audit requirement for IAM reviews.

Download AWS security and compliance documents on demand.

Correct Answer:

AWS Artifact reports

Why:

AWS Artifact provides on-demand access to AWS security, compliance, and audit reports, including SOC reports, ISO certifications, and compliance attestations. This service is explicitly intended for audit preparation and regulatory documentation.

AWS networking best practices require private subnets to access the internet only through NAT gateways located in public subnets. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, NAT gateways must be provisioned in public subnets and used as the default route for outbound traffic from private subnets.

Verifying NAT gateways in each Availability Zone ensures high availability and fault tolerance. Updating the private subnet route tables to send 0.0.0.0/0 traffic to the NAT gateway prevents direct internet access while allowing outbound connectivity.

Routing private subnet traffic directly to an internet gateway violates subnet isolation principles. NAT gateways must never be placed in private subnets.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon VPC Routing and NAT Gateways

AWS Network Segmentation Best Practices

Network ACLs are stateless and are evaluated in order based on rule number, with lower rule numbers taking precedence. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty incident response guidance, network ACLs can be used to immediately block traffic at the subnet level without restarting instances or modifying their runtime state.

By adding a deny rule with a lower priority number (10) that explicitly denies TCP traffic on port 22 from the offending IP address (10.0.1.5), the unauthorized SSH session is immediately interrupted. This approach satisfies the requirement to keep the instance running and to preserve memory for forensic analysis.

Option A violates the requirement because restarting the instance clears memory. Option C would disrupt all legitimate SSH access, not just the unauthorized session. Option D would block all internet access and could cause widespread service disruption.

AWS documentation emphasizes using network ACL deny rules for rapid, targeted containment when immediate interruption is required without altering instance state.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon VPC Network ACL Documentation

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

AWS abuse notifications are delivered as AWS Health events. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, Amazon EventBridge integrates natively with AWS Health and can be used to detect specific event types such as AWS_ABUSE_DOS_REPORT in near real time.

By creating an EventBridge rule that filters for the abuse report event type and publishes directly to Amazon SNS, the solution remains fully managed, low latency, and cost effective.

Polling APIs introduces delay and complexity. CloudTrail does not log abuse notifications. EventBridge with AWS Health is the recommended mechanism for reacting to AWS service events.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Health and EventBridge Integration

AWS Abuse Notification Handling

When Amazon CloudFront is used in front of an Application Load Balancer, CloudFront becomes the immediate source of incoming requests to the ALB. As a result, AWS WAF logs record the CloudFront edge location IP addresses as the client IPs, not the original viewer IP addresses. This behavior is explicitly documented in the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide and the AWS WAF and CloudFront integration documentation.

To preserve the original client IP address, CloudFront automatically adds the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header, which contains the IP address of the originating client followed by any proxy addresses involved in forwarding the request. AWS WAF logs include this header, making it the authoritative source for identifying true client IP addresses when CloudFront is used.

Option A is incorrect because VPC Flow Logs capture network-level metadata and will only show CloudFront IP addresses, not the original client IPs. Option C is incorrect because disabling connection reuse does not change how client IPs are logged in AWS WAF. Option D is unnecessary and unsupported as a requirement because CloudFront already provides the required information through standard headers.

AWS documentation consistently states that X-Forwarded-For is the correct and supported mechanism for tracing client IPs in CloudFront-protected applications.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS WAF Developer Guide – Logging

Amazon CloudFront Developer Guide – Request Headers

When AWS IAM Identity Center is used to manage user access across an AWS Organization, Identity Center is the authoritative control plane for enabling and disabling user access. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide, disabling a user in IAM Identity Center immediately prevents that user from accessing any AWS account or role that is assigned through permission sets, satisfying the requirement to stop access organization-wide.

Disabling an IAM user in a single account or removing attached policies (Options A and B) does not prevent access through IAM Identity Center–managed roles in other accounts. Option C is incomplete because removing permission sets does not immediately disable authentication and still requires querying logs from an unsupported source.

For investigation and evidence collection, AWS CloudTrail organizational event data stores provide centralized, queryable access to all management and data events across all accounts in the organization. CloudTrail Lake enables security engineers to run SQL-based queries directly against event data without exporting logs to other services. This allows rapid collection of all actions that the compromised user performed during the last 7 days.

AWS documentation explicitly identifies the combination of IAM Identity Center for access revocation and CloudTrail Lake for organization-wide investigation as a best practice for identity-related incident response.

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS IAM Identity Center Documentation

AWS CloudTrail Lake User Guide

AWS Incident Response Best Practices

AWS Organizations and CloudFormation StackSets provide an organizational deployment mechanism for consistent infrastructure across accounts. AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance emphasizes minimizing use of the management account and using delegated administrator capabilities where available for centralized governance while reducing blast radius. By configuring a delegated administrator account for AWS CloudFormation, the company can create and manage StackSets without performing day-to-day deployment operations from the management account. Targeting the organization root ensures the StackSet deploys to all existing accounts. Enabling automatic deployment ensures that any future accounts that join the organization (or move into targeted OUs, depending on configuration) automatically receive the monitoring service without manual intervention. This directly meets the requirement to deploy to all existing and future accounts with minimal effort. Option A requires ongoing manual updates when accounts are added, increasing operational overhead. Options C and D rely on Systems Manager Automation, which can work but introduces additional operational complexity and is not the standard AWS mechanism for organization-wide infrastructure rollout compared to StackSets with auto-deployment. StackSets also provide consistent change control, drift detection, and centralized update mechanisms, which align with governance expectations for compliance tooling.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Organizations Delegated Administration

AWS CloudFormation StackSets for Multi-Account Governance

AWS CloudTrail data event logging is the correct solution because it is specifically designed to capture detailed, structured, and near–real-time API activity for Amazon S3 object-level operations. When S3 data events are enabled, CloudTrail records actions such as GetObject, PutObject, and DeleteObject, along with critical context including the IAM principal, source IP address, event time, request parameters, and response elements. These logs are delivered in JSON format, making them highly structured and suitable for security analysis, SIEM integration, and automated detection workflows.

Amazon S3 server access logging (option A) provides basic request-level information but does not include full IAM identity context and is delivered with a significant delay, which does not meet the near–real-time requirement. AWS Config (option C) focuses on resource configuration changes and compliance evaluation; it does not log object-level access events. Amazon Macie (option D) is a data security service that uses machine learning to discover and classify sensitive data in S3 and generate findings for anomalous access patterns, but it is not a comprehensive access logging solution.

AWS Security Specialty documentation clearly states that CloudTrail data events are the authoritative mechanism for auditing S3 object-level access with identity attribution and precise timestamps, making option B the correct and best-practice answer

Amazon GuardDuty provides continuous threat detection for compromised instances by analyzing VPC Flow Logs, DNS logs, and CloudTrail events. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty guidance, GuardDuty is the fastest service to enable for detecting malware and compromised EC2 instances.

To notify the security team, Amazon SNS provides a native email notification mechanism with minimal setup. Amazon EventBridge integrates directly with GuardDuty findings and can filter based on severity. Creating an EventBridge rule that matches high severity GuardDuty findings and publishes to SNS ensures immediate notification.

Security Hub is not required for this use case and adds additional setup time. Amazon SQS does not support email subscriptions.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon GuardDuty Findings and Severity

Amazon EventBridge Integration with GuardDuty

AWS Systems Manager Run Command enables secure, remote execution of commands on EC2 instances without requiring network access or inbound ports. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty Study Guide, Run Command is a recommended mechanism for incident response actions such as installing forensic tools, collecting evidence, or applying quarantine controls.

By granting the SSM Agent permission to execute a predefined Run Command document, the security engineer can immediately run the quarantine script across affected instances. This approach supports automation, scalability, and auditability, all of which are critical during security incidents.

Options A, B, and C do not directly enforce quarantine or execute response actions. Tracking versions and storing scripts alone do not trigger incident response.

AWS documentation highlights Systems Manager Run Command as a core capability for automated containment and investigation.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Systems Manager Run Command

AWS Incident Response Automation

Amazon Cognito identity pools provide temporary AWS credentials by exchanging web identity tokens with AWS STS using AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity. According to AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, this is the correct mechanism for granting applications AWS credentials.

User pools authenticate users but do not issue AWS credentials. Identity pools integrate with IAM roles and STS, enabling secure, temporary access to AWS services.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

Amazon Cognito Identity Pools

AWS STS Web Identity Federation

AWS Organizations service control policies (SCPs) are designed to enforce preventive guardrails across accounts without requiring application-level changes. According to the AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation, SCPs can restrict specific API actions or require certain condition keys to enforce security standards centrally. AWS Lambda function URLs support two authentication modes: AWS_IAM and NONE. When the authentication type is set to NONE, the function URL becomes publicly accessible, which introduces a significant security risk in production environments.

By using an SCP that explicitly denies the lambda:CreateFunctionUrlConfig and lambda:UpdateFunctionUrlConfig actions when the lambda:FunctionUrlAuthType condition key equals NONE, the organization ensures that unauthenticated function URLs cannot be created or modified in production accounts. This enforcement occurs at the AWS Organizations level and applies automatically to all accounts within the specified organizational units (OUs). Developers are not required to change their workflows or add additional controls, satisfying the requirement of no additional developer effort.

Option A relates to browser-based access controls and does not provide authentication or authorization enforcement. Option B is not valid because AWS WAF cannot be attached directly to AWS Lambda function URLs. Option C is incorrect because SCPs do not grant permissions; they only limit permissions. AWS documentation clearly states that SCPs define maximum available permissions and are evaluated before IAM policies.

This approach aligns with AWS best practices for centralized governance, least privilege, and preventive security controls.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Organizations Service Control Policies Documentation

AWS Lambda Security and Function URL Authentication Overview

Service control policies (SCPs) define the maximum available permissions for accounts and are evaluated as guardrails. AWS Certified Security – Specialty documentation states SCPs are typically used to apply organization-wide restrictions, and exceptions are commonly handled by using conditions (for example, excluding specific accounts) or by structuring OUs differently. Because all accounts are in the same OU and the company must continue blocking external sharing for everyone except one account, modifying the existing SCP to exclude the marketing account is the most direct solution. An SCP attached at the root affects all accounts unless conditions narrow its scope. Adding a condition that excludes the marketing account allows that account to retain the ability to share resources externally while the SCP continues to block sharing for other accounts. Option A is not feasible because account-level SCPs cannot override a deny applied by a parent SCP; explicit denies always win. Option C misunderstands SCP behavior because SCPs do not grant permissions; they only limit. Option D is an IAM control that cannot override an organization-level deny. Therefore, the only secure, scalable option is to modify the existing SCP with an exception condition for the marketing account.

Referenced AWS Specialty Documents:

AWS Certified Security – Specialty Official Study Guide

AWS Organizations SCP Evaluation Logic

SCP Deny Precedence and Exception Patterns