SOA-C03 AWS Certified CloudOps Engineer - Associate Questions and Answers

According to the AWS Cloud Operations and Cost Management documentation, AWS Budgets is the recommended service to track and alert on cost thresholds across all AWS accounts and resources. It allows users to define cost, usage, or reservation budgets, and configure notifications to trigger when usage or cost reaches defined percentages of the budgeted value (e.g., 75%, 90%, 100%).

The AWS Budgets system integrates natively with Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS) to deliver alerts to an email distribution list or SNS topic subscribers. AWS Budgets supports granular cost filters, including specific service categories such as data transfer, regions, or linked accounts, ensuring precise visibility into inter-Region transfer costs.

By contrast, CloudWatch billing alarms (Option B) monitor total account charges only and do not allow detailed service-level filtering, such as data transfer between Regions. Cost and Usage Reports (Option A) are for detailed cost analysis, not real-time alerting, and VPC Flow Logs (Option D) capture traffic data, not billing or cost-based metrics.

Thus, using AWS Budgets with a 75% alert threshold best satisfies the operational and notification requirements.

According to AWS Cloud Operations and Networking documentation, Route 53 Resolver inbound endpoints allow DNS queries to originate from on-premises DNS servers and resolve private hosted zone records in AWS. The inbound endpoint provides DNS resolver IP addresses within the VPC, which the on-premises DNS servers can forward queries to over AWS Direct Connect or VPN connections.

The inbound endpoint must be associated with a security group that permits inbound traffic on TCP and UDP port 53 from the on-premises DNS server IP addresses. This ensures that DNS requests from the on-premises environment reach the VPC Resolver for resolution of private domains like example.com.

By contrast, outbound endpoints are used for the opposite direction—resolving external (on-premises or internet) DNS names from within AWS VPCs. Therefore, only an inbound endpoint correctly satisfies the direction of resolution in this scenario.

As described in the AWS Cloud Operations and EC2 Management documentation, changing an instance type (e.g., from T3 to C5) requires that the instance be stopped first. Once stopped, the engineer can modify the instance type through the AWS Management Console, CLI, or API, then start the instance again to apply changes.

This process preserves the root volume, networking configuration, and data, making it an operationally safe and efficient way to upgrade to a different instance family.

Changing the instance type while running (Option D) is unsupported. VM Import/Export (Option A) is for external VM migration. Hibernation (Option B) does not apply to type changes.

Thus, Option C is correct — stopping the instance, changing its type, and restarting it meets AWS best practices.

Per the AWS Cloud Operations and EventBridge documentation, when events are sent across AWS accounts — particularly from multiple accounts in an AWS Organization — the target event bus in the receiver account must include a resource-based policy that explicitly allows events:PutEvents API calls from the sender accounts or the organization ID.

Even if the sender accounts have IAM permissions to call PutEvents, the receiving event bus must trust those accounts via a resource policy. Without this configuration, EventBridge automatically rejects incoming cross-account events, and those events never reach the target Lambda function for processing.

AWS guidance states that “Cross-account event delivery requires a resource-based policy on the event bus that grants permissions to the source accounts or organization.” The policy can include either individual AWS account IDs or the organization’s root ID.

In this scenario, because the events originate from multiple accounts and there is no resource policy on the target event bus to authorize those sender accounts, the events are not delivered.

Therefore, the correct cause is C – the resource-based policy on the target event bus must be modified to allow PutEvents API calls from the sender accounts.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

The correct answers are B and D. AWS CloudOps documentation clearly states that AWS Secrets Manager is the recommended service for storing and managing database credentials securely. Secrets Manager integrates natively with Amazon RDS and supports automatic, scheduled secret rotation.

To rotate credentials weekly, Secrets Manager requires a Lambda rotation function. AWS provides managed rotation templates for Amazon RDS for MySQL that update the database password and the stored secret atomically. This combination ensures credentials are protected, rotated automatically, and audited with minimal operational effort.

Option A is incorrect because RDS Proxy does not store or rotate credentials; it only retrieves them from Secrets Manager. Option C is incorrect because Systems Manager Parameter Store does not support native automatic rotation. Option E is incorrect because Automation runbooks are not the recommended mechanism for secrets rotation and add unnecessary complexity.

AWS CloudOps best practices strongly recommend Secrets Manager with Lambda-based rotation for database credential protection and compliance.

AWS Secrets Manager natively supports credential management and automatic rotation for Amazon RDS master user passwords. When a secret is associated with an RDS instance, Secrets Manager automatically updates the password both in the secret and on the database, without downtime or manual scripting.

AWS documentation confirms:

“AWS Secrets Manager can automatically rotate the master user password for Amazon RDS databases. Rotation is fully managed and integrated, requiring no custom code or maintenance.”

Option A introduces unnecessary Lambda automation. Option B and C use Parameter Store, which does not provide direct RDS password rotation. Therefore, Option D achieves secure, automatic credential rotation with least operational effort, fully aligned with CloudOps security automation principles.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Doocuments:

With simple scaling policies, an Auto Scaling group performs one scaling activity when the alarm condition is met, then observes a default cooldown period (300 seconds) before another scaling activity of the same type can begin. CloudOps guidance explains that cooldown prevents rapid successive scale-outs by allowing time for the newly launched instance(s) to register with the load balancer and impact the metric. Even if the alarm breaches multiple times during the cooldown window, the group waits until the cooldown completes before evaluating and acting again. In this case, although RequestCountPerTarget exceeded the threshold twice within 180 seconds, the group will launch a single instance and then wait for cooldown before any additional scale-out can occur. Options A, C, and D do not reflect the behavior of simple scaling with cooldowns; A describes step/target-tracking-like behavior, and C/D are not Auto Scaling mechanics.

In the AWS Cloud Operations and Aurora documentation, when data loss occurs due to human error such as dropped tables, Point-in-Time Recovery (PITR) is the recommended method for restoration. PITR creates a new Aurora cluster restored to a specific time before the failure.

The restored cluster has a new endpoint that must be reconfigured in the application to resume normal operations. AWS does not support performing PITR directly on an existing production database because that would overwrite current data.

Aurora Backtrack (Option A) applies only to Aurora MySQL, not PostgreSQL. Option B is incorrect because PITR cannot be executed in place. Option D refers to an import process from S3, which is unrelated to time-based recovery.

Hence, Option C is correct and follows the AWS CloudOps standard recovery pattern for PostgreSQL workloads.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

The requirement is classic active-passive (production in us-east-1, DR in us-west-2 “only for failover”). The most operationally efficient and purpose-built solution is Route 53 failover routing combined with health checks. With failover routing, Route 53 designates one record as PRIMARY (us-east-1) and another as SECONDARY (us-west-2). Route 53 continuously evaluates the health check associated with the primary endpoint (commonly the ALB DNS name or a specific health-check path). If the primary fails, Route 53 automatically returns the secondary record, directing client DNS resolution to the DR region. This ensures us-west-2 is used only when us-east-1 is unhealthy, directly matching the requirement.

Latency routing (Option B) is designed to route users to the region with the lowest latency, which can actively send traffic to us-west-2 even when us-east-1 is healthy—violating the “DR only” constraint. Options C and D introduce custom automation (CloudWatch + Lambda + DNS record updates) that increases operational overhead, adds failure modes, and is unnecessary because Route 53 already provides managed health-check-based failover. Additionally, “EC2 instance terminated” is not a reliable proxy for full application availability, and DNS modification automation is more complex than using native Route 53 failover policies.

The most secure pattern is to use an IAM role for Amazon EC2 with the minimum required permissions. AWS guidance states: “Use roles for applications that run on Amazon EC2 instances” and “grant least privilege by allowing only the actions required to perform a task.” By attaching a role to the instance, short-lived credentials are automatically provided through the instance metadata service; this removes the need to create long-term access keys or embed secrets. Granting only sqs:SendMessage, sqs:ReceiveMessage, and sqs:DeleteMessage against the specific SQS queues enforces least privilege and aligns with CloudOps security controls. Options A and B rely on IAM user access keys, which contravene best practices for workloads on EC2 and increase credential-management risk. Option C uses a role but grants sqs:*, violating least-privilege principles. Therefore, Option D meets the security requirement with scoped, temporary credentials and precise permissions.

According to the AWS Cloud Operations and Database Reliability documentation, Amazon RDS Multi-AZ deployments provide high availability and automatic failover by maintaining a synchronous standby replica in a different Availability Zone.

In the event of instance failure, planned maintenance, or Availability Zone outage, Amazon RDS automatically promotes the standby to primary with minimal downtime (typically less than 60 seconds). The failover is transparent to applications because the DB endpoint remains the same.

By contrast, read replicas (Option B) are asynchronous and do not provide automated failover. Auto Scaling (Option C) applies to EC2, not RDS. RDS Proxy (Option D) improves connection management but does not add redundancy.

Thus, Option A — converting the RDS instance into a Multi-AZ deployment — delivers the required high availability and business continuity with minimal operational effort.

According to AWS Cloud Operations and Governance documentation, AWS Trusted Advisor provides automated checks for security group rules across all accounts, including identifying ports open to 0.0.0.0/0.

When viewed in organizational mode, Trusted Advisor integrates with AWS Organizations, allowing administrators to access organization-wide security findings from a central management account. This approach requires no custom code, additional infrastructure, or manual inspection, providing immediate visibility and the lowest operational overhead.

AWS CLI scripts (Option A) or Lambda automation (Option C) introduce additional maintenance, and Amazon Inspector (Option D) is focused on instance-level vulnerabilities, not network access rules.

Therefore, Option B is the AWS-recommended CloudOps best practice for centralized and low-effort open-port auditing.

According to the AWS Cloud Operations and ElastiCache documentation, cache evictions occur when the cache runs out of memory and must remove items to make space for new data.

To reduce evictions and retain frequently accessed items, AWS recommends increasing the total available memory — either by scaling up to larger node types or scaling out by adding shards/nodes. Migrating to a cluster with larger nodes is the simplest and most efficient solution because it immediately expands capacity without architectural changes.

Adjusting TTL (Options B and C) controls expiration timing, not memory allocation. Adding a single node (Option A) may help, but redistributing data requires resharding, introducing more complexity.

Thus, Option D provides the lowest operational overhead and ensures high cache hit rates by increasing total cache memory.

Per the AWS Cloud Operations and Event Management documentation, Amazon EventBridge provides native scheduling capabilities that can trigger events at defined intervals—such as weekly, daily, or cron-based schedules.

Creating an EventBridge rule that runs every Saturday and publishes a message to an SNS topic fully automates the notification process without maintaining servers or manual jobs. This approach is serverless, highly reliable, and fully managed by AWS.

By contrast:

EC2 cron jobs (Option A) require instance management, patching, and cost overhead.

SNS subscriptions (Option C) handle message delivery, not scheduling.

Step Functions (Option D) are designed for complex workflows, not simple scheduled triggers.

Thus, Option B provides the most operationally efficient CloudOps solution by integrating EventBridge scheduled events with SNS topics for automated, recurring notifications.

Per the AWS Cloud Operations and S3 Data Management documentation, Cross-Region Replication (CRR) automatically replicates new objects between S3 buckets across Regions. However, CRR alone does not retroactively replicate existing objects created before replication configuration. To include such objects, AWS introduced S3 Batch Replication.

S3 Batch Replication scans the source bucket and replicates all existing objects that were not copied previously. Additionally, it can retry failed replication tasks automatically, ensuring regulatory compliance for complete dataset replication.

S3 Replication Time Control (S3 RTC) guarantees predictable replication times for new objects only—it does not cover previously stored data. S3 Lifecycle rules (Option D) move or transition objects between storage classes or buckets, but not in a replication context.

Therefore, the correct solution is to use S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR) combined with S3 Batch Replication to ensure all current and future data is synchronized across Regions with retry capability.

Per the AWS Cloud Operations, Monitoring, and Automation documentation, the correct workflow for automated operational remediation is:

Amazon CloudWatch Agent is installed on each EC2 instance (Option A) to collect local log data and push it to Amazon CloudWatch Logs.

A CloudWatch Metric Filter (Option C) is then defined to identify specific error strings or patterns within those logs (e.g., “HTTP 5xx” or “Service Unavailable”). When such an event occurs, CloudWatch Alarms are triggered.

Upon alarm activation, Amazon EventBridge rules (Option E) are configured to respond automatically by invoking an AWS Systems Manager Automation runbook, which executes an action to restart the web server process on the affected instance via SSM Agent.

This approach aligns directly with AWS’s recommended CloudOps remediation pattern, known as event-driven automation, which ensures minimal downtime and eliminates manual intervention.

Options involving CloudTrail (B) or SES notifications (D) are incorrect because they are unrelated to log-based application monitoring and automated remediation workflows.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

Amazon EFS encryption at rest is a file system creation attribute; an unencrypted EFS file system cannot be “turned on” for encryption in place. Therefore, meeting the requirement (“encrypt an existing EFS using an existing KMS customer managed key”) requires creating a new encrypted file system and migrating data.

Option A is the most operationally efficient because EFS replication is a managed mechanism that continuously copies data and metadata from a source file system to a destination file system. By specifying the existing KMS customer managed key for the destination, the new file system is encrypted at rest under the required key. After replication has caught up, the administrator can perform a controlled cutover (failover) so applications mount the encrypted destination instead of the original source. This reduces manual copying effort, supports ongoing synchronization during migration, and simplifies the cutover window.

Option B is not possible because encryption-at-rest settings for EFS cannot be modified after creation. Option C is irrelevant because TLS certificates relate to encryption in transit and are not configured as part of EFS replication in the manner described. Option D can work functionally, but it requires building and operating a copy workflow, which is more manual and error-prone than managed replication.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

The correct answer is A because AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager natively supports tag-based targeting, which automatically includes both existing and future instances that match specified tag criteria. AWS CloudOps documentation states that patch policies can target managed nodes by instance tags, allowing administrators to dynamically scope patching operations without additional automation.

By defining the patch policy target as instances with an environment tag value of “Prod,” Patch Manager automatically applies patch baselines to all matching instances. Any new EC2 instance launched with the same tag is included automatically, requiring no manual intervention or additional services. This approach delivers the least operational overhead while remaining fully scalable and compliant.

Options B, C, and D are incorrect because they introduce unnecessary complexity by adding AWS Lambda functions, resource groups, or EventBridge rules. AWS CloudOps best practices emphasize using native Systems Manager capabilities whenever possible to reduce operational burden and failure points.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Doocuments:

For high availability and fast failover, ElastiCache for Redis supports replication groups with Multi-AZ and automatic failover. CloudOps guidance states that a primary node can be paired with one or more replicas across multiple Availability Zones; if the primary fails, Redis automatically promotes a replica to primary in seconds, thereby minimizing RTO. This architecture maintains in-memory data continuity without waiting for backup restore operations. Backups (Options B and D) provide durability but require restore and re-warm procedures that increase RTO and may impact application latency. Switching engines (Option A) to Memcached does not provide Redis replication/failover semantics and would not inherently improve resilience for this use case. Therefore, creating a read replica in a different AZ and enabling Multi-AZ with automatic failover is the prescribed CloudOps pattern to increase resilience and achieve the lowest practical RTO for Redis caches.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AWS CloudOps Documents:

The requirement is to alert before throttling occurs. For a DynamoDB table in provisioned capacity mode, throttling happens when demand approaches or exceeds provisioned throughput. CloudWatch provides direct table metrics such as ConsumedReadCapacityUnits and ProvisionedReadCapacityUnits (and related utilization signals). Creating an alarm on ConsumedReadCapacityUnits with a threshold set close to the table’s provisioned read capacity provides an early warning that the table is nearing its limit—before actual throttling prevents reads. The alarm can publish directly to the existing SNS topic so the operations team is notified proactively.

Option C and D focus on detecting throttling after it occurs by matching throttling exceptions in logs. That is reactive and violates “before throttled.” Option B (auto scaling) may reduce the likelihood of throttling, but it does not directly satisfy the alerting requirement and “scaling events” notifications are not a reliable proxy for “approaching throttle” (and may not fire early enough depending on scaling configuration). The simplest, most direct CloudOps approach is a CloudWatch alarm on consumption nearing provisioned capacity.

According to the AWS Cloud Operations and Security documentation, AWS CloudTrail is the authoritative service for recording API activity across all AWS services within an account.

When an access key is compromised, CloudTrail logs all API requests made using that key, including details such as:

The user identity (access key ID) that made the request,

The service, operation, resource, and timestamp affected, and

The source IP address and region of the request.

By searching the CloudTrail event history for the specific access key ID, the CloudOps engineer can identify every action performed by that key during the suspected breach window.

Other options are incorrect:

EventBridge (A) is event-driven, not historical.

CloudWatch Logs (B) monitors system logs, not AWS API activity.

VPC Flow Logs (D) track network-level traffic, not API calls.

Therefore, the correct solution is Option C — using AWS CloudTrail event history to audit and trace all actions executed via the compromised access key.

An alias record is the recommended Route 53 record type to map domain names (e.g., example.com) to AWS-managed resources such as an Application Load Balancer. Alias records are extension types of A or AAAA records that support AWS resources directly, providing automatic DNS integration and no additional query costs.

AWS documentation states:

“Use alias records to map your domain or subdomain to an AWS resource such as an Application Load Balancer, CloudFront distribution, or S3 website endpoint.”

A and AAAA records are used for static IP addresses, not load balancers. CNAME records cannot be used at the root domain (e.g., example.com). Thus, Option C is correct as it meets CloudOps networking best practices for scalable, managed DNS resolution to ALBs.

According to the AWS Cloud Operations and Compute Optimizer documentation, Compute Optimizer provides right-sizing recommendations by analyzing Amazon CloudWatch metrics and instance configuration data. However, AWS explicitly notes that only supported instance types are included in Compute Optimizer analyses. If an EC2 instance type is newly released or not yet supported by Compute Optimizer, it will not appear in the Compute Optimizer dashboard until official support is added.

The documentation explains that “Compute Optimizer analyses only supported resource types and instance families. Instances using unsupported or newly launched instance types will not appear in the Compute Optimizer console.” This ensures the service provides accurate recommendations based on sufficient performance history and benchmark data.

While CloudWatch metrics are required for analysis, the complete absence of instances from the dashboard — rather than “insufficient metric data” notifications — indicates unsupported instance types. Compute Optimizer would normally still display those with limited metrics but would flag them as “insufficient data,” not remove them entirely.

Therefore, the most accurate cause of missing instances in this case is that Compute Optimizer does not support the newly released instance types, making option B correct.

AWS CloudOps governance best practices emphasize centralized account management and preventive guardrails. AWS Control Tower integrates directly with AWS Organizations and provides “Region deny controls” and “Service Control Policies (SCPs)” that apply automatically to all existing and newly created member accounts. SCPs are organization-wide guardrails that define the maximum permissions for accounts. They can explicitly deny actions such as launching EC2 instances in a specific Region, or block root user access.

To prevent CloudTrail log deletion, SCPs can also include denies on cloudtrail:DeleteTrail and s3:DeleteObject actions targeting the CloudTrail log S3 bucket. These SCPs ensure that no user, including administrators, can violate the compliance requirements.

AWS documentation under the Security and Compliance domain for CloudOps states:

“Use AWS Control Tower to establish a secure, compliant, multi-account environment with preventive guardrails through service control policies and detective controls through AWS Config.”

This approach meets all stated needs: centralized enforcement, automatic propagation to new accounts, region-based restrictions, and immutable audit logs. Options A, B, and D either detect violations reactively or lack complete enforcement and automation across future accounts.