Visit here for our full Google Professional Cloud Security Engineer exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 21
Which method best ensures that Compute Engine instances can ONLY access Google APIs using internal routes and never the public Internet?
A) Assign public IPs and apply firewall deny rules
B) Configure Private Google Access and remove external IPs
C) Use Cloud NAT on all subnets
D) Route traffic through a VPN tunnel only
Answer: B
Explanation:
Assigning public IPs to virtual machines and relying on firewall deny rules can reduce some unnecessary inbound or outbound traffic, but this approach still leaves a broad attack surface exposed to the internet because every VM with a public IP is inherently reachable. Even with strict firewall controls, misconfigurations, rule overlaps, or unintended allow rules can lead to accidental exposure. Public IPs also increase the likelihood of scanning, brute-force attacks, and attempted exploitation from external networks. This strategy offers only partial protection and does not guarantee that workloads remain isolated from the public internet. Using Cloud NAT on all subnets helps centralize and control outbound traffic by preventing workloads from needing their own public IPs, but Cloud NAT alone does not stop workloads from establishing outbound connections unless paired with restrictive egress firewall rules. If misconfigured, workloads may still reach external services, and Cloud NAT does not inherently limit access to Google APIs or ensure that communication occurs through secure, internal pathways. Similarly, routing all traffic through a VPN tunnel to on-premises environments introduces complexity, latency, and dependency on physical infrastructure. While it can centralize control, it does not inherently restrict or secure access to Google APIs and may create bottlenecks, single points of failure, or operational challenges during scaling.
Configuring Private Google Access and removing external IPs from virtual machines provides a stronger, more secure, and more reliable method for ensuring that workloads can reach Google Cloud APIs without touching the public internet. Private Google Access allows VMs that only have private IPs to communicate with Google APIs over Google’s internal network rather than using external IP space. Removing public IPs significantly reduces attack surface by eliminating direct external reachability and forcing all inbound access to use private networking solutions such as VPN or interconnect if external connectivity is requireD) This configuration also supports zero-trust and defense-in-depth strategies by ensuring that workloads communicate securely and privately without relying on external exposure. Because it minimizes risk, enforces private connectivity, and aligns with best practices for securing cloud workloads, this option is the most effective and comprehensive among those listeD)
Question 22
Which logging configuration ensures maximum visibility into who performed read and write operations on Cloud Storage objects?
A) Admin Activity Logs only
B) Data Access Logs enabled for Storage
C) Firewall Rule Logging
D) Cloud Monitoring metrics
Answer: B
Explanation:
Admin Activity Logs capture operations that change configurations or modify infrastructure resources, such as creating or deleting buckets, updating IAM policies, or altering project settings. These logs are important for auditing administrative behavior, but they do not record actual data interactions. When the goal is to understand who accessed specific objects inside Cloud Storage or what data was read, Admin Activity Logs alone are insufficient because they focus only on control-plane events, not data-plane actions. Firewall Rule Logging provides network-level visibility by recording which connections are allowed or denied based on firewall policies. While this is useful for network troubleshooting and security investigations related to traffic flow, it cannot provide insights into how users or applications interact with data stored in Cloud Storage. Firewall logs do not capture read operations, object downloads, or metadata access events within storage buckets. Cloud Monitoring metrics help measure performance, latency, throughput, and resource consumption. Although these metrics are essential for operational health and alerting, they do not offer any detail about which users accessed specific storage objects or what type of data operations occurreD) They cannot support compliance requirements that demand detailed audit trails for sensitive or regulated datA)
Enabling Data Access Logs for Cloud Storage is the only option that provides comprehensive visibility into data-plane operations. These logs capture information about who accessed objects, what type of action was performed, when the access occurred, and which resources were involveD) This includes object reads, writes, copies, deletions, and metadata views. Data Access Logs are critical for forensic investigations, compliance audits, and detecting unauthorized data access. They allow organizations to correlate access patterns, identify suspicious activity, and verify whether data handling aligns with internal policies. By exporting these logs to Cloud Logging, BigQuery, or Cloud Storage, teams can perform long-term retention, advanced analytics, and cross-system correlation to strengthen security posture. Because they provide precise, detailed, and actionable insights into how data is being accessed, Data Access Logs represent the most complete and effective solution for monitoring Cloud Storage interactions.
Question 23
Which feature enables automated discovery of sensitive data across BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and databases?
A) Cloud Armor
B) Cloud DLP
C) Cloud Deployment Manager
D) Pub/Sub triggers
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cloud Armor provides protection at the edge of a network by enforcing security policies on incoming traffic, blocking malicious requests, and mitigating distributed denial-of-service attacks. It is designed to protect externally facing applications and services, but it does not analyze or classify sensitive data stored within cloud systems. Because its function is centered on traffic filtering and application-level protection, Cloud Armor does not help detect exposure of confidential information, nor does it automate processes related to data identification or privacy enforcement. Cloud Deployment Manager is an infrastructure-as-code tool that helps teams create and manage resources through configuration files. While it supports automation and consistency in deployments, it has no built-in ability to scan for sensitive data or classify content stored in buckets, databases, or other services. It does not provide any privacy-sensitive analysis and cannot identify regulated data types, making it unrelated to data protection workflows. Pub/Sub triggers allow event-driven architectures where messages published to a topic can invoke downstream services such as Cloud Functions or Cloud Run. Although Pub/Sub enables useful automation and workflow orchestration, it depends entirely on the logic of whatever service processes the events. Pub/Sub alone cannot recognize sensitive information or decide when data exposure has occurred, and it must be paired with another service for inspection tasks.
Cloud DLP is specifically designed to detect, classify, and help protect sensitive information across storage systems, databases, and data streams. It can analyze structured or unstructured data for identifiers such as credit card numbers, personal names, medical information, government documents, and many other sensitive formats. Cloud DLP offers configurable inspection templates, automatic scanning, transformation capabilities such as masking or tokenization, and integration with event-driven pipelines. When paired with Pub/Sub or Cloud Functions, it can create end-to-end automated systems for continuously monitoring and securing datA) Because it directly addresses privacy, compliance, and data protection concerns, Cloud DLP is the only option among those listed that can identify sensitive or regulated data and support automated enforcement actions.
Question 24
Which security strategy best protects service accounts from unauthorized impersonation?
A) Use firewall rules to restrict IPs
B) Use IAM Conditions to restrict impersonation
C) Use Cloud Audit Logs only
D) Use Shared VPC
Answer: B
Explanation:
Using firewall rules to restrict IPs can help limit where traffic originates, but this approach only addresses network-level filtering and does not protect against unauthorized identity usage or credential misuse. Even if traffic is restricted to specific IP ranges, an attacker operating from an allowed IP or compromising a system within that range could still perform privileged actions if they manage to impersonate a service account. Firewall rules do not understand identity context, do not differentiate between legitimate and malicious API calls, and cannot prevent impersonation attacks involving stolen credentials inside the allowed network space. Relying solely on Cloud Audit Logs also falls short because logs provide after-the-fact visibility rather than active prevention. Audit logs help security teams investigate who performed certain actions and when, but they cannot stop a malicious user or compromised service from impersonating privileged identities in real time. Logs are valuable for compliance and forensic analysis, yet they do not serve as proactive security controls for high-impact identity operations. Using Shared VPC centralizes network management and enforces consistent network policies across multiple projects, but Shared VPC is designed primarily for network segmentation and connectivity management. It does not provide mechanisms to control impersonation of service accounts or evaluate contextual factors such as device state, IP origin, or time-based restrictions during identity-related operations.
IAM Conditions offer a more precise and effective approach by enabling administrators to apply contextual constraints to identity impersonation activities. With IAM Conditions, organizations can define when, where, and under what circumstances service accounts may be impersonateD) Conditions can evaluate attributes such as request time, originating IP address, resource type, or security level of the client device. This ensures that even if a credential is leaked or a user gains unintended access, impersonation can only occur under approved and clearly defined contexts. IAM Conditions strengthen enforcement of the principle of least privilege by preventing broad and unrestricted identity delegation. This reduces the attack surface, minimizes insider threat risk, and ensures that sensitive service accounts cannot be misuseD) For controlling impersonation securely and reliably, IAM Conditions provide the most comprehensive protection among the listed options.
Question 25
Which Google Cloud feature helps prevent misconfigurations by enforcing organization-wide security policies before resources are created?
A) Cloud Scheduler
B) Organization Policy Service
C) Cloud Build triggers
D) Cloud NAT
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cloud Scheduler is designed to run tasks on a specified schedule, such as invoking HTTP endpoints, publishing messages to Pub/Sub topics, or triggering automated workflows. While it is useful for periodic maintenance jobs, report generation, or orchestrating recurring tasks, it does not provide any mechanism for enforcing governance rules across an organization. Cloud Scheduler cannot restrict resource creation, limit the use of specific APIs, or control how developers configure cloud services. Its role is purely operational and event driven, not policy enforcing. Cloud Build triggers enable continuous integration and deployment pipelines by automatically running builds when source code changes occur or when other events are detecteD) Although this is helpful for automation and DevOps workflows, Cloud Build triggers do not govern security posture or organizational standards. They cannot stop users from creating forbidden resources, violating compliance requirements, or making configuration changes outside approved boundaries. Cloud NAT helps manage outbound internet traffic for private virtual machines by allowing them to access external resources without requiring public IP addresses. While Cloud NAT contributes to network security by reducing exposure, it does not enforce governance policies or control how cloud resources are created and used at the organizational level.
The Organization Policy Service provides a centralized and scalable way to enforce governance across all projects within an organization or folder. It allows administrators to define constraints that restrict how resources are used, such as controlling which APIs can be enabled, prohibiting the creation of public IP addresses, requiring customer-managed encryption keys, or limiting which services can be deployeD) These policies act as guardrails that prevent misconfigurations, ensure compliance with internal and external requirements, and reduce security risks by blocking noncompliant changes before they occur. Because Organization Policies operate at the highest hierarchy level, they cannot be bypassed by project owners, scripts, or automated processes. This ensures consistent enforcement across all workloads, regardless of team or project. For organizations that require strong governance, uniform standards, and protection against risky or unauthorized configurations, the Organization Policy Service is the only option among those listed that provides comprehensive and enforceable control.
Question 26
Which service provides real-time analysis of threats such as crypto-mining, anomalous API usage, and compromised service accounts?
A) Cloud Monitoring
B) Event Threat Detection
C) Cloud Functions
D) Cloud Armor
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cloud Monitoring is designed to provide visibility into the performance, health, and availability of cloud resources. It collects metrics, generates dashboards, and triggers alerts when systems behave abnormally. While it is essential for operational observability, Cloud Monitoring does not specialize in detecting security threats such as credential misuse, anomalous API calls, or suspicious administrative activity. Its alerts are based on numerical thresholds and performance indicators rather than threat intelligence or behavioral analysis. Cloud Functions enables developers to run code in response to events without managing servers. Although it is powerful for automation, orchestration, and event-driven workflows, Cloud Functions does not provide native threat detection capabilities. It can run logic to process logs or integrate with security tools, but it cannot independently identify complex attack patterns or malicious behavior occurring across cloud resources. Cloud Armor provides defense for externally facing applications by enforcing security rules, mitigating DDoS attacks, and filtering traffic based on IP reputation or custom rules. It is specifically focused on protecting applications from external threats at the network and application layer. However, it does not monitor internal system activity, API calls, or identity misuse, nor does it detect advanced multi-step attacks within the cloud environment.
Event Threat Detection offers a security-focused, cloud-native approach designed specifically to identify real-time threats within Google Cloud environments. It analyzes Cloud Audit Logs, VPC Flow Logs, and other telemetry to detect suspicious behavior such as brute-force login attempts, unauthorized access to sensitive data, risky service account activity, cryptocurrency mining behavior, privilege escalation, and other attack indicators. Event Threat Detection uses continuously updated threat intelligence and rule-based or machine learning–based analysis to recognize patterns associated with known and emerging attacks. This allows organizations to identify threats quickly and automatically, reducing the time attackers can remain undetecteD) It integrates deeply with Security Command Center, providing centralized findings and enabling automated or manual remediation workflows. Because it focuses on active security threats rather than operational metrics, automation, or network filtering, Event Threat Detection is the only option among the listed choices that delivers comprehensive real-time detection of malicious activity in the cloud environment.
Question 27
Which encryption method allows organizations to revoke Google’s decryption ability instantly in case of breach?
A) CMEK
B) Cloud EKM
C) GMEK
D) Key Rotation only
Answer: B
Explanation:
CMEK allows organizations to use customer-managed encryption keys stored within Cloud KMS to protect their datA) This approach provides more control than default encryption because administrators can define key rotation schedules, manage access permissions, and enforce cryptographic policies. However, the keys still reside within Google Cloud’s infrastructure, meaning organizations must trust the platform to store and manage them securely. While CMEK satisfies many compliance and security requirements, it does not provide the highest level of control for organizations that must maintain independent custody of their encryption keys. GMEK represents Google-managed encryption keys, which are enabled by default and require no user involvement. Although this offers convenience and ensures that every piece of data is encrypted, it provides little visibility or control over the key lifecycle. Organizations cannot dictate how keys are stored, rotated, or accessed, making GMEK unsuitable for environments with strict regulatory obligations or data sovereignty concerns. Relying solely on key rotation is also insufficient because rotation alone does not determine where keys are stored, who has custody, or how access is enforceD) Key rotation helps maintain key hygiene and limit the exposure of long-lived keys, but without strong governance and external control, it does not meaningfully enhance the security posture for highly sensitive workloads.
Cloud EKM, on the other hand, offers the strongest level of control and is designed for organizations that need to store their cryptographic keys outside of Google Cloud, often in their own hardware security module or an external key management system. With Cloud EKM, Google Cloud services can only access the keys when explicitly permitted by the external key system, ensuring that decryption requests are always subject to customer-owned approval workflows. This enables strict separation of duties, prevents unauthorized access by cloud administrators, and supports scenarios where data sovereignty, regulatory compliance, or corporate policy require that encryption keys never reside within the cloud provider. Cloud EKM allows organizations to maintain full ownership of their keys while still benefiting from Google Cloud services, providing a powerful combination of security, independence, and operational flexibility. For environments requiring maximum control and assurance, Cloud EKM is the most robust option among those listeD)
Question 28
Which configuration ensures that only signed, verified container images are deployed on Cloud Run?
A) Firewall allowlists
B) Binary Authorization
C) Cloud Logging filters
D) Secrets Manager rotation
Answer: B
Explanation:
Firewall allowlists offer a way to restrict which IP addresses are permitted to reach certain services, helping reduce unauthorized network access. However, this approach focuses solely on network-level filtering and cannot ensure that workloads are running trusted container images. Even with strict allowlists, a compromised or tampered image can still execute malicious code as long as it reaches the network. Firewall policies do not validate software supply chain integrity, enforce development standards, or prevent unapproved workloads from being deployeD) Cloud Logging filters provide visibility into system activity by allowing teams to search for specific log patterns or generate alerts. While logs are essential for monitoring and incident response, they operate after the fact and cannot stop risky or unverified containers from being deployeD) Logging can help identify suspicious behavior, but it cannot enforce integrity checks or control what code is allowed to run in the environment. Secrets Manager rotation helps maintain secure access credentials such as API keys, passwords, or certificates by rotating them on a predefined schedule. Although key rotation significantly improves security for stored secrets, it does not address container image trust or supply chain verification. Secrets management focuses on credential hygiene, not controlling which workloads are allowed to run.
Binary Authorization provides a robust and proactive security layer by ensuring that only trusted and verified container images are permitted to be deployed into production environments. It allows organizations to enforce signed attestations from attestors that validate images have passed specific security checks, such as vulnerability scanning, compliance reviews, or build pipeline verification. This requirement prevents unauthorized, tampered, or unvetted images from being executed, ensuring a strong chain of trust from development to deployment. Binary Authorization integrates directly with Kubernetes and cloud-native environments, making it highly effective for teams adopting containerized or microservices architectures. Because it enforces policy before workloads are deployed, it offers preventative control rather than reactive monitoring. It also helps organizations implement strict software supply chain security practices, including compliance with frameworks like SLSA or zero-trust image policies. Among the listed options, Binary Authorization is the only choice that directly mitigates the risk of running untrusted container images and provides a centralized policy enforcement mechanism at deployment time.
Question 29
Which service provides unified visibility into misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, public resource exposure, and threat findings across an entire organization?
A) Cloud Monitoring
B) Cloud Logging
C) Security Command Center Premium
D) Cloud DNS
Answer: C
Explanation:
Cloud Monitoring provides visibility into system performance by collecting metrics, generating dashboards, and alerting teams when infrastructure or applications experience issues. It helps operators maintain uptime and identify capacity concerns, but it is not designed to detect security threats such as unauthorized access, data exfiltration attempts, or misconfigurations that create vulnerabilities. It focuses primarily on operational health rather than security posture. Cloud Logging aggregates logs from various services and enables powerful querying, retention, and export capabilities. While logs are essential for investigations, auditing, and understanding system behavior, Cloud Logging by itself does not analyze logs for malicious patterns or correlate findings across resources. It requires additional layers of intelligence to turn raw logs into actionable security insights. Cloud DNS manages domain name resolution for services and provides high availability and performance for DNS queries. Although DNS management is critical for service reliability, it has no functionality to detect threats, assess vulnerabilities, or monitor cloud environments for security risks. It is a foundational networking service, not a security analysis platform.
Security Command Center Premium is the only option specifically designed to provide comprehensive security monitoring, risk identification, and threat detection across Google Cloud environments. It continuously scans for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, excessive permissions, exposed storage buckets, risky firewall openings, and weak service account practices. It also integrates advanced threat detection capabilities that identify suspicious activity such as compromised service accounts, unauthorized API calls, anomalous data access, and malware presence. Security Command Center Premium centralizes these findings, prioritizes them based on severity, and offers clear remediation guidance to help teams address issues efficiently. It supports compliance requirements, improves visibility across resources, and enables proactive defense rather than reactive incident handling. Because it provides unified, intelligence-driven security oversight rather than focusing on operational metrics, raw logging, or DNS operations, Security Command Center Premium is the most effective and comprehensive choice among the listed options for maintaining a strong security posture in Google ClouD)
Question 30
Which technology enables pod-level identity in GKE without storing service account keys?
A) OAuth tokens
B) Static JSON keys
C) Workload Identity
D) SSH keys
Answer: C
Explanation:
OAuth tokens are primarily designed for end-user authorization flows, where a user grants an application permission to act on their behalf. These tokens are short lived and tied to interactive user sessions, making them unsuitable for backend systems or automated workloads that must authenticate securely without human involvement. They also introduce risk if applications mishandle refresh tokens or if tokens are intercepteD) Static JSON keys provide long-lived credentials that workloads can use to authenticate to Google Cloud APIs. While they are simple to implement, they present a significant security risk because they must be stored somewhere accessible to the workloaD) If these keys are leaked through logs, repositories, or configuration files, attackers can impersonate the service account indefinitely until the key is manually revokeD) JSON key misuse has been one of the most common sources of credential compromise in cloud environments. SSH keys are suited for logging into virtual machines but are not designed for authenticating workloads to cloud services. They lack integration with IAM, they do not automatically rotate, and they do not provide fine-grained access control. Using SSH keys for workload authentication requires managing private keys manually, which is error prone and difficult to scale in environments with many services.
Workload Identity provides a secure, scalable, and cloud-native approach to workload authentication. Instead of relying on stored secrets, Workload Identity allows Kubernetes pods or virtual machines to automatically obtain short-lived, identity-bound tokens issued by Google ClouD) These tokens rely on underlying platform identity rather than static files and are rotated automatically. Workload Identity tightly integrates with IAM so that administrators can grant precise permissions based on the service account identity associated with the workloaD) This eliminates the risks associated with long-lived credentials and provides strong assurance that only authorized workloads can access specific Google Cloud resources. It also simplifies operational overhead by removing the need to distribute, rotate, or secure physical keys. Because it offers stronger security, better maintainability, and alignment with least-privilege principles, Workload Identity is the most effective and secure option among those listeD)
Question 31
Which method prevents attackers from using stolen Cloud Run identity tokens outside approved networks?
A) IAM-only restrictions
B) Firewall deny rules
C) IAM Conditions + audience restrictions
D) Cloud NAT
Answer: C
Explanation:
IAM-only restrictions can limit which identities have access to specific resources, but they do not control how authentication tokens are used or whether a token is being presented to the correct service. Traditional IAM alone cannot prevent token forwarding, replay attacks, or scenarios where a workload presents a token to an unintended service. This means that even with strict IAM role assignments, an attacker who gains access to a token may still use it outside its intended scope. Firewall deny rules help control network traffic by blocking unwanted IP addresses or restricting communication between networks, but they do not validate identity or enforce that requests are being made by the correct workloaD) Firewalls operate at the network layer, so they cannot determine whether incoming API calls are authorized based on identity or whether tokens are being misuseD) They also cannot protect against attacks where the traffic originates from legitimate internal IPs but carries malicious identity credentials.
Cloud NAT provides outbound internet access for workloads without exposing them through public IPs, improving security by reducing the external attack surface. However, Cloud NAT does not govern identity, access control, or how authentication tokens are issued and useD) It only handles network routing for egress traffic and cannot enforce conditions around API access, token audiences, or contextual request attributes. As a result, Cloud NAT does not help defend against impersonation, token misuse, or unauthorized intra-service API calls.
IAM Conditions combined with audience restrictions provide a more comprehensive and identity-aware security model. IAM Conditions allow administrators to define contextual rules that must be met before access is granteD) These rules can evaluate factors such as request time, source IP address, device security level, and other attributes. Audience restrictions ensure that OIDC or service account tokens can only be used with the intended service by binding the token to a specific audience value. This prevents token forwarding, where a token issued for one service is improperly presented to another. Together, these mechanisms enforce finer-grained identity verification, reduce the risk of misuse, and align API access with zero-trust principles. For securing service-to-service communication and preventing unauthorized token use, IAM Conditions combined with audience restrictions provide the strongest and most complete protection among the listed options.
Question 32
Which feature restricts Cloud Storage buckets from being created without CMEK?
A) Lifecycle Policies
B) Organization Policy requires CmekForStorage
C) VPC-SC perimeter
D) Cloud Armor rules
Answer: B
Explanation:
Lifecycle policies help automate the movement or deletion of objects in Cloud Storage based on age, version count, or storage class transitions. These policies are useful for cost optimization and data retention management, ensuring that older or less frequently accessed objects are archived or removed according to organizational data lifecycle requirements. However, lifecycle policies do not enforce encryption standards or dictate which encryption keys must be useD) They operate strictly on object age and storage behavior, not on security posture or compliance controls related to encryption. A VPC-SC perimeter provides an additional layer of defense by restricting which identities and networks can access certain Google Cloud services, reducing the risk of data exfiltration by enforcing service boundaries. While this is an important control for protecting sensitive data, it does not enforce encryption requirements on Cloud Storage buckets. A VPC-SC perimeter can prevent unauthorized access but will not stop someone from creating a bucket that uses default Google-managed encryption keys rather than customer-managed keys. Cloud Armor rules apply at the edge to protect applications from malicious traffic, DDoS attacks, and unwanted request patterns. Although crucial for securing web-facing services, Cloud Armor has no ability to enforce encryption requirements on storage buckets or manage how data is encrypted at rest. Its protections are entirely focused on application-layer traffic and do not interact with Cloud Storage configuration.
The Organization Policy that requires CmekForStorage provides a strong and enforceable control for ensuring that all newly created Cloud Storage buckets must use customer-managed encryption keys. This policy prevents the creation of buckets encrypted with Google-managed keys, guaranteeing that organizations maintain full control over the cryptographic keys protecting their datA) By applying the policy at the organization or folder level, administrators ensure consistent enforcement across all projects, eliminating the possibility of accidental noncompliance. This centralized governance is essential for organizations with strict regulatory obligations, internal security mandates, or data sovereignty requirements. Unlike reactive solutions that identify issues after bucket creation, the requireCmekForStorage constraint proactively enforces encryption standards and removes guesswork from the process. This policy integrates directly with Google Cloud’s resource hierarchy and cannot be bypassed by developers, scripts, or automated workflows, making it one of the most reliable methods for maintaining encryption compliance at scale. For these reasons, the Organization Policy requiring CMEK for Storage is the most effective and comprehensive option among those listeD)
Question 33
Which approach ensures secure mTLS-based service communication inside GKE?
A) Load balancer SSL
B) Network policy only
C) Anthos Service Mesh
D) Firewall rules
Answer: C
Explanation:
Load balancer SSL provides encryption for traffic entering through a load balancer and ensures that clients connect securely to backend services. While this protects data in transit at the perimeter, it does not secure communication between internal microservices once the traffic leaves the load balancer. Internal service-to-service communication may still occur unencrypted or without strong identity verification. Relying solely on SSL at the load balancer does not provide visibility, policy enforcement, or authentication between individual workloads inside a cluster. Network policies help control how pods communicate with one another by defining allowed ingress and egress rules. Although network policies contribute to network segmentation and reduce unauthorized traffic, they cannot enforce workload identity, guarantee encryption of all internal communication, or validate the authenticity of service calls. Network policies operate at the network layer and lack the ability to enforce higher-level security requirements such as cryptographic workload identities or mutual authentication. Firewall rules offer additional perimeter and subnet-level controls by allowing or denying traffic based on IP ranges, ports, and protocols. These rules are effective for establishing high-level boundaries but do not provide granular, service-aware security. Firewalls cannot validate whether the workload making a request is legitimate, nor can they provide encryption, certificate rotation, or detailed traffic insights within microservices environments.
Anthos Service Mesh provides a comprehensive solution for securing, observing, and controlling service-to-service communication in modern microservices architectures. It automatically encrypts all traffic between services using mutual TLS, ensuring both confidentiality and workload authentication. This prevents impersonation and unauthorized communication within the cluster. Anthos Service Mesh also issues strong workload identities, rotates certificates, enforces fine-grained security policies, and provides detailed telemetry for every service call. It supports zero-trust networking principles by validating the identity of workloads before allowing communication and by applying consistent policies across clusters and environments. Additionally, it offers traffic management capabilities, observability through metrics and traces, and advanced policy-based access control that goes far beyond what firewalls or network policies can achieve. Among the options listed, Anthos Service Mesh is the only choice that provides end-to-end encryption, workload identity, strong authentication, fine-grained authorization, and deep observability for microservices communication.
Question 34
Which type of log identifies when a user reads data from a BigQuery table?
A) Admin Logs
B) Data Access Logs
C) System Event Logs
D) Cloud Monitoring metrics
Answer: B
Explanation:
Admin Logs record administrative operations such as creating, modifying, or deleting resources. They provide visibility into control-plane actions taken by users or service accounts, including changes to IAM policies, bucket configurations, or project settings. While Admin Logs are crucial for understanding who modified infrastructure, they do not capture data-plane activity. This means they cannot show when users or services read, wrote, or downloaded actual data stored inside resources such as Cloud Storage buckets. As a result, Admin Logs alone are insufficient when the goal is to track access to sensitive information or audit how objects are being useD)
System Event Logs capture events generated by Google Cloud services related to internal operations, system health, or infrastructure-level processes. These logs help illustrate how cloud resources behave or identify background system events, but they do not provide insight into data access patterns. They are not designed for auditing user interactions with data or demonstrating compliance with regulations that require monitoring of reads, writes, or deletions of stored content. System Event Logs therefore serve more of an operational purpose than a data governance one. Cloud Monitoring metrics focus on performance, uptime, utilization, and operational health. They can show trends in storage usage, latency, or request throughput, but metrics do not include identity information or details about individual data accesses. Metrics are helpful for capacity planning and operational alerting but are irrelevant to forensic investigations or compliance audits related to data access.
Data Access Logs provide detailed visibility into data-plane operations and are the only option that records who accessed specific data, what operations were performed, and when those actions occurreD) These logs capture information about object reads, writes, copies, deletions, and metadata views. They also include user identity, service account identity, accessed resource paths, and request context. Data Access Logs are essential for organizations that must demonstrate compliance with privacy regulations, detect unauthorized access, investigate potential data breaches, or analyze how sensitive information is being used across the environment. They enable long-term retention, integration with Security Command Center, and sophisticated analytics when exported to BigQuery or Cloud Storage. Because they capture the complete picture of data interaction activity, Data Access Logs are the most effective and comprehensive choice for monitoring access to stored datA)
Question 35
Which Google Cloud feature automatically detects publicly exposed resources like open buckets or open firewall rules?
A) Cloud Run IAM
B) Security Health Analytics
C) Cloud NAT
D) Cloud DNS logging
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cloud Run IAM provides identity and access control for Cloud Run services, allowing administrators to define who can invoke a service, deploy updates, or manage configurations. While IAM is essential for restricting access and implementing the principle of least privilege, it does not identify security misconfigurations, detect vulnerabilities, or automatically assess risk across cloud resources. IAM alone does not evaluate whether a service is using strong authentication, secure configurations, or proper encryption settings. It is a critical component of access governance but does not function as a comprehensive security assessment tool. Cloud NAT provides outbound internet access for workloads that do not have public IP addresses, reducing exposure by masking individual instances behind a managed network address translation service. Although Cloud NAT is valuable for tightening network boundaries and limiting the attack surface, it does not scan resources for misconfigurations or detect vulnerabilities. It serves a networking function, not a security analytics or monitoring role. Cloud DNS logging captures DNS queries and responses, which can help identify suspicious domain lookups, detect potential malware communication, and support forensic investigations. However, DNS logs do not analyze cloud configurations, audit IAM policies, or identify insecure resource deployments. They are valuable for detection and network-wide visibility but do not address overall cloud security posture.
Security Health Analytics provides a comprehensive and automated solution that continuously scans cloud resources for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and insecure practices. It evaluates resources such as Compute Engine, Cloud Storage, IAM, Kubernetes clusters, Cloud SQL, and more. The service identifies risks including publicly exposed buckets, overly permissive firewall rules, weak IAM roles, outdated machine images, insecure service account configurations, and missing encryption settings. Security Health Analytics integrates directly with Security Command Center, offering prioritized findings and recommended remediation steps. It helps organizations maintain compliance with industry standards and enforce best practices across their entire environment. Unlike the other options, it proactively detects issues before they become exploitable vulnerabilities, providing a foundational layer of cloud security posture management. For organizations seeking automated, continuous assessment of their security configuration and risk exposure, Security Health Analytics is the most effective and complete option among those listeD)
Question 36
Which solution enforces that VM images used in Compute Engine are from a trusted, approved list?
A) Shielded VMs
B) OS Login
C) VM image policies
D) Cloud VPN
Answer: C
Explanation:
Shielded VMs provide protection at the machine level by ensuring that virtual machines boot with verified, tamper-resistant images. They protect against rootkit attacks, firmware modification, and unauthorized changes to the bootloader. While this greatly improves VM integrity, Shielded VMs do not control which operating system images developers are allowed to use when creating new VM instances. They secure the runtime environment but do not govern the image selection process or enforce compliance with approved OS versions. OS Login centralizes SSH access control by tying authentication to IAM identities and optionally enabling two-factor authentication. Although OS Login improves accountability and access security, it does not restrict which VM images can be deployed or ensure that all running VMs originate from trusted image sources. It addresses user access, not image governance. Cloud VPN provides a secure tunnel between on-premises networks and Google Cloud, ensuring encrypted communication across hybrid environments. However, Cloud VPN has no influence on which VM images developers choose and does not enforce standards or compliance requirements for image usage. Its purpose is network connectivity, not image management or security posture enforcement.
VM image policies offer a powerful mechanism for controlling which images can be used to create virtual machine instances. With these policies, administrators can enforce that only trusted images—such as those from a central image repository, those that meet compliance criteria, or those scanned and approved through security processes—are allowed for deployment. This prevents developers from launching VMs using outdated, vulnerable, or unapproved OS images that might contain security flaws or violate organizational standards. VM image policies integrate with organization-level governance, which ensures that restrictions apply uniformly across all projects and cannot be bypasseD) They support zero-trust principles by limiting the attack surface and ensuring that all new VMs originate from vetted, secure base images. In environments requiring consistent security hardening, compliance with regulatory frameworks, or strict operational control, image policies play a critical role in reducing risk. Among the options listed, VM image policies are the only feature designed specifically to manage and enforce allowed images, making them the most effective choice for ensuring VM deployments follow an approved and secure image lifecycle.
Question 37
Which feature enables scanning container registries for vulnerabilities automatically?
A) Cloud Functions scanners
B) Container Analysis
C) Secret Manager
D) Cloud Storage lifecycle
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cloud Functions scanners can be used to build custom logic that inspects resources or responds to events, but this approach requires teams to design, maintain, and operate their own scanning framework. Such scanners are often reactive, inconsistent, and dependent on developer expertise. They may fail if not updated regularly or if new resource types or vulnerabilities emerge. Cloud Functions also do not have built-in capabilities for analyzing container metadata, identifying vulnerabilities within container images, or integrating with container registries at scale. Secret Manager provides a secure location to store and manage sensitive information such as API keys, passwords, and certificates. While it plays an essential role in secret lifecycle management and helps prevent credential leakage, it does not analyze container images or detect vulnerabilities. Secret Manager focuses on protecting secrets, not identifying risks within container software supply chains. Cloud Storage lifecycle rules automate object transitions between storage classes or delete objects based on retention requirements. These rules help control storage costs and manage data retention but provide no insight into vulnerabilities, container metadata, or software supply chain risks. Lifecycle policies operate on object age and storage class rather than assessing security posture.
Container Analysis is purpose built to provide deep insights into container images, supporting vulnerability scanning, metadata analysis, and software supply chain visibility. It integrates with Artifact Registry and Container Registry to automatically analyze images for known vulnerabilities, missing security patches, outdated libraries, and insecure dependencies. Container Analysis continuously updates vulnerability information using trusted security databases, ensuring that organizations receive current and actionable findings. It also provides metadata such as build provenance and supports integration with policies like Binary Authorization, enabling enforcement of secure deployment pipelines. By offering structured vulnerability data, Container Analysis helps teams prioritize remediation efforts and maintain a secure container supply chain. It supports compliance efforts by ensuring that only secure and verified images progress through the deployment lifecycle. Among the listed options, it is the only choice with specialized capabilities for container security, automated analysis, and integration with deployment enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, it is the most effective solution for maintaining secure container images.
Question 38
Which method ensures Dataflow workers cannot exfiltrate data to the public Internet?
A) Assign public IPs
B) Remove public IPs and use Private Google Access
C) Use default network
D) Allow all egress
Answer: B
Explanation:
Assigning public IPs to virtual machines increases their exposure to the internet, even if additional firewall rules are applieD) Public IPs allow external scanning, probing, and potential exploitation attempts from any source on the internet. Even well-configured deny rules cannot eliminate the inherent risk of placing workloads directly on the public network. This approach contradicts the principles of minimizing attack surface and ensuring that internal workloads remain isolated from unnecessary external connectivity. Using the default network introduces another layer of risk because the default VPC contains automatically created firewall rules and wide-open configurations that are not aligned with security best practices. The default network was designed for convenience and rapid experimentation, not production-grade security. Leaving permissive settings unchanged can result in unintended exposure, overly broad access between subnets, and difficulty applying consistent security controls across environments. Allowing all egress traffic significantly weakens outbound security by permitting workloads to communicate with any external destination. This makes it easier for compromised workloads to exfiltrate data or contact malicious servers. Without proper egress controls, organizations cannot enforce data security policies, limit communication paths, or prevent unintended external dependencies. Allowing all egress also makes threat detection more challenging because traffic patterns become noisy and unpredictable.
Removing public IPs and using Private Google Access provides a much stronger security posture by ensuring that workloads can communicate securely with Google Cloud APIs without being exposed to the public internet. With this configuration, virtual machines only have private IP addresses, eliminating direct external reachability. Private Google Access allows these private VMs to access Google APIs through internal routes rather than relying on public network paths. This reduces the attack surface and supports zero-trust networking principles by ensuring all communication with Google services stays within controlled and authenticated channels. It also helps enforce egress restrictions because outbound connections can be tightly controlled using firewall rules and NAT configurations instead of unmanaged public IP flows. This approach is widely considered a security best practice for protecting cloud workloads, preventing unintended exposure, and maintaining strong boundaries between internal systems and the external internet. For these reasons, removing public IPs and using Private Google Access is the most secure and effective option.
Question 39
Which technology encrypts data in use for GKE confidential workloads?
A) CMEK
B) Confidential GKE Nodes
C) Cloud VPN
D) VPC-SC
Answer: B
Explanation:
CMEK provides customer-managed encryption keys that give organizations control over how data is encrypted at rest. This allows administrators to define rotation schedules, restrict key access, and ensure data is protected with keys they manage rather than relying solely on Google-managed encryption. While CMEK is valuable for meeting compliance needs and enforcing strong encryption standards, it does not protect data while it is actively being processed by workloads. Data must be decrypted in memory before workloads can use it, and CMEK does not shield that in-use data from potential exposure due to compromised kernels, privileged attackers, or memory scraping attacks. Cloud VPN enables secure communication between on-premises networks and Google Cloud through encrypted tunnels. It is critical for hybrid connectivity and ensures that data moving between environments cannot be intercepteD) However, Cloud VPN is a networking feature and does not address the security of data during computation. It also does not provide protections against attacks targeting the host environment or hypervisor. VPC-SC provides strong perimeter-based controls that prevent data exfiltration by restricting how identities and services interact across defined boundaries. Although it is powerful for containing data access and enforcing security segmentation, VPC-SC does not secure data in-use and does not protect workloads from kernel-level attacks or malicious code attempting to read sensitive memory content.
Confidential GKE Nodes provide security guarantees at the hardware level by enabling encryption of data in-use. They rely on specialized hardware technologies such as AMD SEV (Secure Encrypted Virtualization) to ensure that data processed in memory remains encrypted and isolated from unauthorized access. This protects sensitive workloads even from privileged system software, malicious insiders, or compromised hypervisors. Confidential GKE Nodes help organizations meet stringent security and regulatory requirements by safeguarding data throughout its entire lifecycle: at rest, in transit, and most importantly, in-use. This capability is especially critical for workloads involving regulated datasets, financial computations, healthcare processing, or proprietary algorithms. By integrating confidential computing capabilities directly into the GKE environment, organizations can run containerized applications securely without modifying their application code. Among the listed options, Confidential GKE Nodes are the only solution that specifically protects data while being processed, offering the strongest defense against advanced threats.
Question 40
What prevents developers from assigning broad IAM primitive roles like Editor?
A) IAM Logs
B) Organization Policy restricting primitive roles
C) Cloud Monitoring alerts
D) OS Login
Answer: B
Explanation:
IAM Logs provide visibility into which identities performed administrative actions or accessed certain resources, and they are valuable for auditing and investigations. However, logs alone do not prevent risky configurations from being created, nor do they enforce least-privilege by default. They are reactive rather than proactive, meaning they help identify issues after they occur but cannot stop developers or administrators from assigning overly broad permissions such as Owner or Editor. Cloud Monitoring alerts are helpful for detecting performance anomalies, capacity issues, and metric-based operational problems, but they do not provide governance over identity and access management. Monitoring tools cannot prevent dangerous IAM assignments, enforce security standards, or limit what types of roles can be granteD) OS Login improves SSH access security by tying VM login permissions to IAM identities and optionally requiring multi-factor authentication. While OS Login strengthens VM access governance, it is not designed to enforce role restrictions across an organization. It does not prevent the assignment of primitive roles across projects and has no influence over IAM policy structures outside of VM access.
An Organization Policy that restricts primitive roles provides a centralized, preventive, and enforceable method to eliminate overly broad access throughout an entire Google Cloud environment. Primitive roles such as Owner, Editor, and Viewer grant wide-ranging permissions that violate least-privilege principles and create substantial security risks if assigned improperly. By using an Organization Policy to prohibit these roles, administrators ensure that developers and project owners cannot assign them, whether intentionally or accidentally. This forces teams to use fine-grained IAM roles that more accurately reflect required permissions and drastically reduces the attack surface associated with privilege misuse. Organization Policies operate at the highest level of the resource hierarchy, meaning they cannot be bypassed by project-level settings or local overrides. They ensure consistent governance, reduce misconfigurations, and support compliance with internal standards and regulatory frameworks. Because this approach prevents high-risk IAM behavior rather than merely detecting or logging it, the Organization Policy restricting primitive roles is the most effective and comprehensive option among those listed.
