Google Professional Cloud Security Engineer Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set2 Q21-40

Visit here for our full Google Professional Cloud Security Engineer exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 21:

Your organization stores sensitive healthcare data in Google Cloud Storage. Compliance requires all data be encrypted with customer-managed keys (CMKs) and all access events logged centrally. Which configuration ensures compliance while maintaining least operational overhead?

A) Use Google-managed encryption keys and Cloud Logging for audit logs
B) Use customer-supplied encryption keys and configure Cloud Audit Logs manually
C) Use customer-managed encryption keys in Cloud KMS and enable Data Access logs for Cloud Storage
D) Use default encryption and enable Cloud Monitoring alerts on all buckets

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

A) Use Google-managed encryption keys and Cloud Logging for audit logs – Google-managed encryption keys (GMEK) provide encryption by default and relieve the organization from the responsibility of managing key lifecycle operations such as rotation or revocation. While convenient, GMEK does not give your organization direct control over the encryption keys, which is a critical requirement in regulated industries such as healthcare under HIPAA) Since compliance frameworks often require the customer to control key access and lifecycle, using GMEK alone is insufficient to meet strict regulatory standards. Cloud Logging can provide audit logs, but without control over the encryption keys, you cannot fully enforce compliance or respond to regulatory audits regarding data access.

B) Use customer-supplied encryption keys and configure Cloud Audit Logs manually – Customer-supplied keys (CSK) allow the organization to maintain full control over encryption, but they require manually supplying the keys for each operation, which can be operationally complex and error-prone. Additionally, configuring Cloud Audit Logs manually adds another layer of operational overhead and increases the risk of misconfiguration. While this method meets compliance requirements for key ownership, it is less efficient and harder to scale compared to using customer-managed keys.

C) Use customer-managed encryption keys in Cloud KMS and enable Data Access logs for Cloud Storage – This is the recommended approach. Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) provide full control over key creation, rotation, and revocation, while integrating seamlessly with Google Cloud KMS. CMEK allows organizations to enforce strict access policies through IAM, ensuring that only authorized users or services can use encryption keys. Enabling Data Access logs in Cloud Audit Logs ensures that every read and write action is tracked, providing accountability, traceability, and audit readiness. This combination addresses compliance requirements, operational scalability, and security.

D) Use default encryption and enable Cloud Monitoring alerts on all buckets – Default encryption protects data at rest but does not give customers control over key lifecycle or access policies, making it insufficient for regulatory compliance. Cloud Monitoring alerts provide operational visibility but do not fulfill auditing requirements for key management or detailed access tracking.

In conclusion, option C offers the optimal balance between regulatory compliance, operational simplicity, and security control, making it the preferred choice for regulated environments like healthcare. By using CMEK with Data Access logs, organizations gain audit-ready visibility while maintaining strong cryptographic assurance and centralized key management.

Question 22:

A security engineer is tasked with enforcing organizational policy where only approved external identities from specific domains can access Google Cloud resources. What’s the most effective way to implement this control?

A) Use VPC Service Controls to restrict access to approved domains
B) Configure an organization policy constraint to restrict identities by domain
C) Set up Identity-Aware Proxy with conditional access
D) Implement BeyondCorp Enterprise Context-Aware Access with device trust

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Use VPC Service Controls to restrict access to approved domains – VPC Service Controls are designed to prevent data exfiltration by defining security perimeters around Google Cloud resources and services. While they effectively restrict access to APIs and managed services from outside trusted networks or service perimeters, they do not provide enforcement of IAM membership policies or control which identity domains can be granted access. VPC Service Controls protect data boundaries but are not a mechanism for restricting IAM policy members based on their email domain.

B) Configure an organization policy constraint to restrict identities by domain – This is the correct and recommended approach. Organization policy constraints, such as constraints/iam.allowedPolicyMemberDomains, allow administrators to enforce that IAM policies only include members from specific approved domains. This ensures that users from unauthorized external domains cannot be granted access, whether accidentally or maliciously. By applying this constraint at the organization or folder level, centralized administrators gain visibility and enforcement across all projects, ensuring consistent governance. Any attempt to add a principal outside the allowed domains is automatically denied, preventing potential security breaches or compliance violations. Furthermore, this approach integrates with Cloud Asset Inventory and audit logs, enabling administrators to track changes and enforce least privilege principles across the enterprise.

C) Set up Identity-Aware Proxy with conditional access – IAP protects access to web applications by requiring authentication and applying conditional access rules based on user attributes, device posture, or network conditions. While effective for application-level access control, it does not manage IAM membership in projects or folders and therefore cannot prevent unauthorized domains from being granted access at the organizational policy level.

D) Implement BeyondCorp Enterprise Context-Aware Access with device trust – BeyondCorp Enterprise focuses on contextual access controls based on device trust, IP reputation, and session risk conditions. While this enhances security for accessing applications and resources, it does not enforce restrictions on IAM bindings by domain. It complements identity and device security but cannot replace organization policy constraints for domain enforcement.

In summary, option B provides a centralized, scalable, and auditable method to restrict IAM policy members to specific domains. It ensures compliance, prevents unauthorized access, and integrates seamlessly with logging and auditing tools for governance oversight. Options A, C, and D provide valuable security functions but do not directly enforce domain-level restrictions on IAM policies.

Question 23:

An enterprise uses multiple GCP projects across teams. The security lead wants to ensure no one can disable Cloud Audit Logs accidentally or intentionally. What’s the most effective way to enforce this requirement?

A) Enable audit logs manually in each project and rely on alerts
B) Use Organization Policy Service to enforce mandatory audit logs
C) Enable audit logs via Cloud Function automation
D) Use Cloud Logging metrics to detect audit log disablement

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Enable audit logs manually in each project and rely on alerts – Manually enabling audit logs in individual projects is prone to human error and misconfiguration. Project-level administrators could inadvertently or intentionally disable logging, leaving gaps in audit coverage. This method is reactive and lacks centralized enforcement, making it unreliable for compliance requirements.

B) Use Organization Policy Service to enforce mandatory audit logs – This is the recommended approach. Organization policies provide hierarchical enforcement across all projects and resources, ensuring that Audit Logs, including Admin Activity and Data Access logs, cannot be disableD) Policies propagate downward, overriding local configurations, and guarantee continuous, tamper-resistant logging. This method is proactive, auditable, and aligns with compliance frameworks such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2.

C) Enable audit logs via Cloud Function automation – Automating log enablement through Cloud Functions is reactive rather than preventative. It can detect or remediate misconfigurations after they occur, but it cannot prevent temporary gaps in logging, which may compromise audit integrity.

D) Use Cloud Logging metrics to detect audit log disablement – Metrics monitoring allows detection after a change occurs but does not prevent the action itself. While helpful for alerting, it is not a substitute for enforced compliance.

In conclusion, option B ensures reliable, organization-wide enforcement of audit logging, providing resilience, consistency, and compliance. Options A, C, and D are either reactive or localized solutions that cannot guarantee continuous enforcement.

Question 24:

A GCP security team notices an unusual pattern of failed login attempts from foreign IPs. They want to mitigate potential brute-force attacks. What’s the recommended approach using Google Cloud native services?

A) Block IPs using VPC firewall rules
B) Use Cloud Armor with rate limiting and geo-based rules
C) Create custom Cloud Functions for login attempt monitoring
D) Disable external access to IAM users

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Block IPs using VPC firewall rules – VPC firewall rules operate at layers 3 and 4, providing basic network-level access control by allowing or denying traffic based on IP, protocol, or port. While useful for general network protection, they cannot inspect HTTP(S) traffic or enforce rate limiting, leaving applications vulnerable to brute-force or application-layer attacks.

B) Use Cloud Armor with rate limiting and geo-based rules – This is the recommended approach. Cloud Armor provides layer 7 protection, including WAF capabilities, rate limiting, and geo-based access controls. It mitigates threats such as brute-force login attempts, credential stuffing, and application-layer DDoS attacks. Cloud Armor also integrates with IAP, load balancers, and logging services, enabling proactive monitoring, adaptive policy enforcement, and alignment with OWASP Top 10 security standards.

C) Create custom Cloud Functions for login attempt monitoring – While custom Cloud Functions can detect and respond to suspicious login attempts, this approach is reactive and requires custom coding, which may introduce latency and operational complexity. It does not prevent attacks in real time.

D) Disable external access to IAM users – Disabling external access is impractical for applications with legitimate global users and does not address threats to application endpoints, making it an unscalable solution.

In conclusion, option B provides comprehensive, proactive, and scalable application-layer security. Options A, C, and D either lack layer 7 protection, are reactive, or are impractical for real-world application deployments.

Question 25:

You are designing a multi-tenant SaaS application on GCP where each tenant’s data must be strictly isolateD) What’s the recommended architecture for ensuring logical data separation?

A) Use a shared database with row-level access controls
B) Deploy separate projects per tenant with IAM isolation
C) Store tenant data in the same bucket with different prefixes
D) Use VPC peering between tenant environments

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Use a shared database with row-level access controls – This approach provides logical separation of tenant data within the same database. While it can reduce infrastructure overhead, it relies entirely on application logic to enforce isolation. Any bug or misconfiguration could result in cross-tenant data access, making it less secure for regulated or sensitive workloads.

B) Deploy separate projects per tenant with IAM isolation – This is the recommended and most secure approach. By creating a dedicated project for each tenant, you enforce strong boundaries for IAM, quotas, and billing. Projects act as hard isolation units, ensuring that service accounts, resources, and audit logs are segregateD) Combined with organization folders and custom roles, this approach provides both security and operational scalability. It aligns with compliance standards such as PCI DSS and ISO 27017 and allows automation via Deployment Manager or Terraform for consistent provisioning.

C) Store tenant data in the same bucket with different prefixes – While bucket prefixes can logically separate data, IAM policies apply at the bucket level, not the prefix level. This creates a risk that a misconfigured policy could expose multiple tenants’ data, making it less secure than project-level isolation.

D) Use VPC peering between tenant environments – VPC peering is designed for network connectivity between projects, not for data isolation. It does not provide access control or enforce tenant-level separation for resources or storage.

In conclusion, option B provides the strongest isolation and governance for multi-tenant environments. Options A and C rely on application or logical separation, which is more prone to errors, and option D addresses network connectivity rather than security or data isolation.

Question 26:

Your company operates multiple workloads in hybrid mode using GCP and on-premises data centers. The CISO wants to ensure that no accidental data exfiltration occurs from GCP to external networks while still allowing approved partner APIs. Which solution best meets this requirement?

A) Use VPC Service Controls perimeters with Access Context Manager policies
B) Configure Cloud Armor IP whitelisting for APIs
C) Use Identity-Aware Proxy for external resource access control
D) Implement Cloud Functions triggers to monitor data egress events

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

A) Use VPC Service Controls perimeters with Access Context Manager policies – This is the recommended solution. VPC Service Controls (VPC-SC) creates a virtual perimeter around sensitive Google Cloud resources like Cloud Storage, BigQuery, and Pub/Sub, preventing data exfiltration even if IAM credentials are compromiseD) Access Context Manager (ACM) complements this by allowing context-based access policies, such as restricting access to specific IP ranges, trusted devices, or identity groups. This combination ensures both strong perimeter enforcement and granular access control at the API layer, critical for compliance frameworks like PCI-DSS and HIPAA)

B) Configure Cloud Armor IP whitelisting for APIs – Cloud Armor provides Layer 7 web application protection and can restrict traffic by IP. However, it does not enforce access control at the API or service level, making it insufficient for preventing data exfiltration from managed services.

C) Use Identity-Aware Proxy for external resource access control – IAP secures access to applications but does not prevent API-level data exfiltration. It cannot enforce service perimeter restrictions on Cloud Storage, BigQuery, or Pub/Sub, so it is limited in scope for compliance-focused data protection.

D) Implement Cloud Functions triggers to monitor data egress events – While Cloud Functions can monitor events and respond to suspicious activity, this is reactive. It cannot prevent data from leaving the perimeter in real time and therefore does not provide the proactive enforcement necessary for high-compliance environments.

In conclusion, option A provides a proactive, scalable, and compliance-aligned solution for preventing unauthorized data exfiltration, whereas options B, C, and D either operate at the wrong layer or are reactive, offering insufficient protection.

Question 27:

A financial institution is required to use hardware-backed cryptographic operations to meet regulatory standards. Which Google Cloud service feature should the security engineer enable to meet this requirement?

A) Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
B) External Key Manager (EKM) with HSM integration
C) Cloud Storage Object Lifecycle rules
D) Confidential VMs

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) – CMEK allows customers to control key lifecycle within Google Cloud KMS. While it provides strong key management and rotation capabilities, the keys are still hosted in Google-managed infrastructure. This does not satisfy requirements for keys to be processed in external hardware, which some strict regulatory frameworks demanD)

B) External Key Manager (EKM) with HSM integration – This is the recommended solution. EKM allows cryptographic operations to occur within your organization’s on-premises or third-party HSM, while Google Cloud services perform encryption/decryption without ever accessing the raw key material. This ensures compliance with standards such as FIPS 140-2 Level 3 and PCI-DSS. It provides full key sovereignty, audit logging, and hybrid key orchestration, enabling organizations to keep sensitive keys under their control while leveraging cloud services.

C) Cloud Storage Object Lifecycle rules – Lifecycle rules manage the retention and deletion of storage objects. While important for storage management, they do not provide encryption or key management capabilities and are therefore irrelevant for regulatory key control.

D) Confidential VMs – Confidential VMs provide memory-level encryption to protect data in use. While this enhances workload security, it does not offer external key management or hardware-based key control, and therefore does not meet strict key sovereignty requirements.

In conclusion, option B ensures full compliance, hardware-backed key protection, and customer-controlled cryptographic operations, while options A, C, and D either rely on Google-hosted infrastructure or provide unrelated security functions.

Question 28:

Your team uses service accounts extensively for automated pipelines. The audit logs show multiple unused service accounts still having Editor roles. What’s the most effective way to reduce this risk?

A) Delete all unused service accounts manually
B) Enable IAM Recommender to identify and remove excess permissions
C) Restrict all service accounts to Viewer role by default
D) Disable service accounts using the console

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Delete all unused service accounts manually – Manually identifying and deleting unused service accounts is error-prone and operationally intensive, especially in large-scale environments. It risks accidental deletion of accounts critical to applications or workflows, potentially causing outages.

B) Enable IAM Recommender to identify and remove excess permissions – This is the optimal solution. IAM Recommender analyzes historical access patterns of users and service accounts, providing data-driven recommendations to remove unused roles or permissions. By following these suggestions, organizations can enforce least-privilege access efficiently and safely. Coupled with Policy Analyzer and Access Transparency logs, it provides full visibility, accountability, and auditability of access changes across projects, folders, and the organization. Automation through IaC tools like Terraform ensures continuous compliance and reduces human error.

C) Restrict all service accounts to Viewer role by default – Assigning Viewer universally is overly broad and does not adhere to least-privilege principles. It grants unnecessary read access, which can expose sensitive data and potentially violate compliance requirements.

D) Disable service accounts using the console – Disabling accounts is reactive and only prevents immediate misuse. It does not resolve the underlying problem of over-privileged accounts and provides no ongoing governance or automated review.

In conclusion, option B provides an intelligent, automated, and scalable method for enforcing least-privilege access across the organization, while options A, C, and D are either inefficient, risky, or insufficient for long-term governance and compliance.

Question 29:

A developer accidentally uploads an API key to a public GitHub repository. What is the fastest and most secure way to respond using GCP native tools?

A) Delete the key from source and wait for expiration
B) Revoke the compromised key immediately via IAM or API key management
C) Update IAM policies to restrict permissions
D) Regenerate all project keys manually

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Delete the key from source and wait for expiration – Simply removing the key from the repository and waiting for it to expire is highly risky. Compromised keys can be exploited within minutes by automated bots. This passive approach does not immediately block unauthorized access.

B) Revoke the compromised key immediately via IAM or API key management – This is the most effective and fastest response. Revoking the key ensures that any malicious actor attempting to use it will be denied access immediately. Google Cloud also logs key usage, allowing administrators to review where and how the key was useD) Following revocation, additional measures like enabling key restrictions, Service Account key rotation, and storing credentials in Secret Manager further mitigate future risks.

C) Update IAM policies to restrict permissions – Modifying permissions may reduce potential impact but does not invalidate the compromised key. Malicious actors may still leverage the key’s existing privileges until restrictions fully propagate.

D) Regenerate all project keys manually – Regenerating all keys is excessive and could disrupt unrelated services. It is neither targeted nor efficient for immediate mitigation.

In conclusion, option B provides immediate, targeted mitigation to stop potential abuse, while options A, C, and D are either too slow, insufficient, or overly disruptive. Following revocation, implementing secret management, automated key rotation, and access restrictions ensures ongoing security and compliance.

Question 30:

You are deploying a global web application with sensitive data hosted in GCP. To comply with data residency requirements, data must never leave the EU. Which configuration ensures compliance?

A) Enable CMEK and use EU-based KMS keys
B) Use resource location organization policies to restrict deployment regions
C) Deploy Cloud Armor and restrict traffic to EU IPs
D) Configure data replication manually

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Enable CMEK and use EU-based KMS keys – Customer-Managed Encryption Keys (CMEK) stored in the EU provide control over key management and encryption within the region. While this ensures that encryption keys themselves are located in the EU, it does not prevent the actual creation or movement of resources outside of approved regions. CMEK addresses data security and compliance for key management but does not enforce data residency on its own.

B) Use resource location organization policies to restrict deployment regions – This is the most effective and enforceable method for ensuring data residency. By applying the organization policy constraint constraints/gcp.resourceLocations, administrators can restrict the creation of resources to specific regions, such as EU zones. Any attempt to create resources in non-approved regions (for example, us-central1) is automatically blockeD) This hierarchical policy can be applied at the organization or folder level and propagates to all projects beneath it, ensuring consistency and operational control. It also supports auditing, alerting, and compliance verification, aligning with regulatory requirements such as GDPR.

C) Deploy Cloud Armor and restrict traffic to EU IPs – Cloud Armor controls inbound traffic using IP-based or geo-based rules and can protect applications from unauthorized or malicious access. While this improves security, it does not prevent the creation of resources or data storage in non-EU regions. It only manages access to the deployed resources, not their geographic location.

D) Configure data replication manually – Manual replication of data to EU regions does not prevent resource creation elsewhere. It is prone to human error, inconsistent enforcement, and scalability challenges. Without automation and policy enforcement, manual replication cannot reliably ensure compliance at scale.

In conclusion, option B provides the strongest, most scalable, and automated approach to enforcing geographic data residency. When combined with audit logging and VPC Service Controls, it ensures regulatory compliance, prevents accidental misplacement of resources, and maintains operational consistency across large organizations. Options A, C, and D address encryption, access, or manual replication but do not enforce regional restrictions effectively.

Question 31:

Your organization has adopted Google Cloud for multiple business units. Each unit manages its own projects, but the CISO wants to enforce mandatory use of VPC Service Controls for specific APIs such as BigQuery and Cloud Storage. What’s the most effective way to enforce this policy organization-wide?

A) Apply IAM conditions at the project level to require VPC-SC perimeters
B) Create VPC-SC perimeters manually for each project
C) Use Organization Policy constraints to enforce VPC-SC API usage
D) Use Security Command Center findings to alert on noncompliant APIs

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

A) Apply IAM conditions at the project level to require VPC-SC perimeters – IAM conditions allow administrators to apply contextual access controls, such as restricting API access based on identity attributes or IP ranges. While useful for fine-grained permissions, IAM conditions cannot enforce that API calls occur exclusively within VPC Service Control (VPC-SC) perimeters. They control who can access resources but do not prevent data exfiltration if resources are outside the defined perimeter.

B) Create VPC-SC perimeters manually for each project – Manually creating perimeters for each project is technically feasible but highly impractical at scale. It is operationally intensive, prone to human error, and difficult to maintain across hundreds of projects. Manual enforcement does not provide consistent, automated compliance, increasing the risk of misconfiguration.

C) Use Organization Policy constraints to enforce VPC-SC API usage – This is the most effective approach. Organization Policy constraints, such as constraints/vpcServiceControls.restrictAllowedServices, allow administrators to centrally enforce that specific APIs can only be accessed within VPC-SC perimeters. By applying this at the organization or folder level, all projects inherit these rules automatically, ensuring preventive, scalable, and consistent enforcement. It prevents accidental or unauthorized exposure of sensitive data and aligns with zero-trust security principles.

D) Use Security Command Center findings to alert on noncompliant APIs – SCC provides reactive alerts on policy violations but does not prevent misconfigurations. Relying solely on SCC means detection occurs after a potential security gap, leaving a window of risk.

In conclusion, option C offers a proactive, scalable, and reliable method for enforcing VPC-SC usage across an organization. Options A and B are limited in scope or operationally inefficient, and option D is reactive rather than preventive. Combining organization policies with Access Context Manager and SCC ensures a robust, zero-trust-aligned framework that prevents data exfiltration, enforces least-privilege access, and maintains regulatory compliance.

Question 32:

Your security operations team wants to receive alerts when a new public IP address is provisioned in any project within your organization. Which configuration best meets this requirement using native GCP services?

A) Enable Cloud Armor security policies
B) Use Eventarc to trigger Cloud Functions on Compute Engine API changes
C) Create a custom metric in Cloud Monitoring
D) Use VPC Flow Logs to detect new IP allocations

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Enable Cloud Armor security policies – Cloud Armor provides layer 7 protection for web applications, including DDoS mitigation and geo-based access control. While highly effective for protecting HTTP(S) workloads, it does not monitor Compute Engine API events or detect when a public IP is assigned to a VM. It operates at the network and application layer, not at the API configuration level.

B) Use Eventarc to trigger Cloud Functions on Compute Engine API changes – This is the optimal solution. Eventarc can capture specific audit log events, such as compute.instances.insert or compute.addresses.insert, which indicate when a VM or IP resource is createD) By triggering a Cloud Function, you can immediately send alerts to Pub/Sub, email, or incident management tools like PagerDuty. This provides real-time, automated detection of new public IP allocations, ensuring rapid awareness and response to potential security risks. Eventarc is serverless, scalable, and does not require persistent infrastructure, making it operationally efficient.

C) Create a custom metric in Cloud Monitoring – Custom metrics track trends and usage over time but do not provide immediate, event-driven notifications for specific administrative actions like IP assignment. They are better suited for long-term monitoring rather than real-time alerting.

D) Use VPC Flow Logs to detect new IP allocations – VPC Flow Logs capture network traffic between resources but cannot detect configuration changes such as assigning a new public IP. They are valuable for traffic analysis, security investigations, and compliance monitoring but are not suitable for event-level administrative oversight.

In conclusion, option B provides the most effective, immediate, and scalable approach to detecting new public IP allocations in Compute Engine. When combined with Cloud Audit Logs, Cloud Logging, and optionally Security Command Center, it ensures complete visibility and rapid incident response. Options A, C, and D serve different purposes—network protection, trend monitoring, and traffic logging—but cannot replace event-driven detection for administrative configuration changes. This setup supports security best practices by enforcing automated alerting and rapid mitigation of potential exposure.

Question 33:

A healthcare organization must ensure that only authorized clinicians can access patient data through an internal web portal hosted on GCP. Access should depend on device security posture and user identity. What solution fulfills this requirement?

A) Use Identity-Aware Proxy with Context-Aware Access policies
B) Restrict traffic using Cloud Armor
C) Assign IAM roles to individual clinicians
D) Require VPN access for all users

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

A) Use Identity-Aware Proxy with Context-Aware Access policies – This is the optimal solution for securing access to sensitive healthcare applications. IAP ensures that every user is authenticated via IAM before accessing web-based applications. Context-Aware Access extends this by evaluating additional factors such as device compliance, IP location, security posture, and group membership. This combination enables granular, zero-trust access control, ensuring only authorized clinicians on managed and compliant devices can access critical resources. It also provides detailed audit logs for monitoring and compliance purposes, which is essential for HIPAA-regulated environments.

B) Restrict traffic using Cloud Armor – Cloud Armor is a robust Layer 7 security solution that protects applications against DDoS attacks and enforces geo- or IP-based restrictions. However, it does not provide user-level identity verification or assess device compliance. While useful for network-level defense, it cannot enforce fine-grained, conditional access based on identity and device posture.

C) Assign IAM roles to individual clinicians – Assigning IAM roles controls permissions to GCP resources, but it does not evaluate the context of access. For instance, a clinician could access sensitive resources from an unmanaged or compromised device, creating potential security and compliance risks. IAM alone is insufficient for zero-trust access enforcement.

D) Require VPN access for all users – VPNs provide network-level security by encrypting traffic and limiting access to trusted networks. However, VPNs do not verify individual user identity or enforce device compliance policies. They also introduce operational overhead and are less scalable for large, distributed teams.

In conclusion, option A—Identity-Aware Proxy combined with Context-Aware Access—offers the most comprehensive and scalable solution. It aligns with modern zero-trust principles, replacing traditional network-based perimeters with identity- and device-based controls. This approach ensures secure, auditable, and compliant access for clinicians while minimizing friction, supporting HIPAA requirements, and enabling secure access from any location or network. Options B, C, and D provide partial protections but lack the holistic, context-driven enforcement needed for sensitive healthcare environments.

Question 34:

Your company has discovered that sensitive data is being inadvertently stored in publicly accessible Cloud Storage buckets. What’s the most efficient method to detect and automatically remediate such misconfigurations?

A) Use Security Command Center with automatic remediation playbooks
B) Periodically scan buckets with gsutil scripts
C) Enable Cloud Monitoring alerts for bucket permissions
D) Use VPC Service Controls to restrict data access

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

A) Use Security Command Center with automatic remediation playbooks – This is the most effective approach for protecting Google Cloud resources against misconfigurations and inadvertent exposure. SCC continuously monitors resources, including Cloud Storage buckets, IAM roles, and firewall settings, for security misconfigurations, policy violations, and potential threats. By integrating automated remediation playbooks or Cloud Functions, detected issues—such as publicly exposed buckets or overly permissive roles—can be corrected immediately, minimizing the window of exposure. This proactive, automated approach is essential for large-scale environments, reducing human error and operational delays while maintaining compliance with frameworks like GDPR and HIPAA)

B) Periodically scan buckets with gsutil scripts – While gsutil scripts can detect misconfigured buckets, this approach is manual and periodic, leaving significant gaps between scans. It lacks continuous real-time monitoring, and remediation requires human intervention, increasing risk and operational overheaD)

C) Enable Cloud Monitoring alerts for bucket permissions – Cloud Monitoring can track metrics and trigger alerts, but it does not natively detect misconfigurations such as public access or IAM over-permissions. Alerts alone do not prevent exposure; they only notify administrators after the fact, creating reactive rather than proactive security.

D) Use VPC Service Controls to restrict data access – VPC Service Controls effectively create perimeters to prevent unauthorized access to resources from outside trusted networks, but they do not detect or remediate IAM misconfigurations or public resource exposure. VPC-SC complements but cannot replace the continuous visibility provided by SCC)

In conclusion, option A provides comprehensive, automated, and continuous protection, integrating detection, remediation, and compliance enforcement. Options B, C, and D either lack automation, real-time detection, or coverage of IAM misconfigurations, making them less effective for preventing data exposure at scale. Combining SCC with Cloud DLP and automated playbooks ensures end-to-end security, proactive enforcement, and rapid response.

Question 35:

A GCP security engineer needs to ensure all service-to-service communications between microservices are authenticated and encrypted without using static credentials. Which technology should be implemented?

A) OAuth 2.0 user tokens
B) Mutual TLS (mTLS) with Anthos Service Mesh
C) Signed URLs for communication
D) Pre-shared keys via Secret Manager

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) OAuth 2.0 user tokens – OAuth 2.0 is designed primarily for authenticating and authorizing users, not for service-to-service communication. While it can secure user access to APIs, it does not provide mutual authentication or encryption for automated service interactions, making it unsuitable for internal microservices security.

B) Mutual TLS (mTLS) with Anthos Service Mesh – This is the ideal solution. mTLS ensures both encryption and mutual authentication between services, so only trusted workloads can communicate. Anthos Service Mesh automates certificate issuance, rotation, and policy enforcement via Google-managed Certificate Authority Service. It also integrates with Cloud Logging and Monitoring for observability, supports micro-segmentation, and enforces zero-trust principles. mTLS satisfies regulatory requirements like PCI-DSS that mandate encrypted and authenticated internal communications.

C) Signed URLs for communication – Signed URLs provide temporary, time-limited access to Cloud Storage objects, which is not suitable for continuous service-to-service communication or general internal microservices traffiC)

D) Pre-shared keys via Secret Manager – While pre-shared keys can secure communication, they introduce operational risks such as manual key distribution, lack of automatic rotation, and potential exposure. Managing keys at scale across multiple services becomes error-prone and increases the attack surface.

In conclusion, option B is the most secure, scalable, and operationally efficient approach. It combines automated certificate management, encryption, mutual authentication, micro-segmentation, and observability, providing a robust zero-trust architecture for internal service communication. Options A, C, and D either focus on user authentication, temporary resource access, or manual secret management, making them less suitable for enforcing secure service-to-service communication at scale.

Question 36:

Your team needs to scan and classify sensitive data stored in BigQuery and Cloud Storage to comply with privacy regulations. What GCP-native tool should you use?

A) Security Command Center
B) Cloud DLP (Data Loss Prevention) API
C) Cloud Monitoring
D) Cloud Trace

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Security Command Center (SCC) provides centralized security visibility but relies on tools like Cloud DLP to actually discover and classify sensitive datA) It cannot proactively scan or protect data without integration.

B) Cloud DLP (Data Loss Prevention) API is the core tool for identifying, classifying, and protecting sensitive data across Cloud Storage, BigQuery, and other services. It supports prebuilt and custom detectors, masking, tokenization, and de-identification, ensuring compliance with GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS.

C) Cloud Monitoring focuses on performance metrics and observability, not data classification or protection.

D) Cloud Trace tracks application request latency and behavior but does not manage sensitive datA)

Thus, Cloud DLP is essential for automated, scalable sensitive data discovery and protection.

Question 37:

An auditor requests evidence that no GCP administrators have performed unauthorized data access on confidential datasets. Which feature provides this assurance?

A) Cloud Monitoring metrics
B) Cloud Audit Logs, specifically Data Access logs
C) Security Command Center Event Threat Detection
D) Access Transparency logs

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

A) Cloud Monitoring metrics focus on system and application performance, such as CPU usage, memory consumption, and request latency. While useful for operational health and alerting, they do not capture or log access events performed by Google personnel or other users, and therefore cannot provide the transparency required for compliance purposes.

B) Cloud Audit Logs, specifically Data Access logs, record actions taken by customer identities, including IAM users and service accounts. They provide visibility into who accessed what within the customer environment, but they do not capture activities performed by Google employees on customer resources, leaving a gap in provider-level transparency.

C) Security Command Center Event Threat Detection identifies anomalous activity within your cloud environment, such as suspicious API calls or configuration changes. Although valuable for detecting potential security threats, it is designed to monitor for malicious or unusual behavior rather than logging legitimate access by Google staff, and therefore does not satisfy provider accountability requirements.

D) Access Transparency logs are specifically designed to record actions taken by Google personnel on customer resources. Each log entry includes details such as the identity of the Google employee, the reason for access, the timestamp, and the specific action performeD) This level of granularity ensures accountability for all provider-side operations and allows customers to audit and verify that Google accesses their data only when necessary. 

When combined with Access Approval, which requires Google to obtain explicit customer authorization before accessing certain resources, this approach provides both proactive control and comprehensive auditability. Access Transparency logs can be exported to Cloud Logging for long-term retention and correlation with customer actions, supporting compliance with regulatory frameworks such as ISO 27018, HIPAA, and GDPR Article 28. By using Access Transparency, organizations can maintain full operational visibility, minimize insider risk from cloud provider personnel, and ensure that all provider interactions with sensitive data are fully documented and auditable.

Question 38:

You’re tasked with protecting API endpoints from malicious inputs and attacks like SQL injection or XSS. What’s the most effective GCP-native protection?

A) Cloud Armor with WAF rules
B) Cloud IDS
C) VPC firewall rules
D) Cloud NAT

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

A) Cloud Armor with WAF rules provides Layer 7 inspection, analyzing HTTP(S) request payloads before they reach backend services. It proactively blocks malicious traffic and prevents compromise of sensitive datA) Cloud Armor includes preconfigured managed rules for the OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities and allows custom rule creation for application-specific security needs. Its rate-limiting features mitigate brute-force attacks and volumetric DDoS, while integration with Cloud Logging enables monitoring, alerting, and forensic investigations. Cloud Armor scales automatically with Google’s global HTTP(S) Load Balancer, providing high availability and low latency. It also supports compliance requirements such as PCI DSS 6.6, ensuring secure handling of sensitive datA)

B) Cloud IDS focuses on network and transport layers (Layers 4/5) and cannot inspect application-layer traffic, making it ineffective against threats like XSS. While useful for detecting network anomalies, intrusion attempts, and suspicious traffic patterns, it does not provide application-layer protection or rule enforcement, limiting its effectiveness for web application vulnerabilities.

C) VPC firewall rules filter traffic based on IP addresses, ports, and protocols but lack deep packet inspection and cannot enforce application-specific rules. They provide basic network-layer security but do not detect or prevent attacks embedded in HTTP(S) payloads, such as cross-site scripting or SQL injection.

D) Cloud NAT manages outbound connectivity for private resources but provides no threat detection or filtering capabilities. It ensures that private instances can access external services without exposing internal IPs, but it does not inspect traffic or protect applications from malicious requests.

This setup highlights that A is the only option providing comprehensive, proactive, application-layer security, whereas B, C, and D focus on network-level or outbound connectivity controls without addressing web application vulnerabilities.

Question 39:

A security engineer must ensure that logs containing sensitive data cannot be modified or deleted by administrators. Which GCP feature enforces this requirement?

A) Cloud Logging Log Buckets with retention policies and Lock
B) IAM policy conditions for restricted admins
C) Cloud Monitoring log-based metrics
D) Pub/Sub message retention configuration

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

A) Cloud Logging Log Buckets with retention policies and Lock provide the most secure and compliant solution for audit log management in Google ClouD) By setting retention periods and enabling Lock, logs become immutable for the configured duration, preventing any shortening or deletion of records. This ensures tamper-proof audit trails, which are critical for compliance with standards such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, and SOX. Logs can be centralized in a dedicated logging project to prevent local administrators from bypassing retention controls. Cloud Logging also integrates with Customer-Managed Encryption Keys (CMEK), ensuring encryption at rest under the organization’s control, adding another layer of protection. Object Versioning and Cloud Storage Bucket Lock further reinforce immutability, allowing secure forensic investigations of critical events like IAM role changes, service account key rotations, or administrative actions.

B) IAM policy conditions allow administrators to restrict who can access log buckets or perform actions on logs, but they do not enforce immutable retention. Access control complements retention policies but cannot prevent deletion if the user has sufficient privileges.

C) Cloud Monitoring log-based metrics provide observability by summarizing logs for alerts and dashboards but do not secure the raw audit log content. Metrics are derived from logs and are insufficient for compliance or forensic purposes.

D) Pub/Sub message retention only applies to messages in Pub/Sub topics and subscriptions, and is unrelated to audit logs. While useful for ensuring message delivery reliability, it cannot serve as an immutable log repository.

In conclusion, A provides a comprehensive, tamper-proof, and compliant solution for audit log retention, whereas B, C, and D provide access control, observability, or messaging guarantees but cannot ensure permanent, immutable audit records.

Question 40:

Your organization plans to centralize security findings across all GCP projects to simplify compliance reporting. Which service or configuration provides the best solution?

A) Cloud Monitoring dashboards
B) Security Command Center with organization-level enablement
C) Cloud Logging log sinks
D) Eventarc with Pub/Sub forwarding

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

A) Cloud Monitoring dashboards are excellent for visualizing metrics such as CPU usage, network traffic, or error rates, but they are not designed to aggregate security findings across multiple projects. They provide observability, not centralized security visibility or compliance reporting.

B) Security Command Center (SCC) at the organization level is the most effective solution. SCC consolidates findings from Cloud DLP, IAM Analyzer, Web Security Scanner, and Event Threat Detection, offering a unified, organization-wide view of vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and potential threats. It allows teams to prioritize findings based on severity, trigger automated remediation through Cloud Functions or SCC playbooks, and continuously assess security posture against frameworks like CIS GCP Benchmarks. By enabling SCC centrally, administrators eliminate project-level silos and ensure consistent visibility and compliance across all resources.

C) Cloud Logging log sinks export logs to destinations such as BigQuery, Cloud Storage, or Pub/SuB) While valuable for long-term storage and analysis, log sinks require manual aggregation and correlation to identify security issues, making them less efficient than SCC for proactive threat detection.

D) Eventarc with Pub/Sub can forward events and trigger workflows or notifications. However, it does not provide built-in security analytics, risk prioritization, or compliance mapping. Eventarc is better suited for event-driven automation rather than centralized security visibility.

In summary, B provides a comprehensive, centralized, and actionable platform for detecting, analyzing, and responding to security threats organization-wide, while A, C, and D serve monitoring, log transport, or event automation roles without unifying security insights across an enterprise.