A financial services company has a two-tier consumer banking application. The frontend serves static web content. The backend consists of APIs. The company needs to migrate the frontendcomponent to…

Question

Options

• AMigrate the frontend to Amazon EC2 instances. Deploy an Application Load Balancer (ALB) in
• BDeploy the frontend as an Amazon CloudFront distribution that has multiple origins. Configure
• CMigrate the frontend to Amazon EC2 instances. Deploy a Network Load Balancer (NLB) in front of
• DDeploy the frontend as a static website based on an Amazon S3 bucket. Use an Amazon API

• A
  7% (5)
• B
  77% (54)
• C
  3% (2)
• D
  13% (9)

Explanation

Key Requirements: Host the frontend on AWS as a static website. Protect the application from common web vulnerabilities. Minimal operational overhead. Analysis of Options: Hosting the frontend on EC2 with an ALB introduces unnecessary complexity for serving static AWS WAF rules can protect the ALB, but managing EC2 instances adds operational overhead. Incorrect Approach: High operational complexity for a simple static website. Amazon CloudFront:Acts as a global CDN, reducing latency and protecting against DDoS Multiple Origins: Allows static content to be served from S3 while routing API traffic to the on- premises backend. AWS WAF:Integrates with CloudFront to provide web application protection. Correct Approach: Offers low operational overhead with optimal security and performance. Using NLB and Network Firewall is unnecessary for a static website. This approach increases cost and complexity without addressing the frontend requirements effectively. Incorrect Approach:Over-engineered solution. Hosting the frontend on S3 and using API Gateway is a viable option, but managing AWS WAF rules separately for both the S3 bucket and the REST API increases complexity. Incorrect Approach: Less efficient than using CloudFront with multiple origins.

No community discussion yet for this question.