Pass the Google Google Cloud Platform Professional-Cloud-Network-Engineer Questions and answers with CertsForce

https://cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/url-map#configuring_url_maps

Path matcher constraints Path matchers and path rules have the following constraints: A path rule can only include a wildcard character (*) after a forward slash character (/). For example, /videos/* and /videos/hd/* are valid for path rules, but /videos* and /videos/hd* are not. Path rules do not use regular expression or substring matching. For example, path rules for either /videos/hd or /videos/hd/* do not apply to a URL with the path /video/hd-abcd. However, a path rule for /video/* does apply to that path. https://cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/url-map-concepts#pm-constraints

Explanation: Using Firewall Insights and enabling insights for overly permissive rules helps automate the process of identifying firewall rules that may allow unintended ingress from the internet. This is a quick and efficient method compared to manually searching through firewall configurations.

Comprehensive and Detailed In Depth Explanation:

Granting more permissions than necessary violates the principle of least privilege, a fundamental security best practice. While option A grants the necessary permissions (as subsets exist in two predefined roles), it might also grant more permissions than the Operations team strictly requires for their tasks on GKE and Cloud SQL. Option D is too broad; 'Admin' roles grant extensive permissions that likely exceed the specific needs.

Google Cloud's best practices strongly recommend adhering to the principle of least privilege. Creating a custom role allows you to precisely define the set of permissions the Operations team needs for their specific tasks on the GKE cluster and the Cloud SQL instance, without granting any unnecessary permissions. This minimizes the potential blast radius in case of accidental or malicious actions.

Google Cloud Documentation References:

IAM best practices: https://cloud.google.com/iam/docs/best-practices - This document explicitly recommends granting the minimum necessary permissions.

Creating and managing custom roles: https://cloud.google.com/iam/docs/creating-managing-custom-roles - This explains how to create roles tailored to specific job functions.

Understanding roles: https://cloud.google.com/iam/docs/understanding-roles - This outlines the concepts of predefined and custom roles and their use cases.

===========

https://cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/https/adding-backend-buckets-to-load-balancers#using_cloud_cdn_with_cloud_storage_buckets

Cloud CDN needs HTTP(S) Load Balancers and Cloud Storage bucket has to be shared publicly. https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/setting-up-cdn-with-bucket

The correct answer is D because it meets the following requirements:

It matches the hub-and-spoke model of the on-premises network, where each spoke is a separate VPC network that is connected to a central hub VPC network.

It minimizes management overhead and cost, because VPC Network Peering is a simple and low-cost way to connect VPC networks without using any external IP addresses or VPN gateways1.

It uses default networking quotas and limits, because VPC Network Peering does not consume any quota or limit for VPN tunnels, external IP addresses, or forwarding rules2.

It prevents connectivity between the spokes, because VPC Network Peering is non-transitive by default, meaning that a spoke can only communicate with the hub, not with other spokes1. To enforce this restriction, a third-party network appliance can be used as a default gateway in each spoke VPC network, which can filter out any traffic destined for other spokes3.

Option A is incorrect because it does not minimize cost, as Cloud VPN charges for egress traffic and requires external IP addresses for the VPN gateways4. Option B is incorrect because it does not prevent connectivity between the spokes, as VPC Network Peering allows direct communication between peered VPC networks by default1. Option C is incorrect because it does not minimize cost or use default quotas and limits, for the same reasons as option A.

The requirement for the new division's network team to have "complete control over their networking infrastructure" while allowing communication between divisions and avoiding unnecessary permissions points directly to VPC Network Peering. This approach allows each division to manage its own VPC independently (in its own project), provides full control to the new division's network team within their project, and enables secure, private communication between the VPCs without traversing the public internet. Granting roles/compute.networkAdmin on their newly created project ensures they have the necessary control over their dedicated VPC. Using Shared VPC (option D) would centralize network administration under your existing project, which goes against the requirement of the new division having "complete control." VPN (option C) would incur additional costs and introduce more complexity than VPC peering for intra-Google Cloud connectivity. Option B is flawed because creating a subnet in the new VPC isn't directly relevant to granting permissions on the new project for VPC peering setup, and networkuser role on the new project alone wouldn't give complete network control.

Exact Extract:

"VPC Network Peering allows you to connect two VPC networks so that resources in each network can communicate with each other using internal IP addresses. Traffic stays within Google's network."

"Each side of a VPC Network Peering connection is configured independently. This means that each network administrator retains full control over their own network, including routes, firewalls, and network services."

"VPC Network Peering is ideal for scenarios where different organizations or divisions want to maintain separate network administrative domains while still allowing their resources to communicate privately."Reference: Google Cloud VPC Network Peering Documentation - Overview, Use cases