SaveMyCert
Log in
5 of 5 free questions left today·for 30 a day
SCS-C03 · Domain 2

Incident Response practice questions

Incident Response is worth 14% of the SCS-C03 exam — the 5th-heaviest of the 6 domains. Designing and testing incident response plans, and responding to security events with containment, forensics, and root cause analysis. 6 fully worked examples are further down this page, answers included.

Exam weight
14%
the 5th-heaviest of the 6 domains
Questions
88
across 2 topics
Free, no account
5/day
sign up free to remove the cap
Explanations
Every option
right and wrong

Build a practice session

5 free questions left today.

Domains

How many?

Mode

Ready when you are

10 fresh questions drawn across 1 of 6 domains, in Learn mode.

Focused review

Every question you answer incorrectly, and every question you flag while practising, is saved here automatically. Finish a session and you can come back to re-drill just those.

6 sample Incident Response questions, fully explained

Questions from the SCS-C03 bank mapped to domain 2, with the answer key and the reasoning behind every option. None of them repeat the examples on the main SCS-C03 practice page.

Question 1Incident Response

All human access to a company's AWS accounts is federated from an external identity provider through IAM Identity Center. The incident response plan must still give two named engineers elevated access to the security tooling account if that identity provider is down or compromised. The access must be limited to incident response, and its use must page the security team. Which design meets these requirements?

Choose one.

  • a
    IAM users in the security tooling account with hardware MFA, passwords sealed in an offline safe, and an alarm on their sign-ins. Correct

    Correct. The IAM users authenticate directly to AWS, so they work when the identity provider is down or untrusted; hardware MFA and offline storage keep the credentials out of reach of an attacker who holds corporate systems; the sign-in alarm pages the team on every use; and the users can be limited to assuming the incident response roles.

  • b
    An Identity Center permission set for the two engineers with hardware MFA enforced, and an alarm on its use in CloudTrail.

    With an external identity provider, Identity Center sign-in goes through that provider. If the provider is down or compromised, this path is down or compromised too, which is exactly the case break-glass has to cover.

  • c
    IAM users in the security tooling account with hardware MFA, passwords in a password manager reached through corporate SSO, and sign-in alarms.

    A near-twin with one flaw: the password manager is reached through corporate single sign-on, which runs through the same identity provider. If the provider is unavailable the passwords cannot be retrieved, and if it is compromised the attacker may reach them.

  • d
    The root user of each member account with hardware MFA devices held by the CISO, and an alarm on root sign-ins.

    Root access does not depend on the identity provider, but it grants unrestricted power in each account and cannot be limited to incident response. It is a last resort for root-only tasks, not the planned emergency path for responders.

The concept

Break-glass access is a pre-planned emergency path for when normal access fails. It must not depend on the failed system, must be tightly protected (MFA, credentials stored out of band) and must alert on every use.

Why that’s the answer

Two facts decide. First, independence: a permission set and any credential store reached through federation fail with the identity provider. Second, scope: root is independent but unrestricted. IAM users in the security tooling account, with hardware MFA, credentials in an offline safe and an alarm on sign-in, are independent of the provider, can be limited to assuming the incident response roles, and are noticed whenever they are used.

How to reason it out
  1. Identify the failure being planned for: the external identity provider is down or untrusted.
  2. Remove every option that still authenticates or retrieves credentials through that provider.
  3. Remove options that cannot be limited to incident response, such as root users.
  4. Keep the design with MFA, out-of-band credential storage and alerting on use.

Exam tip: Break-glass credentials must work without the identity provider, be stored out of band with MFA, be scoped, and page someone every time they are used.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 2Incident Response

A security team is choosing where analysts will examine EBS snapshots and memory captures from compromised instances. An attacker holding credentials from a compromised workload account must not be able to reach or alter the evidence or the analysis instances, and no other team's existing access may be widened to make room for the analysts. Where should the analysis environment live?

Choose one.

  • a
    In a forensics VPC inside each workload account, with evidence in an S3 bucket that uses Object Lock in compliance mode.

    Object Lock stops the evidence objects from being deleted or overwritten, but the analysis instances and the bucket's read access still live in the compromised account, where the attacker's credentials can reach them.

  • b
    In the existing Log Archive account, with analysis instances running beside the organization's centralized CloudTrail logs.

    Log Archive is isolated from workload accounts, but giving analysts and analysis instances a home there widens access to the organization's central log record, which the requirement forbids, and mixes two purposes in one account.

  • c
    In a dedicated forensics account in the security OU, with snapshots from affected accounts shared into it for analysis. Correct

    Correct. A separate account is a separate security boundary: credentials from a workload account have no access to it, only the forensics team is granted access, and no existing account's access changes. Evidence is shared into it from the affected account.

  • d
    In the Organizations management account, with snapshots shared into it and analysis AMIs restricted to the security team.

    The management account is the most privileged account in the organization. AWS guidance keeps workloads out of it, and running analysis there widens access to it.

The concept

A dedicated forensics account is a preparation control. It holds analysis tooling and evidence outside the blast radius of any workload account and is reachable only by the forensics team.

Why that’s the answer

The account is the strongest isolation boundary in AWS. Controls inside the compromised account, such as a separate VPC or an Object Lock bucket, protect pieces of the evidence but leave the environment reachable by that account's credentials. Log Archive and the management account are isolated from workloads, but each has its own purpose and audience; placing analysts there widens access to the organization's log record or its most privileged account.

How to reason it out
  1. Ask whether the location is inside the compromised account's security boundary; if so, reject it.
  2. Ask whether the location forces new access into an account that serves another purpose.
  3. Choose a dedicated forensics account, with access limited to the forensics team.
  4. Share snapshots into it from affected accounts rather than analyzing in place.

Exam tip: Analyze evidence in a dedicated forensics account, not inside the compromised account, Log Archive or the management account.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 3Incident Response

A developer reports that an IAM user's access key was pushed to a public repository an hour ago. The playbook's first step must stop that key from being used immediately, must be reversible if responders picked the wrong key, and must leave the developer's console sign-in working while the team investigates. What should the first step do?

Choose one.

  • a
    Delete the access key named in the report and issue the developer a replacement access key.

    Deleting stops the key, but it cannot be undone: if responders picked the wrong key, the application that depended on it stays broken until it is reconfigured. Deletion belongs in eradication, after scoping.

  • b
    Set the status of the access key named in the report to Inactive with the update-access-key command. Correct

    Correct. An inactive key fails authentication at once, the status can be set back to Active if the wrong key was chosen, and the user's password and console sign-in are untouched.

  • c
    Create a second access key for the user and move the application to it before acting on the first key.

    This is the first half of a key rotation. It does nothing to stop the exposed key, which stays valid while the application is moved.

  • d
    Attach an inline Deny * policy to the user with a DateLessThan condition on aws:TokenIssueTime.

    The aws:TokenIssueTime key is present only in requests signed with temporary credentials. Requests signed with the leaked long-term key do not carry it, so the condition never matches and the key keeps working.

The concept

Long-term IAM user access keys can be deactivated. Deactivation is the reversible first containment step; deletion is an eradication step taken after the investigation.

Why that’s the answer

Deactivating stops the exposed key immediately and can be reversed. Deletion also stops it but cannot be reversed. Creating a second key does not stop the first. The aws:TokenIssueTime deny is the session-revocation pattern for temporary credentials; that condition key is absent from requests signed with long-term access keys, so the deny does not apply to them. CloudTrail keeps the key ID in past events whether the key is deactivated or deleted.

How to reason it out
  1. Identify the credential type: a long-term access key of an IAM user.
  2. Apply the constraints: immediate, reversible, console access untouched.
  3. Set the key to Inactive; remember that the token-age deny only matches temporary credentials.
  4. Delete the key later, in eradication, once CloudTrail scoping is complete.

Exam tip: Exposed long-term key: set it to Inactive first; delete it later. A token-issue-time deny does not stop long-term keys.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 4Incident Response

Temporary credentials for an IAM role used by 30 build pipelines have leaked from a log file. The runbook must cut off every session that exists right now, keep the role in place, and let the pipelines resume once they request new credentials. Which runbook step achieves this?

Choose one.

  • a
    Edit the role's trust policy to require an external ID, then update the pipelines to pass the new value.

    The trust policy is checked only when someone calls AssumeRole. Sessions that already exist keep working until they expire, so the leaked credentials stay valid.

  • b
    Attach an inline Deny * policy to the role with a DateGreaterThan condition on aws:TokenIssueTime set to now.

    The comparison points the wrong way: it denies sessions issued after the cutoff, so the pipelines' fresh credentials fail while the leaked, older sessions keep working.

  • c
    Attach an inline Deny * policy to the role with a DateLessThan condition on aws:TokenIssueTime set to now. Correct

    Correct. Every session issued before the cutoff loses all permissions at once, the role stays in place, and pipelines that call AssumeRole again receive new sessions that the deny does not match. This is the policy the IAM console's Revoke active sessions action attaches.

  • d
    Set the role's maximum session duration to one hour so the leaked sessions expire within the hour.

    Maximum session duration applies to sessions requested after the change. Sessions already issued keep their original expiry.

The concept

Temporary credentials cannot be deactivated or recalled. A role's existing sessions are revoked by an inline deny on the role conditioned on aws:TokenIssueTime being earlier than the revocation time.

Why that’s the answer

Only a policy on the role affects sessions that already exist, because permissions are evaluated on every request. Trust-policy changes affect new AssumeRole calls only, and maximum session duration applies only to sessions requested later. Of the two token-age denies, DateLessThan blocks sessions issued before the cutoff, the leaked ones, while DateGreaterThan would block the fresh sessions instead.

How to reason it out
  1. Recognize that leaked role credentials are temporary and cannot be deactivated.
  2. Discard controls that act only on new sessions (trust policy, maximum session duration).
  3. Attach Deny * with DateLessThan on aws:TokenIssueTime set to the current time.
  4. Let legitimate callers assume the role again for new credentials.

Exam tip: Revoke a role's existing sessions with Deny * where aws:TokenIssueTime is earlier than now; trust-policy and session-duration changes do not touch issued sessions.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 5Incident Response

AWS Trust & Safety abuse reports, and other AWS notices about compromised resources, in a company's 60 accounts reach only each account's root email address, a finance mailbox that is checked weekly. The incident response on-call list must receive these notices as well, while finance keeps receiving billing and ownership email. What should the team do?

Choose one.

  • a
    Subscribe the on-call distribution list to a security notifications SNS topic created in each account.

    An SNS topic delivers messages that something in the account publishes to it. AWS Trust & Safety does not publish abuse reports to customer topics; it emails the account's contacts.

  • b
    Set the operations alternate contact on each account to the on-call list, from the management account.

    The operations contact is a real alternate contact, but it is the wrong type: AWS sends security and abuse notices to the security contact.

  • c
    Change the root user email address of each account to the on-call distribution list.

    This would route the reports to the on-call team, but the root email is also the account's billing and ownership address, which finance must keep.

  • d
    Set the security alternate contact on each account to the on-call list, from the management account. Correct

    Correct. AWS sends abuse notices and other security notifications to the security alternate contact in addition to the root email. With trusted access for AWS Account Management, the management account (or a delegated administrator) can set it on every member account.

The concept

Each account has three alternate contacts: billing, operations and security. AWS sends security-related notifications, including Trust & Safety abuse notices, to the security contact as well as the root email address.

Why that’s the answer

The security alternate contact adds the on-call list without taking anything from finance, and it can be set centrally across the organization once trusted access for AWS Account Management is enabled. The operations contact is the near-twin of the wrong type. Changing the root email works but breaks the finance constraint. SNS topics carry your own messages, not AWS's emailed notices.

How to reason it out
  1. Identify the channel AWS uses: email to the root address and the matching alternate contact.
  2. Match security and abuse notices to the security alternate contact.
  3. Keep finance on the root email by adding a contact rather than replacing the root email.
  4. Set the contact centrally from the management account or a delegated administrator.

Exam tip: Set the security alternate contact on every account, centrally through AWS Organizations, so AWS security and abuse notices reach responders.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 6Incident Response

Response procedures live on a wiki, and under pressure on-call staff misread them. The team wants each procedure, such as isolating an instance or snapshotting its volumes, to run the same way every time with only the permissions that procedure needs, to be started by non-developers from a console form or by EventBridge, and to record each step's status and output. What should the team build?

Choose one.

  • a
    A Systems Manager Automation runbook per procedure, each with its own assume role that grants only that procedure's API calls. Correct

    Correct. Automation runbooks are versioned documents whose steps call AWS APIs under a per-runbook assume role. The console renders their parameters as a form, EventBridge can start them, and each execution records the status and output of every step.

  • b
    A Systems Manager Run Command document per procedure, run on a responder bastion instance whose profile holds the needed API calls.

    Run Command executes commands on managed instances. Every procedure would run with the bastion's single instance profile, which holds the permissions of all procedures, and the record is command output rather than per-API-step status.

  • c
    Systems Manager Automation runbooks, one per procedure, that all share one assume role granting every procedure's API calls.

    The right mechanism with one flaw: a single shared assume role holds the permissions of every procedure, so each runbook runs with far more than it needs. The requirement is least privilege per procedure, which needs one scoped assume role per runbook.

  • d
    A CloudFormation template per procedure that on-call staff deploy as a stack, with a stack role that grants that procedure's calls.

    CloudFormation declares resources to create or update; it is not built to run imperative steps such as snapshotting volumes or changing an instance's security groups during an incident.

The concept

The executable runbook format on AWS is the Systems Manager Automation document: versioned steps that call AWS APIs under a scoped assume role, start from the console or EventBridge, and keep a per-step execution history. OpsCenter can link these runbooks to OpsItems.

Why that’s the answer

Automation meets every requirement at once, but only with one assume role per runbook: that is what gives each procedure only its own permissions. The shared-role variant is the near-twin that breaks least privilege. Run Command on a bastion also shares one instance profile across all procedures and records command output rather than per-step API status. CloudFormation manages resources declaratively and does not run imperative response steps.

How to reason it out
  1. List the requirements: repeatable, least privilege per procedure, console form or EventBridge, per-step record.
  2. Pick the mechanism that gives a console form, an EventBridge target and per-step history: Automation runbooks.
  3. Check how permissions are scoped: one assume role per runbook, not one shared role.
  4. Reject Run Command on a bastion and CloudFormation stacks.

Exam tip: Write runbooks as Systems Manager Automation documents: scoped assume role, console form, EventBridge trigger, per-step history.

Design and Test an AWS Incident Response Plan (SCS-C03) — the lesson that teaches this.

What SCS-C03 domain 2 tests, topic by topic

The official exam guide breaks Incident Response into 2 topics. The question bank follows the same split, so a weak topic shows up as a cluster of misses you can go back and read.

Published SCS-C03 practice questions per topic in Incident Response
TopicWhat it coversQuestions
Design and test an incident response planExam guide task 2.1 (SCS-C03). Designing and implementing response plans and runbooks (Systems Manager OpsCenter, Amazon SageMaker AI notebooks); configuring services to be prepared for incidents (provisioning access, deploying security tools, minimizing the blast radius, AWS Shield Advanced protections); testing and validating incident response plan effectiveness (AWS Fault Injection Service, AWS Resilience Hub); automatic incident remediation (Systems Manager, Automated Forensics Orchestrator for Amazon EC2, AWS Step Functions, Amazon Application Recovery Controller, Lambda functions).46
Respond to security eventsExam guide task 2.2 (SCS-C03). Capturing and storing system and application logs as forensic artifacts; searching and correlating logs for security events across applications and AWS services; validating findings from AWS security services to assess the scope and impact of an event; containing and eradicating threats and recovering resources (network containment controls, restoring backups); root cause analysis methods (Amazon Detective).42
Total88

Revise Incident Response before you drill it

Other SCS-C03 domains

Incident Response: your questions

Incident Response is domain 2 of the SCS-C03 exam guide and carries 14% of the scored content — the 5th-heaviest of the 6 domains. On a 65-question paper that works out to roughly 9 questions, though AWS does not publish an exact per-domain count and individual exam forms vary.

Source

The domain weight and topic list on this page come from the official SCS-C03 exam guide.