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.
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.
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.
- Identify the failure being planned for: the external identity provider is down or untrusted.
- Remove every option that still authenticates or retrieves credentials through that provider.
- Remove options that cannot be limited to incident response, such as root users.
- 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.