A financial enterprise is preparing for an annual multi-framework compliance audit (including ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 Type II, and PCI DSS) for a cloud-native transaction processing application hosted on Google Cloud. The external compliance auditor mandates two distinct verification streams: Validation of the underlying cloud provider's physical security, hardware roots of trust, operational facility controls, and independent audit attestations. Verification of customer-side controls, including logging administrative access to production data by cloud personnel, tracking customer resource events, and evaluating application security posture. Which strategy correctly satisfies these requirements under the Google Cloud shared responsibility model?

Retrieve Google's third-party SOC reports, ISO certifications, and PCI Attestation of Compliance (AOC) for underlying infrastructure assurance; enable Cloud Audit Logs and Access Transparency for administrative oversight; and perform customer application penetration testing without requiring prior approval from Google.: ### What the Solution Is Under the **Google Cloud shared responsibility model**, compliance assurance is divided between the cloud service provider (security *of* the cloud) and the customer (security *in* the cloud). Customers validate Google's underlying physical infrastructure, datacenter operations, hardware root of trust, and hypervisor controls by reviewing independent third-party audit attestations—including **SOC 1/2/3 reports**, **ISO/IEC 27001/27017/27018 certifications**, and **PCI Attestation of Compliance (AOC)** available through the Compliance Reports Manager or Google Cloud representative. ### How It Meets the Audit Requirements - **Underlying Infrastructure Assurance**: Leveraging Google's third-party audit reports and attestations proves to external auditors that Google's datacenters, hardware lifecycle, and underlying hypervisors satisfy rigorous international benchmarks. - **Customer and Administrative Logging**: Configuring **Cloud Audit Logs** provides granular records of user and service account actions within customer projects, while **Access Transparency** generates immutable log entries detailing whenever Google personnel access customer data or configurations during support or maintenance interactions. - **Application Penetration Testing**: Google Cloud permits customers to conduct vulnerability scans and penetration testing against their own deployed resources at any time **without requiring prior approval**, fulfilling the customer-side testing mandates. ### Key Advantages - **Eliminates Audit Friction**: Re-uses established, annually renewed third-party certifications rather than attempting unscalable custom physical datacenter audits. - **Full Administrative Visibility**: Access Transparency captures the identity, justification, ticket reference, and physical location of Google personnel interacting with customer workloads. - **Uninhibited Security Testing**: Allows development and SecOps teams to continuously assess application vulnerabilities without operational delays from cloud vendor sign-offs. ### Why This Is Optimal This approach cleanly fulfills regulatory boundaries by relying on verified external attestations for vendor-managed layers while actively architecting detective, preventive, and assessment controls across customer-managed assets.

Gcp Shared Responsibility Compliance Audit Validation | Professional Cloud Security Engineer

Gcp Shared Responsibility Compliance Audit Validation

Worked example. The correct answer is already marked and every option is explained below, so there is nothing to select here. To answer questions yourself, start the free trial.

A financial enterprise is preparing for an annual multi-framework compliance audit (including ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 Type II, and PCI DSS) for a cloud-native transaction processing application hosted on Google Cloud.

The external compliance auditor mandates two distinct verification streams:

Validation of the underlying cloud provider's physical security, hardware roots of trust, operational facility controls, and independent audit attestations.
Verification of customer-side controls, including logging administrative access to production data by cloud personnel, tracking customer resource events, and evaluating application security posture.

Which strategy correctly satisfies these requirements under the Google Cloud shared responsibility model?

Retrieve Google's third-party SOC reports, ISO certifications, and PCI Attestation of Compliance (AOC) for underlying infrastructure assurance; enable Cloud Audit Logs and Access Transparency for administrative oversight; and perform customer application penetration testing without requiring prior approval from Google.

Inherit Google's public SOC 3 report to satisfy all customer-side operating system and application controls, rely on Binary Authorization for Borg deployment integrity logs, and submit requests to Google's security engineering team to conduct custom vulnerability scans.

Schedule a direct on-site physical inspection of Google data center facilities for the external auditor, disable Access Transparency to prevent vendor credential logging, and submit formal written requests to Google Support prior to conducting any penetration tests.

Rely entirely on Google's Cloud Data Processing Addendum and Data Controller status to satisfy customer application audit criteria, while using the Google Cloud Status Dashboard as the sole mechanism for logging internal and administrative system access.

Professional Cloud Security Engineer

Gcp Shared Responsibility Compliance Audit Validation

Related questions