hardMultiple Select
CCSP Practice Question: A cloud architect is designing a multi-cloud…
A cloud architect is designing a multi-cloud solution that must maintain high availability and disaster recovery across two cloud providers. Which three key considerations should be included in the architecture? (Choose three.)
⚠ Common exam trap
ISC2 often tests the misconception that a single DNS provider or single network interface is acceptable for multi-cloud HA, when in reality these create critical single points of failure that violate the redundancy principle.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Rely on each provider's native high-availability features.
Option A is correct because leveraging each provider's native high-availability features (such as AWS Multi-AZ deployments, Azure Availability Zones, or GCP regional resources) provides resilient, provider-optimized redundancy within each cloud without reinventing failover mechanisms. Option D is correct because implementing consistent identity and access management across providers (for example, federating with SAML 2.0/OIDC to a central IdP like Microsoft Entra ID or Okta) ensures uniform authentication, authorization, and least-privilege policies across both environments, which is essential for secure multi-cloud operations. Option E is correct because cloud-agnostic application code (e.g., using containers, Kubernetes, or abstraction layers instead of proprietary PaaS APIs) enables portability and failover between providers, which is fundamental to a multi-cloud DR strategy. Option B does not belong because a single networking interface creates a single point of failure and does not address cross-provider connectivity or redundancy. Option C does not belong because relying on a single DNS provider for failover introduces a single point of failure; a resilient multi-cloud design should use multiple DNS providers or health-check-based global traffic management.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Rely on each provider's native high-availability features.
Why this is correct
Leveraging each provider's native high-availability features satisfies the multi-cloud resilience constraint by exploiting independent, provider-managed redundancy domains. Because the two clouds share no control plane or failure boundary, an outage in one cannot cascade to the other, delivering the cross-provider disaster recovery the stem demands without bespoke tooling.
- ✗
Use a single networking interface to simplify connectivity.
Why it's wrong here
A single networking interface creates a shared failure domain, so an outage at one provider severs connectivity to both. One interface is what you would design for a single-provider estate where simplified routing outweighs cross-provider resilience requirements.
- ✗
Use a single DNS provider for failover.
Why it's wrong here
Relying on one DNS provider makes resolution a single point of failure, defeating failover when that provider is unavailable. A single DNS provider suits a single-cloud deployment where failover is handled by load balancers rather than cross-provider DNS.
- ✓
Implement consistent identity and access management across providers.
Why this is correct
Consistent identity and access management lets the same principals, roles and federation trust span both providers, so failover does not strand users or break authorisation. It directly satisfies the high-availability and disaster-recovery constraint by removing provider-specific identity silos that would block cross-cloud recovery.
- ✓
Ensure application code is cloud-agnostic.
Why this is correct
Cloud-agnostic application code avoids provider-specific APIs, SDKs and managed services, so the workload can be redeployed to the second provider during failover. This directly satisfies the disaster-recovery constraint, since portability is what allows recovery to proceed without rewriting components under incident pressure.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CCSP question is part of Courseiva's 934-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CCSP practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISC2 certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CCSP exam.