Mulesoft MCPA-Level 1 exam MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect – Level 1 Online Training
Mulesoft MCPA-Level 1 exam Online Training
The questions for MCPA-Level 1 exam were last updated at Dec 24,2024.
- Exam Code: MCPA-Level 1 exam
- Exam Name: MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1
- Certification Provider: Mulesoft
- Latest update: Dec 24,2024
An organization has several APIs that accept JSON data over HTTP POST. The APIs are all publicly available and are associated with several mobile applications and web applications.
The organization does NOT want to use any authentication or compliance policies for these APIs, but at the same time, is worried that some bad actor could send payloads that could somehow compromise the applications or servers running the API implementations.
What out-of-the-box Anypoint Platform policy can address exposure to this threat?
- A . Shut out bad actors by using HTTPS mutual authentication for all API invocations
- B . Apply an IP blacklist policy to all APIs; the blacklist will Include all bad actors
- C . Apply a Header injection and removal policy that detects the malicious data before it is used
- D . Apply a JSON threat protection policy to all APIs to detect potential threat vectors
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. Apply a JSON threat protection policy to all APIs to detect potential threat vectors
*****************************************
>> Usually, if the APIs are designed and developed for specific consumers (known consumers/customers) then we would IP Whitelist the same to ensure that traffic only comes from them.
>> However, as this scenario states that the APIs are publicly available and being used by so many mobile and web applications, it is NOT possible to identify and blacklist all possible bad actors.
>> So, JSON threat protection policy is the best chance to prevent any bad JSON payloads from such bad actors.
The implementation of a Process API must change.
What is a valid approach that minimizes the impact of this change on API clients?
- A . Update the RAML definition of the current Process API and notify API client developers by sending them links to the updated RAML definition
- B . Postpone changes until API consumers acknowledge they are ready to migrate to a new Process API or API version
- C . Implement required changes to the Process API implementation so that whenever possible, the Process API’s RAML definition remains unchanged
- D . Implement the Process API changes in a new API implementation, and have the old API implementation return an HTTP status code 301 – Moved Permanently to inform API clients they should be calling the new API implementation
C
Explanation:
Correct Answer. Implement required changes to the Process API implementation so that, whenever possible, the Process API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.
*****************************************
Key requirement in the question is:
>> Approach that minimizes the impact of this change on API clients Based on above:
>> Updating the RAML definition would possibly impact the API clients if the changes require any thing mandatory from client side. So, one should try to avoid doing that until really necessary.
>> Implementing the changes as a completely different API and then redirectly the clients with 3xx status code is really upsetting design and heavily impacts the API clients.
>> Organisations and IT cannot simply postpone the changes required until all API consumers acknowledge they are ready to migrate to a new Process API or API version. This is unrealistic and not possible.
The best way to handle the changes always is to implement required changes to the API implementations so that, whenever possible, the API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.
What condition requires using a CloudHub Dedicated Load Balancer?
- A . When cross-region load balancing is required between separate deployments of the same Mule application
- B . When custom DNS names are required for API implementations deployed to customer-hosted Mule runtimes
- C . When API invocations across multiple CloudHub workers must be load balanced
- D . When server-side load-balanced TLS mutual authentication is required between API implementations and API clients
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. When server-side load-balanced TLS mutual authentication is required between API implementations and API clients
*****************************************
Fact/ Memory Tip: Although there are many benefits of CloudHub Dedicated Load balancer, TWO important things that should come to ones mind for considering it are:
>> Having URL endpoints with Custom DNS names on CloudHub deployed apps
>> Configuring custom certificates for both HTTPS and Two-way (Mutual) authentication. Coming to the options provided for this question:
>> We CANNOT use DLB to perform cross-region load balancing between separate deployments of the same Mule application.
>> We can have mapping rules to have more than one DLB URL pointing to same Mule app. But vicevera (More than one Mule app having same DLB URL) is NOT POSSIBLE
>> It is true that DLB helps to setup custom DNS names for Cloudhub deployed Mule apps but NOT true for apps deployed to Customer-hosted Mule Runtimes.
>> It is true to that we can load balance API invocations across multiple CloudHub workers using DLB but it is NOT A MUST. We can achieve the same (load balancing) using SLB (Shared Load Balancer) too. We DO NOT necessarily require DLB for achieve it.
So the only right option that fits the scenario and requires us to use DLB is when TLS mutual authentication is required between API implementations and API clients.
Reference: https://docs.mulesoft.com/runtime-manager/cloudhub-dedicated-load-balancer
When designing an upstream API and its implementation, the development team has been advised to NOT set timeouts when invoking a downstream API, because that downstream API has no SLA that can be relied upon. This is the only downstream API dependency of that upstream API.
Assume the downstream API runs uninterrupted without crashing .
What is the impact of this advice?
- A . An SLA for the upstream API CANNOT be provided
- B . The invocation of the downstream API will run to completion without timing out
- C . A default timeout of 500 ms will automatically be applied by the Mule runtime in which the upstream API implementation executes
- D . A toad-dependent timeout of less than 1000 ms will be applied by the Mule runtime in which the downstream API implementation executes
A
Explanation:
Correct Answer. An SLA for the upstream API CANNOT be provided.
*****************************************
>> First thing first, the default HTTP response timeout for HTTP connector is 10000 ms (10 seconds). NOT 500 ms.
>> Mule runtime does NOT apply any such "load-dependent" timeouts. There is no such behavior currently in Mule.
>> As there is default 10000 ms time out for HTTP connector, we CANNOT always guarantee that the invocation of the downstream API will run to completion without timing out due to its unreliable SLA times. If the response time crosses 10 seconds then the request may time out.
The main impact due to this is that a proper SLA for the upstream API CANNOT be provided.
Reference: https://docs.mulesoft.com/http-connector/1.5/http-documentation#parameters-3
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
An organization wants to make sure only known partners can invoke the organization’s APIs. To achieve this security goal, the organization wants to enforce a Client ID Enforcement policy in API Manager so that only registered partner applications can invoke the organization’s APIs.
In what type of API implementation does MuleSoft recommend adding an API proxy to enforce the Client ID Enforcement policy, rather than embedding the policy directly in the application’s JVM?
- A . A Mule 3 application using APIkit
- B . A Mule 3 or Mule 4 application modified with custom Java code
- C . A Mule 4 application with an API specification
- D . A Non-Mule application
D
Explanation:
Correct Answer. A Non-Mule application
*****************************************
>> All type of Mule applications (Mule 3/ Mule 4/ with APIkit/ with Custom Java Code etc) running on Mule Runtimes support the Embedded Policy Enforcement on them.
>> The only option that cannot have or does not support embedded policy enforcement and must have API Proxy is for Non-Mule Applications.
So, Non-Mule application is the right answer.
Latest MCPA-Level 1 exam Dumps Valid Version with 58 Q&As
Latest And Valid Q&A | Instant Download | Once Fail, Full Refund
OPTIONS is not cacheable, POST is, so I would go for B in the 30 question:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Methods/OPTIONS
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Methods/POST