A multinational financial institution is configuring automated compliance guardrails across its Google Cloud resource hierarchy. The cloud architecture team must enforce two governance mandates:
1. Prevent the creation of user-managed service account keys across all projects in the organization, while granting an exception for a legacy payment integration project residing in a dedicated folder that requires JSON keys for on-premises authentication.
2. Restrict resource deployment locations to European Union regions () across the entire hierarchy, while allowing a specialized high-performance analytics project to deploy compute resources in .
Which TWO architectural configurations should the cloud architect implement to meet these governance requirements?
- Enforce the boolean constraint `constraints/iam.disableServiceAccountKeyCreation` at the Organization root node, and set an explicit enforcement rule of `enforced: false` on the legacy payment integration project to override inheritance.Cevap
- Apply the list constraint `constraints/gcp.resourceLocations` with `allowed_values = ["in:eu-locations"]` at the Organization root, and configure a policy rule on the analytics project with `allowed_values = ["in:us-central1-locations"]` while overriding parent rules.Cevap
- CAssign the primitive Owner role to security administrators at the Organization root node with IAM Conditions to deny service account key creation across all child projects.
- DEstablish a VPC Service Controls perimeter around the organization root and construct data egress rules to block service account key API calls and out-of-region API endpoints.
- EGrant developers on the legacy payment integration project the Service Account Admin role (`roles/iam.serviceAccountAdmin`) so their identity bypasses organization policy constraint evaluation.