Enforcing Container Provenance with Binary Authorization | PCSE
Your organization heavily utilizes serverless applications while prioritizing security best practices. You are responsible for enforcing image provenance and compliance with security standards before deployment. You leverage Cloud Build as your continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) tool for building container images. You must configure Binary Authorization to ensure that only images built by your Cloud Build pipeline are deployed and that the images pass security standard compliance checks. What should you do?
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
Tests Binary Authorization attestation mechanisms; the common trap is assuming a standalone scanner or source-code check replaces pipeline-native provenance tracking.
This question tests how to enforce container image provenance and compliance in Google Cloud using Binary Authorization and Cloud Build. It establishes that linking deployments to a specific Cloud Build build ID via an attestor is the correct configuration.
Candidates often select A or B because they expect a separate vulnerability scanner to be configured directly inside Binary Authorization, overlooking Cloud Build's automatic attestation workflow.
Community Discussion (5 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Binary Authorization enforces deploy-time constraints by requiring cryptographic attestations from trusted sources. When integrated with Cloud Build, the pipeline can automatically generate an attestation tied to the specific build ID once all steps pass. Configuring an attestor to verify this build ID guarantees that only images produced by your approved CI/CD workflow reach production. Compliance checks are embedded within the pipeline stages, so the attestation itself serves as proof that both provenance and security standards were satisfied before deployment.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A focuses on scanning source code repositories rather than evaluating the final container image or build artifacts, which misses the provenance requirement. Option B suggests a generic scanner for build processes but lacks the explicit Cloud Build integration mechanism required for verifiable image signing. Option D incorrectly applies Security Health Analytics, which monitors runtime VM and workload posture rather than providing cryptographic proof of container image origin during CI/CD.Community Comment Notes
As jmaquino noted, users initially questioned whether a separate tool handles compliance, but clarified that scanners run inside the pipeline before the attestation step. abdelrahman89 emphasized that linking the deployed image to the exact build process ensures strict provenance control. KLei pointed out that Google provides built-in security containers, making external scanner configurations unnecessary for this specific setup. The consensus confirms that native Cloud Build attestation aligns perfectly with exam expectations.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When configuring deploy-time enforcement in Google Cloud, always prioritize native CI/CD integrations like Cloud Build’s automatic attestation over third-party or out-of-band scanning tools. Map each requirement (provenance versus compliance) to the specific service designed to handle it at the right stage of the pipeline to avoid misconfiguring attestors.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Binary Authorization verify compliance alongside provenance?
Compliance checks run inside the Cloud Build pipeline; only after passing do you trigger the attestation step that ties the image to the build ID.
Why isn't a standalone scanner used for Binary Authorization?
Binary Authorization relies on attestations produced during CI/CD. Standalone scanners lack the cryptographic proof linking the final image back to the approved build process.