McAfee Secure

CNCF CKA Bundle

Exam Code: CKA

Exam Name Certified Kubernetes Administrator

Certification Provider: CNCF

Corresponding Certification: CKA

CNCF CKA Bundle $44.99
CKA Sample 1 CKA Sample 2 CKA Sample 3 CKA Sample 4 CKA Sample 5 CKA Sample 6 CKA Sample 7 CKA Sample 8 CKA Sample 9 CKA Sample 10

100% CNCF CKA Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real CKA Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    CKA Questions & Answers

    58 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual CKA exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • CKA Video Course

    CKA Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    CKA Video Course is developed by CNCF Professionals to help you pass the CKA exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Certified Kubernetes Administrator exam.
  • Study Guide

    CKA Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 268-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace CKA exam.

Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $194.97
Bundle Price: $149.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    58 Questions

    $124.99
  • CKA Video Course

    Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    $29.99

CNCF CKA Practice Test 55

Question 540

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Service dispatch-svc in fulfillment uses the wrong targetPort; the application container is listening on 9000 and Service port must remain 9090. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Model required system egress and incident recovery before enforcing default-deny behavior.
  2. Check exposed Service port mappings against actual container listeners and named ports before releases.
  3. Test security policies from allowed and denied sources rather than trusting YAML alone.
  4. Track TLS Secret renewal and enforce appropriate ingress-controller security policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Check exposed Service port mappings against actual container listeners and named ports before releases. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n fulfillment patch service dispatch-svc --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"ports":[{"port":9090,"targetPort":9000}]}}' for the lab's single-port Service. The relevant mechanism is: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: An egress-isolating NetworkPolicy can block Pod outbound connections; DNS and required dependencies need explicit allowances. Here the sustained control must address: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener. Choose “Check exposed Service port mappings against actual container listeners and named ports before releases”.

C:

This routine guards against another mechanism: A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress. The recurring exposure in the current case is: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener. The matching preventive check is “Check exposed Service port mappings against actual container listeners and named ports before releases”.

D:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. Here the sustained control must address: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener. Choose “Check exposed Service port mappings against actual container listeners and named ports before releases”.

Question 541

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: Service invoice-svc in namespace ledger may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n ledger expose deployment invoice-api --name=invoice-svc --type=ClusterIP --port=80 --target-port=8080.
  2. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./policies/invoice-api-cross-namespace.yaml after confirming its namespaceSelector and TCP port 80.
  3. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./policies/invoice-api-peer.yaml after verifying podSelector rules match the source identity.
  4. Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Validate the result with: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered action targets: A ClusterIP Service provides stable in-cluster virtual addressing and directs traffic to selected ready Pod endpoints. The case facts point instead to: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Implement “Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide” to address that specific condition.

B:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. The reported case instead depends on: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide”.

C:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: An ingress rule with a podSelector selects source Pods in its own namespace unless combined with other peer selectors. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide”.

Question 542

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: Service invoice-svc in namespace ledger may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.
  2. DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist.
  3. A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress.
  4. Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide. The direct acceptance evidence is: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc.

Incorrect Answers

B:

DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

C:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

D:

This principle describes a separate cause: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. The reported condition is governed by: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

Question 543

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: Service invoice-svc in namespace ledger may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n ledger get service invoice-svc -o wide and inspect the allocated node port and endpoints.
  2. Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc.
  3. Compare the Corefile's Kubernetes plugin zone with expected cluster.local and sample Pod resolv.conf data.
  4. Run authorized connectivity probes from both approved and unapproved namespaces.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The alternative verifies a different condition: A NodePort Service allocates a cluster-configured host port on each node while retaining its cluster IP routing. The current case instead depends on: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Confirm that “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc”.

C:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide. The current issue is governed by: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Its decisive check is “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc”.

D:

The alternative verifies a different condition: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. The current case instead depends on: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Confirm that “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for invoice-svc”.

Question 544

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: Service invoice-svc in namespace ledger may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately.
  2. Verify peer label governance and avoid permitting all namespace workloads accidentally.
  3. Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks.
  4. Maintain lightweight in-cluster DNS canaries and verify Service creation and DNS freshness.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n ledger get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=invoice-svc -o wide. The relevant mechanism is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That safeguard is relevant to: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The current failure instead follows from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Its prevention measure is “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

B:

This routine guards against another mechanism: An ingress rule with a podSelector selects source Pods in its own namespace unless combined with other peer selectors. The recurring exposure in the current case is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The matching preventive check is “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

D:

That safeguard is relevant to: Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution. The current failure instead follows from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Its prevention measure is “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

Question 545

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Service metrics-svc in namespace observability may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide.
  2. Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./policies/metrics-api-cross-namespace.yaml after confirming its namespaceSelector and TCP port 8080.
  3. Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./policies/metrics-api-peer.yaml after verifying podSelector rules match the source identity.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability create ingress metrics-ingress --class=nginx --rule='metrics.example.test/=metrics-svc:8080' after confirming the Service exists.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Validate the result with: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide”.

C:

The offered action targets: An ingress rule with a podSelector selects source Pods in its own namespace unless combined with other peer selectors. The case facts point instead to: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Implement “Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide” to address that specific condition.

D:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: An Ingress resource declares HTTP host/path routing but requires an actual installed Ingress controller. The reported case instead depends on: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide”.

Question 546

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Service metrics-svc in namespace observability may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist.
  2. EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.
  3. A ClusterIP Service provides stable in-cluster virtual addressing and directs traffic to selected ready Pod endpoints.
  4. Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide. The direct acceptance evidence is: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc.

Incorrect Answers

A:

DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

C:

This principle describes a separate cause: A ClusterIP Service provides stable in-cluster virtual addressing and directs traffic to selected ready Pod endpoints. The reported condition is governed by: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

D:

Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

Question 547

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Service metrics-svc in namespace observability may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n observability describe ingress metrics-ingress and test the route through the controller address using the expected Host header.
  2. Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc and verify addresses for the intended Pods.
  3. Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc.
  4. Run authorized connectivity probes from both approved and unapproved namespaces.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: An Ingress resource declares HTTP host/path routing but requires an actual installed Ingress controller. In the current case, the governing reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The direct verification is “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc”.

B:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: Services select matching Pods; an unmatched selector can leave EndpointSlices without usable backends despite healthy Pods. The current issue is governed by: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Its decisive check is “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc”.

D:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. In the current case, the governing reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The direct verification is “Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for metrics-svc”.

Question 548

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Service metrics-svc in namespace observability may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Include DNS as an explicit dependency when designing egress policies for isolated Pods.
  2. Track TLS Secret renewal and enforce appropriate ingress-controller security policies.
  3. Prefer short-lived diagnostic tunnels and avoid treating port-forward as a production ingress path.
  4. Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n observability get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=metrics-svc -o wide. The relevant mechanism is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This routine guards against another mechanism: NetworkPolicy egress rules are additive and DNS lookup requires permitted traffic to the DNS server, not only a correct Service record. The recurring exposure in the current case is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The matching preventive check is “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

B:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. Here the sustained control must address: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Choose “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

C:

That safeguard is relevant to: Port-forwarding creates a client-side tunnel to a selected backend and does not change the Service type or network exposure. The current failure instead follows from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Its prevention measure is “Include EndpointSlice and readiness checks in Service connectivity runbooks”.

Question 549

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Service dispatch-svc in namespace fulfillment may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n fulfillment patch service dispatch-svc --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"selector":{"app":"dispatch-api"}}}' after confirming the label is authoritative.
  2. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide.
  3. Run kubectl -n kube-system get deploy coredns; kubectl -n kube-system get pods -l k8s-app=kube-dns.
  4. Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./policies/dispatch-api-cross-namespace.yaml after confirming its namespaceSelector and TCP port 9090.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. Validate the result with: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for dispatch-svc. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: Services select matching Pods; an unmatched selector can leave EndpointSlices without usable backends despite healthy Pods. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide”.

C:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist. The reported case instead depends on: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide”.

D:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide”.

Question 550

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Service dispatch-svc in namespace fulfillment may have no ready backends; identify its EndpointSlices before changing network policy. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates.
  2. The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener.
  3. EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.
  4. CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide. The direct acceptance evidence is: Compare listed endpoints against the matching ready Pods and expected selector for dispatch-svc.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.

B:

This principle describes a separate cause: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener. The reported condition is governed by: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

D:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.