A company hosts a static marketing website on a single on-premises server and uploads updates infrequently via SFTP. The company will move the site to AWS and use Amazon CloudFront. The solutions architect must design the most cost-effective, resilient origin for CloudFront. Which solution meets these requirements?

The correct solution uses a private Amazon S3 bucket with a CloudFront Origin Access Identity (OAI) for the most cost-effective and resilient origin. S3 is highly durable, scalable, and cost-effective for static content. Using an OAI ensures CloudFront is the only entity that can access the S3 content, enhancing security. Uploading via AWS CLI is standard practice for S3. Incorrect options: Lightsail is a good option for simple servers but is not as resilient or cost-effective for static content as S3 when used with CloudFront. It also requires managing a server. EC2 with an Auto Scaling group and ALB provides high availability but is overkill and significantly more expensive for a static website compared to S3. A public S3 bucket is less secure as it allows direct public access, bypassing CloudFront's caching and security features. While AWS Transfer for SFTP can be used, it adds cost and complexity not needed for a static site with S3.