Free Practice Questions for Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Exam

The correct answer is B because when an IAM role is attached to an Amazon EC2 instance through an instance profile, changes to the permissions policy for that role propagate automatically to applications that use the instance role credentials. This is the least disruptive approach because the developer does not need to restart, hibernate, terminate, or replace the EC2 instance.

AWS documentation explains that applications running on EC2 can obtain temporary security credentials from the instance metadata service for the attached IAM role. When the IAM policy attached to that role is updated to allow Amazon S3 read access , new temporary credentials issued for the role will reflect the updated permissions. This makes it possible to correct the access issue without changing the application deployment model or interrupting the running instance.

Option A is unnecessary because terminating and relaunching the instance causes avoidable disruption. Option C is also unnecessary because hibernation and restart are not required for IAM policy changes to take effect. Option D is not the best answer because although bucket policies can grant access, the issue identified is specifically that the instance role lacks S3 read permission , and restarting the instance is still unnecessary.

The AWS best-practice approach is to grant the required permission directly to the IAM role used by the EC2 instance. This keeps authorization centralized and lets the running application continue using temporary role credentials with minimal operational impact.

Therefore, the solution with the least application disruption is to add the S3 read permission to the IAM role , making B the correct answer.

Why Option A is Correct:Running an AWS Lambda function within the same VPC ensures secure communication without exposing the API application to public IP addresses. The Lambda function can serve as a secure EventBridge target to send events to the API.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B & C: Internet-facing load balancers expose public IP addresses, which violates compliance requirements.

Option D: EventBridge cannot directly target an endpoint within a private VPC without intermediary services like Lambda.

AWS Documentation References:

EventBridge Targets

In AWS Lambda, CPU power scales proportionally with the memory configuration. Lambda does not let you directly set “CPU cores” as a standalone setting in the general case; instead, increasing the function’s configured memory increases the CPU allocation (and other resources such as network throughput) available to the function. Therefore, to reduce latency caused by insufficient CPU, the developer should increase the function’s memory setting.

Option B directly addresses the CPU limitation in the supported Lambda configuration model. This is a common performance tuning approach: raise memory, benchmark, and find the optimal cost/performance point.

Option A is not the right lever for most Lambda functions because Lambda compute is configured via memory (and architecture), not by directly raising a “vCPU quota” per function in a typical tuning workflow.

Option C increases /tmp storage capacity and helps when dealing with large temporary files, not CPU availability.

Option D increases the maximum runtime allowed per invocation, but it does not give the function more CPU and will not reduce latency caused by CPU starvation.

Therefore, increasing the allocated memory is the correct way to increase CPU for a Lambda function.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:

Requirement Summary:

In-transit encryption (when data is moving between client and S3)

Encryption at rest using AWS KMS keys (which are rotatable on-demand)

Option A: Write an S3 bucket policy to allow only encrypted connections over HTTPS by using permissions boundary

Incorrect: Permissions boundaries are for IAM policy control, not S3 bucket policies.

Also, encryption enforcement in-transit is not achieved through permissions boundaries.

Option B: Configure an S3 bucket policy to enable client-side encryption

Incorrect: AWS does not enforce client-side encryption via S3 bucket policies.

Client-side encryption must be handled entirely by the application.

Also, KMS is for server-side encryption, not client-side.

Option C: Configure the application to encrypt the objects by using an AWS KMS customer managed key before uploading the objects

Correct: This fulfills the requirement of encrypting objects at rest using a KMS CMK, which can be rotated.

You can specify the KMS key using the SSE-KMS option when putting an object.

Option D: Write an S3 bucket policy to allow only encrypted connections over HTTPS by using the aws:SecureTransport condition

Correct: This enforces in-transit encryption, which ensures that only HTTPS connections are allowed.

This is the AWS-recommended way to enforce encryption in transit via bucket policy.

Option E: Configure S3 Block Public Access settings for the S3 bucket to allow only encrypted connections over HTTPS

Incorrect: Block Public Access is used to prevent public exposure of the bucket.

It has nothing to do with encryption enforcement, whether in transit or at rest.

Using SSE-KMS: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/UsingKMSEncryption.html

aws:SecureTransport condition in bucket policies: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/amazon-s3-policy-keys.html

Server-side encryption with AWS KMS: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/serv-side-encryption.html

CloudWatch for Log Analysis: CloudWatch is the best fit here because logs are already centralized. Here ' s the process:

Metric Filter: Create a metric filter on the CloudWatch Logs log group. Design a pattern to specifically identify application error messages.

Custom Metric: This filter generates a new custom CloudWatch metric (e.g., ApplicationErrors). This metric tracks the error count.

CloudWatch Alarm: Create an alarm on the ApplicationErrors metric. Configure the alarm with your desired threshold and a 5-minute evaluation period.

SNS Action: Set the alarm to trigger an SNS notification when it enters the alarm state.

Reserved concurrency guarantees a specific number of concurrent executions for a critical Lambda function. This ensures that the critical function always has sufficient resources to execute, even if other functions are consuming concurrency.

Why Option A:

Ensures Function Availability: Reserved concurrency isolates the critical Lambda function from other functions.

Low Overhead: Configuring reserved concurrency is straightforward and requires minimal setup.

Why Not Other Options:

Option B: Provisioned concurrency is ideal for reducing cold starts, not for managing execution limits.

Option C & D: Alarms and re-invocation mechanisms add complexity without resolving the root cause.

Managing Concurrency for AWS Lambda

“Encryption in transit” for S3 means requiring requests to use HTTPS (TLS) rather than HTTP. AWS provides a standard policy condition key, aws:SecureTransport, that evaluates to true when the request is made over SSL/TLS and false when it is not. To enforce TLS for all cross-account GetObject requests, the most reliable control point is the S3 bucket resource-based policy, because the bucket is the resource being accessed and the bucket owner can enforce conditions regardless of which external account is calling.

Option A is the established pattern: add an explicit Deny statement in the bucket policy that denies all S3 actions (or at least s3:GetObject) when aws:SecureTransport is false. An explicit deny overrides any allows, ensuring that even if another account’s IAM policy allows access, the request will still be blocked if it is not using HTTPS.

Option B is backwards because it would allow insecure transport rather than deny it.

Option C is weaker because you cannot reliably enforce policies in other accounts (and principals could change roles or permissions). The bucket owner should enforce transport security at the bucket level.

Option D is not the right layer: the KMS key policy controls key usage, but the S3 GetObject transport requirement is best enforced by the S3 bucket policy. Also, S3 access can be denied before KMS is even involved.

Therefore, enforce HTTPS by adding a bucket policy Deny when aws:SecureTransport is false.

Tracing Distributed Systems: AWS X-Ray is designed to trace requests across services, helping identify bottlenecks in distributed applications like this one.

No Code Changes: Enabling X-Ray tracing often requires minimal code changes, meeting the requirement.

Identifying Bottlenecks: Analyzing X-Ray traces and logs will reveal latency in communications between different AWS services, leading to the high duration time.

TTL for Automatic Deletion: DynamoDB ' s Time-to-Live effortlessly deletes expired items without manual intervention.

DynamoDB Stream: Captures changes to the table, including deletions of expired items, triggering downstream actions.

Lambda for Processing: A Lambda function connected to the stream provides custom logic for handling the deleted items.

Code Efficiency: This solution leverages native DynamoDB features and stream-based processing, minimizing the need for custom code.

The correct answer is A . For a Lambda-based application that must use third-party API keys while ensuring secrets never appear in client code, request URLs, headers, or logs, storing the keys as encrypted Lambda environment variables protected by AWS KMS is the most secure choice among the options given. AWS supports encryption at rest for Lambda environment variables, and the function’s execution role can be granted permission to decrypt those values at runtime. This keeps the secrets entirely on the server side and out of the browser and request path.

Option B is insecure because query string parameters are a poor location for secrets. Even when HTTPS is used, query parameters can still be exposed through logs, monitoring systems, browser history, proxies, or debugging tools. Option C is clearly unacceptable because embedding secrets in client-side JavaScript exposes them to users. Obfuscation or minification does not provide security. Option D is also not appropriate because AWS resource tags are not a secrets-management mechanism and are not intended for storing confidential credentials.

From AWS security best practices, secrets should never be embedded in client applications and should be stored in protected server-side configuration with strong access controls. Although AWS Secrets Manager would often be the stronger real-world recommendation for rotating and retrieving secrets, it is not listed here. Among the available choices, KMS-encrypted Lambda environment variables best satisfy the requirements for confidentiality, controlled access, and avoiding accidental exposure in application logs or HTTP request elements.

Therefore, A is the most secure answer.

The correct answer is D because the most cost-effective way to prevent PutItem from overwriting an existing item in Amazon DynamoDB is to use a conditional write with attribute_not_exists(transactionID) . AWS documentation explains that conditional expressions allow write operations to succeed only when specified conditions are true. In this case, the write should occur only if the item does not already exist. That preserves the original processing date for the first received transaction and prevents duplicates from replacing it.

This is the most cost-effective solution because it uses a single write request instead of adding an additional read operation. Since duplicate transactions happen infrequently and most items are unique, using GetItem first, as in option A, would introduce an extra read for every transaction, increasing cost and adding latency. A conditional put avoids that overhead and keeps the logic atomic. It also protects against race conditions where two requests might check for existence at nearly the same time and both attempt to write.

Option B is incorrect because TTL only controls automatic expiration of items and does not prevent overwrites. Option C is incorrect because attribute_exists(transactionID) would allow the write only when the item already exists, which is the opposite of the required behavior.

Therefore, the correct DynamoDB pattern is to use PutItem with a condition expression of attribute_not_exists(transactionID) so that existing records are not updated and the earliest processing date is preserved.