Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Exam Dumps - Actual Questions Answers

To give the frontend team immediate access to stable endpoints without waiting for a real backend implementation, the simplest approach is to use API Gateway MOCK integration . A MOCK integration lets API Gateway generate a response directly, without invoking Lambda or any other backend. This is ideal for early UI development because you can return consistent, predefined payloads and status codes for each method.

With MOCK integration, you configure an integration request (often using a static mapping template) to produce a dummy request payload that triggers a response, and then you configure integration responses to return specific HTTP status codes (such as 200, 400, 500) along with predefined JSON bodies. You can also set response headers (for example, Content-Type: application/json) and use mapping templates to shape the returned JSON. This satisfies the requirement to “return predefined HTTP status codes and JSON responses” while minimizing development effort and avoiding the need to deploy placeholder Lambda functions.

Option A (AWS_PROXY with Lambda) can work, but it requires creating and deploying Lambda functions and IAM permissions just to return static data—more effort than necessary. Option C (HTTP PROXY) depends on an external placeholder service, which adds another system to build and maintain. Option D is incorrect because HTTP status codes are not defined in the method request ; they are defined through method responses and realized through integration responses in API Gateway’s integration configuration.

Therefore, B is the best solution: MOCK integration with integration request/response mappings provides quick, code-free stubs that unblock frontend development.

Because the developer cannot change the legacy application code, the solution must apply controls at the logging layer . CloudWatch Logs provides data protection policies that can automatically detect sensitive data using managed data identifiers (including credit card data) and apply masking (de-identification) as log events are ingested. This ensures that sensitive values such as card numbers and verification codes are not displayed in plaintext to general viewers of the log group.

With option A, enabling a data protection policy on the log group and configuring it to mask the relevant credit card data ensures that when support staff query or view logs, the sensitive fields appear redacted. CloudWatch Logs also supports controlled access to view the original unmasked values through an explicit permission: users who have the appropriate IAM authorization (such as logs:Unmask) can retrieve or view the sensitive data, while everyone else sees only the masked version. Granting logs:Unmask to application administrators satisfies the requirement that administrators can access the sensitive data, while withholding it from support staff enforces the restriction.

Option B (KMS encryption) provides encryption at rest for the log group but does not prevent authorized readers from seeing sensitive data once decrypted. Support staff who can read logs would still see plaintext card data. Option C is not a standard or operationally efficient pattern for CloudWatch Logs redaction; Macie is primarily for discovering sensitive data in S3 and does not serve as the native masking mechanism for CloudWatch Logs ingestion. Option D is not applicable: AWS WAF inspects HTTP requests/responses at the edge or load balancer/API layer, not application log streams already being emitted to CloudWatch.

Therefore, A is the correct solution: use CloudWatch Logs data protection to mask sensitive data by default and grant logs:Unmask only to administrators.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/access-control-overview.html#access-control-resource-ownership