DVA-C02 AWS Certified Developer - Associate Question and Answers

This solution will meet the requirements by using AWS Secrets Manager, which is a service that helps protect secrets such as database credentials by encrypting them with AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and enabling automatic rotation of secrets. The developer can create an AWS Lambda function by using the SecretsManagerRotationTemplate template in the AWS Secrets Manager console, which provides a sample code for rotating secrets for RDS DB instances, Amazon DocumentDB clusters, and Amazon Aurora DB instances. The developer can also create secrets for the database credentials in Secrets Manager, which encrypts them at rest and provides secure access to them. The developer can set up secrets rotation on a schedule, which changes the database credentials periodically according to a specified interval or event. Option A is not optimal because it will set up IAM database authentication for token-based access, which may not be compatible with all database engines and may require additional configuration and management of IAM roles or users. Option B is not optimal because it will create parameters for the database credentials in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which does not support automatic rotation of secrets. Option C is not optimal because it will store the database access credentials as an encrypted Amazon S3 object in an S3 bucket, which may introduce additional costs and complexity for accessing and securing the data.

This is a feature flag / dynamic configuration requirement: enable a new feature for a subset of users (premium customers), toggle it on/off quickly based on feedback/performance, and deploy configuration changes safely with validation and without disruption. AWS AppConfig (part of AWS Systems Manager) is designed for exactly this use case.

AWS AppConfig helps create, manage, and deploy application configurations, including feature flags, in a controlled way. It supports configuration validators (such as JSON schema or Lambda validators) to catch errors before deployment. It also supports controlled rollouts with deployment strategies to reduce blast radius (for example, gradual deployments). This allows rapid changes without redeploying code and minimizes disruption.

Option A aligns perfectly: use AppConfig feature flags to target premium users and toggle the feature quickly.

Option B is incorrect because Secrets Manager is for sensitive secrets (passwords, API keys), not feature flag management and progressive configuration deployments.

Option C is incorrect because AWS Config evaluates resource compliance and records configuration changes of AWS resources; it does not serve runtime feature flag delivery.

Option D (Parameter Store) can store configuration values, but it does not provide the same feature-flag-focused capabilities, validation/deployment strategies, and safe rollout controls that AppConfig provides. Also, “lifecycle rules” is not how Parameter Store toggles features.

AWS CloudFormation is a service that enables developers to model and provision AWS resources using templates. The developer can use the following steps to avoid accidental database deletion in the future:

Set up AWS CodeDeploy to deploy the most recent version of the application at runtime. This will ensure that the application code is always up to date and does not depend on the AMI.

Remove any commands that perform operating system patching from the UserData script. This will reduce the time that the UserData script takes to run and speed up the instance launch process.

Amazon S3 automatically scales to handle high request rates, but request parallelism is optimized when objects are distributed across multiple prefixes. AWS documentation explains that S3 internally partitions data by key name, and distributing objects across multiple prefixes allows requests to be spread across multiple partitions.

When many GET requests target objects within the same prefix, they may contend for the same internal partition, limiting throughput. By designing object keys with multiple prefixes—such as including hashed or randomized components—applications can significantly increase parallel request handling.

Options A and D do not address S3 request partitioning. Global Accelerator improves network latency for supported endpoints but does not increase S3 request parallelism. Direct Connect improves network consistency but does not change how S3 scales requests internally. Option B worsens the problem by concentrating traffic into a single prefix.

Therefore, partitioning objects by prefixes is the correct and AWS-recommended solution.

Amazon API Gateway has a hard integration timeout that determines how long it waits for a backend response. If the backend (Lambda) does not respond within this time, API Gateway returns an HTTP 504 error to the client.

In this scenario, the Lambda function timeout is longer (20 seconds) than the API Gateway integration timeout (15 seconds). AWS documentation states that API Gateway will terminate the request once its timeout is exceeded, even if Lambda continues executing successfully. This explains why there are no Lambda errors despite 504 responses.

Increasing the Lambda timeout (Option B) does not help because API Gateway times out first. Reserved concurrency (Option A) and throttling limits (Option D) are unrelated to request duration.

The correct solution is to increase the API Gateway integration timeout so that it exceeds the maximum expected Lambda execution time. This ensures API Gateway waits long enough for the Lambda response.

Therefore, increasing the API Gateway timeout prevents HTTP 504 errors.

Step 1: Understanding the Requirements

Best Practices for Security:

Minimize the use of hardcoded credentials or long-lived access keys.

Use IAM roles for EC2 instances to securely grant permissions to applications running on the instance.

Access Scope: The application needs read-only access to an S3 bucket.

Step 2: Solution Analysis

Option A:

Define an IAM policy with the required s3:GetObject permissions.

Attach this policy to an IAM role.

Assign the role to the EC2 instance profile.

This approach follows security best practices by eliminating the need for static credentials and using temporary, scoped credentials provided by the instance profile.

Correct option.

Option B:

IAM groups are used for organizing users, not for EC2 instances or instance profiles.

Not suitable.

Option C:

IAM users are associated with specific individuals or applications and require static credentials.

This violates security best practices for temporary credentials and roles.

Not suitable.

Option D:

IAM web identity federation is used for applications that authenticate users via third-party identity providers.

This is unnecessary for EC2 instances and does not align with the requirements.

Not suitable.

Step 3: Implementation Steps

Create an IAM Policy:

Grant read-only access to the S3 bucket:

json

Copy code

{

"Version": "2012-10-17",

"Statement": [

{

"Effect": "Allow",

"Action": "s3:GetObject",

"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::your-bucket-name/*"

}

]

}

Attach the Policy to an IAM Role:

Create an IAM role and attach the policy to the role.

Associate the Role with the EC2 Instance:

Attach the role to the instance profile used by the EC2 instance.

AWS Developer References:

IAM Roles for Amazon EC2

Amazon S3 Permissions Reference

This solution will most likely solve the issues because it will grant the IAM user the necessary permission to access the DynamoDB table using the AWS CLI command. The error message indicates that the IAM user does not have sufficient access rights to perform the scan operation on the table. Option A is not optimal because it will change the command to use put-item instead of scan, which will not achieve the desired result of getting data from the table. Option B is not optimal because it will involve contacting AWS Support, which may not be necessary or efficient for this issue. Option C is not optimal because it will state that DynamoDB cannot be accessed from the AWS CLI, which is incorrect as DynamoDB supports AWS CLI commands.

The bottleneck in this architecture is typically the relational database (RDS MySQL), which has limited concurrent connections and write throughput compared with bursty API traffic. Because transaction volume spikes during the day and drops to near zero at night, the system needs a way to absorb bursts without over-provisioning the database (which would be costly and underutilized at night).

A cost-effective way to add elasticity is to introduce Amazon SQS as a buffer between API ingestion and database writes. With SQS, devices (or the API/Lambda) enqueue transactions quickly, and Lambda consumers process the queue at a controlled rate. The key is to prevent Lambda from overwhelming RDS with too many concurrent writes or connections. Setting reserved concurrency on the Lambda function limits the maximum number of concurrent executions, which effectively caps database connection pressure and smooths write load. This prevents overload events that cause errors/timeouts while still allowing the system to scale up to the reserved concurrency limit during peaks.

Option D captures this correct control mechanism: SQS for buffering + Lambda reserved concurrency matched to the DB’s connection capacity.

Option C is incorrect because “enhanced fanout” is a Kinesis Data Streams feature, not an SQS feature.

Options A and B focus on scaling Aurora read replicas, which helps read scaling, not write-heavy transaction ingestion. POS transaction processing is typically write-intensive; scaling read replicas does not solve the core elasticity problem. Also, migrating databases is higher effort and cost than adding a queue and tuning Lambda concurrency.

Therefore, adding SQS and setting Lambda reserved concurrency to protect RDS connections is the most cost-effective elasticity improvement.

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

The key constraint is no changes to the Lambda code, while still fanning out notifications so that each department receives only its relevant file locations in its existing SQS queue. The cleanest “plumbing-only” pattern is S3 → SNS → SQS with SNS subscription filter policies.

Amazon S3 event notifications can publish events to an SNS topic. SNS then delivers messages to multiple subscribers, including SQS queues. By subscribing each department’s SQS queue to the SNS topic, the system can fan out the event to all queues. To ensure each department receives only its relevant events, the developer can configure SNS subscription filter policies (for example, based on object key prefixes like /deptA/, /deptB/). This routes messages without requiring any change to the Lambda function.

Option D is not ideal because S3 event notifications do not provide the same flexible filtering/routing to multiple SQS queues as SNS filter policies do (and configuring many direct notifications becomes harder to manage).

Options B and C require Lambda code changes, which violates the requirement.

Therefore, use S3 event notifications to SNS, subscribe each department SQS queue, and use filter policies for routing.

The EC2 instances are in private subnets with no public internet access, yet the CloudWatch agent must publish metrics to Amazon CloudWatch. To send metrics, the instances need: (1) network connectivity to CloudWatch APIs, and (2) IAM permissions that allow the agent to publish metrics and logs.

The most secure approach is to avoid opening outbound internet access via a NAT gateway (which increases the network attack surface) and instead use AWS PrivateLink through a VPC interface endpoint for CloudWatch. An interface endpoint provides private connectivity from the VPC to CloudWatch without traversing the public internet.

On the permissions side, AWS provides the managed IAM policy CloudWatchAgentServerPolicy, which is intended for the CloudWatch agent running on servers to publish metrics/logs. Attaching this policy to the EC2 instance profile role provides the needed permissions while keeping scope appropriate (unlike an admin policy).

Why the other options are not best:

A uses CloudWatchAgentAdminPolicy (broader permissions than needed) and a NAT gateway (public internet path). That is not “most secure.”

B is irrelevant here because the agent is already installed and running; the issue is publishing connectivity/permissions.

D grants read-only access, which cannot publish metrics, so it cannot fix the issue.

Therefore, attach CloudWatchAgentServerPolicy to the instance role and create a VPC interface endpoint for CloudWatch.

The best solution for this requirement is option A. Creating an Amazon EventBridge rule that has a rate expression that will run the rule every 15 minutes and adding the Lambda function as the target of the EventBridge rule is the most efficient way to invoke the Lambda function periodically. This solution does not require any additional resources or development effort, and it leverages the built-in scheduling capabilities of EventBridge1.

AWS Lambda is a service that lets developers run code without provisioning or managing servers. Lambda provides a local file system that can be used to store temporary files during invocation. The local file system is mounted under the /tmp directory and has a limit of 512 MB. The temporary files are accessible only by the Lambda function that created them and are deleted after the function execution ends. The developer can store temporary files that are less than 10 MB in the /tmp directory and access and modify them multiple times during invocation.

Amazon CloudWatch is a service that monitors AWS resources and applications. The developer can publish custom metrics to CloudWatch that record the failures of the external payment processing API calls. The developer can configure a CloudWatch alarm to notify the existing SNS topic when the error rate exceeds 5% of the total number of transactions in an hour. This solution will meet the requirements in a near real-time and scalable way.

In CodePipeline, the service designed to run builds, execute unit/integration tests, and produce build artifacts (including test reports) is AWS CodeBuild. CodeBuild runs commands specified in a buildspec.yml file and supports reporting outputs such as test results (for example, JUnit XML), code coverage, and other build metadata.

Option A is correct because the developer can configure the CodeBuild project to run the test suite during the build phase and configure the buildspec to publish test report files. This integrates naturally into CodePipeline as a build stage, and the reports are generated consistently on each pipeline execution.

Option B is incorrect: CodeDeploy is for deploying applications (in-place/blue-green) and lifecycle hooks, not for standard build/test report generation.

Option C increases operational overhead by managing an EC2 build server, which is unnecessary when CodeBuild provides managed build environments.

Option D is unrelated: CodeArtifact is a package repository, not a test reporting solution.

Therefore, use CodeBuild and configure test reports via the buildspec.

AWS SAM provides built-in tooling to generate realistic event payloads that match the structure of events produced by AWS services (such as S3, SNS, SQS, API Gateway, EventBridge, and others). The command designed specifically for this purpose is sam local generate-event. It produces sample event JSON that mirrors the format AWS services deliver to Lambda, which meets the requirement that payload structures match real service events.

This approach also requires the least development effort because the developer does not need to manually craft and maintain JSON payload files. Instead, the developer can generate the appropriate event type with SAM, optionally tweak values (bucket name, object key, request parameters), and then run sam local invoke using the generated payload. This significantly reduces mistakes and saves time, especially when testing multiple event sources.

Why other options are less suitable:

A (shareable test events) is vague and typically still requires manual creation/maintenance.

B requires manually creating payloads, which is error-prone and higher effort.

C adds unnecessary operational overhead (S3 storage) and still relies on manual payload creation.

Therefore, using sam local generate-event is the quickest and lowest-effort way to generate accurate AWS-service-like test payloads for local Lambda testing.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation:

Option D: AWS AppConfig with CloudWatch Application Signals

AWS AppConfig is designed for managing and deploying application configurations dynamically, without redeployment.

CloudWatch Application Signals provide automatic rollback mechanisms in case of an unhealthy application state due to bad configuration changes.

This solution meets the requirements with minimal operational overhead by ensuring both dynamic updates and rollback functionality.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A and B: AWS Secrets Manager is designed for secrets management, not dynamic application configuration. Custom Config rules add unnecessary complexity.

Option C: While CloudWatch alarms can monitor application changes, using alarms for rollback requires manual setup and lacks the automatic rollback provided by Application Signals.

Requirement Summary:

WebSocket-based messaging app using API Gateway WebSocket APIs

Need to:

Identify clients repeatedly connecting/disconnecting

Be able to remove problematic clients

Evaluate Options:

A. Switch to HTTP APIs

HTTP APIs don’t support WebSocket connections

B. Switch to REST APIs

REST APIs are not compatible with WebSockets

C. Use the callback URL to disconnect clients

⚠️ Possible, but not a direct option

Callback URLs are used for sending messages to connected clients, not for disconnecting

D. Track client status in ElastiCache

Good solution: Store and update connection state (connected, disconnected, timestamps)

Helps track abuse or reconnections

E. Implement $connect and $disconnect routes

Required to capture connection lifecycle events

These can be used to log/store client behavior and decide on removal

WebSocket routes in API Gateway: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/apigateway-websocket-api-route-selection.html

Managing WebSocket connections: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/apigateway-websocket-api-mapping-template-reference.html

Scenario: Application needs to fetch songs and artists efficiently in a single operation.

BatchGetItem: This DynamoDB operation retrieves multiple items across different tables based on their primary keys in a single request.

Optimized for Request Batching: This approach reduces network traffic compared to performing multiple queries individually.

Data Modeling: The songs table is designed appropriately for this access pattern using artistName as the sort key.

Amazon S3 event notifications can invoke AWS Lambda functions at very high rates during traffic spikes. In this scenario, up to 500 objects per minute can result in hundreds of concurrent Lambda invocations. By default, Lambda functions share the account’s unreserved concurrency pool, which can cause throttling if the pool is exhausted by sudden bursts.

AWS Lambda reserved concurrency guarantees a specific number of concurrent executions for a function. By configuring reserved concurrency, the developer ensures that sufficient execution capacity is always available for this specific function, regardless of other Lambda workloads in the account. This prevents throttling during high-volume S3 event bursts.

Increasing the timeout (Option A) does not address concurrency limits. Adding a layer (Option B) does not solve invocation throttling. Decreasing memory (Option D) can actually worsen performance and increase execution time.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends reserved concurrency when workloads experience unpredictable or bursty invocation patterns and must run reliably. Therefore, reserving concurrency is the correct and AWS-recommended solution.

Amazon S3 is a service that provides highly scalable, durable, and secure object storage. The developer can create an S3 bucket to host the repository and migrate the existing .xml files to the S3 bucket. The developer can update the application code to use the AWS SDK to read and write configuration files from S3. This solution will meet the requirement of high availability for the repository in a cost-effective way.

API Gateway’s canary deployments allow gradual traffic shifting to a new version of a function, minimizing disruption while testing.

Why Option A is Correct:

Gradual Rollout: Reduces risk by incrementally increasing traffic.

Rollback Support: Canary deployments make it easy to revert to the previous version.

Why Not Other Options:

Option B: Redeploying the stage disrupts all users.

Option C & D: Managing new stages and weighted routing introduces unnecessary complexity.

Canary Deployments in API Gateway

This solution meets the requirements because it encrypts data at rest using AWS KMS keys and provides an audit trail of when and by whom they were used. Server-side encryption with AWS KMS managed keys (SSE-KMS) is a feature of Amazon S3 that encrypts data using keys that are managed by AWS KMS. When SSE-KMS is enabled for an S3 bucket or object, S3 requests AWS KMS to generate data keys and encrypts data using these keys. AWS KMS logs every use of its keys in AWS CloudTrail, which records all API calls to AWS KMS as events. These events include information such as who made the request, when it was made, and which key was used. The company policy can use CloudTrail logs to audit critical events related to their data encryption and access. Server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed keys (SSE-S3) also encrypts data at rest using keys that are managed by S3, but does not provide an audit trail of key usage. Server-side encryption with customer-provided keys (SSE-C) and server-side encryption with self-managed keys also encrypt data at rest using keys that are provided or managed by customers, but do not provide an audit trail of key usage and require additional overhead for key management.

This solution meets the requirements in the most secure way because it uses a service that is integrated with CloudFormation to manage sensitive data in encrypted form. AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store provides secure, hierarchical storage for configuration data management and secrets management. You can store sensitive data as secure string parameters, which are encrypted using an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) key of your choice. You can also use dynamic references in your CloudFormation templates to specify template values that are stored in Parameter Store or Secrets Manager without having to include them in your templates. Dynamic references are resolved only during stack creation or update operations, which reduces exposure risks for sensitive data. Putting sensitive data into a CloudFormation parameter will not encrypt them or protect them from unauthorized access. Putting sensitive data into an Amazon S3 bucket or Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) will require additional configuration and integration with CloudFormation and may not provide fine-grained access control or encryption for sensitive data.

This solution allows the API to invoke the Lambda function asynchronously, which means that the API will return an immediate response without waiting for the function to complete. The X-Amz-Invocation-Type header specifies the invocation type of the Lambda function, and setting it to ‘Event’ means that the function will be invoked asynchronously. The function can then use Amazon Simple Email Service (SES) to send an email message when the report processing is complete.

Step 1: Problem Understanding

Asymmetric Encryption Requirement: Users encrypt data with a public key, and only the company can decrypt it using a private key.

Data Encryption at Rest and In Transit: The data must be encrypted during upload (in transit) and when stored in Amazon S3 (at rest).

Step 2: Solution Analysis

Option A: Server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed keys (SSE-S3).

Amazon S3 manages the encryption and decryption keys.

This does not meet the requirement for asymmetric encryption, where the company uses a private key.

Not suitable.

Option B: Server-side encryption with customer-provided keys (SSE-C).

Requires the user to supply encryption keys during the upload process.

Does not align with the asymmetric encryption requirement.

Not suitable.

Option C: Client-side encryption with a data key.

Data key encryption is symmetric, not asymmetric.

Does not satisfy the requirement for a public-private key pair.

Not suitable.

Option D: Client-side encryption with a customer-managed encryption key.

Data is encrypted on the client side using the public key.

Only the company can decrypt the data using the corresponding private key.

Data remains encrypted during upload (in transit) and in S3 (at rest).

Correct option.

Step 3: Implementation Steps for Option D

Generate Key Pair:

The company generates an RSA key pair (public/private) for encryption and decryption.

Encrypt Data on Client Side:

Use the public key to encrypt the data before uploading to S3.

S3 Upload:

Upload the encrypted data to S3 over an HTTPS connection.

Decrypt Data on the Server:

Use the private key to decrypt data when needed.

AWS Developer References:

Amazon S3 Encryption Options

Asymmetric Key Cryptography in AWS

Requirement Summary:

EKS containers send logs to CloudWatch Logs

Need to process logs in real time

Trigger logic based on a specific error in logs

Evaluate Options:

Option A: SNS topic with filter policy

SNS filter policies work on message attributes, not on CloudWatch Logs subscription filters

Option B: Subscription filter on log group

This enables real-time log processing

You can create a subscription filter with a pattern matching specific error strings

Sends matched logs to a Lambda function or Kinesis

Option C: CloudWatch agent operator for trace collection

Irrelevant for log processing

Used for monitoring and tracing, not real-time log filtering

Option D: Lambda function to process logs

Once logs match the pattern, Lambda can process and act (e.g., alert, store, analyze)

Option E: EventBridge rule on a schedule

Not real-time

Scheduled EventBridge rules are for cron-like tasks, not log stream processing

Subscription filters: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/logs/SubscriptionFilters.html

Real-time log processing with Lambda: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/logs/SubscriptionFilters.html#LambdaExample

Logs in EKS to CloudWatch: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/eks/latest/userguide/fargate-logging.html

This is a cross-account access pattern using STS AssumeRole. Account A owns the DynamoDB table and has created an IAM role (AccessPII) with permissions to access the table. Account A also configured a trust policy that allows principals from Account B to assume the role. That trust policy alone is not enough; the caller in Account B must also be allowed to call sts:AssumeRole.

Therefore, in Account B, the EC2 instance profile role (the role attached to the EC2 instances running the app) must have permission to assume the role in Account A. That is Option A.

Next, the application must actually obtain temporary credentials for the Account A role. The standard way is to call STS AssumeRole in the application logic (or use an SDK credential provider that assumes a role). This yields temporary credentials that have the permissions of the AccessPII role, allowing DynamoDB access in Account A. That is Option D.

Option B is not correct because granting direct DynamoDB table permissions in Account B does not grant access to a table owned by Account A unless Account A also grants access via a resource policy (DynamoDB resource policies exist but the scenario already sets up role assumption; the intended solution is AssumeRole).

Option C is incomplete/wrong: getting temporary credentials from the EC2 role alone gives permissions of the EC2 role in Account B, not the permissions in Account A. You must assume the cross-account role.

Option E is for IAM user MFA session tokens, not cross-account role assumption for an EC2 role.

Therefore, grant sts:AssumeRole to the EC2 role and call AssumeRole in code.

Secrets Management: AWS Secrets Manager is designed specifically for storing and managing sensitive credentials.

Environment Isolation: Creating separate secrets for each environment (development, staging, etc.) ensures clear separation and prevents accidental leaks.

Automatic Rotation: Secrets Manager provides built-in rotation capabilities, enhancing security posture.

Versioning: Tracking changes to secrets is essential for auditing and compliance.

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation (AWS-doc-aligned):

The most operationally efficient way to share and patch common dependencies across multiple Lambda functions is to use AWS Lambda layers. A Lambda layer is an independently managed deployment artifact that can contain libraries and other dependencies. Multiple functions can reference the same layer, which avoids packaging identical open source modules into each function bundle.

When a vulnerability or bug is found in a shared module, you patch it once by publishing a new layer version that contains the updated dependencies. Then you update each Lambda function configuration to reference the new layer version. This centralizes dependency management, reduces duplicated artifacts, and makes rollouts and rollbacks cleaner (you can switch layer versions quickly). It also keeps function deployment packages smaller, which often improves deployment speed and can reduce cold-start overhead associated with larger bundles.

The other options introduce unnecessary operational burden:

Downloading modules at cold start (CloudFront/S3) increases latency and adds failure modes at runtime.

Hosting a private registry on EC2 requires patching, scaling, availability management, and security hardening—high operational overhead.

A CloudFormation registry extension and daily scans are not a standard or efficient mechanism for packaging runtime Node.js dependencies into Lambda functions.

Lambda layers are a documented AWS-native feature intended for precisely this use case: sharing common code and libraries across functions while enabling controlled versioning. Therefore, creating a layer for the open source modules and updating the functions to consume the layer is the most efficient and maintainable approach.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:

Requirement Summary:

Use AWS SAM to deploy:

1 Lambda Function

1 S3 Bucket

Lambda needs read-only access to the S3 bucket

Solution must be expressed via AWS SAM template

Option A: Reference a second Lambda authorizer function

Incorrect: Lambda authorizers are used in API Gateway for authentication, not for granting S3 permissions.

Option B: Add a custom S3 bucket policy to the Lambda function

Incorrect: Bucket policies control who can access the bucket, not what the Lambda function can do.

The permission must be granted to the Lambda’s IAM execution role.

Option C: Create an Amazon SQS topic for only S3 object reads

Incorrect: SQS cannot read objects from S3 and is not relevant to this scenario.

Option D: Add the S3ReadPolicy template to the Lambda function's execution role

Correct: AWS SAM provides managed policy templates like AmazonS3ReadOnlyAccess and shortcuts like S3ReadPolicy.

You can apply these to the Lambda’s execution role using the Policies: section in your SAM template.

Example SAM YAML:

yaml

CopyEdit

Resources:

MyFunction:

Type: AWS::Serverless::Function

Properties:

CodeUri: my-code/

Handler: app.handler

Runtime: python3.11

Policies:

- S3ReadPolicy:

BucketName: !Ref MyBucket

MyBucket:

Type: AWS::S3::Bucket

Properties:

BucketName: my-personal-bucket-name

SAM Policy Templates: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/serverless-application-model/latest/developerguide/serverless-policy-templates.html

Example using S3ReadPolicy: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/serverless-application-model/latest/developerguide/serverless-policy-templates.html#s3-readpolicy

Amazon S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval is an archive storage class that delivers the lowest-cost storage for long-lived data that is rarely accessed and requires retrieval in milliseconds. With S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval, you can save up to 68% on storage costs compared to using the S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) storage class, when your data is accessed once per quarter. https://aws.amazon.com/s3/storage-classes/glacier/instant-retrieval/

Understanding Storage Requirements:

Files are large and infrequently accessed, but need to be available within minutes when requested in the first year.

Long-term (7-year) retention is required.

Cost-effectiveness is a top priority.

Why S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval:

Matches the retrieval requirements (access within minutes).

More cost-effective than S3 Standard for infrequently accessed data.

Simpler to use than traditional Glacier where retrievals take hours.

Why S3 Glacier Deep Archive:

Most cost-effective S3 storage class for long term archival.

Meets the 7-year retention requirement.

S3 Lifecycle Policy:

Automate the transition from Glacier Instant Retrieval to Glacier Deep Archive after one year.

Optimize costs by matching storage classes to access patterns.

When sharing SSE-KMS–encrypted S3 objects across AWS accounts, AWS documentation states that three elements are required:

A customer-managed KMS key (Option E), because AWS-managed keys cannot be shared across accounts.

An S3 bucket policy (Option B) that grants the second account permission to access the objects.

A KMS key policy (Option C) that explicitly allows the second account to use the KMS key for decrypt operations.

Option A is incorrect because AWS-managed KMS keys cannot be shared. Option F uses SSE-S3, which does not use KMS and violates the encryption requirement. Option D is irrelevant because cross-account access does not require an S3 service role.

Therefore, the correct combination is B, C, and E.

Amazon CloudFront field-level encryption is specifically designed to protect sensitive fields in HTTP requests. It allows CloudFront to encrypt specific request fields at the edge using asymmetric encryption, ensuring that only authorized application components that possess the private key can decrypt the data.

This approach ensures that sensitive fields remain encrypted throughout transit and processing, while non-sensitive fields can still be accessed normally. This satisfies the requirement that only specific parts of the application can decrypt the data.

Field-level encryption is a native CloudFront capability and is far more secure and scalable than implementing custom encryption logic in Lambda@Edge or Lambda functions. AWS documentation emphasizes using built-in CloudFront security features to minimize operational overhead and reduce the risk of cryptographic implementation errors.

Options A and B introduce unnecessary complexity and custom cryptographic handling, which AWS generally discourages when managed services are available. Option D only secures transport and access control and does not encrypt individual data fields.

Therefore, CloudFront field-level encryption with asymmetric keys is the AWS-recommended and correct solution.

AWS CodeBuild integrates natively with AWS Secrets Manager, allowing secrets to be securely injected into build environments without being exposed in logs. When referenced using the secrets-manager mapping in the env section of buildspec.yml, CodeBuild automatically retrieves and decrypts the secret at runtime.

AWS documentation states that Secrets Manager provides encryption at rest using AWS KMS, fine-grained IAM access control, and automatic rotation support. Secrets retrieved this way are masked in build logs by default, satisfying the requirement that secrets do not appear in logs.

Parameter Store (Option C) can store encrypted values, but Secrets Manager is AWS’s preferred service for managing secrets, especially when rotation and auditing are required. Options B and D introduce unnecessary steps and higher operational overhead.

Therefore, Secrets Manager with CodeBuild environment variables is the most secure and operationally efficient solution.

Why Option C is Correct:Amazon Verified Permissions provides fine-grained access control capabilities, making it ideal for managing complex user permissions. It integrates with OIDC IdPs for authentication and allows applications to request authorization decisions dynamically. It is also easily adaptable to newer applications.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A: Cognito identity pools do not natively support fine-grained permission analysis or management.

Option B: Managing permissions in application logic adds significant operational overhead.

Option D: IAM roles are not designed for application-specific fine-grained access control and are more suitable for resource-level permissions.

AWS Documentation References:

Amazon Verified Permissions

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation From AWS Developer Documents:

The key requirement in this scenario is that the data must be encrypted before it is uploaded to Amazon S3, and the data is generated outside of AWS. This explicitly points to a client-side encryption requirement.

AWS documentation distinguishes clearly between server-side encryption and client-side encryption. Server-side encryption options for Amazon S3—including enabling default bucket encryption or specifying the x-amz-server-side-encryption request header—encrypt the data after it is received by Amazon S3. Therefore, options B and D do not satisfy the requirement because the plaintext data is transmitted to AWS before encryption occurs.

Option A, using the AWS KMS encrypt command, is not suitable for large binary objects. AWS KMS is designed to encrypt small pieces of data (up to 4 KB). AWS documentation explicitly states that for large payloads, customers should use envelope encryption instead of directly encrypting data with AWS KMS.

The AWS Encryption SDK is specifically designed for client-side encryption of large data objects. It implements envelope encryption, where a data encryption key (DEK) is generated locally to encrypt the data, and the DEK is then encrypted with an AWS KMS key. This approach allows efficient encryption of large binary files while maintaining strong key management and security controls.

AWS documentation recommends the AWS Encryption SDK for applications that need to encrypt data before sending it to AWS services, including Amazon S3. It supports multiple programming languages, handles key management automatically, and ensures data confidentiality even before transmission.

Therefore, using the AWS Encryption SDK for client-side encryption is the only solution that fully satisfies all requirements.

Amazon DynamoDB throttling during peak periods is commonly caused by hot partitions. In this scenario, using order_date as the partition key results in a large number of writes targeting the same partition during peak ordering times. Even in on-demand mode, DynamoDB enforces per-partition limits, which leads to throttling when traffic is unevenly distributed.

AWS best practices emphasize designing partition keys that provide high cardinality and uniform access patterns. Using customerId as the partition key distributes write traffic across many partitions because customer IDs naturally vary and scale with the number of users.

Switching to provisioned capacity (Option B) does not solve the root cause and can still result in throttling due to uneven access patterns. Sequential partition keys (Option A) worsen the hot partition problem. Migrating to Aurora (Option C) is unnecessary and does not address DynamoDB design issues.

AWS documentation clearly states that access pattern design is critical, and changing the partition key to better distribute workload is the correct solution. Therefore, using customerId as the partition key resolves throttling and aligns with DynamoDB best practices.

EventBridge (formerly CloudWatch Events) is the ideal service for real-time event monitoring.

CloudTrail logs IAM role creation.

EventBridge rules can filter CloudTrail events and trigger SNS notifications instantly.

Requirement Summary:

E-commerce app using Amazon RDS for MySQL

Needs caching layer for most-viewed products

Evaluate Options:

A. Add a cache node to RDS

No such feature in RDS for MySQL

Caching must be implemented outside RDS

B. ElastiCache for Redis (OSS)

Purpose-built for caching frequently accessed data

Reduces read pressure on RDS

Fast in-memory access (microseconds)

Seamless integration into app logic

C. DynamoDB DAX

DAX is for accelerating DynamoDB, not RDS

D. RDS standby instance

Read from standby is not allowed

Standby is for failover only, not for load balancing

ElastiCache for Redis: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/WhatIs.html

Caching with Redis for RDS: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/caching-strategies-using-amazon-elasticache-for-read-heavy-workloads-on-amazon-rds/

Centralized logging for microservices means collecting application logs from many services into a single managed logging backend where logs can be searched, retained, and monitored. For containerized microservices on AWS, the standard approach is to send each service’s stdout/stderr logs to Amazon CloudWatch Logs.

Option A is the appropriate solution: create separate CloudWatch Logs streams (and typically log groups) per microservice. This scales naturally as microservices increase, supports retention policies, metric filters, alarms, and integrations with tools like CloudWatch Logs Insights for querying across services. Container orchestrators (ECS/EKS) can be configured to use the CloudWatch Logs log driver so logs are shipped automatically without custom log shipping agents.

Option B (CloudTrail) logs AWS API activity, not application logs.

Option C (VPC Flow Logs) captures network flow metadata, not application-level logs.

Option D (Cloud Map) is service discovery, not logging.

Therefore, using CloudWatch Logs streams per microservice is the correct central logging approach.

Amazon SNS supports server-side encryption (SSE) using AWS KMS to protect message content at rest. Enabling SSE on the SNS topic ensures that all messages published to the topic are encrypted using a customer-managed or AWS-managed KMS key. AWS documentation explicitly states that SSE is the mechanism for encrypting SNS messages stored within the service.

For encryption in transit, AWS services rely on HTTPS/TLS. To enforce this at the IAM policy level, AWS recommends using the global condition key aws:SecureTransport. By adding an explicit Deny statement when "aws:SecureTransport": "false", the policy ensures that any request not using HTTPS is rejected. This is a common AWS security best practice and is documented across multiple AWS services.

Option E correctly enforces encryption in transit. Option B is incorrect because denying when SecureTransport is true would block valid HTTPS requests. Option D is invalid because sns:Protocol applies to subscription protocols (such as email or HTTP endpoints), not to Lambda publishing actions. Option C (VPC endpoint) is not required because Lambda-to-SNS traffic is already encrypted over TLS by default.

Therefore, enabling SNS server-side encryption and enforcing HTTPS via an IAM deny condition fully satisfies the encryption-at-rest and encryption-in-transit requirements.

AWS Lambda layers are specifically designed to share common code and dependencies across multiple Lambda functions. A layer is a ZIP archive that contains libraries, a custom runtime, or other function dependencies. Layers are versioned, so the developer can publish a new layer version when libraries change and then update functions to reference the new version. This directly meets the requirements to centralize libraries, update conveniently, and keep libraries versioned—while requiring minimal development work.

Using a single shared layer significantly reduces duplication across function deployment packages. It also simplifies CI/CD because the developer can build and publish the layer independently and reuse it across many functions.

Option A (CodeArtifact) is useful for dependency management, but it still requires each Lambda deployment to package dependencies or download them during build. It’s more moving parts than a layer for this use case.

Option B (container images) can centralize dependencies but typically requires more effort: building, scanning, versioning container images, and updating function image URIs. It’s heavier operationally than layers for “shared custom libraries.”

Option D (EFS) can be mounted by Lambda, but introduces networking considerations (VPC config), EFS lifecycle/permissions, and is unnecessary for simply sharing libraries. Also, cold start and operational overhead can increase.

Therefore, creating a Lambda layer for the shared libraries is the least-effort, most standard approach.

This solution allows easy and secure control of access to the downloads at the lowest cost because it uses a content delivery network (CDN) that can cache and distribute firmware updates to customers around the world, and uses a mechanism that can restrict access to specific files or versions. Amazon CloudFront is a CDN that can improve performance, availability, and security of web applications by delivering content from edge locations closer to customers. Amazon S3 is a storage service that can store firmware updates in buckets and objects. Signed URLs are URLs that include additional information, such as an expiration date and time, that give users temporary access to specific objects in S3 buckets. The developer can use CloudFront to serve firmware updates from S3 buckets and use signed URLs to control who can download them and for how long. Creating a dedicated CloudFront distribution for each customer will incur unnecessary costs and complexity. Using Amazon CloudFront with AWS Lambda@Edge will require additional programming overhead to implement custom logic at the edge locations. Using Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda to control access to an S3 bucket will also require additional programming overhead and may not provide optimal performance or availability.

Using Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached to store and manage the session data will reduce the memory load and improve the performance of the web server. Using Amazon RDS for MySQL DB instance to store the application data will provide a scalable, reliable, and managed database service. Option A is not optimal because it does not address the memory issue of the web server. Option C is not optimal because it does not provide a persistent storage for the application data. Option D is not optimal because it does not provide a high availability and durability for the session data.

AWS Secrets Manager is a service that allows you to store and manage secrets, such as database credentials, API keys, and passwords, in a secure and centralized way. It also provides features such as automatic secret rotation, auditing, and monitoring1. By using AWS Secrets Manager, you can avoid hardcoding credentials in your code, which is a bad security practice and makes it difficult to update them. You can also replicate your secrets to another Region, which is useful for disaster recovery purposes2. To access your secrets from your application, you can use the ARN of the secret, which is a unique identifier that includes the Region name. This way, your application can use the appropriate secret based on the Region where it is deployed3.

AWS Secrets Manager

Replicating and sharing secrets

Using your own encryption keys

The solution that will meet the requirements with the most operational efficiency is to create a new CodePipeline stage that occurs after the container image is built. Configure ECR basic image scanning to scan on image push. Use an AWS Lambda function as the action provider. Configure the Lambda function to check the scan results and to fail the pipeline if there are findings. This way, the container image is analyzed earlier in the CI/CD pipeline and any vulnerabilities are detected and reported before deploying to the EKS cluster. The other options either delay the analysis until after deployment, which increases the risk of exposing insecure images, or perform analysis on the source code instead of the container image, which may not capture all the dependencies and configurations that affect the security posture of the image.

This solution will meet the requirements by allowing the Lambda functions to access the DB cluster securely within the same VPC without crossing the public internet. The developer can configure a VPC endpoint for RDS in a private subnet and assign it to the Lambda functions. The developer can also configure a security group for the Lambda functions that allows inbound traffic from the DB cluster on port 3306 (MySQL). Option A is not optimal because it will expose the DB cluster to public access, which may compromise its security and data integrity. Option B is not optimal because it will introduce additional latency and complexity to use an RDS database proxy for accessing the DB cluster from Lambda functions within the same VPC. Option C is not optimal because it will require additional costs and configuration to use a NAT gateway for accessing resources in private subnets from Lambda functions.

Why Option A is Correct:Converting a Lambda function to use a container image involves packaging the function code into a container image, storing the image in Amazon Elastic Container Registry (ECR), and updating the function to use the ECR repository URI.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B: SAM templates support container-based Lambda deployment, but storing the image in S3 is not applicable.

Option C: CloudFormation does not natively support specifying Lambda container images in S3.

Option D: While partially correct, it omits the need to specify the image tag for the deployment.

AWS Documentation References:

Lambda Container Images

This solution allows the developer to keep the dependencies of the Lambda functions up to date with the least additional complexity because it eliminates the need to update each function individually. A Lambda layer is a ZIP archive that contains libraries, custom runtimes, or other dependencies. The developer can create a layer that contains all of the shared dependencies and attach it to multiple Lambda functions. When the developer updates the layer, all of the functions that use the layer will have access to the latest version of the dependencies.

Why Option C is Correct:Ensuring that pipeline artifacts are encrypted with a customer-managed AWS KMS key involves configuring the S3 bucket policy to require encryption. This policy ensures all objects uploaded to the bucket are encrypted with the specified KMS key.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A: A gateway endpoint improves S3 access efficiency but does not enforce encryption.

Option B: Encrypting CloudWatch Logs is unrelated to securing pipeline artifacts.

Option D: Configuring SNS for encryption does not affect the artifacts stored in the S3 bucket.

AWS Documentation References:

Using Server-Side Encryption with S3 Bucket Policies

The requirement is to redact PII before the object content reaches the consumer, while the analytics service continues to use standard S3 GET requests. The most operationally efficient way is Amazon S3 Object Lambda.

S3 Object Lambda lets you add your own code to process and transform data as it is retrieved from S3. Instead of the analytics service reading directly from the bucket, it reads through an S3 Object Lambda Access Point. When the service performs a GET request, S3 invokes the associated Lambda function, which can modify the object payload on the fly—for example, by calling an external or internal PII redaction API and returning a redacted version of the report. The original object remains unchanged in the bucket, while consumers receive the transformed (redacted) response.

This approach is operationally efficient because it avoids:

duplicating and storing redacted copies of every report,

refactoring the analytics service to use a different datastore or ingestion path,

building a separate proxy service layer.

Option A requires significant refactoring and ongoing ETL/warehouse ops.

Option C provides confidentiality via encryption but does not perform redaction (analytics would still see PII after decryption).

Option D changes the access pattern completely (analytics no longer uses GET) and adds messaging complexity without directly returning redacted object content.

Therefore, S3 Object Lambda + Object Lambda Access Point is the most efficient solution to redact data at retrieval time.

Comprehensive Detailed Step by Step Explanation with All AWS Developer References:

The AWS Serverless Application Model (SAM) includes features for local testing and debugging of AWS Lambda functions. One of the most efficient ways to generate test payloads that match actual AWS event structures is by using the sam local generate-event command.

sam local generate-event: This command allows developers to create pre-configured test event payloads for various AWS services (e.g., S3, API Gateway, SNS). These generated events accurately reflect the format that the service would use in a live environment, reducing the manual work required to create these events from scratch.

Operational Overhead: This approach reduces overhead since the developer does not need to manually create or maintain test events. It ensures that the structure is correct and up-to-date with the latest AWS standards.

Alternatives:

Option A suggests using shareable test events, but manually creating or sharing these events introduces more overhead.

Option B and C both involve manually storing and maintaining test events, which adds unnecessary complexity compared to using sam local generate-event.

AWS SAM CLI documentation

This solution will ensure that the repository package’s unit tests run in the new deployment environment with the least overhead because it uses AWS CodeBuild to build and test the code in a fully managed service, and AWS CodePipeline to orchestrate the deployment stages and actions. Option A is not optimal because it will use AWS CodeCommit instead of AWS CodeBuild, which is a source control service, not a build and test service. Option C is not optimal because it will use AWS CodeDeploy instead of AWS CodeBuild, which is a deployment service, not a build and test service. Option D is not optimal because it will add an action to the source stage instead of creating a new stage, which will not follow the best practice of separating different deployment phases.

Amazon CloudWatch Logs data protection policies allow sensitive data such as credit card numbers to be automatically detected and masked at ingestion time. By default, masked data cannot be viewed by any user.

AWS documentation states that to allow specific principals to view masked data, two conditions must be met:

The data protection policy must include an UnmaskConfig that specifies which IAM roles are permitted to view the unmasked data.

The IAM role must have the logs:Unmask permission.

Option A configures the policy to allow the fraud detection role to unmask sensitive fields. Option B grants the necessary permission to that role. Together, these steps ensure that only the fraud detection account can view credit card numbers.

Attaching the policy to the log group (Option D) is necessary for masking but does not grant unmask access on its own. IAM roles cannot contain data protection policies (Option E), and policies are not attached in the consuming account (Option C).

Therefore, the correct combination is A and B, ensuring strict access control while maintaining compliance with security requirements.

Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) provides block level storage volumes for use with Amazon EC2 instances1. Amazon EBS encryption offers a straight-forward encryption solution for your EBS resources associated with your EC2 instances1. When you create an encrypted EBS volume and attach it to a supported instance type, the following types of data are encrypted: Data at rest inside the volume, all data moving between the volume and the instance, all snapshots created from the volume, and all volumes created from those snapshots1. Therefore, option A is correct.

To rotate database credentials without downtime, Secrets Manager recommends the alternating users (dual user) rotation strategy. With a single-user strategy, Secrets Manager changes the password for the same database user that the application is actively using. If the application continues using cached/old credentials during rotation, authentication failures and downtime can occur.

With the alternating users strategy, two database users exist (often named something like appuser and appuser_clone). Secrets Manager alternates which user is “active” in the secret. During rotation, Secrets Manager updates the inactive user’s password, verifies it, updates the secret to point to the newly updated user, and then (optionally) retires the old credentials. This approach minimizes disruption because there is always one known-good credential set while the other is being updated.

The question specifically requires regular rotation using Secrets Manager. That is achieved by enabling automatic rotation on the secret with a schedule (for example, every 30/60/90 days). Automatic rotation invokes the rotation Lambda (AWS-provided or configured) and performs the workflow without manual intervention.

Option D combines both requirements: automatic rotation plus the alternating users strategy for high availability and no downtime.

Option B mentions alternating users but “managed rotation” is not the standard term used in these choices as the primary differentiator—automatic rotation is the necessary capability to rotate regularly without manual effort.

Options A and C (single user) are more likely to cause downtime during rotation.

Therefore, configure automatic rotation with the alternating users rotation strategy.

This solution will meet the requirements by using AWS X-Ray to enable tracing of application requests to debug performance issues in the code. AWS X-Ray is a service that collects data about requests that the applications serve, and provides tools to view, filter, and gain insights into that data. The developer can install the AWS X-Ray daemon on the EC2 instances, which is a software that listens for traffic on UDP port 2000, gathers raw segment data, and relays it to the X-Ray API. The developer can also install and configure the AWS X-Ray SDK for Python in the application, which is a library that enables instrumenting Python code to generate and send trace data to the X-Ray daemon. Option A is not optimal because it will install the Amazon CloudWatch agent on the EC2 instances, which is a software that collects metrics and logs from EC2 instances and on-premises servers, not application performance data. Option C is not optimal because it will configure the application to write JSON-formatted logs to /var/log/cloudwatch, which is not a valid path or destination for CloudWatch logs. Option D is not optimal because it will configure the application to write trace data to /var/log/xray, which is also not a valid path or destination for X-Ray trace data.

AWS Lambda has a maximum execution time of 15 minutes, which makes batch-style processing unsuitable as workloads scale. AWS best practices recommend using event-driven architectures to process individual objects independently and in parallel.

Amazon S3 event notifications invoke Lambda automatically whenever a new object is uploaded. This allows each file to be processed in its own execution, eliminating long-running batch jobs and enabling horizontal scaling. AWS Lambda automatically scales concurrency based on event volume, ensuring faster processing as uploads increase.

To prevent duplicate processing, AWS documentation recommends using an idempotency mechanism. Storing processed file identifiers or transaction IDs in Amazon DynamoDB provides a highly available, low-latency way to track processed files. DynamoDB’s conditional writes can enforce exactly-once processing semantics.

Options B, C, and D either increase operational overhead, reintroduce batching issues, or rely on unreliable polling mechanisms that can miss or reprocess files.

Thus, using S3 events with DynamoDB tracking is the correct and scalable solution.

The requirement is to search for partial matches of email_address but scoped to a specific customer_type. In DynamoDB, efficient partial matching is performed with a Query on a sort key using the begins_with() condition. However, Query requires that the partition key be specified exactly, so we need an index where customer_type can be used as the partition key, and email_address can be used as the sort key for prefix matching.

A Global Secondary Index (GSI) can be added to an existing table without recreating it, and it can use a different partition key and sort key from the base table. Option A correctly proposes a GSI with:

Partition key: customer_type

Sort key: email_address

Then the Lambda can run a Query on the GSI like: customer_type = :ct AND begins_with(email_address, :prefix) which returns emails that start with the typed prefix for that customer type.

Option B is wrong because it keeps email_address as the partition key. That would require an exact email value (not a prefix) to Query, and you cannot do begins_with on a partition key; begins_with is for sort keys.

Options C and D are invalid because Local Secondary Indexes (LSIs) must share the same partition key as the base table (here, email_address). You cannot create an LSI with customer_type or job_title as the partition key when the table partition key is email_address.

Therefore, adding a GSI (customer_type PK, email_address SK) and querying it with begins_with is the correct solution.

The solution that will meet the requirements most cost-effectively is to store the smart meter readings in an Amazon DynamoDB table. Create a composite key by using the location ID and timestamp columns. Use the columns to filter on the customers’ data. This way, the company can leverage the scalability, performance, and low latency of DynamoDB to store and retrieve the smart meter readings. The company can also use the composite key to query the data by location ID and timestamp efficiently. The other options either involve more expensive or less scalable services, or do not provide low-latency access to the current usage.

Mocking API Responses: API Gateway's Mock integration type enables simulating API behavior without invoking backend services.

Testing with Sample Data: Using captured responses from the real third-party API ensures realistic testing of the integration code.

Focus on Integration Logic: This solution allows the developer to isolate and test the application's interaction with the payment APIs, even without a test environment from the third-party providers.

Amazon API Gateway stages are designed to represent different deployment environments such as development, testing, and production. AWS documentation recommends using separate stages combined with stage variables to reference different backend resources without duplicating API definitions.

In this scenario, the development stage already uses a stage variable to reference the Lambda dev alias. To expose the production alias safely, the developer should deploy the API to a new stage named production and configure a stage variable that points to the Lambda prod alias. This approach allows the same API configuration and methods to be reused while cleanly separating environments.

Stage variables are resolved at runtime and are commonly used to reference Lambda aliases in integration ARNs. This enables controlled promotion of code from development to production without modifying methods or integrations.

Creating new methods (Options A and B) is unnecessary and increases operational complexity. Directly hardcoding the Lambda alias in the integration (Option D) removes flexibility and deviates from AWS best practices for environment separation.

Therefore, deploying a new API stage and using stage variables to reference the prod Lambda alias is the correct and most efficient solution.

DynamoDB already supports encryption at rest by default (with AWS owned keys or AWS managed/customer managed KMS keys). However, the requirement here is stronger and explicit: patient data must be encrypted before it is stored in DynamoDB, meaning the encryption must occur client-side / application-side so that the data remains encrypted as it traverses the stack and is still encrypted when written to the table. This is often required for highly sensitive PII/PHI where administrators or downstream systems should not see plaintext.

Option A meets this requirement by encrypting the payload inside the Lambda function before making the PutItem call to DynamoDB, using KMS-backed envelope encryption via the AWS Encryption SDK (the option names it “Database Encryption SDK,” but the intent is client-side encryption). The encrypted fields remain ciphertext in transit to DynamoDB and at rest inside DynamoDB, satisfying both “in transit” and “at rest” with encryption happening prior to storage.

Option B only ensures DynamoDB encryption at rest at the service level, but the data would still be plaintext in the item attributes as seen by the application and anyone with DynamoDB read permissions (even though stored encrypted on disk). It does not guarantee “encrypted before stored.”

Option C encrypting after the write via streams is too late: plaintext would already be stored (and potentially accessed) before post-processing.

Option D adds unnecessary workflow complexity. Encrypting in a queue still requires encryption before DynamoDB, but it does not inherently simplify compared to encrypting directly in the Lambda that writes to DynamoDB.

Therefore, client-side encryption in Lambda using KMS-backed encryption is the correct solution.

The company already has SSM Agent deployed on all servers, which enables centralized, scalable fleet operations without logging in to each instance. The most operationally efficient solution is to automate key distribution using Systems Manager Run Command, executing a script across the entire fleet (or a targeted subset) in one action.

Option B uses S3 as a simple distribution source and Run Command to perform the update at scale. The developer can store the required key material in a controlled S3 location and write a script that places the key in the correct filesystem path (with correct permissions/ownership), updates authorized_keys if needed, and restarts any services if required. Run Command can target instances by tags, resource groups, or instance IDs and provides execution logging and status.

Option A is not operationally efficient because it requires logging into each server manually.

Option C and D push the distribution burden to humans (“grant team members permissions to download”), which is error-prone, slow, and not scalable. Also, distributing private keys broadly to individuals increases risk.

AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store is a service that provides secure, hierarchical storage for configuration data and secrets. Parameter Store supports SecureString parameters, which are encrypted using AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) keys. SecureString parameters can be used to store license keys in AWS and retrieve them securely from automation scripts that run in EC2 instances or CloudFormation stacks. Parameter Store is a cost-effective solution because it does not charge for storing parameters or API calls. Reference: Working with Systems Manager parameters

API Gateway Stage Variables: These are designed for configuring dynamic values for your APIs in different deployment stages (dev, test, prod). Here's how to use them for third-party endpoints:

In the API Gateway console, access the "Stages" section of your API.

For each stage, create a stage variable named something like thirdPartyEndpoint.

Set the value of this variable to the actual endpoint URL for that specific environment.

When configuring API requests within your API Gateway method, reference this endpoint using ${stageVariables.thirdPartyEndpoint}.

Why Stage Variables Excel Here:

Environment Isolation: This approach keeps the endpoint configuration specific to each deployment stage, ensuring the right endpoints are used during development, testing, and production cycles.

Ease of Management: You manage the endpoints directly through the API Gateway console without additional infrastructure.

Lambda throttling occurs when the number of concurrent executions exceeds the available concurrency. This can happen due to account-level concurrency limits, function-level reserved concurrency limits, or sudden traffic spikes.

The most operationally efficient ways to reduce throttling are to increase available concurrency:

Option C: Increasing the function’s reserved concurrency can reduce throttling when the function is being constrained by a too-low reserved concurrency value. Reserved concurrency guarantees a fixed amount of concurrency for the function (and also caps it). If the cap is currently too low, raising it allows more parallel executions and reduces throttles.

Option E: If throttling is due to the account concurrency quota being reached (or burst scaling limits in some patterns), the correct fix is to request a service quota increase. This increases the total available concurrency capacity for the account (and/or specific dimensions), allowing more simultaneous executions across functions.

Why the others are not correct:

A (migrate to EKS) is high effort and not operationally efficient for solving Lambda throttling.

B (maximum age of events) applies to asynchronous event retries/queues; it does not reduce throttling—it only changes how long events remain eligible for processing.

D is irrelevant: adding lambda:GetFunctionConcurrency to the execution role only allows reading settings and does not change throttling behavior.

Therefore, the best operational fixes are to increase reserved concurrency and request a concurrency quota increase.

The goal is near-real-time propagation of changes from one DynamoDB table (Accounts) to another service’s datastore (Payments) while keeping services decoupled. The simplest and most reliable DynamoDB-native change feed is Amazon DynamoDB Streams.

DynamoDB Streams captures item-level modifications (inserts, updates, deletes) in time order and makes them available as a stream of change records. A consumer (commonly an AWS Lambda function) can process stream records and apply the necessary updates to the Payments database/table (or publish events for downstream processing). This provides near-real-time updates with minimal operational overhead, strong integration, and a decoupled architecture because the Accounts service simply emits changes and does not need to call Payments synchronously.

Option A (Glue ETL) is batch-oriented and adds heavy operational complexity; it’s not the simplest nor near-real-time.

Option B introduces a cache as a synchronization mechanism, which complicates consistency and durability; caches are not ideal as the primary propagation channel.

Option C (Firehose) is designed for delivering streaming data to destinations like S3, Redshift, OpenSearch, etc., and is not the standard approach for DynamoDB-to-DynamoDB change replication.

Therefore, DynamoDB Streams is the best fit for near-real-time, decoupled updates between DynamoDB-backed microservices.

The immutable deployment method is the best option for this scenario, because it meets the requirements of maintaining full capacity, avoiding service interruption, and minimizing the cost of additional resources.

The immutable deployment method creates a new set of instances in a separate Auto Scaling group and deploys the new version of the application to them. Then, it swaps the new instances with the old ones and terminates the old instances. This way, the application maintains full capacity during the deployment and avoids any downtime. The cost of additional resources is also minimized, because the new instances are only created for a short time and then replaced by the old ones.

The other deployment methods do not meet all the requirements:

The all at once method deploys the new version to all instances simultaneously, which causes a short period of downtime and reduced capacity.

The rolling with additional batch method deploys the new version in batches, but for the first batch it creates new instances instead of using the existing ones. This increases the cost of additional resources and reduces the capacity of the original environment.

The blue/green method creates a new environment with a new set of instances and deploys the new version to them. Then, it swaps the URLs between the old and new environments. This method maintains full capacity and avoids service interruption, but it also increases the cost of additional resources significantly, because it duplicates the entire environment.

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.

The correct answer is C. The developer did not update the Docker image tag to a new version.

C. The developer did not update the Docker image tag to a new version. This is correct. When deploying an application to Amazon EKS, the developer needs to specify the Docker image tag that contains the application code and configuration. If the developer does not update the Docker image tag to a new version after making changes to the application, the EKS cluster will continue to use the old Docker image tag that references the original backend resources. To fix this issue, the developer should update the Docker image tag to a new version and redeploy the application to the EKS cluster.

A. The developer did not successfully create the new AWS account. This is incorrect. The creation of a new AWS account is not related to the application’s connection to the backend resources. The developer can use any AWS account to host the EKS cluster and the backend resources, as long as they have the proper permissions and configurations.

B. The developer added a new tag to the Docker image. This is incorrect. Adding a new tag to the Docker image is not enough to deploy the changes to the application. The developer also needs to update the Docker image tag in the EKS cluster configuration, so that the EKS cluster can pull and run the new Docker image.

D. The developer pushed the changes to a new Docker image tag. This is incorrect. Pushing the changes to a new Docker image tag is not enough to deploy the changes to the application. The developer also needs to update the Docker image tag in the EKS cluster configuration, so that the EKS cluster can pull and run the new Docker image.

Lambda Destinations on Failure: Allow routing asynchronous function invocations to specified resources (like another Lambda function) upon failure.

Error Handling: The error-handling Lambda receives details about the failure, enabling logging and custom actions.

Direct Integration: This solution leverages native Lambda functionality for a simpler implementation.

AWS Lambda is a service that lets developers run code without provisioning or managing servers. Lambda layers are a distribution mechanism for libraries, custom runtimes, and other dependencies. The developer can create a Lambda layer with the required Python library and use the layer in both Lambda functions. This will reduce the size of the Lambda deployment packages and avoid reaching the quota for the maximum size of zipped deployment packages. The developer can also benefit from using layers to manage dependencies separately from function code.

Option B: The target group port in the ALB must match the port specified in the ECS task definition. If there is a mismatch, the ALB health check will fail since it cannot correctly route traffic to the container.

Option E: The ALB listener must have a default action that forwards requests to the correct target group associated with the ECS service. If this configuration is missing, the health check will fail as no traffic is routed to the service.

Option A is irrelevant to resolving health check issues since capacity providers relate to provisioning compute capacity.

Option C (hosted zone) is not directly related to ALB health checks.

Option D (redirecting traffic) is not related to ECS health check configurations.

Amazon API Gateway is a service that enables developers to create, publish, maintain, monitor, and secure APIs at any scale. Amazon CloudFront is a content delivery network (CDN) service that can improve the performance and security of web applications. The developer can use CloudFront and a custom domain name for the API Gateway REST API. To do so, the developer needs to import the SSL/TLS certificate into AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) in the us-east-1 Region. This is because CloudFront requires certificates from ACM to be in this Region. The developer also needs to create a DNS CNAME record for the custom domain that points to the CloudFront distribution.

The workload is explicitly very I/O intensive and requires reading the same file multiple times. Reading repeatedly from S3 across the network will introduce latency and repeated network I/O. For best performance, the function should download the file once to fast local storage and perform all repeated reads locally.

AWS Lambda provides ephemeral storage mounted at /tmp. AWS allows increasing this ephemeral storage beyond the default size. Because the files are at most 2 GB, the developer can configure the Lambda function’s ephemeral storage to 2 GB and copy each S3 object into /tmp before processing. This converts repeated network reads into repeated local filesystem reads, which is significantly faster and more consistent for I/O-heavy workloads.

Option D (read directly from S3) is the least optimized because each pass over the file requires additional network I/O and S3 GET requests.

Option A is not feasible: Lambda cannot directly attach and manage an EBS volume like an EC2 instance can.

Option B is not applicable: ENA is an EC2 networking feature; Lambda networking is managed by the service and does not allow attaching ENAs for performance tuning in that way.

Because the files are disposable after processing, using ephemeral /tmp storage is also cost-effective and operationally simple, and it is aligned with the “process once per file” pattern.

Therefore, increase Lambda ephemeral storage and copy the video into /tmp for repeated reads.

Amazon API Gateway is a service that enables developers to create, publish, maintain, monitor, and secure APIs at any scale. The developer can define a development stage on the API Gateway API and instruct the other developers to point the endpoints to the development stage. This way, the developer can provide beta access to the new version of the API without affecting customers who use the production stage. This solution will meet the requirements with the least operational overhead.

Lambda Layers: These are designed to package dependencies that you can share across functions.

How to Use:

Create a layer, upload your 100MB library as a zip.

Attach the layer to your function.

In your function code, import the library from the standard layer path.

This solution will meet the requirements by storing the Root CA Cert as a Secure String parameter in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which is a secure and scalable service for storing and managing configuration data and secrets. The resource-based policy will allow IAM users in different AWS accounts and environments to access the parameter without requiring cross-account roles or permissions. The Lambda code will be refactored to load the Root CA Cert from the parameter store and modify the runtime trust store outside the Lambda function handler, which will improve performance and reduce latency by avoiding repeated calls to Parameter Store and trust store modifications for each invocation of the Lambda function. Option A is not optimal because it will use AWS Secrets Manager instead of AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which will incur additional costs and complexity for storing and managing a non-secret configuration data such as Root CA Cert. Option C is not optimal because it will deactivate the application secrets and monitor the application error logs temporarily, which will cause application downtime and potential data loss. Option D is not optimal because it will modify the runtime trust store inside the Lambda function handler, which will degrade performance and increase latency by repeating unnecessary operations for each invocation of the Lambda function.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cognito/latest/developerguide/amazon-cognito-integrating-user-pools-with-identity-pools.html

HTTP Status Codes: Each HTTP status code has a specific meaning in RESTful APIs.

HTTP 405 (Method Not Allowed): Indicates that the request method (e.g., POST) is not supported for the specified resource.

HTTP 401 (Unauthorized): Represents a failure to authenticate, which is the appropriate response for invalid login credentials.

This solution will meet the requirements by using AWS Encryption SDK, which is a client-side encryption library that enables developers to encrypt and decrypt data using data encryption keys that are protected by AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS). The SDK encrypts the data encryption key with a customer master key (CMK) that is managed by AWS KMS, and stores it (encrypted) as part of the returned ciphertext. The developer does not need to keep track of the data encryption keys used to encrypt data, as they are stored with the encrypted data and can be retrieved and decrypted by using AWS KMS when needed. Option A is not optimal because it will require manual tracking of the data encryption keys used for each data object, which is error-prone and inefficient. Option C is not optimal because it will store the data encryption keys automatically in Amazon S3, which is unnecessary and insecure as Amazon S3 is not designed for storing encryption keys. Option D is not optimal because it will store the data encryption key in the user data for the EC2 instance, which is also unnecessary and insecure as user data is not encrypted by default.

Amazon API Gateway supports multiple stages, allowing developers to deploy and test different versions of an API independently. By creating a new test stage, the developer can route traffic to an updated Lambda function without impacting production users.

AWS documentation recommends using stage variables to dynamically reference different Lambda function versions or aliases. This approach enables safe testing while reusing the same API configuration.

Canary deployments (Option A) expose a portion of production users to the new code, which violates the requirement. Changing the endpoint type (Option B) disrupts production. Duplicating the entire stack (Option D) introduces unnecessary complexity and overhead.

Using a separate test stage is the most efficient, low-risk, and AWS-recommended solution.

Sensitive environment variables in Lambda should be protected using encryption helpers integrated with AWS KMS. Lambda environment variables are encrypted at rest, and when using a customer managed KMS key, teams can control the key policy, access, and rotation for their own microservices—matching the policy requirement that each team has “full control” over key rotation. AWS managed keys do not provide the same level of customer control over lifecycle and rotation decisions.

Therefore, the correct approach is to create customer managed KMS keys (one per team/service boundary or per microservice, depending on governance) and configure each Lambda function to use the relevant CMK for encrypting its environment variables. The Lambda execution role must have permission to use the key for decryption at runtime, typically requiring kms:Decrypt (and sometimes kms:DescribeKey depending on tooling). This is captured by Option B.

Option A and D use AWS managed keys, which do not satisfy the requirement for each team to control rotation. Rotation control (and policy ownership) is a key differentiator of customer managed keys.

Option C is not correct because the Lambda execution role does not need kms:CreateGrant and kms:Encrypt for decrypting environment variables at runtime. Over-permissioning increases risk. The Lambda service handles encryption of environment variables; the function runtime principally needs the ability to decrypt.

The command that will meet the requirements is sam sync -watch. This command enables AWS SAM Accelerate mode, which allows the developer to only redeploy the Lambda functions that have changed. The -watch flag enables file watching, which automatically detects changes in the source code and triggers a redeployment. The other commands either do not enable AWS SAM Accelerate mode, or do not redeploy the Lambda functions automatically.

Amazon S3 Glacier storage classes are designed for cost-effective archival with varying retrieval times. S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval provides millisecond access, making it suitable for workloads that require immediate access but at a lower cost than S3 Standard.

For the first 90 days, instant access is required, which rules out S3 Glacier Deep Archive and S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval as primary storage because they have minutes-to-hours retrieval times. After 90 days, the requirement allows retrieval times exceeding 10 minutes, making S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval appropriate.

Option D uses Instant Retrieval initially and transitions to Flexible Retrieval, optimizing both performance and cost. EFS and EBS (Options A and C) are significantly more expensive for large objects and are not intended for massive archival workloads. Option B reverses the access requirements and is invalid.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends using S3 lifecycle policies to transition objects between Glacier storage classes based on access requirements.

Therefore, Option D is the most cost-effective and AWS-aligned solution.

The requirement is specific: certain JSON fields must be encrypted at the edge (before traversing the origin path) and must remain encrypted end-to-end through CloudFront → API Gateway → Lambda → DynamoDB. The AWS feature designed for encrypting specific fields at the edge is CloudFront field-level encryption. With field-level encryption, CloudFront encrypts designated fields in an HTTPS request before forwarding the request to the origin. The origin (API Gateway/Lambda) receives the encrypted values, and only trusted components that have the private key can decrypt them—ensuring the fields remain protected throughout the stack.

Option B matches this exactly: field-level encryption uses an asymmetric key pair (public key used by CloudFront to encrypt; private key held securely by the application for decryption). This satisfies “encrypted at the edge” and “remain encrypted throughout the full stack.”

The “PII encrypted at rest in DynamoDB” requirement is also satisfied because DynamoDB supports encryption at rest by default (and can use AWS owned or customer managed KMS keys). Field-level encryption adds granular protection for only the most sensitive attributes beyond standard at-rest encryption.

Option A (Lambda@Edge encryption) could encrypt at edge, but it is more custom code, higher operational complexity, and is not as direct/standard as CloudFront field-level encryption for encrypting request fields.

Option C encrypts in Lambda, not at the edge—data would already have traversed CloudFront and API Gateway in plaintext form before Lambda encrypts it, violating the “encrypted at the edge” requirement.

Option D is not a defined mechanism for edge encryption; API Gateway methods do not provide edge field encryption with KMS in this way.

Therefore, CloudFront field-level encryption is the correct solution.

DynamoDB access control operates at the table and item level, not at individual attribute deny rules in IAM or resource-based policies. Therefore, Option A is not supported. Encrypting the entire table with KMS (Option B) protects data at rest but does not prevent the Lambda function from reading sensitive attributes once access is granted.

To ensure the Lambda function cannot access PII, AWS documentation recommends controlling which attributes are returned from queries and scans. Using a projection expression (Option E) ensures that only non-PII attributes are returned to the function, even if PII exists in the item. This is a standard DynamoDB best practice for limiting data exposure.

For additional protection, client-side or application-level encryption should be used for sensitive fields. Option C uses envelope encryption with AWS KMS to encrypt only PII attributes. Even if the function retrieves the encrypted attribute, it cannot decrypt the data without KMS permissions. This ensures strong isolation of sensitive data.

ABAC (Option D) controls access to resources, not attributes, and therefore does not satisfy the requirement.

Thus, combining attribute-level encryption with projection expressions meets the security requirement.

This solution meets the requirements in the most operationally efficient manner because it does not require any infrastructure provisioning or management. The developer can create a Lambda function that makes the API call and configure an EventBridge rule that triggers the function once a day at a designated time. This is a serverless solution that scales automatically and only charges for the execution time of the function.

The requirement here is to ensure that Lambda functions are executed in a specific order. AWS Step Functions is a low-code workflow orchestration service that enables you to sequence AWS services, such as AWS Lambda, into workflows. It is purpose-built for situations like this, where different steps need to be executed in a strict sequence.

AWS Step Functions: Step Functions allows developers to design workflows as state machines, where each state corresponds to a particular function. In this case, the developer can create a Step Functions state machine where each step (order processing, inventory management, etc.) is represented by a Lambda function.

Operational Overhead: Step Functions have very low operational overhead because it natively handles retries, error handling, and function sequencing.

Alternatives:

Amazon SQS (Option A): While SQS can manage message ordering, it requires more manual handling of each step and the logic to sequentially invoke the Lambda functions.

Amazon SNS (Option B): SNS is a pub/sub service and is not designed to handle sequences of Lambda executions.

EventBridge (Option D): EventBridge Scheduler allows you to invoke Lambda functions based on scheduled times, but it doesn’t directly support sequencing based on workflow logic.Therefore, AWS Step Functions is the most appropriate solution due to its native orchestration capabilities and minimal operational complexity.

AWS Step Functions documentation

To add a caching layer for frequently requested data (such as “most viewed products”), the AWS-native choice is Amazon ElastiCache, commonly using Redis for low-latency key/value caching, counters, sorted sets, and leaderboard-like patterns. Redis is particularly well-suited for ecommerce “top N” or popularity queries because it supports atomic increments and sorted sets, enabling efficient ranking updates.

Option B correctly introduces an ElastiCache (Redis OSS) cluster and updates the application to read from Redis first (cache-aside or write-through patterns) instead of hitting the RDS MySQL cluster for every request. This offloads read pressure from the database, reduces latency, and improves overall throughput.

Option A is not a valid RDS feature: you do not add a “cache node” to an RDS MySQL cluster as part of RDS itself.

Option C is incorrect because DAX is a caching layer specifically for DynamoDB, not for RDS MySQL.

Option D improves availability via Multi-AZ standby, but the standby is not for read scaling in standard RDS Multi-AZ (it’s primarily for failover). It does not provide a cache and does not solve the performance needs for hot reads.

Why Option B is Correct:RDS Proxy manages database connections efficiently, reducing overhead on the RDS instance and mitigating "too many connections" errors.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A: DAX is for DynamoDB, not RDS.

Option C: Migration to PostgreSQL does not address the current issue.

Option D: ElastiCache is useful for caching but does not solve connection pool issues.

AWS Documentation References:

Amazon RDS Proxy

Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that provides fast and consistent performance with seamless scalability. DynamoDB Streams is a feature that captures data modification events in DynamoDB tables. The developer can enable DynamoDB Streams on the table and create a trigger to connect the DynamoDB stream to the Lambda function. This solution will enable the Lambda function to detect changes to the DynamoDB table in near real time.

Amazon S3 supports resource-based policies, which are JSON documents that specify the permissions for accessing S3 resources. A resource-based policy can be used to enforce encryption in transit by denying access to requests that do not use HTTPS. The condition key aws:SecureTransport can be used to check if the request was sent using SSL. If the value of this key is false, the request is denied; otherwise, the request is allowed. Reference: How do I use an S3 bucket policy to require requests to use Secure Socket Layer (SSL)?

Problem: Directory access without file names fails.

S3 Static Website Hosting:

Configuring S3 as a static website enables automatic serving of index.html for directory requests.

Bucket policies ensure correct access permissions.

Updating the CloudFront origin simplifies routing.

Avoiding Public Exposure: The S3 website endpoint allows CloudFront to access content without making the bucket public.

This solution will meet the requirements by ensuring that all traffic between users and CloudFront, and all traffic between CloudFront and the web application, are encrypted using HTTPS protocol. The Origin Protocol Policy determines how CloudFront communicates with the origin server (the web application), and setting it to “HTTPS Only” will force CloudFront to use HTTPS for every request to the origin server. The Viewer Protocol Policy determines how CloudFront responds to HTTP or HTTPS requests from users, and setting it to “HTTPS Only” or “Redirect HTTP to HTTPS” will force CloudFront to use HTTPS for every response to users. Option A is not optimal because it will use AWS KMS to encrypt traffic between CloudFront and the web application, which is not necessary or supported by CloudFront. Option C is not optimal because it will set the origin’s HTTP port to 443, which is incorrect as port 443 is used for HTTPS protocol, not HTTP protocol. Option E is not optimal because it will enable the CloudFront option Restrict Viewer Access, which is used for controlling access to private content using signed URLs or signed cookies, not for encrypting traffic.

For rapid prototyping with the least operational overhead, Lambda function URLs are the best fit. A Lambda function URL provides a built-in HTTPS endpoint directly in front of a Lambda function, allowing the frontend team to invoke each endpoint without requiring additional infrastructure. This is ideal when the overall architecture is not finalized and the team needs a quick way to test.

AWS describes Lambda function URLs as a simple way to “add an HTTPS endpoint to your Lambda function” without requiring API Gateway, load balancers, or custom proxy layers. This substantially reduces setup time and avoids the operational tasks associated with provisioning, configuring, and managing an API layer during early-stage development.

Option B (API Gateway REST API) introduces more operational overhead: creating resources, methods, integrations, deployments, stages, and potentially authorization and throttling configuration. API Gateway is powerful, but it is more than needed for quick endpoint testing.

Option C (AppSync) is designed for GraphQL-based APIs and requires schema design and resolvers. That is unnecessary complexity for simply testing three Lambda-backed endpoints.

Option D (ECS proxy) adds the most operational burden because it requires container orchestration, networking, scaling, and patching—completely misaligned with “least operational overhead.”

Therefore, the fastest and simplest approach is to create a function URL per Lambda endpoint, allowing immediate testing from the frontend with minimal additional AWS configuration.

Amazon DynamoDB performance depends heavily on partition key design. AWS documentation warns against access patterns that repeatedly target the same partition key, as this causes hot partitions, even in on-demand mode.

In this scenario, most reads focus on the current day’s forecast for a small number of large cities. Using CityId alone as the partition key would cause hot partitions for those cities. Adding a calculated suffix (such as a hash or modulo value) to CityId spreads read requests across multiple partitions while still allowing efficient querying.

Using ForecastDate as the partition key (Options C and D) would concentrate traffic on a single value (today’s date), creating severe hot partition issues. Option B lacks a meaningful access pattern and complicates queries.

AWS documentation explicitly recommends key-suffix techniques for workloads with skewed access patterns to distribute traffic evenly. Therefore, using CityId with a calculated suffix as the partition key is the correct design.

S3Bucket and S3Key: These properties in a CloudFormation AWS::Lambda::Function resource specify the location of the function's code in S3.

Least Development Effort: This solution minimizes code changes, relying on CloudFormation to reference the existing S3 deployment package.

AWS CodeBuild supports parallel test execution through batch builds and multiple compute environments. This feature allows a single CodeBuild project to divide test workloads across multiple isolated environments that run concurrently. Each environment executes a subset of the test suite, significantly reducing total build time.

AWS documentation emphasizes using native CodeBuild capabilities to minimize operational complexity. Parallel execution eliminates the need to manually manage infrastructure, test orchestration logic, or EC2 fleets. CodeBuild automatically provisions and terminates build environments, scales as needed, and integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines.

Options A and D require manual coordination and infrastructure management, increasing operational overhead. Option C does not address the performance problem.

Therefore, using CodeBuild’s parallel compute environments is the most efficient and AWS-recommended approach.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (250–300 words):

AWS best practices for multi-tenant isolation recommend session-based access control using IAM session tags. Session tags allow temporary credentials to be scoped dynamically based on tenant context.

First, the data access role must allow sts:TagSession (Option A) so tenant identifiers can be passed securely at runtime. The Lambda function assumes this role and includes the tenant name as a session tag (Option F).

Next, IAM policies on the data access role restrict access to S3 object prefixes and DynamoDB partition keys by evaluating the session tag (Option C). This ensures that even if a bug occurs, the role cannot access data belonging to another tenant.

Resource-based DynamoDB policies and RCPs are unnecessary here and add complexity.

This approach follows AWS’s recommended attribute-based access control (ABAC) model and provides strong tenant isolation with minimal operational overhead.

Amazon SNS subscription filter policies are designed to control which messages are delivered to subscribers based on message attributes. AWS documentation recommends using subscription filters to reduce unnecessary downstream processing and cost.

By configuring a filter policy on the SNS subscription, only messages that match refund-specific attributes are sent to the Lambda function. This ensures that the Lambda function is invoked only when required, eliminating wasted invocations and simplifying the function logic.

Option A is incorrect because Lambda event filtering applies to services such as SQS and DynamoDB Streams, not directly to SNS. Option B increases invocation cost and code complexity. Option D does not filter messages and does not address the requirement.

Therefore, SNS subscription filter policies provide the cleanest, most efficient, and AWS-recommended solution.

The objects are “rarely accessed after 1 week” but must remain immediately available at all times. That means the storage class must support millisecond access without a restore process. S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (Standard-IA) is designed for exactly this: lower storage cost than S3 Standard, while still providing rapid access when needed.

With option B, an S3 Lifecycle rule transitions objects from S3 Standard to S3 Standard-IA after 7 days. This aligns perfectly with the usage pattern: frequent access initially, then infrequent access after a week, while keeping immediate availability.

Option C (S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval) is not appropriate because Glacier classes are archival. Access typically requires a restore operation and retrieval time (minutes to hours), which violates “immediately available at all times.”

Option A expires objects, which deletes them after 7 days—this contradicts the requirement to keep objects available.

Option D is irrelevant because delete markers exist only when versioning is enabled. The bucket does not have versioning enabled, so this rule would not help.

Therefore, transitioning to S3 Standard-IA after 7 days is the correct cost-optimized solution while maintaining immediate availability.

When multiple Lambda functions must execute in a defined sequence as part of a workflow (order processing → payment → inventory → fulfillment, etc.), the AWS service designed to coordinate and orchestrate serverless workflows is AWS Step Functions.

Option C is the least operational overhead because Step Functions provides a managed state machine that invokes Lambda functions in an explicit order with built-in support for retries, timeouts, error handling, branching, and state passing between steps. The developer defines the workflow declaratively (Amazon States Language) and Step Functions ensures the sequence is enforced consistently.

Option A (SQS) is not a workflow orchestrator. Ensuring strict sequencing would require custom coordination logic, state tracking, and careful handling of retries and ordering—more code and complexity (and standard SQS does not guarantee strict order).

Option B (SNS) fans out events and is not designed for sequential orchestration.

Option D (EventBridge Scheduler) can schedule invocations at times, but it does not coordinate multi-step workflows with dependencies and conditional transitions.

Configuring the Lambda function to use ephemeral storage and processing data in the /tmp directory improves performance by leveraging local storage during execution.

Why Option C is Correct:

Ephemeral Storage: Lambda provides temporary storage (up to 10 GB) in the /tmp directory for each invocation, which is faster than pulling data directly from S3 multiple times.

Performance Boost: Data can be downloaded to /tmp, processed locally, and uploaded to the destination S3 bucket, minimizing S3 network calls.

Low Overhead: This approach requires only minimal changes to the function's configuration.

Why Not Other Options:

Option A: Using Amazon EFS adds complexity and is unnecessary for this use case.

Option B: Scheduling the function does not address the root cause of slow performance.

Option D: Lambda layers improve deployment efficiency, not runtime performance for this scenario.

Using Ephemeral Storage in AWS Lambda

Best Practices for S3 and Lambda Performance

IAM Roles for EC2: IAM roles are the recommended way to provide AWS credentials to applications running on EC2 instances. Here's how this works:

You create an IAM role with the necessary permissions to access the target S3 bucket.

You create an instance profile and associate the IAM role with this profile.

When launching the EC2 instance, you attach this instance profile.

Temporary Security Credentials: When the application on the EC2 instance needs to access S3, it doesn't directly use access keys. Instead, the AWS SDK running on the instance retrieves temporary security credentials associated with the role. These are rotated automatically by AWS.

To provide login functionality with branded sign-in pages and minimal custom code, the best solution is Amazon Cognito Hosted UI. Cognito User Pools include a managed authentication service that can handle sign-up/sign-in, MFA options, password resets, and OAuth/OpenID Connect flows. The Hosted UI provides ready-to-use authentication pages and endpoints, which removes the need to build and maintain custom authentication pages and backend logic.

AWS allows customization of the Hosted UI to match company branding (for example, logo, colors, and CSS styling). This directly meets the requirement that “all pages must match branding” while minimizing development effort. The application can integrate with Cognito using standard authorization flows and tokens, which works well with Lambda-based architectures (for example, API Gateway authorizers with Cognito user pools).

Option A (S3 static pages) would still require implementing authentication flows, session handling, token management, and secure integration with the backend—significantly more custom code.

Option B requires writing and maintaining custom sign-in page serving logic plus authentication handlers, which increases code and operational overhead.

Option C (Lambda@Edge) is even more complex, introducing edge execution and additional deployment/versioning considerations, and still requires custom auth logic.

Therefore, using Amazon Cognito User Pools with the Hosted UI and branding customization is the lowest-code, most maintainable solution.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/nodejs-context.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/nodejs-logging.html

There is no explicit information for the runtime, the code is written in Node.js.

AWS Lambda is a service that lets developers run code without provisioning or managing servers. The developer can use the AWS request ID field in the context object to obtain a unique identifier for each function invocation. The developer can configure the application to write logs to standard output, which will be captured by Amazon CloudWatch Logs. This solution will meet the requirement of logging key events with a unique identifier.

To monitor end-to-end requests and debug issues across microservices, you need distributed tracing. Among AWS tools, AWS X-Ray is specifically built for this use case.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:

Step 1: Understand the Requirement

The developer needs:

End-to-end request tracing across microservices

Debugging capability for performance issues or failures

This points directly to a distributed tracing solution rather than just logs or metrics.

Step 2: Evaluate the Options

Option A: Amazon CloudWatch

CloudWatch is powerful for metrics, logs, and alerts.

But it does not provide distributed tracing or request path visualization between microservices.

So, it's not sufficient alone for the requirement.

Option B: AWS CloudTrail

CloudTrail tracks API calls made through the AWS Management Console, CLI, SDKs.

It is meant for auditing and governance, not microservices request tracing.

Not suitable for debugging microservices interactions.

Option C: AWS X-Ray SDK with X-Ray service map

Purpose-built for distributed tracing

Automatically collects data about requests as they travel through your microservices

You can instrument your code with the AWS X-Ray SDK in Java, Node.js, Python, Go, .NET, etc.

Visualizes requests using a service map, showing latency, errors, and time spent in downstream services.

How it works:

Instrument each microservice using the AWS X-Ray SDK.

Use the SDK to trace requests, propagate trace headers across services.

The X-Ray daemon collects and sends trace data to the X-Ray service.

You can view the service map, see bottlenecks, error rates, etc.

Option D: AWS Health

AWS Health provides information on AWS service outages or account-level events.

It does not monitor your application or microservices health or request flows.

Correct Choice: C is the only option that meets the developer's requirement to monitor end-to-end request paths and debug issues in a microservices architecture.

AWS Developer References:

AWS X-Ray Documentation: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/aws-xray.html

Instrumenting your application: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/xray-sdk.html

Viewing the Service Map: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/xray-console-service-map.html

Tracing Microservices with AWS X-Ray: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/tracing-microservices-aws-x-ray/

The combination of steps that will resolve the latency issue is to create an Amazon CloudFront distribution to cache the static content and store the application’s static content in Amazon S3. This way, the company can use CloudFront to deliver the static content from edge locations that are closer to the website users, reducing latency and improving performance. The company can also use S3 to store the static content reliably and cost-effectively, and integrate it with CloudFront easily. The other options either do not address the latency issue, or are not necessary or feasible for the given scenario.

The HTTP header that the developer should use for this analysis is the X-Forwarded-For header. This header contains the IP address of the client that made the request to the Application Load Balancer. The developer can use this header to analyze patterns for the client IP addresses that use the application. The other headers either contain information about the protocol, host, or port of the request, which are not relevant for the analysis.

Requirement Summary:

NLP Lambda function with a large pre-trained model

Lambda layer became 8.7 GB → Exceeds AWS limits

Function returns RequestEntityTooLargeException

Need: High-performing, portable, low initialization time

Important AWS Limits:

Lambda Layers size limit (combined across all layers): 250 MB (unzipped)

Deployment package size (unzipped): 250 MB

Lambda container image support allows up to 10 GB image size

Evaluate Options:

A: Store model in S3 and load during execution

Leads to cold start latency every time

Model loading from S3 is slower and not suitable for real-time NLP

Not optimal for performance

B: Use EFS mounted to Lambda

⚠️ Valid for large models, but adds latency during cold start as model loads from EFS

Requires EFS setup, VPC, and has added network I/O overhead

Still slower than bundling in container image

C: Split into five Lambda layers

Still violates the total layer size limit of 250 MB (unzipped)

You cannot exceed that even with multiple layers

D: Use Docker container image

Allows bundling up to 10 GB of dependencies and models

High portability and performance

Avoids latency of downloading models at runtime

Ideal for scientific/NLP models

Lambda container image support: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/images-create.html

Lambda limits: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/gettingstarted-limits.html

Using large models with Lambda: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/deploying-large-machine-learning-models-on-aws-lambda-with-container-images/

The application relies on shared file storage that behaves like NFS and must be accessible concurrently by multiple containers across Kubernetes nodes. AWS documentation clearly identifies Amazon EFS as the AWS-native, fully managed, NFS-compatible file system designed for this purpose.

Amazon EFS provides elastic scaling, high availability across multiple Availability Zones, and native integration with container orchestration platforms. It is the most direct replacement for on-premises NFS, requiring minimal architectural change.

To run Kubernetes workloads on AWS with high availability, AWS recommends Amazon EKS, a managed Kubernetes service that automatically handles control plane availability and upgrades. EKS integrates natively with EFS using the Amazon EFS CSI driver, allowing pods across multiple nodes to mount the same file system concurrently.

Amazon EBS (Options A, C, and D) is block storage that can be attached to only one EC2 instance at a time (except in limited Multi-Attach scenarios) and is therefore unsuitable for shared NFS-style access across a Kubernetes cluster.

Uploading container images to Amazon ECR ensures secure, scalable storage for container images and seamless integration with EKS.

Therefore, migrating the NFS data to Amazon EFS and running the workloads on Amazon EKS is the fastest, most scalable, and AWS-recommended solution.

Understand the Problem: The existing DynamoDB table has email_address as the partition key. Searching by customer_type requires a different data access pattern. We need an efficient way to query for partial matches on email_address based on customer_type.

Why Global Secondary Index (GSI):

GSIs allow you to define a different partition key and sort key from the main table, enabling new query patterns.

In this case, having customer_type as the GSI's partition key lets you group all emails with the same customer type together.

Using email_address as the sort key allows ordering within each customer type, facilitating the partial matching.

Querying the GSI:

You'll perform a query operation on the GSI, not the original table.

Use the begins_with key condition expression on the GSI's sort key (email_address) to find partial matches as the user types in the customer_type field.

Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached is a fully managed, multithreaded, and scalable in-memory key-value store that can be used to cache frequently accessed data and improve application performance1. By using Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached, the developer can reduce the load on the main database and handle high traffic surges more efficiently.

To use Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached, the developer needs to create a cache cluster with one or more nodes, and configure the application to store and retrieve data from the cache cluster2. The developer can use any of the supported Memcached clients to interact with the cache cluster3. The developer can also use Auto Discovery to dynamically discover and connect to all cache nodes in a cluster4.

Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached is compatible with the Memcached protocol, which means that the developer can use existing tools and libraries that work with Memcached1. Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached also supports data partitioning, which allows the developer to distribute data among multiple nodes and scale out the cache cluster as needed.

Using Amazon ElastiCache for Memcached is a simple and effective solution that meets the requirements with the least complexity. The developer does not need to change the database schema, migrate data to a different service, or use a different caching model. The developer can leverage the existing Memcached ecosystem and easily integrate it with the application.