Pass the Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate DVA-C02 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (AWS Verified – 250–300 Words)

When an Amazon S3 bucket is configured with default encryption using SSE-KMS, AWS Key Management Service (KMS) plays an active role in every PutObject request. Although the IAM user already has the s3:PutObject permission, this alone is not sufficient when SSE-KMS is enabled.

According to AWS documentation, when a client uploads an object to an S3 bucket encrypted with SSE-KMS, Amazon S3 must call AWS KMS on behalf of the caller to generate a unique data encryption key. This operation requires the kms:GenerateDataKey permission on the KMS key used for encryption. If this permission is missing, the PutObject request fails with an Access Denied error—even though S3 permissions appear correct.

AWS explicitly states that IAM principals uploading objects to SSE-KMS–encrypted buckets must be allowed to use the KMS key. At a minimum, the following KMS permissions are required:

kms:GenerateDataKey

(Implicitly) access allowed by the KMS key policy

Option C correctly resolves the issue by granting the IAM user permission to generate a data key via AWS KMS, enabling successful encryption during the upload process.

Option A is invalid because s3:EncryptionConfiguration is not required for object uploads.

Option B is unnecessary because the IAM user already has s3:PutObject.

Option D is incorrect because ACLs are not used to control KMS encryption permissions and are discouraged by AWS best practices.

Requirement Summary:

DynamoDB Provisioned Mode

ProvisionedThroughputExceededException error occurring

App hosted on a small burstable EC2 instance

Option A: Move to a larger EC2 instance

May improve local performance, but does not solve DynamoDB provisioned throughput limits.

Option B: Increase DynamoDB RCUs

Valid: This directly increases the read throughput capacity of the table.

Helps handle more traffic and reduce throughput exceptions.

Option C: Reduce frequency via exponential backoff

Best practice: Using exponential backoff and jitter reduces request pressure and spreads retries out to avoid spiking.

Option D: Increase frequency of retries by reducing delay

Opposite of best practice. Increases load, worsening the issue.

Option E: Change to on-demand mode

Also valid in general, but question is scoped around provisioned capacity.

Since minimizing cost or workload type isn ' t mentioned, and scaling the existing model is the focus, prefer B and C.

ProvisionedThroughputExceededException: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/HandlingErrors.html

Exponential backoff: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/Programming.Errors.html

Capacity modes: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/HowItWorks.ReadWriteCapacityMode.html

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

In this scenario, the developer is configuring a mock integration in API Gateway. The integration request mapping template allows you to map the incoming request data to a format that the API expects. For mock integration, it ' s common to return specific HTTP status codes based on the conditions.

Using $context.integration.status: The $context.integration.status variable refers to the status of the API Gateway integration, which is useful for generating responses based on the condition. Option D correctly uses this variable to determine the HTTP status code, returning 200 for a successful mock request or 500 for a failure.

Alternatives:

Options A, B, and C do not use the correct context variables for handling mock integrations. These options would not return the correct status codes based on the actual integration status.

API Gateway Mapping Templates and Accessing Context Variables

The base table’s primary key is UserID, which means efficient Query operations on the table natively require specifying UserID (partition key equality). The required access pattern, however, is to retrieve many users for a given Location and then filter/sort by RegistrationDate (users who registered after a given date). Because Location is not part of the table’s primary key, the efficient DynamoDB approach is to create an index that supports this access pattern.

A global secondary index (GSI) can have a different partition key and sort key than the base table. By creating a GSI with Location as the partition key and RegistrationDate as the sort key, the application can use the Query operation to fetch all users in a specific location (Location = :loc) and apply a sort key condition such as RegistrationDate > :date (or BETWEEN), which is efficient and avoids a full-table scan. This design is the canonical pattern for optimizing DynamoDB queries: model the table and indexes around known access patterns so the application can use Query instead of Scan.

Option C (LSI) is not valid for this requirement because an LSI must use the same partition key as the base table (UserID). Since the access pattern is by Location, an LSI cannot make Location the partition key. Option B (Scan + filter) is inefficient at scale because Scan reads every item (or every item in the scanned segments) and then filters results, consuming read capacity and increasing latency. Option D (BatchGetItem) requires the caller to already know the primary keys of the items to retrieve; it cannot discover “all users in a location after a date” and does not support filtering in the way Query on an index does.

Therefore, A is the correct and most efficient solution: a GSI on (Location, RegistrationDate) and Query with a date range condition.

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

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 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.

This solution allows the fastest response for the query because it enables the query to use a single partition key value (the Product ID) and a range of sort key values (the Product Rating) to find the matching items. A global secondary index (GSI) is an index that has a partition key and an optional sort key that are different from those on the base table. A GSI can be created at any time and can be queried or scanned independently of the base table. A local secondary index (LSI) is an index that has the same partition key as the base table, but a different sort key. An LSI can only be created when the base table is created and must be queried together with the base table partition key. Using a GSI with Product ID as the partition key and Review ID as the sort key will not allow the query to use a range of sort key values to find the highest ratings. Using an LSI with Product ID as the partition key and Product Rating as the sort key will not work because Product ID is not the partition key of the base table. Using an LSI with Review ID as the partition key and Product ID as the sort key will not allow the query to use a single partition key value to find the matching items.

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

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

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

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

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

To redact PII from S3 objects before they are accessed by the analytics service, the most efficient solution is to use S3 Object Lambda. S3 Object Lambda allows you to add your own code (Lambda function) to process and transform data when it is retrieved from Amazon S3. You can attach a Lambda function to an S3 Object Lambda Access Point, which in this case would run a redaction API to remove PII from the reports.

Operational Efficiency: S3 Object Lambda handles data processing on the fly, without requiring the data to be permanently transformed or moved to another service (like Amazon Redshift).

Alternatives:

Option A: Loading the data into Amazon Redshift would require refactoring the analytics service and maintaining an additional data pipeline, increasing complexity.

Option C: Using AWS KMS for encryption protects data at rest and in transit, but it does not address PII redaction.

Option D: SNS is a messaging service and does not support direct data transformation.

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

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

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

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

AWS Documentation References:

EventBridge Targets

The solution that will solve this problem is to create and inspect the Lambda dead-letter queue. Troubleshoot the failed functions. Reprocess the events. This way, the developer can identify and fix any issues that caused the Lambda function to fail when invoked asynchronously by API Gateway. The developer can also reprocess any orders that were not processed due to failures. The other options either do not address the root cause of the problem, or do not help recover from failures.

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

AWS Lambda allocates CPU, network throughput, and other resources proportionally to the function’s configured memory . If a Lambda function is CPU-bound (common for image manipulation such as resizing and thumbnail generation) or limited by I/O throughput, increasing the configured memory often improves performance because it also increases the amount of CPU available to the function. This is a standard Lambda optimization technique: tune memory to reduce runtime and achieve a lower latency target.

In this scenario, the thumbnail generation is taking more than 2 minutes, but the requirement is to process each image in under 30 seconds. Without changing the code, the most direct lever is to increase the function’s memory setting and retest. As memory increases, Lambda provides more compute power, which can significantly speed up CPU-intensive libraries (for example, image decoding, resizing, encoding) and reduce overall execution time. Many workloads show near-linear improvements until other bottlenecks (such as downstream service latency) dominate.

Options A and B are not applicable to Lambda in this way. Lambda does not let you directly select a fixed number of vCPUs or choose an EC2 instance type such as m6a.4xlarge for a function; those are EC2 concepts, not Lambda configuration parameters. Option D (“burstable performance”) is also not a Lambda configuration model; burstable performance applies to certain EC2 instance families, not Lambda’s managed execution environment.

Therefore, the correct action is C : increase the Lambda function’s memory allocation (which also increases available CPU and throughput). This is the AWS-supported way to improve performance for compute-intensive Lambda functions and is the most likely to bring processing time down toward the 30-second requirement without code changes.