DVA-C02 Exam Dumps - Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate Questions and Answers

This solution will meet the requirements by using AWS Secrets Manager and AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store to securely store the parameter values outside the code in an encrypted format. AWS Secrets Manager 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 RDS database secret in AWS Secrets Manager and set the user name, password, database, host, and port for accessing the RDS database. The developer can also turn on secret rotation, which will change the database credentials periodically according to a specified schedule or event. AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store is a service that provides secure and scalable storage for configuration data and secrets. The developer can create Secure String parameters in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store for the DynamoDB table, S3 bucket, and SNS topic, which will encrypt them with AWS KMS. The developer can also reuse the parameter values from other applications and update them without modifying code. Option A is not optimal because it will create encrypted Lambda environment variables for the DynamoDB table, S3 bucket, and SNS topic, which may not be reusable or updatable without modifying code. Option C is not optimal because it will create RDS database parameters in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which does not support automatic rotation of secrets. Option D is not optimal because it will store the DynamoDB table, S3 bucket, and SNS topic in Amazon S3, which may introduce additional costs and complexity for accessing configuration data.

AWS CloudFormation is a service that enables developers to model and provision AWS resources using templates. The developer can add a CloudFormation Deletion Policy attribute with the Retain value to the database resource. This will prevent the database from being deleted when the stack is deleted or updated. The developer can also update the CloudFormation stack policy to prevent updates to the database. This will prevent accidental changes to the database configuration or properties.

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 emphasizes collaboration, frequent code changes, and deploying from source control with the fewest manual steps. This aligns with a CI/CD pipeline approach where commits or merges automatically trigger builds and deployments. Using AWS CodePipeline orchestrates the stages (source, build, deploy), and AWS CodeBuild performs the build/package steps for the Lambda/serverless application. When integrated with a repository (such as CodeCommit, GitHub, or another supported provider), CodePipeline can automatically start when changes are merged into specific branches, enabling consistent, repeatable deployments.

Option C provides the least operational overhead for teams: developers push code and merge pull requests; the pipeline automatically builds artifacts, runs tests (if configured), packages dependencies, and deploys updates to Lambda (often via AWS SAM/CloudFormation under the hood). This removes manual “build on my laptop” drift, prevents inconsistent deployments between developers, and supports frequent iteration safely.

Option B (SAM CLI from a local machine) requires a developer to manually run build/deploy commands and assumes each developer’s environment is configured correctly. That increases manual steps and the risk of differences across machines. Option D (uploading zip in the console) is highly manual and not suitable for frequent changes or team collaboration. Option A is also suboptimal because storing built artifacts in source control is an anti-pattern; builds should be reproducible and produced by CI, not committed binaries.

Therefore, C is the best choice: set up CodePipeline + CodeBuild so merges to controlled branches automatically trigger builds and deployments to AWS Lambda with minimal manual intervention.

Amazon EFS: A network file system (NFS) providing shared, scalable storage across multiple Lambda functions and other AWS resources.

Lambda Mounting: EFS file systems can be mounted within Lambda functions to access a shared storage space.

Log Appending: EFS supports appending data to existing files, making it ideal for the log file scenario.

Browsers enforce the Same-Origin Policy, which restricts web pages from requesting resources (like JavaScript files, fonts, and other assets) from a different domain/origin unless the target explicitly allows it. When the developer moved shared JavaScript and web fonts into a separate “central” S3 bucket, the applications likely began fetching these assets from a different origin than the app’s primary origin (for example, different domain, subdomain, or CloudFront distribution). As a result, the browser blocks those requests unless the response includes the appropriate CORS headers.

AWS documentation for Amazon S3 explains that to allow cross-origin requests from browsers, you must configure Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) on the S3 bucket that serves the resources. A CORS configuration defines allowed origins, methods (such as GET), and headers. For fonts in particular, browsers are strict and commonly require CORS headers to load fonts across origins.

Option C directly addresses this by adding a CORS policy to the central bucket, allowing the subsidiary application origins to retrieve JS and font files without being blocked.

Option B (bucket policy) controls authorization at the AWS request level, but it does not instruct browsers to allow cross-origin access. Even if the request is authorized, the browser can still block it if CORS headers are missing.

Option A (access points) is also about access management and does not solve browser CORS enforcement.

Option D (Content-MD5) is for integrity checking and is unrelated to cross-origin browser blocking.

Why Option B is Correct:Setting the visibility timeout ensures that once a message is being processed, it is temporarily hidden from other consumers. The Lambda function must delete processed messages to avoid re-processing when the visibility timeout expires.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A: Message retention affects how long messages stay in the queue, not how they are processed.

Option C: Receive message wait time optimizes long polling but does not prevent re-processing.

Option D: Delivery delay introduces latency for new messages and does not address message re-processing.

AWS Documentation References:

Using SQS Visibility Timeout

Step 1: Understanding the Problem

Processing in Batches: The application must process records in groups.

Sequential Processing: Each record in the batch must be processed before writing to Aurora.

Solution Goals: Use services that support ordered, batched processing and integrate with Aurora.

Step 2: Solution Analysis

Option A:

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams supports ordered data processing.

AWS Lambda can process batches of records via event source mapping with MaximumBatchingWindowInSeconds for timing control.

Configuring the batching window ensures efficient processing and compliance with the workflow.

Correct Option.

Option B:

Amazon SQS is not designed for streaming; it provides reliable, unordered message delivery.

Setting MaximumBatchingWindowInSeconds to 0 disables batching, which is contrary to the requirement.

Not suitable.

Option C:

Amazon MSK provides Kafka-based streaming but requires custom EC2-based processing.

This increases system complexity and operational overhead.

Not ideal for serverless requirements.

Option D:

DynamoDB Streams is event-driven but lacks strong native integration for batch ordering.

Using ECS adds unnecessary complexity.

Not suitable.

Step 3: Implementation Steps for Option A

Set up Kinesis Data Stream:

Configure shards based on the expected throughput.

Configure Lambda with Event Source Mapping:

Enable Kinesis as the event source for Lambda.

Set MaximumBatchingWindowInSeconds to 300 to accumulate data for processing.

Example:

{

"EventSourceArn": "arn:aws:kinesis:region:account-id:stream/stream-name",

"BatchSize": 100,

"MaximumBatchingWindowInSeconds": 300

}

Write Processed Data to Aurora:

Use AWS RDS Data API for efficient database operations from Lambda.

AWS Developer References:

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams Developer Guide

AWS Lambda Event Source Mapping

Batch Processing with Lambda

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 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.

AWS Lambda SnapStart is designed specifically to reduce cold start latency for Java and .NET runtimes. SnapStart works by initializing the function once, taking a snapshot of the execution environment, and then reusing that snapshot for future cold starts. This dramatically reduces startup time, often from several seconds to milliseconds.

SnapStart requires the function to be published as a version, and an alias must reference that version. AWS documentation clearly states that SnapStart is the recommended solution for latency-sensitive Lambda workloads with infrequent invocations.

Reserved concurrency (Option B) limits scaling but does not eliminate cold starts. Lambda layers (Option C) improve code organization but have minimal impact on cold start latency. Adding the function to a VPC (Option D) typically increases cold start time due to network interface initialization.

Therefore, enabling SnapStart on a published .NET Lambda function is the correct and AWS-endorsed solution.

The correct answer is A. Add a configuration file in TOML format to group configuration entries to every environment. Add a table for each testing and staging environment. Deploy updates to the environments by using the sam deploy command and the --config-env flag that corresponds to the each environment.

A. Add a configuration file in TOML format to group configuration entries to every environment. Add a table for each testing and staging environment. Deploy updates to the environments by using the sam deploy command and the --config-env flag that corresponds to the each environment. This is correct. This solution will meet the requirements with the least development effort, because it uses a feature of the AWS SAM CLI that supports a project-level configuration file that can be used to configure AWS SAM CLI command parameter values1. The configuration file can have multiple environments, each with its own set of parameter values, such as stack name, region, capabilities, and more2. The developer can use the --config-env option to specify which environment to use when deploying the application3. This way, the developer can avoid creating multiple templates or scripts, or manually overriding parameters for each environment.

B. Create additional AWS SAM templates for each testing and staging environment. Write a custom shell script that uses the sam deploy command and the --template-file flag to deploy updates to the environments. This is incorrect. This solution will not meet the requirements with the least development effort, because it requires creating and maintaining multiple templates and scripts for each environment. This can introduce duplication, inconsistency, and complexity in the deployment process.

C. Create one AWS SAM configuration file that has default parameters. Perform updates to the testing and staging environments by using the —parameter-overrides flag in the AWS SAM CLI and the parameters that the updates will override. This is incorrect. This solution will not meet the requirements with the least development effort, because it requires manually specifying and overriding parameters for each environment every time the developer deploys the application. This can be error-prone, tedious, and inefficient.

D. Use the existing AWS SAM template. Add additional parameters to configure specific attributes for the serverless function and database table resources that are in each environment. Deploy updates to the testing and staging environments by using the sam deploy command. This is incorrect. This solution will not meet the requirements with the least development effort, because it requires modifying the existing template and adding complexity to the resource definitions for each environment. This can also make it difficult to manage and track changes across different environments.

For client-side encryption with AWS KMS, the documented pattern is envelope encryption: you use KMS to generate and protect a data encryption key (DEK), and you use that DEK locally to encrypt the actual data. This is the correct approach for large payloads (such as 10 MB documents), because the KMS Encrypt API is intended for encrypting small amounts of data (KMS is not designed to directly encrypt multi-megabyte application payloads).

With envelope encryption, the application calls GenerateDataKey on AWS KMS, specifying the KMS key (customer managed key) to use. KMS returns two versions of the DEK in the response:

a plaintext DEK (usable immediately by the application for local cryptographic operations), and

a ciphertext (encrypted) DEK that is encrypted under the specified KMS key.

The application then uses the plaintext DEK to encrypt the 10 MB document on the client side (for example, using an authenticated encryption mode such as AES-GCM via a standard crypto library). After encryption completes, the application must not persist the plaintext DEK; instead, it stores the encrypted document alongside the ciphertext DEK. Later, to decrypt, the application sends the ciphertext DEK to KMS using Decrypt to recover the plaintext DEK, and then decrypts the document locally.

Therefore, option D is correct because it explicitly uses GenerateDataKey and the plaintext DEK to encrypt the data, which is the required envelope-encryption flow. Options A, B, and C do not follow the correct KMS envelope-encryption process for large client-side payloads.

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.