Amazon Web Services Updated DVA-C02 Exam Questions and Answers by aura

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.

Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that can store and retrieve any amount of data with high availability and performance. DynamoDB can handle concurrent requests from multiple IoT devices without throttling or data loss. To prevent duplicate requests from causing inconsistencies or data loss, the Lambda function can use DynamoDB conditional writes to check if the unique identifier for each request already exists in the table before processing the request. If the identifier exists, the function can skip or abort the request; otherwise, it can process the request and store the identifier in the table. Reference: Using conditional writes

The most secure solution is A because AWS Secrets Manager is purpose-built for storing, retrieving, and managing secrets such as database credentials, API keys, and tokens. In AWS guidance, Secrets Manager is recommended when applications need secure secret storage with controlled access, encryption, and integration with runtime retrieval patterns. By storing the credentials as a secret and passing only the secret ARN through an environment variable, the Lambda function avoids exposing the actual username and password in plaintext configuration.

The AWS Parameters and Secrets Lambda Extension is specifically designed to let Lambda functions retrieve secrets securely at invocation time. This reduces the risk of accidental exposure in code, deployment artifacts, or function configuration. Secrets Manager also supports automatic rotation , which is a major security advantage for database credentials and is one of the main reasons AWS recommends it over hardcoded or manually managed values.

Option B is incorrect because base64 is only encoding, not encryption, and embedding credentials in source code is insecure. Option C is less appropriate because a string type parameter in Systems Manager Parameter Store is not the secure choice for sensitive credentials; secure storage there would require SecureString , but even then Secrets Manager is the stronger AWS-recommended service for database secrets. Option D only masks values in CloudFormation outputs and logs with NoEcho ; it does not provide secure runtime secret retrieval or secret lifecycle management.

Therefore, A is the best and most secure answer according to AWS security best practices for Lambda applications handling database credentials.

Option D is correct because this is exactly the problem the circuit breaker pattern solves. When a downstream service repeatedly fails or times out, a circuit breaker stops further calls after a failure threshold is reached. This prevents the Lambda function from repeatedly calling an unavailable third-party payment platform, reducing wasted API calls and Lambda compute cost. AWS Prescriptive Guidance states that the circuit breaker pattern can prevent a caller service from retrying calls to another service after repeated failures and can also detect when the downstream service becomes functional again. A DLQ does not help because the API Gateway invocation is synchronous and the waste happens before failure. Increasing timeout or memory makes the issue worse. Exponential backoff helps reduce retry pressure but does not stop invocations during an outage.