DVA-C02 Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

The requirement is encryption in transit for sensitive data sent in API calls between two Apache-based EC2 fleets in peered VPCs . The most operationally efficient approach is to restrict network access and rely on standard TLS at the application layer. Among the provided options, the only operationally simple and directly relevant network control is security group referencing across VPC peering within the same account and Region.

By creating security groups that allow inbound traffic only from the other fleet’s security group , the developer ensures that only the intended instances can communicate over the required ports (for example, 443 for HTTPS). This is operationally efficient because it avoids managing IP allowlists that change with Auto Scaling and keeps the trust boundary tied to instance membership rather than addresses. It also supports least privilege by limiting which sources can reach the service.

Why the other options are not the best fit:

B (Site-to-Site VPN) is unnecessary for VPC peering in the same account/Region and adds significant operational overhead. It also does not replace the need for TLS at the application layer to guarantee encryption to the endpoint.

C (EBS encryption) addresses encryption at rest on volumes, not encryption in transit between fleets.

D (Nitro Enclaves) is heavy and unrelated to the core requirement; enclaves protect data-in-use and do not replace standard TLS for network encryption.

Important nuance: Security groups alone do not encrypt traffic; encryption is achieved by using HTTPS/TLS between the Apache services. However, option A is the most operationally efficient control offered here to implement secure connectivity between the fleets (paired with using HTTPS on Apache, which is the standard for encrypting API calls).

Therefore, A best meets the requirement with the least operational complexity.

The most secure approach on Amazon EC2 is to avoid long-term static credentials entirely and rely on IAM roles for Amazon EC2 (instance profiles). When an EC2 instance is associated with an instance profile, AWS automatically provides temporary security credentials to the instance through the instance metadata service (IMDS) . The AWS SDK and CLI can retrieve and rotate these credentials automatically, eliminating the need to store an access key and secret key on disk. This reduces the risk of credential leakage and removes the operational burden of key rotation.

In this scenario, the EC2 instance is already configured with an IAM instance profile in the same account as the S3 bucket. Because the bucket is in the same account and the instance profile can be granted the required permissions, there is no security benefit to keeping a separate stored access key/secret key or performing an additional STS AssumeRole hop. The simplest and most secure design is to attach an IAM policy to the instance profile role that allows the required s3:PutObject (and any related actions such as s3:PutObjectAcl if needed) on the specific bucket/prefix. The application code can then call S3 directly using the AWS SDK, which will automatically use the instance profile credentials.

Option A continues to use long-lived static credentials stored on the server, which is less secure than instance profiles. Option D is the same problem with different keys: still long-lived credentials that must be protected and rotated. Option B removes stored keys but keeps an AssumeRole call; although AssumeRole uses temporary credentials, it adds complexity and is unnecessary here because the instance already has an IAM role and the S3 bucket is in the same account.

Therefore, the most secure solution is C : remove static keys and the AssumeRole code and use the instance profile role with least-privilege S3 permissions.

The requirements describe a Git-driven workflow where each new branch automatically gets its own deployment with minimal setup and management. AWS Amplify is designed for exactly this use case for web (and supporting mobile backends): it integrates directly with Git providers and offers continuous deployment . Amplify’s feature branch deployments automatically create a separate deployment (and typically a distinct preview URL) for each connected branch, enabling developers to test and review changes per branch without manually provisioning environments.

With Amplify, the developer connects the repository once, selects the branches to deploy, and Amplify automatically builds and deploys the application whenever code changes are pushed. When a new branch is added, Amplify can be configured to deploy it as a separate environment, providing isolated testing, previewing, and validation. This dramatically reduces operational overhead because Amplify manages build settings, hosting, SSL, and branch-based environments without needing custom CI/CD wiring.

Option A (ECR + ECS + GitHub Actions) can support branch deployments, but it requires substantial operational work: container build pipelines, task/service management, networking, scaling, and environment isolation per branch. Option B (Elastic Beanstalk) can manage deployments, but branch-based automatic deployments are not as native; creating separate environments and managing application versions typically requires more manual steps or additional automation. Option C (Lambda aliases) is not a general-purpose web/mobile deployment approach and does not naturally map “new Git branch” to an isolated deployment environment without significant custom tooling.

Therefore, D is the best fit with the least operational overhead: use AWS Amplify with feature branch deployments to automatically create and manage separate deployments for Git branches.

To determine who deleted an Amazon RDS DB instance, the correct source of truth is AWS CloudTrail, which records API activity and includes the identity (IAM user, role, assumed role session) that made the call. Deleting an RDS instance is performed through the RDS API action DeleteDBInstance, and CloudTrail logs an event for this action that contains key fields such as userIdentity, eventTime, eventName, sourceIPAddress, and request parameters identifying the DB instance (for example, dBInstanceIdentifier).

Because the DB instance was deleted within the past 90 days, CloudTrail Event History is commonly sufficient (Event History typically retains 90 days of management events). If the company has a CloudTrail trail configured to deliver logs to S3/CloudWatch Logs, those logs can also be queried for the same event.

Option A directly matches this: retrieve CloudTrail events for DeleteDBInstance related to mysql-db and inspect the userIdentity section to identify the IAM principal that performed the deletion.

Option B is not reliable because RDS log groups (when enabled) capture database engine logs (slow query log, error log, general log) and do not record control-plane actions like who deleted the instance.

Option C is incorrect because X-Ray traces application-level request flows; it does not audit administrative actions like RDS deletion.

Option D is not applicable: Systems Manager inventory does not provide authoritative records of RDS deletions or the IAM principal responsible.

Therefore, CloudTrail lookup for DeleteDBInstance events is the correct solution.

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.