Free Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 10

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

API Gateway Mocking: This feature is built for decoupling development dependencies. Here ' s the process:

Create resources and methods in your API Gateway.

Set the integration type to ' MOCK ' .

Define Integration Responses, mapping HTTP status codes to desired mocked responses (JSON, etc.).

Deployment and Use:

Create a deployment stage for the API.

Frontend teams can call this API and get the mocked responses without a real backend.

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.

Amazon S3 supports server-side encryption, which encrypts data at rest on the server that stores the data. One of the encryption options is SSE-S3, which uses keys managed by S3. To use SSE-S3, the x-amz-server-side-encryption header must be set to AES256 when invoking the PutObject API operation. This instructs S3 to encrypt the object data with SSE-S3 before saving it on disks in its data centers and decrypt it when it is downloaded. Reference: Protecting data using server-side encryption with Amazon S3-managed encryption keys (SSE-S3)

AWS Lambda supports versions and aliases to manage deployments safely. An alias is a named pointer to a specific function version (for example, prod → version 5). Importantly, Lambda aliases can be configured with routing configuration to split incoming invocation traffic between two versions. This enables canary or linear deployments where most traffic goes to the stable version and a small percentage goes to the new version for testing. If issues occur, the developer can quickly shift traffic back by updating the alias.

Option B is the native, simplest, and recommended solution for Lambda traffic shifting.

Option A is not correct because Route 53 weighted routing can split DNS queries between endpoints, but it does not natively target Lambda versions directly for most invocation patterns, and it’s not the standard mechanism for Lambda version traffic shifting.

Option C is unnecessary and adds operational overhead. ALB can invoke Lambda targets, but splitting between Lambda versions is more naturally handled by aliases without provisioning and managing an ALB.

Option D misunderstands layers: layers are for dependencies/shared code, not for deploying new versions or traffic splitting.

Therefore, using a Lambda alias with weighted routing between versions meets the requirement.

AWS Secrets Manager supports multi-Region secret replication, which is designed specifically for redundancy, disaster recovery, and multi-Region applications. With this feature, the primary secret resides in one Region (here, us-west-1) and Secrets Manager automatically maintains a replica in another Region (us-east-1). This provides local read access and resilience if one Region is impaired.

Option A accurately describes the standard configuration: enable secret replication and add us-east-1 as the replica Region. Because encryption keys are Region-scoped, the replica secret in us-east-1 should be encrypted with a KMS key in us-east-1 (either the default Secrets Manager key for that Region or a customer managed key), satisfying encryption requirements and proper key locality.

Option B is incorrect because you don’t configure replication “from the destination.” Replication is configured on the primary secret, and the replica uses a KMS key in the replica Region, not in the source Region.

Option C is not how Secrets Manager replication works. Replication is not only during rotation; it maintains replicas continuously. The “replication rule during rotation” framing is not the standard mechanism.

Option D is inappropriate and insecure/operationally complex: exporting secrets to S3 for replication is not the recommended pattern and introduces unnecessary exposure.

Therefore, enable Secrets Manager multi-Region replication and encrypt replicas with a KMS key in the destination Region.

AWS Secrets Manager is a service that helps securely store, rotate, and manage secrets such as API keys, passwords, and tokens. The developer can store the API credentials in AWS Secrets Manager and retrieve them at runtime by using the AWS SDK. This solution will meet the requirements of security, code management, and performance. Storing the API credentials in a local code variable or an S3 object is not secure, as it exposes the credentials to unauthorized access or leakage. Storing the API credentials in a DynamoDB table is also not secure, as it requires additional encryption and access control measures. Moreover, retrieving the credentials from S3 or DynamoDB may affect application performance due to network latency.

The goal is to identify performance bottlenecks across a Lambda function that calls a database (DocumentDB). The most operationally efficient way to pinpoint where time is being spent—without building custom logging/metrics pipelines—is to use distributed tracing . AWS X-Ray provides end-to-end request traces, timing breakdowns, and service maps that help identify whether latency is dominated by Lambda initialization, downstream calls, or database queries.

By enabling X-Ray tracing on the Lambda function, the developer can capture traces for report-generation requests and examine segments that show duration spent inside the function and in downstream dependencies. To specifically diagnose database time, the developer can add custom subsegments around DocumentDB operations (query execution, connection acquisition, cursor iteration). This produces precise timing data for each step, making it straightforward to identify slow queries, excessive connection setup time, or serialization overhead. Because X-Ray aggregates and visualizes traces, the developer can quickly compare “fast” and “slow” traces and isolate the bottleneck.

Option B focuses on errors and generic metrics dashboards; it’s useful for monitoring, but it won’t precisely attribute the extra 22+ seconds to a particular downstream call path. Option C proposes performance improvements (pooling/async), but the question asks to identify bottlenecks first, and it also requires code changes and validation without confirming the root cause. Option D requires adding detailed logging statements and then querying logs; this is more development effort and more ongoing log volume/cost than turning on X-Ray and using trace analysis, especially when the intent is bottleneck identification rather than permanent instrumentation.

Therefore, A is the best choice: enable AWS X-Ray for the Lambda function and trace DocumentDB interactions with custom subsegments to quickly and efficiently identify the specific source(s) of increased latency.

The correct answer is C because reserved concurrency guarantees that a specific AWS Lambda function has access to a defined number of concurrent executions. In this scenario, the function normally runs correctly but occasionally receives a surge of up to 500 S3 object-created events per minute . Since each invocation runs for about 30 seconds , the function may need substantial concurrency during those bursts. Configuring reserved concurrency ensures that this function has dedicated execution capacity available during peak periods and is not affected by concurrency consumption from other functions in the account.

AWS documentation explains that reserved concurrency both sets the maximum concurrency for a function and reserves that capacity exclusively for the function. This is especially helpful when one function must continue operating reliably under burst traffic. Even though other functions are currently running as expected, reserved concurrency is the direct AWS mechanism to protect the processing function from account-level concurrency contention during spikes.

Option A is incorrect because the function already completes in about 30 seconds; changing timeout does not solve high-volume invocation scaling. Option B is not the best answer because adding a Lambda layer does not guarantee improved throughput or concurrency handling. Option D is incorrect because decreasing memory usually reduces available CPU and can make performance worse, which would increase the chance of delays or failures.

Therefore, the most effective approach is to configure reserved concurrency for the processing function so it can continue to run reliably during high-volume object upload periods.

With Lambda’s SQS event source mapping, messages are delivered with at-least-once semantics. When processing messages in batches (up to 10 per invocation), a common source of unnecessary downstream API calls occurs when only some records in the batch fail. Without special handling, a failure can cause the entire batch to be retried, which means records that were already successfully processed can be delivered again, leading to duplicate calls to the third-party API.

To minimize unnecessary API calls while still preserving at-least-once delivery, the best solution is to enable partial batch response (also described as “report batch item failures”). When enabled, the Lambda function returns a response that explicitly identifies which message(s) failed (by messageId). The event source mapping then retries only the failed messages , while successfully processed messages are deleted from the queue. This reduces duplicates and avoids re-sending already successful records to the third-party API, while still ensuring failed items are retried until they succeed or are moved to a DLQ (if configured).

Option A (FIFO + content-based deduplication) helps prevent duplicate enqueue events within the deduplication window, but it does not stop duplicate deliveries caused by retries, visibility timeouts, or partial failures in a batch. Option B (reserved concurrency = 1) reduces parallelism but does not prevent retries or batch-level duplication; it can also hurt throughput. Option D (DLQ) is important for poison-pill handling but does not reduce duplicate API calls during normal retry behavior; it merely captures messages after the maximum receive count.

Therefore, C is the correct choice: enable batch item failure reporting and implement the function to return partial batch responses so only failed messages are retried, minimizing unnecessary third-party API calls while maintaining at-least-once delivery.

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.