Amazon DVA-C02 Exam Dumps

This solution will meet the requirements by storing the Root CA Cert as a Secure String parameter in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which is a secure and scalable service for storing and managing configuration data and secrets. The resource-based policy will allow IAM users in different AWS accounts and environments to access the parameter without requiring cross-account roles or permissions. The Lambda code will be refactored to load the Root CA Cert from the parameter store and modify the runtime trust store outside the Lambda function handler, which will improve performance and reduce latency by avoiding repeated calls to Parameter Store and trust store modifications for each invocation of the Lambda function. Option A is not optimal because it will use AWS Secrets Manager instead of AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, which will incur additional costs and complexity for storing and managing a non-secret configuration data such as Root CA Cert. Option C is not optimal because it will deactivate the application secrets and monitor the application error logs temporarily, which will cause application downtime and potential data loss. Option D is not optimal because it will modify the runtime trust store inside the Lambda function handler, which will degrade performance and increase latency by repeating unnecessary operations for each invocation of the Lambda function.

Using a dead-letter queue (DLQ) with Amazon SQS is the most operationally efficient solution for handling unprocessable messages.

Amazon SQS Dead-Letter Queue:

A DLQ is used to capture messages that fail processing after a specified number of attempts.

Allows the application to continue processing other messages without being blocked.

Messages in the DLQ can be analyzed later for debugging and resolution.

Why DLQ is the Best Option:

Operational Efficiency: Automatically defers messages with errors, ensuring the queue is not blocked.

Analysis Ready: Messages in the DLQ can be inspected to identify recurring issues.

Scalable: Works seamlessly with Lambda and SQS at scale.

Why Not Other Options:

Option A: Logs the messages but does not resolve the queue blockage issue.

Option C: FIFO queues and 0-second retention do not provide error handling or analysis capabilities.

Option D: Alerts administrators but does not handle or store the unprocessable messages.

Steps to Implement:

Create a new SQS queue to serve as the DLQ.

Attach the DLQ to the primary queue and configure the Maximum Receives setting.

Using Amazon SQS Dead-Letter Queues

Best Practices for Using Amazon SQS with AWS Lambda

The symptoms point to a missing event source mapping between Amazon SQS and the processing Lambda function. The parsing function successfully sends messages to SQS (the queue depth increases), but the processing function is not running for production events---evidenced by no CloudWatch logs during those runs. If Lambda is not being invoked, it will not generate any logs. In an SQS-based architecture, Lambda does not ''pull'' messages from a queue unless the queue is configured as a Lambda trigger (an event source mapping). The event source mapping tells Lambda to poll the queue, batch messages, and invoke the function with those messages.

In isolated tests, the developer likely invoked the processing function manually with mock events (for example, via the Lambda console or sam local invoke), which would create logs. But in production, because the function is supposed to be driven by SQS, it must have an SQS trigger configured; otherwise, messages will accumulate indefinitely and the function will never execute.

Option C (grant permissions) is necessary in many cases, but it does not explain the absence of logs and growing queue depth by itself if the trigger is missing. With the standard SQSLambda integration, Lambda's service polls the queue using the function's execution role permissions (sqs:ReceiveMessage, sqs:DeleteMessage, sqs:GetQueueAttributes, etc.), but the polling does not occur without the event source mapping. Option D is not the root cause because the function isn't being invoked; and if it were invoked, AWS-managed logging typically works unless the execution role lacks logging permissions. Option B is incorrect because the parsing function is not supposed to be triggered by SQS; it produces messages to SQS.

Therefore, configuring the SQS queue as a trigger for the processing Lambda function (A) resolves the issue and ensures production S3 events flow through parsing to SQS and then into processing automatically.

The requirement is to redact PII before the object content reaches the consumer, while the analytics service continues to use standard S3 GET requests. The most operationally efficient way is Amazon S3 Object Lambda.

S3 Object Lambda lets you add your own code to process and transform data as it is retrieved from S3. Instead of the analytics service reading directly from the bucket, it reads through an S3 Object Lambda Access Point. When the service performs a GET request, S3 invokes the associated Lambda function, which can modify the object payload on the fly---for example, by calling an external or internal PII redaction API and returning a redacted version of the report. The original object remains unchanged in the bucket, while consumers receive the transformed (redacted) response.

This approach is operationally efficient because it avoids:

duplicating and storing redacted copies of every report,

refactoring the analytics service to use a different datastore or ingestion path,

building a separate proxy service layer.

Option A requires significant refactoring and ongoing ETL/warehouse ops.

Option C provides confidentiality via encryption but does not perform redaction (analytics would still see PII after decryption).

Option D changes the access pattern completely (analytics no longer uses GET) and adds messaging complexity without directly returning redacted object content.

Therefore, S3 Object Lambda + Object Lambda Access Point is the most efficient solution to redact data at retrieval time.