Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Sensitive environment variables in Lambda should be protected using encryption helpers integrated with AWS KMS. Lambda environment variables are encrypted at rest, and when using a customer managed KMS key, teams can control the key policy, access, and rotation for their own microservices—matching the policy requirement that each team has “full control” over key rotation. AWS managed keys do not provide the same level of customer control over lifecycle and rotation decisions.

Therefore, the correct approach is to create customer managed KMS keys (one per team/service boundary or per microservice, depending on governance) and configure each Lambda function to use the relevant CMK for encrypting its environment variables. The Lambda execution role must have permission to use the key for decryption at runtime, typically requiring kms:Decrypt (and sometimes kms:DescribeKey depending on tooling). This is captured by Option B.

Option A and D use AWS managed keys, which do not satisfy the requirement for each team to control rotation. Rotation control (and policy ownership) is a key differentiator of customer managed keys.

Option C is not correct because the Lambda execution role does not need kms:CreateGrant and kms:Encrypt for decrypting environment variables at runtime. Over-permissioning increases risk. The Lambda service handles encryption of environment variables; the function runtime principally needs the ability to decrypt.

The type of keys that the developer should use to meet the requirements is symmetric customer managed keys with key material that is generated by AWS. This way, the developer can use AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) to encrypt the data with a symmetric key that is managed by the developer. The developer can also enable automatic annual rotation for the key, which creates new key material for the key every year. The other options either involve using Amazon S3 managed keys, which do not support automatic annual rotation, or using asymmetric keys or imported key material, which are not supported by S3 encryption.

To prove integrity (and authenticity) of data in transit, the correct cryptographic primitive is a digital signature. AWS KMS supports signing and verification operations using asymmetric KMS keys designed for signing (for example, RSA_SIGN_PSS, RSA_SIGN_PKCS1, or ECC_NIST_P256 key specs). The developer signs the data (or more commonly, a hash of the data) using the private key, and the external recipient verifies the signature using the corresponding public key. If the data is modified in transit, signature verification fails, proving the content was changed.

Option C exactly describes this model: sign with the private key, share the public key. The private key remains protected (ideally never leaving KMS). The public key can be distributed safely because it cannot be used to forge signatures.

Option A (encryption) provides confidentiality, not integrity proof to a third party, and sharing a symmetric encryption key is insecure and breaks key management principles.

Option B is incorrect because symmetric keys do not provide non-repudiation and generally require the verifier to possess the same secret key, which would allow the verifier to forge signatures too. While HMAC can validate integrity between trusted parties, it does not meet the typical “prove integrity” requirement to an external party without sharing a secret.

Option D is backward and insecure: you never share a private key.

Therefore, use an asymmetric KMS signing key to sign with the private key and provide the public key for verification.