SAA-C03 Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate (SAA-C03) Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

The correct answer is A because the legacy mainframe requires a synchronous RESTful API and the new service takes approximately 3 minutes to complete each request. Among the choices, Amazon API Gateway REST API is the appropriate option for exposing a synchronous REST endpoint to the mainframe. API Gateway REST APIs support longer integration timeouts than HTTP APIs, which makes them more suitable for workloads that take an extended time to process. The REST API can invoke an AWS Lambda function to execute the stock price calculation and return the result synchronously.

Option B is incorrect because API Gateway HTTP APIs have a shorter integration timeout and are not the best fit for a request that takes around 3 minutes. Option C is incorrect because WebSocket APIs are not RESTful and do not meet the requirement for synchronous REST-based integration with the mainframe. Option D is incorrect because Lambda function URLs do not provide the same API management features and are not the best choice for a long-running synchronous enterprise integration requirement of this kind.

AWS design guidance favors API Gateway when exposing managed APIs to external consumers. In this case, the REST API option best matches the requirement for synchronous RESTful access while supporting the longer processing duration. It also provides a managed front door for authentication, throttling, and operational control if the company needs those features later.

One note of honesty: some exam versions treat the REST API timeout detail as the deciding factor here. That is the key reason REST API is preferred over HTTP API for this question.

Amazon Timestream: Purpose-built time series database optimized for telemetry and IoT data ingestion and analytics.

Amazon SageMaker: Provides ML capabilities for predictive maintenance workflows.

Amazon QuickSight: Efficiently generates interactive, real-time visual reports from Timestream data.

Optimized for Scale: Timestream efficiently handles large-scale telemetry data with time-series indexing and queries.

Amazon Timestream Documentation

To securely access AWS services like S3 and Secrets Manager from a private VPC without using public IPs, interface VPC endpoints are required. These endpoints are accessible via private IP addresses. For the application to reach these endpoints, appropriate routes must be configured in the route table.

To meet the requirement of deleting objects older than 3 years while retaining certain data, this solution leverages serverless technologies to minimize operational overhead.

S3 Inventory: S3 Inventory provides a flat file that lists all the objects in an S3 bucket and their metadata, which can be configured to include data such as the last modified date. This inventory can be generated daily or weekly.

AWS Lambda Function: A Lambda function can be created to process the S3 Inventory report, filtering out the objects that need to be retained and identifying those that should be deleted.

S3 Batch Operations: S3 Batch Operations can execute tasks such as object deletion at scale. By invoking the Lambda function through S3 Batch Operations, you can automate the process of deleting the identified objects, ensuring that the solution is serverless and requires minimal operational management.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (AWS CLI script on EC2): Running a script on an EC2 instance adds unnecessary operational overhead and is not serverless.

Option B (AWS Batch): AWS Batch is designed for running large-scale batch computing workloads, which is overkill for this scenario.

Option C (AWS Glue + script): AWS Glue is more suited for ETL tasks, and this approach would add unnecessary complexity compared to the serverless Lambda solution.

AWS References:

Amazon S3 Inventory- Information on how to set up and use S3 Inventory.

S3 Batch Operations- Documentation on how to perform bulk operations on S3 objects using S3 Batch Operations.

In Amazon EKS, Kubernetes stores objects such as Secrets in the cluster’s etcd key-value store. By default, Kubernetes Secrets are base64-encoded and are not automatically encrypted at the application object level unless encryption is configured. Amazon EKS provides a managed capability to encrypt Kubernetes Secrets at rest in etcd using AWS Key Management Service (KMS). The requirement explicitly states that “all secrets that are stored in Amazon EKS must be encrypted in the Kubernetes etcd key-value store,” which maps directly to enabling EKS secrets encryption with a customer-managed KMS key.

Option B is exactly this: create a KMS key and enable EKS KMS secrets encryption on the cluster. With this enabled, EKS uses envelope encryption so that Secrets are encrypted when stored in etcd, and decrypt operations are controlled through KMS permissions. This is the standard, AWS-native method that fulfills the requirement without requiring application changes or external secret stores for the encryption-at-rest requirement in etcd.

Option A (Secrets Manager) is a strong service for secret lifecycle management and rotation, but it does not by itself guarantee that Kubernetes Secrets stored in etcd are encrypted unless EKS secrets encryption is also enabled or the cluster avoids storing secrets in etcd entirely. The question specifically targets etcd encryption. Option C is unrelated: the EBS CSI driver concerns persistent volumes, not etcd secret encryption. Option D concerns EBS volume encryption and a specific AWS-managed key alias used for EBS; it also does not address etcd encryption for Kubernetes Secrets.

Therefore, B is the correct solution because it directly enables encryption of Kubernetes Secrets within etcd using KMS.

AWS Lambda supports functions up to 10 GB of memory and 15 minutes execution time. Each invocation here requires only 1 GB of memory and finishes in 30 seconds, making it an ideal fit for Lambda. Lambda is cost-effective for event-driven, short-duration workloads and requires no infrastructure management. AWS Glue and EMR are better suited for large-scale ETL or distributed processing, which is unnecessary and more costly for this workload.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“AWS Lambda is a serverless compute service that lets you run code without provisioning or managing servers. You pay only for the compute time you consume. Lambda supports up to 10 GB memory and 15 minutes per invocation.”

(Source: AWS Lambda documentation)

B, D: AWS Glue is intended for ETL on larger datasets or batch jobs, usually with higher operational overhead and cost.

C: EMR is for large-scale distributed processing and is not cost-effective for single, fast, memory-bound jobs.

Key Requirements:

Protect public endpoints (CloudFront distributions and ALBs) frommalicious attacks.

Centralizedmanagementacross multiple accounts in an organization.

Ability tomonitor security configurationseffectively.

Minimizeoperational overhead.

Analysis of Options

Option A:

AWS WAF:Protects web applications by filtering and blocking malicious requests. Rules can be applied to both ALBs and CloudFront distributions.

AWS Firewall Manager:Enables centralized management of WAF rules across multiple accounts in an AWS Organizations organization. It simplifies rule deployment, avoiding the need to configure rules individually in each account.

AWS Config:Monitors compliance by using rules that check Regional and global WAF configurations. Ensures that security configurations align with organizational policies.

Operational Overhead:Centralized management and automated monitoring reduce the operational burden.

Correct Approach:Meets all requirements with the least overhead.

Option B:

This approach involves applying WAF rules in each account manually.

While AWS Config and AWS Security Hub provide monitoring capabilities, managing individual WAF configurations in multiple accounts introduces significant operational overhead.

Incorrect Approach:Higher overhead compared to centralized management with AWS Firewall Manager.

Option C:

Similar to Option A but includesAmazon Inspector, which is not designed for monitoring WAF configurations.

AWS Security Hubis appropriate for monitoring but is redundant when Firewall Manager and Config are already in use.

Incorrect Approach:Adds unnecessary complexity and does not focus on monitoring WAF specifically.

Option D:

AWS Shield Advanced:Focuses on mitigating large-scale DDoS attacks but does not provide the fine-grained web application protection offered by WAF.

AWS Config:Can monitor Shield Advanced configurations but does not fulfill the WAF monitoring requirements.

Incorrect Approach:Does not address the need for WAF or centralized rule management.

Why Option A is Correct

Protection:

AWS WAF provides fine-grained filtering and protection against SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and other web vulnerabilities.

Rules can be applied at both ALBs and CloudFront distributions, covering all public endpoints.

Centralized Management:

AWS Firewall Manager enables security teams to centrally define and manage WAF rules across all accounts in the organization.

Monitoring:

AWS Config ensures compliance with WAF configurations by checking rules and generating alerts for misconfigurations.

Operational Overhead:

Centralized management via Firewall Manager and automated compliance monitoring via AWS Config greatly reduce manual effort.

AWS Solution Architect References

AWS WAF Documentation

AWS Firewall Manager Documentation

AWS Config Best Practices

AWS Organizations Documentation

To make the application highly available across regions:

Deploy the application in a different region using a newECS clusterandALBto ensure regional redundancy.

UseRoute 53 failover routingto automatically direct traffic to the healthy region in case of failure.

UseDynamoDB Global Tablesto ensure the database is replicated and available across multiple regions, supporting read and write operations in each region.

Option D (EKS cluster in the same region): This does not provide regional redundancy.

Option E (Global Secondary Indexes): GSIs improve query performance but do not provide multi-region availability.

Option F (PrivateLink): PrivateLink is for secure communication, not for cross-region high availability.

AWS References:

DynamoDB Global Tables

Amazon ECS with ALB

AWS documentation states that Amazon Macie is the managed service designed to automatically identify and classify sensitive data stored in Amazon S3, including PII and healthcare-related identifiers.

Storing logs in Amazon S3 provides scalable, durable storage, and Amazon Athena can directly query JSON data stored in S3 using SQL.

Amazon Inspector (Option D) is for vulnerability scanning and does not identify sensitive data. DynamoDB with KMS (Option C) cannot detect sensitive information. EBS (Option B) requires custom tooling and does not support serverless SQL querying.

=====================================================

To track costs associated with different teams within a single AWS account, the company should implement user-defined cost allocation tags.

Tagging Resources with CostCenter: Assign the CostCenter tag to all resources, specifying the appropriate value for each team. This practice enables the organization to categorize and track AWS costs effectively.

Activating the CostCenter Tag: After tagging resources, activate the CostCenter tag in the AWS Billing and Cost Management console. Activation is necessary for the tags to appear in cost allocation reports and AWS Cost Explorer.

By following these steps, the company can generate detailed billing reports that break down costs by team, facilitating better cost management and accountability.

To meet the requirement of controlling key rotation with minimal operational overhead, creating acustomer managed key(CMK) in AWS KMS is the optimal solution. With CMKs, you can define custom key rotation policies, ensuring that you retain control over the key lifecycle, including enabling automatic key rotation every year.

Key AWS features:

Custom Key Management: A customer managed key allows you to control the key policies, lifecycle, and enable key rotation for compliance.

Least Operational Overhead: Using a customer managed key simplifies encryption management while offering more flexibility than AWS managed or owned keys.

AWS Documentation: The AWS Well-Architected Framework recommends customer managed keys for environments where key control and flexibility are required​.

AWS guidance is to cover steady baseline with commitments (Reserved Instances or Savings Plans) and use EC2 Spot Instances for burst capacity to minimize cost. Spot provides up to 90% discounts and is well-suited to fault-tolerant, queue-based workloads; interruptions are handled by replacing capacity automatically while messages remain durably in SQS. Using only Spot (A) risks capacity gaps; only RIs sized for peak (B) wastes cost during low demand. Option D scales on backlog but uses On-Demand for bursts, which is more expensive than Spot. With C, baseline capacity (RIs) keeps processing continuously (no downtime), and Spot adds cost-efficient throughput during spikes, aligning with Well-Architected cost and reliability patterns for queue workers.

The best solution to enforce encryption at rest for Amazon EBS volumes is to use anIAM policyto restrict the creation of unencrypted volumes. To automatically identify and remediate unencryptedvolumes, you can useAWS Configrules, which continuously monitor the compliance of resources, andAWS Systems Managerto automate the remediation by encrypting existing unencrypted volumes. This setup requires minimal administrative overhead while ensuring compliance.

Option B (KMS): KMS is for managing encryption keys, but Config and Systems Manager provide a better solution for automatic detection and enforcement.

Option C (Macie): Macie is for data classification and is not suitable for this use case.

Option D (Inspector): Inspector is used for security vulnerabilities, not encryption compliance.

AWS References:

AWS Config Rules

AWS Systems Manager

Amazon QLDB is the most cost-effective and suitable service for maintainingimmutable, cryptographically verifiable logsof data changes. QLDB provides a fully managed ledgerdatabase with a built-in cryptographic hash chain, making it ideal for recording changes to accounting records, ensuring data integrity and security.

QLDB reduces operational overhead by offering fully managed services, so there’s no need for server management, and it’s built specifically to ensure immutability and verifiability, making it the best fit for the given requirements.

Option A (Redshift): Redshift is designed for analytics and not for immutable, cryptographically verifiable logs.

Option B (Neptune): Neptune is a graph database, which is not suitable for this use case.

Option C (Timestream): Timestream is a time series database optimized for time-stamped data, but it does not provide immutable or cryptographically verifiable logs.

AWS References:

Amazon QLDB

How QLDB Works

To improve scalability and availability, EC2 Auto Scaling across multiple Availability Zones with an Application Load Balancer ensures resilient infrastructure. Migrating to Amazon Aurora MySQL with reader endpoints reduces read latency by offloading read traffic to replicas in otherAZs, while also increasing high availability.

Why Option D is Correct:

GPU Access: Only EC2 instances in the GPU family (e.g., P2, P3) can provide GPU resources.

ECS Orchestration: Simplifies container deployment and management.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option A: Lambda does not support GPU-based runtimes.

Option B: AWS Fargate does not support GPU-based workloads.

Option C: ECR is a container registry, not an orchestration or execution service.

AWS References:

Amazon ECS with GPU Instances:AWS Documentation - ECS GPU Instances

AWS WAF has limits on how much of an HTTP request body it can inspect. When requests exceed the inspectable size, AWS WAF treats the body as oversize relative to the configured inspection limits, which can lead to rules not evaluating the entire body content. If suspicious payloads are embedded beyond the inspected portion of a large POST request (for example, > 8 MB), WAF cannot reliably detect them purely through body inspection rules.

Given this constraint, the most effective way to “ensure” proper protection is to implement an oversize handling strategy using AWS WAF rule logic: block oversized requests by default and then explicitly allow oversized requests only from known legitimate sources. Option A accomplishes this by adding a rule that blocks oversize requests (so attackers cannot bypass inspection by sending very large bodies) and a higher-priority allow rule to permit large requests from trusted hosts (for example, specific known partners, internal CIDRs, or authenticated upstream systems). This design reduces the attack surface and provides deterministic behavior for requests that cannot be fully inspected.

Option B is incorrect because Shield Advanced is for DDoS protection and does not extend WAF’s request-body inspection size. Option C is unrelated: Content-Type can influence application parsing, but it will not overcome WAF body-size inspection limitations. Option D is not a practical fit for AWS WAF inspection because WAF evaluates requests at the edge/service layer; it does not natively “call Lambda to rewrite the request body” before WAF evaluates it. Any preprocessing would require a different architectural pattern (such as handling uploads out-of-band), which is beyond the scope and would add operational complexity.

Therefore, A is the correct approach: implement explicit oversized request handling by blocking by default and allowing only vetted large requests.

This solution is designed to provide high availability and low-latency access to block storage across multiple Availability Zones with minimal implementation effort.

Windows Server Cluster Across AZs: Configuring a Windows Server Failover Cluster (WSFC) that spans two Availability Zones ensures that the application can failover from one instance to another in case of a failure, meeting the high availability requirement.

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server: FSx for Windows File Server provides fully managed Windows file storage that is accessible via the SMB protocol, which is suitable for Windows-based applications. It offers high availability and can be used as shared storage between the cluster nodes, ensuring that both nodes have access to the same data with low latency.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option B (EBS with application-level replication): This requires complex configuration and management, as EBS volumes cannot be directly shared across AZs. Application-level replication is more complex and prone to errors.

Option C (FSx for NetApp ONTAP with iSCSI): While this is a viable option, it introduces additional complexity with iSCSI and requires more specialized knowledge for setup and management.

Option D (EBS with EBS-level replication): EBS-level replication is not natively supported across AZs, and setting up a custom replication solution would increase the implementation effort.

AWS References:

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server- Overview and benefits of using FSx for Windows File Server.

Windows Server Failover Clustering on AWS- Guide on setting up a Windows Server cluster on AWS.

For secure communication between Lambda and an RDS DB instance, AWS documentation recommends placing the Lambda functions inside the same VPC and controlling traffic using security groups.

Lambda should have a dedicated security group with outbound access to the VPC CIDR range, and the DB instance’s security group should explicitly allow inbound connections from the Lambda security group. This follows the " least privilege " principle while avoiding public exposure.

Options A and B expose the DB to unnecessary risk. Option D is insecure because it bypasses security groups.

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery (AWS DRS) enables fast, reliable, and cost-effective disaster recovery. It replicates on-premises machines to AWS using continuous block-level replication. It supports automated testing and failover, meeting aggressive RTO targets such as 15 minutes.

When an AWS Lambda function is invoked, especially after periods of inactivity, it may experience cold starts that delay execution. As demand increases, the scaling behavior and latency of Lambda can affect performance. Provisioned Concurrency is an AWS feature designed specifically to solve this issue.

From AWS Documentation:

“Provisioned Concurrency keeps functions initialized and hyper-ready to respond in double-digit milliseconds.”

(Source: AWS Lambda Developer Guide – Managing Concurrency)

Why Option D is correct:

Provisioned Concurrency ensures that a specified number of Lambda function instances are always warm and ready to serve requests, eliminating cold start latency.

It ' s cost-effective for workloads with consistent usage patterns, like real-time simulations for a small user group.

Maintains scalability and low overhead of Lambda without moving to managed container or EC2 platforms.

Why the other options are less optimal:

Option A (Fargate) and Option B (EC2): Introduce more infrastructure and higher ongoing costs for a small team with likely intermittent usage.

Option C (AWS Batch): Ideal for batch jobs, not real-time simulations; also incurs higher latency due to job queuing.

Amazon RDS Proxy helps manage and pool database connections from serverless compute like AWS Lambda, significantly reducing the stress on the database during unpredictable traffic surges. It improves scalability and resiliency by efficiently managing connections, protecting the database from being overwhelmed, and enabling failover handling.

Option A is the most cost-effective and operationally efficient approach to handling unpredictable surges and improving resilience without requiring major application changes.

Option B involves a migration to DynamoDB, which is a significant architectural change and costlier initially. Option C is manual connection cleanup, insufficient for unpredictable surges. Option D increases resources but does not solve connection storm problems efficiently and is more costly.

For global low latency, AWS recommends using Amazon CloudFront as a content delivery network in front of both static and dynamic origins when possible.

Static content on Amazon S3 + CloudFront is the standard cost-effective pattern: S3 for low-cost durable storage, CloudFront for global edge caching.

Dynamic content exposed via Amazon API Gateway HTTP API can also be used as an origin for CloudFront, giving global users reduced latency and the ability to cache appropriate responses (when safe).

This pattern minimizes cost by:

Using S3 instead of EC2 for static hosting.

Using HTTP APIs (cheaper than REST APIs) for dynamic content.

Offloading a significant portion of requests to CloudFront cache.

Why the other options are not correct:

B: Static content is not fronted by CloudFront, so global latency is higher.

C: EC2-based web servers for the core web tier add more operational and cost overhead than needed for a mostly static + API pattern.

D: Only the static content uses CloudFront; the dynamic API still lacks a latency-optimized global entry point.

Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP supports Multi-AZ, providing automatic failover between Availability Zones for high availability. It exposes ONTAP LUNs over the iSCSI protocol, delivering shared block storage semantics with low latency and consistent performance to EC2 clients across AZs. This meets the requirement for “highly available” and “low-latency” block access across multiple AZs. S3/S3 File Gateway (A) is object/file, not block storage. EBS (B, D) provides block storage to a single instance in a single AZ; EBS volumes cannot be shared across instances/AZs, and host-side sync scripts add latency, complexity, and do not provide true HA. FSx for ONTAP natively provides synchronous HA pair replication, fast failover, and supports iSCSI multipathing for resilient, performant access suited to latency-sensitive trading workloads.

Amazon S3 is the most cost-effective option for archiving data. Using AWS DMS to migrate to S3 in Apache Parquet format provides an optimized columnar format for analytics. By storing in S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, costs are minimized while maintaining compliance with retention. When queries are required, Athena can run SQL queries directly on archived data in S3 without provisioning infrastructure. Options A and B rely on maintaining RDS or EC2 instances, which increases cost and operational overhead. Option C requires full restores to EC2 before running queries, which is slow and inefficient. Therefore, D provides the lowest operational overhead and direct query capability with Athena.

State Machine Testing with Logs:

Changing the log level to ALL enables capturing detailed request and response data. This helps verify HTTP headers, body, and responses.

Incorrect Options Analysis:

Option A and B: The TestState API is not a valid option for Step Functions.

Option C: A data flow simulator does not exist for AWS Step Functions.

Amazon RDS for MySQL supports read replicas that offload read-intensive workloads such as reporting, leaving the primary instance free for write operations.

“You can use Amazon RDS read replicas to elastically scale out beyond the capacity constraints of a single DB instance for read-heavy database workloads.”

— Working with Read Replicas

This is the recommended approach for minimizing performance impact on the primary DB instance.