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

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.

The correct answer is B because Amazon EventBridge is designed for building loosely coupled event-driven architectures . In this scenario, when an order is placed, the order processing system can publish a single event to an EventBridge event bus. Then, multiple independent consumers can react to that event through separate rules and targets . This matches the requirement to update inventory, send email, notify shipping, and update order history without tightly coupling those actions together.

EventBridge is especially well suited when the company wants to add new processing steps later . A new consumer can be added simply by creating another rule and target for the existing order event, without changing the original order submission code or the existing consumers. This supports extensibility and separation of concerns, which are key goals of event-driven design.

Option A is less appropriate because a single Lambda function that directly calls every downstream system becomes tightly coupled and harder to extend. Option C supports fan-out, but EventBridge provides richer routing, filtering, and event bus semantics for enterprise event-driven workflows. Option D is useful for workflow orchestration, but it creates a more centrally orchestrated pattern rather than the looser publish-and-subscribe model requested in the question.

AWS guidance for modern event-driven architectures emphasizes publishing events and allowing interested services to subscribe independently. EventBridge provides native routing and integration with many AWS services, making it easy to evolve the architecture over time. Therefore, B is the best answer for achieving loose coupling and future extensibility.