How to restrict S3 HR records by Region with Lake Formation?
A company has five offices in different AWS Regions. Each office has its own human resources (HR) department that uses a unique IAM role. The company stores employee records in a data lake that is based on Amazon S3 storage. A data engineering team needs to limit access to the records. Each HR department should be able to access records for only employees who are within the HR department's Region. Which combination of steps should the data engineering team take to meet this requirement with the LEAST operational overhead? (Choose two.)
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer BD. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
The question tests Lake Formation location registration plus fine-grained data filters; the trap is assuming data filters are S3 data-location registrations or IAM role attachments.
This scenario tests region-scoped access to an Amazon S3 data lake using AWS Lake Formation. The correct approach is to register the S3 location and apply fine-grained data filters per HR Region, which establishes B and D as the answer.
A common mistake is selecting A because it mentions data filters and S3 paths; data filters control row/column visibility, not data-location registration.
Community Discussion (5 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
B and D together implement least-overhead, region-scoped authorization in Lake Formation. Registering the S3 path as a Lake Formation location makes the data lake governable by Lake Formation permissions instead of bucket-level IAM alone. Enabling fine-grained access control allows row-level data filters, so each HR department's role can be granted a filter that exposes only rows for its Region. This centralizes policy in Lake Formation and avoids creating and maintaining five separate buckets or IAM policy variants.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
A is wrong because data filters do not register S3 paths as data locations; location registration is a Lake Formation administrative step. C is wrong because data filters are Lake Formation grants, not IAM role policy elements that you add directly to an IAM role. E would work only with extra per-Region bucket and IAM policy management, which is higher operational overhead and does not use the central Lake Formation control the question favors.Community Comment Notes
rralucard_ pointed to AWS Lake Formation's data-filter and fine-grained access-control documentation, which supports the B+D combination. pypelyncar similarly described registering the S3 path as the first step for Lake Formation governance and then using data filters for Region-level control. ctndba summarized B as the initial step for fine-grained control and D as the granular control that meets the requirement.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When asked for least operational overhead with region-scoped S3 access, prefer central Lake Formation policies over separate buckets and IAM variants. Separate data-location registration from row filtering: register once, then apply per-Region data filters to the HR principals.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not create a separate S3 bucket for each HR Region?
Separate buckets multiply administration and still require per-Region IAM policies; Lake Formation data filters centralize Region scoping over one S3 data lake.
Do Lake Formation data filters attach directly to IAM roles?
No, data filters are Lake Formation grant objects; grant each filter to the HR department principal/role rather than embedding it in the IAM role policy.
Related Analysis
Practice All DEA-C01 Questions
Access 100 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full DEA-C01 Practice Test →