A company uses AWS WAF to protect its web applications.

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.