VA-003 Explain Vault architecture Practice Question
A company is deploying Vault in a Kubernetes environment. Which three components are essential for a production-ready Vault on Kubernetes? (Choose three.)
⚠ Common exam trap
HashiCorp often tests the misconception that unseal keys can be stored in a ConfigMap for convenience, but the exam expects you to recognize that this violates Vault's security model and is never production-ready.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
A persistent volume claim for each Vault pod for storage.
Option B is correct because Vault requires durable storage for its data (the integrated storage/Raft backend or a configured storage stanza), and in Kubernetes a PersistentVolumeClaim per Vault pod ensures data survives pod restarts and rescheduling. Option C is correct because Vault's Kubernetes auth method and auto-unseal/agent injector workflows need a ServiceAccount bound to RBAC roles so Vault can authenticate to and call the Kubernetes API (e.g., TokenReview, SubjectAccessReview). Option E is correct because Vault's Raft integrated storage requires stable pod identities and ordered startup, which a StatefulSet provides via stable network IDs (pod-0, pod-1) and persistent volume templates. Option A is not correct because unseal keys must never be stored in a ConfigMap; ConfigMaps are for non-sensitive configuration, and unseal keys are highly sensitive secrets handled via manual unseal, auto-unseal with a KMS, or secure secret stores. Option D is not correct because an Ingress controller is only needed to expose Vault externally and is not essential for a production-ready Vault cluster, which can be accessed via internal Services or port-forwarding.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
A ConfigMap to store Vault configuration including unseal keys.
Why it's wrong here
Unseal keys must never be stored in a ConfigMap, which is readable by anyone with API access; they belong in a seal mechanism such as auto-unseal via a KMS. The option is tempting because Vault configuration does live in a ConfigMap, but only non-secret settings belong there.
- ✓
A persistent volume claim for each Vault pod for storage.
Why this is correct
Integrated Storage persists Raft data locally, so each Vault pod needs its own persistent volume claim. Without it, pod restarts lose cluster state, breaking production durability and quorum. The claim satisfies the requirement for durable, per-pod storage.
- ✓
A service account with appropriate RBAC to interact with the Kubernetes API.
Why this is correct
Vault's Kubernetes auth method and auto-unseal call the Kubernetes API, requiring a service account bound to appropriate RBAC roles. Without these permissions, token review and secret access fail, so authentication and unsealing break in production.
- ✗
An Ingress controller to expose Vault externally.
Why it's wrong here
Vault's own listener serves the API on port 8200; an Ingress controller only routes external HTTP traffic and does nothing for internal pod-to-pod communication, unsealing or storage. It is tempting because Ingress is genuinely required when exposing an application to clients outside the cluster, which is not this scenario's requirement.
- ✓
A StatefulSet to manage Vault pods with stable network identities.
Why this is correct
A StatefulSet gives each Vault pod a stable hostname and ordinal identity, which Raft peer discovery and cluster joining depend on. Deployments provide random pod names, breaking quorum reformation after restarts. Stable identities satisfy the production clustering requirement.
Quick reference
Access Control Model Comparison
| Model | Acronym | Who Controls Access? | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Access Control | DAC | Resource owner | Small teams, file shares |
| Mandatory Access Control | MAC | System / security labels | Classified govt / military |
| Role-Based Access Control | RBAC | Administrator (via roles) | Enterprise environments |
| Attribute-Based Access Control | ABAC | Policy engine (user + resource attributes) | Fine-grained, dynamic policies |
| Rule-Based Access Control | RuBAC | System rules / ACLs | Firewall rules, network ACLs |
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This VA-003 question is part of Courseiva's 366-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This VA-003 practice question is part of Courseiva's free HashiCorp certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the VA-003 exam.