A developer is building an application on a fleet of Amazon EC2 Linux instances that...

The requirement is encryption in transit for sensitive data sent in API calls between two Apache-based EC2 fleets in peered VPCs . The most operationally efficient approach is to restrict network access and rely on standard TLS at the application layer. Among the provided options, the only operationally simple and directly relevant network control is security group referencing across VPC peering within the same account and Region.

By creating security groups that allow inbound traffic only from the other fleet’s security group , the developer ensures that only the intended instances can communicate over the required ports (for example, 443 for HTTPS). This is operationally efficient because it avoids managing IP allowlists that change with Auto Scaling and keeps the trust boundary tied to instance membership rather than addresses. It also supports least privilege by limiting which sources can reach the service.

Why the other options are not the best fit:

B (Site-to-Site VPN) is unnecessary for VPC peering in the same account/Region and adds significant operational overhead. It also does not replace the need for TLS at the application layer to guarantee encryption to the endpoint.

C (EBS encryption) addresses encryption at rest on volumes, not encryption in transit between fleets.

D (Nitro Enclaves) is heavy and unrelated to the core requirement; enclaves protect data-in-use and do not replace standard TLS for network encryption.

Important nuance: Security groups alone do not encrypt traffic; encryption is achieved by using HTTPS/TLS between the Apache services. However, option A is the most operationally efficient control offered here to implement secure connectivity between the fleets (paired with using HTTPS on Apache, which is the standard for encrypting API calls).

Therefore, A best meets the requirement with the least operational complexity.