A developer is working on an application that uses a microservices architecture.

For service-to-service calls inside AWS, the simplest and most secure way to authenticate a caller (Lambda) to an API Gateway HTTP API is to use IAM authorization. When IAM auth is enabled on a route, API Gateway requires requests to be signed with AWS Signature Version 4 (SigV4). The calling Lambda function can sign the request using the AWS SDK (or SigV4 utilities) and its execution role credentials.

With this approach, you grant the Lambda function’s execution role explicit permission to invoke the API by allowing the execute-api:Invoke action on the API’s ARN. API Gateway then evaluates the SigV4-signed request against IAM to decide whether to authorize the call. This creates a clean, auditable permission model and avoids embedding static secrets.

Option A is incorrect and overly complex: JWT authorizers are typically used for end-user or workload identities from an OIDC/JWT provider; creating an IAM IdP is not how you enable JWT authorizers for HTTP APIs, and it does not directly solve Lambda-to-API authentication. Option C (API keys) is not considered an authentication mechanism for HTTP APIs in the same way; API keys are primarily for usage plans/throttling (and are more common with REST APIs). Storing an API key in environment variables is also weaker than IAM-based, short-lived credentials. Option D is backwards: a Lambda resource-based policy controls who can invoke the Lambda function, not who can call an API Gateway endpoint.

Therefore, B is the correct solution: enable IAM authorization on the HTTP API route and grant the Lambda function’s IAM role permission to invoke the API (and sign requests with SigV4).