Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 2 Q21-40

Visit here for our full Microsoft SC-100 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 21:

An organization wants to implement Zero Trust security across its Azure DevOps pipelines and GitHub repositories. They want to ensure workloads authenticate without using static credentials and minimize the risk of secret exposure. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Use Azure AD workload identities with federated identity credentials
B) Store secrets in pipeline environment variables
C) Use static service principal credentials
D) Require developers to manually rotate secrets

Answer: A) Use Azure AD workload identities with federated identity credentials

Explanation:

Azure AD workload identities with federated identity credentials enable pipelines and services to authenticate without static credentials, aligning with Zero Trust principles. This approach eliminates long-lived secrets and allows just-in-time token-based authentication, reducing the attack surface. Evaluating the other options clarifies why they are less effective.

Storing secrets in pipeline environment variables provides temporary access to sensitive information but does not eliminate long-lived credentials. Environment variables may be accidentally exposed in logs or misconfigured pipelines. While masking can hide secrets from output logs, it does not prevent unauthorized access or enforce automated rotation. This approach does not fully align with Zero Trust security.

Using static service principal credentials involves storing long-lived credentials in pipelines or configuration files. These credentials can be compromised if exposed or mishandled. Static credentials do not support ephemeral, just-in-time authentication and increase the risk of misuse. Attackers who gain access to a static credential can move laterally across workloads, violating Zero Trust principles.

Requiring developers to manually rotate secrets is a reactive and labor-intensive approach. Manual rotation depends on human diligence, is error-prone, and cannot scale for multiple pipelines or environments. It does not provide automated security enforcement or centralized auditing.

Azure AD workload identities with federated credentials integrate directly with Azure DevOps and GitHub Actions. Tokens are issued dynamically at runtime, valid for a limited duration, and scoped to specific workloads. This method ensures that pipelines and services only access resources they are authorized to use, reduces credential exposure, and supports auditing and compliance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines automates secure authentication for workloads, enabling seamless DevSecOps practices. Dashboards provide visibility into workload access and usage patterns, and automated policies can enforce security rules across the enterprise. This approach meets both security and operational efficiency requirements, making it the correct solution.

Question 22:

A company wants to ensure only compliant resources are deployed in Azure. They need automated policy enforcement, continuous monitoring, and remediation for noncompliant configurations. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy
B) Manual resource auditing
C) Azure Monitor metrics only
D) Role-based access control (RBAC) only

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Cloud, combined with Azure Policy, provides proactive enforcement and continuous monitoring of resource compliance. Azure Policy evaluates deployed resources against defined rules, and Defender for Cloud integrates security assessments and automated remediation, providing centralized dashboards and alerts. Evaluating the other options highlights their limitations.

Manual resource auditing is time-consuming and inconsistent. It requires human oversight and cannot scale across large environments. While it may detect misconfigurations post-deployment, it does not prevent noncompliant resources from being created. Compliance is reactive, and there is no automation for remediation or reporting.

Azure Monitor metrics provide insights into resource performance and operational telemetry. While useful for detecting anomalies or failures, Azure Monitor cannot enforce policy compliance or remediate misconfigurations. It is primarily reactive and lacks integration with regulatory or governance standards.

RBAC controls who can perform actions on resources, ensuring least-privilege access. While important for access management, RBAC alone does not evaluate compliance of deployed resources. It does not detect or remediate misconfigurations and cannot enforce organizational or regulatory policies.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud, when combined with Azure Policy, provides a robust framework for continuous security and compliance management across cloud environments. Azure Policy is a service that allows organizations to define, assign, and enforce policies that govern resources within their Azure subscriptions. These policies can specify allowed configurations, enforce naming conventions, control resource types, and ensure that resources meet regulatory or internal security standards. By integrating Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, organizations gain the ability to perform automated compliance evaluation, continuously assessing whether deployed resources adhere to established security baselines and governance requirements. This integration is particularly valuable in large-scale or multi-subscription environments where manual compliance checks would be impractical or error-prone.

With Azure Policy, organizations can apply policies in a preventative or corrective manner. Preventative policies block noncompliant deployments at the time of resource creation, ensuring that misconfigured or unauthorized resources are not provisioned. Corrective policies, on the other hand, can automatically remediate noncompliant resources by applying the correct configurations or deploying required controls. For example, if a virtual machine is deployed without encryption, Azure Policy can enforce encryption at rest by automatically applying the necessary settings. This reduces human intervention, mitigates configuration drift, and ensures consistent application of security standards across all workloads. By using initiative definitions, multiple related policies can be grouped and deployed collectively, simplifying governance and scaling compliance across large enterprise environments.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud adds another layer of protection by providing visibility into the overall security posture. Defender continuously assesses resources for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and deviations from best practices. It generates alerts for security threats, suspicious activities, and potential configuration errors, allowing security teams to take immediate action. Alerts can be integrated into automated workflows or ticketing systems, enabling faster response times and reducing operational overhead. Additionally, Defender for Cloud offers threat intelligence and analytics to detect unusual behavior, such as unauthorized access attempts, anomalous data exfiltration, or abnormal traffic patterns. By correlating these events with policy compliance data from Azure Policy, organizations can prioritize remediation efforts based on risk severity and potential impact.

Dashboards and reporting in Microsoft Defender for Cloud provide actionable insights into compliance and security posture across subscriptions, resource groups, and individual resources. These visualizations help security and operations teams monitor adherence to organizational policies in real time, identify gaps, and track remediation progress. Customizable reports can be generated to demonstrate compliance with industry regulations, internal governance standards, and DevSecOps requirements. This level of visibility is critical for organizations that operate in highly regulated industries, as it enables them to maintain audit readiness and demonstrate that security controls are consistently applied.

Furthermore, integrating Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy aligns with DevSecOps best practices by embedding security into the development and deployment lifecycle. Policies and automated compliance checks ensure that resources meet security standards before and during deployment, reducing the likelihood of vulnerabilities entering production. Automated enforcement and continuous monitoring minimize human error, improve operational efficiency, and provide measurable security outcomes. This approach supports a proactive security posture rather than reactive remediation, allowing organizations to shift left on security while maintaining agility in cloud adoption.

The combination of Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Azure Policy not only enforces compliance but also reduces risk exposure by continuously monitoring resources, detecting threats, and applying corrective actions automatically. Organizations benefit from a unified security and governance framework that spans multiple subscriptions, regions, and environments. By maintaining consistent adherence to policies and continuously evaluating resource configurations, organizations can ensure that cloud deployments remain secure, compliant, and aligned with internal and external standards. Ultimately, this integrated approach strengthens security posture, improves operational resilience, and enables organizations to confidently leverage cloud technologies while maintaining control over their compliance and risk management processes.

Question 23:

A DevOps team wants to scan container images for vulnerabilities, enforce runtime security, and prevent noncompliant images from deploying in AKS. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual image scanning before deployment
C) RBAC only
D) Local antivirus software on developer machines

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides automated scanning, compliance enforcement, and runtime security for containerized workloads. Evaluating the other choices demonstrates their limitations.

Manual image scanning before deployment is time-intensive and prone to human error. Vulnerabilities may be missed, and there is no automated enforcement in pipelines. It does not prevent insecure images from deploying at scale and cannot provide continuous runtime monitoring.

RBAC controls access to the cluster but does not evaluate or enforce image security. While it restricts who can deploy containers, it does not scan images for vulnerabilities or ensure compliance with security policies.

Local antivirus software protects developer endpoints but cannot assess container images, enforce policies in pipelines, or provide runtime monitoring for AKS clusters. It offers limited visibility and cannot prevent insecure workloads from reaching production.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers integrates pre-deployment scanning and runtime monitoring for AKS workloads. Policies enforce which images can be deployed and apply remediation automatically. Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime behavior, detects threats, and enforces compliance. Dashboards provide visibility into vulnerabilities and noncompliant workloads. Integration into CI/CD pipelines ensures security is embedded in the DevOps lifecycle, aligning with Zero Trust principles. This solution prevents insecure images from being deployed and maintains a secure runtime environment, making it the correct choice.

Question 24:

A company wants to detect and remediate vulnerabilities in dependencies automatically across all repositories and enforce license compliance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot and Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency reviews
C) Trust all open-source libraries without scanning
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot and Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automatically identifies outdated dependencies, detects vulnerabilities, and creates pull requests with updates. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates vulnerability alerts, enforces compliance, and provides centralized visibility. Evaluating the other options demonstrates why they are less suitable.

Manual dependency reviews are time-consuming, prone to human error, and cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds. Developers may overlook critical vulnerabilities or licensing issues.

Trusting open-source libraries without scanning is risky. Unverified libraries may contain vulnerabilities, malware, or license violations. Blind trust exposes the organization to security, operational, and legal risks.

A) GitHub Dependabot and Microsoft Defender for Cloud provide a comprehensive and automated solution for managing vulnerabilities in open-source dependencies and cloud workloads. Dependabot continuously scans project dependencies, including libraries and packages, for known security vulnerabilities. When a vulnerability is identified, it automatically generates pull requests with updated versions of the affected packages, allowing developers to remediate issues quickly and maintain secure applications. Microsoft Defender for Cloud complements this functionality by monitoring resources deployed in Azure, including virtual machines, containers, and serverless environments. It evaluates configurations, identifies potential misconfigurations or vulnerabilities, and provides alerts with actionable recommendations. Integrating these tools into the CI/CD pipeline ensures that vulnerabilities are caught early in the development lifecycle, aligning with DevSecOps practices. Automated monitoring reduces human error, prevents deployment of vulnerable code, and ensures continuous compliance with security policies. Additionally, it enables teams to prioritize remediation efforts based on risk severity and maintain an audit trail for regulatory or internal reporting. By combining dependency scanning and cloud security posture management, organizations achieve both proactive vulnerability management and real-time threat detection.

B) Manual dependency reviews involve developers or security teams inspecting all libraries, packages, and dependencies to identify potential vulnerabilities. While this approach can sometimes catch issues that automated tools might miss, it is time-consuming, error-prone, and difficult to scale in modern software development environments. Applications frequently use hundreds or thousands of open-source libraries, and keeping track of updates, known vulnerabilities, and patches manually is nearly impossible for large projects. Manual reviews also depend heavily on the knowledge and diligence of the team performing them, creating inconsistencies and potential gaps in security. Unlike automated tools, manual reviews do not provide real-time alerts or integrate easily into CI/CD pipelines, which delays remediation and increases the risk of deploying vulnerable code into production. Organizations relying solely on manual reviews may struggle to maintain continuous security across multiple repositories, cloud resources, and microservices, leading to higher exposure to exploitation and potential compliance violations.

C) Trusting all open-source libraries without scanning is extremely risky and generally considered poor security practice. Open-source software is widely used because it accelerates development and reduces costs, but it can contain vulnerabilities, outdated code, or malicious components. Blindly trusting libraries without scanning exposes applications and cloud resources to potential security breaches, including remote code execution, privilege escalation, and data exfiltration. Vulnerabilities in widely used libraries can propagate across multiple projects, leading to systemic risk if left unmonitored. Without automated or manual scanning, organizations cannot maintain visibility into dependency risk or track security updates, leaving their software supply chain unprotected. This approach fails to provide any proactive mitigation, increases operational risk, and may result in noncompliance with regulatory requirements.

D) Local antivirus software focuses on detecting and mitigating malware on individual machines. While it can prevent known viruses, ransomware, or malicious files from affecting endpoints, it is not designed to manage vulnerabilities in software dependencies or cloud workloads. Antivirus tools do not scan code repositories for insecure library versions, nor do they integrate with CI/CD pipelines to prevent deployment of vulnerable applications. Additionally, antivirus solutions do not provide insight into cloud resource configurations or runtime security risks in environments such as Azure. Relying solely on local antivirus leaves significant blind spots in application and cloud security, as most vulnerabilities in open-source dependencies are not traditional malware but rather exploitable software flaws that require version updates or configuration changes for mitigation.

Reasoning about the correct approach: The only choice that provides automated, continuous detection and remediation of open-source vulnerabilities while integrating with cloud security monitoring is GitHub Dependabot combined with Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Manual reviews, trusting libraries blindly, or relying on antivirus alone are insufficient for modern DevSecOps workflows, where speed, scale, and automation are critical for maintaining a secure and compliant environment.

Local antivirus software only protects endpoints and cannot monitor dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It does not prevent vulnerable dependencies from entering production environments.

GitHub Dependabot, integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, provides automated detection and remediation of vulnerabilities and license issues. Alerts and dashboards allow security teams to track risks and enforce policies across all repositories. Automated pull requests ensure dependencies are updated proactively, reducing exposure. This integrated approach embeds security into DevOps workflows and aligns with DevSecOps principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 25:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipeline performance, detect failures, and correlate issues with infrastructure metrics across multiple projects. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications for failures

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry from pipelines, build agents, and deployed resources. It enables advanced querying, trend analysis, anomaly detection, and correlation of pipeline failures with infrastructure metrics. Evaluating the other choices demonstrates their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide only localized visibility. They cannot scale across multiple pipelines or projects and do not support centralized analysis or alerting.

Manual review of build reports is time-consuming, inconsistent, and reactive. It cannot proactively detect trends, correlate failures with infrastructure metrics, or scale for enterprise environments.

Developer email notifications only alert individuals after failures. This method lacks centralized visibility, trend analysis, dashboards, or actionable intelligence and cannot support enterprise-scale monitoring.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates logs from pipelines and infrastructure, providing dashboards, alerts, and analysis tools. It allows correlation between pipeline failures and resource issues, enabling proactive intervention. Centralized visibility improves troubleshooting efficiency, supports compliance reporting, and scales across multiple projects. Integration of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud resources ensures a holistic view of performance, making it the correct solution.

Question 26:

A DevOps team wants to enforce that only approved IaC templates are deployed to Azure, detect misconfigurations automatically, and prevent noncompliant deployments. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with IaC scanning
B) Manual template reviews
C) RBAC only
D) Local IDE static analysis

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with IaC scanning

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Cloud with IaC scanning provides automated detection of misconfigurations, security vulnerabilities, and policy violations in infrastructure-as-code templates. Evaluating the other options illustrates their limitations.

Manual template reviews are time-consuming and prone to human error. They cannot scale for multiple teams or frequent deployments and may fail to catch subtle security misconfigurations. Compliance enforcement is reactive, and visibility is limited.

RBAC controls access to resources but does not validate the security or compliance of IaC templates. While RBAC ensures only authorized personnel can deploy, it cannot prevent insecure templates from being applied or provide continuous auditing.

Local IDE static analysis helps developers identify issues in development but is inconsistent across teams and does not integrate into CI/CD pipelines for automated enforcement. This approach is reactive and does not provide enterprise-wide visibility or centralized reporting.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud with IaC scanning automatically evaluates templates against security and compliance policies before deployment. It supports multiple IaC formats, including Terraform, ARM templates, and Bicep. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated detection, pre-deployment enforcement, and remediation recommendations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility across environments, allowing security teams to monitor compliance at scale. This approach reduces risk, ensures secure deployments, and aligns with DevSecOps practices. Automated enforcement and continuous monitoring guarantee that only compliant templates are deployed, making this the correct solution.

Question 27:

A company wants to protect Microsoft 365 users from phishing attacks, malware, and malicious links in emails and documents. Which service is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365
B) Microsoft Intune
C) Microsoft OneDrive
D) Microsoft Planner

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 provides comprehensive protection for email, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams against phishing, malware, and malicious links. Evaluating the other options shows why they are insufficient.

Microsoft Intune manages devices and applications, enforcing compliance and security policies. It does not scan emails or documents for threats, making it unsuitable for threat protection in Microsoft 365 content.

Microsoft OneDrive is a cloud storage solution. While it supports file storage and sharing, it does not provide proactive email or document threat protection on its own.

Microsoft Planner is a task management tool. It lacks security features for email, files, or collaboration content, focusing instead on project tracking.

Defender for Office 365 integrates with Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive, and Teams. Safe Attachments scans files in a sandbox before delivery to detect malware, while Safe Links rewrites URLs to evaluate them at click time. Anti-phishing policies detect and block spoofed or fraudulent emails. Administrators can configure quarantine, alerts, and notifications, while dashboards provide detailed visibility into threats. Defender for Office 365 ensures sensitive information is protected, malicious content is blocked, and phishing risks are mitigated across Microsoft 365, making it the correct solution.

Question 28:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub to reduce risk and provide auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static credentials stored in key vaults
C) Share access via email invitations
D) Disable MFA for service accounts

Answer: A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)

Explanation:

Azure AD PIM enables just-in-time access, auditing, and control over privileged accounts. Evaluating the other options highlights their shortcomings.

Static credentials stored in key vaults reduce some risk, but long-lived secrets remain vulnerable to exposure and misuse. They do not provide time-bound access or automated auditing.

Sharing access via email invitations is insecure, cannot enforce duration or policies, and lacks centralized auditing. Human error can easily result in inappropriate access.

Disabling MFA for service accounts reduces security, increasing exposure and violating Zero Trust principles.

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated access for Azure DevOps and GitHub. Policies enforce approval workflows, time-bound access, and notifications. All access activities are logged for auditing. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that privileged operations are secured while minimizing risk exposure. PIM provides proactive access control, accountability, and aligns with DevSecOps best practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 29:

A DevOps team wants to detect vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in code, dependencies, and secrets before merging to main branches. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server failure notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis into pull requests and workflows. Evaluating the other options highlights their limitations.

Manual code reviews are error-prone, inconsistent, and cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secrets.

Local IDE static analysis provides early detection but relies on individual developer diligence and lacks centralized enforcement and CI/CD integration.

Build server failure notifications are reactive, alerting developers after the fact, and cannot prevent insecure code from being merged.

GitHub Advanced Security scans code, dependencies, and secrets automatically during pull requests. Inline alerts prevent merging vulnerable or noncompliant code. Dashboards provide centralized visibility and remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures security is embedded into the development lifecycle, aligning with DevSecOps principles. This combination reduces human error, improves compliance, and enforces secure coding practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 30:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure performance, detect failures proactively, and correlate issues for rapid troubleshooting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications for failures

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards provides centralized monitoring, alerting, and analysis for pipelines and cloud infrastructure. Evaluating the other options shows their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide only local visibility and cannot scale for multiple pipelines, repositories, or teams.

Manual review of build reports is time-consuming, inconsistent, and reactive. It cannot correlate issues across multiple pipelines or cloud infrastructure metrics.

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack centralized visibility, trend analysis, and correlation with infrastructure metrics.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines, build agents, and resources. It allows advanced querying, trend analysis, anomaly detection, and correlation of failures with infrastructure. Dashboards provide real-time visibility into performance and health. Alerts enable proactive intervention and faster troubleshooting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures holistic monitoring, supports compliance reporting, and provides enterprise-scale operational intelligence. This centralized, actionable monitoring makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution.

Question 31:

A DevOps team wants to enforce compliance and security for all container images deployed to AKS, including runtime monitoring and vulnerability scanning. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual scanning of images before deployment
C) RBAC only
D) Local antivirus software on developer machines

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides automated enforcement of approved container images, vulnerability detection, and runtime security monitoring. Evaluating the other options highlights why they are less effective.

Manual scanning of container images is labor-intensive, inconsistent, and error-prone. Security checks may be missed, and compliance enforcement is not automated. This method cannot scale across multiple pipelines or clusters and does not provide runtime monitoring.

RBAC controls access to AKS clusters but does not evaluate the security or compliance of images. While it restricts who can deploy workloads, it cannot prevent insecure or vulnerable images from being applied. RBAC alone lacks continuous enforcement and auditing capabilities.

Local antivirus software protects developer endpoints but does not inspect container images, enforce pipeline policies, or provide runtime monitoring. It lacks visibility into deployed workloads and cannot prevent insecure images from running in production.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically scans container images for vulnerabilities and enforces policies during deployment. Defender monitors runtime behavior, detects threats, and provides remediation recommendations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility across clusters and environments. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that security is embedded into the DevOps lifecycle. Automated enforcement, vulnerability detection, and runtime monitoring align with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles, making this the correct solution.

Question 32:

A company wants to automatically identify and remediate vulnerabilities in dependencies, enforce license compliance, and update libraries across all repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency reviews
C) Trust all open-source libraries without scanning
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates dependency updates and identifies known vulnerabilities, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance enforcement, and remediation guidance. Evaluating other options shows their limitations.

Manual dependency reviews are time-consuming, error-prone, and cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds. Developers may overlook vulnerabilities or licensing violations, and enterprise-wide visibility is lacking.

Trusting open-source libraries without scanning exposes the organization to security, operational, and legal risks. Vulnerable or noncompliant dependencies can be introduced into production, violating DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is insufficient for automated dependency management and enterprise security governance.

GitHub Dependabot integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud automatically scans dependencies, identifies vulnerabilities and license issues, and generates automated pull requests for remediation. Dashboards and alerts provide centralized tracking for security teams. Integration into CI/CD pipelines ensures proactive enforcement of secure coding and compliance policies. This approach reduces manual effort, mitigates risk, and maintains enterprise-wide governance, making it the correct solution.

Question 33:

A DevOps team wants to embed security scanning in pull requests to detect code vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before merging into main branches. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security provides automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis directly in pull requests and workflows. Evaluating other options shows why they are less effective.

Manual code reviews are inconsistent, error-prone, and cannot reliably detect all vulnerabilities or secrets. They are time-consuming and do not scale across multiple repositories or teams.

Local IDE static analysis relies on individual developers to run checks. It is inconsistent, does not enforce policies centrally, and lacks CI/CD integration. Issues may still be merged into main branches before detection.

Build server notifications alert developers post-build, which is reactive. They cannot prevent vulnerable code from being merged and do not provide inline guidance during pull requests.

GitHub Advanced Security scans code, dependencies, and secrets automatically during pull requests. Inline alerts prevent insecure or noncompliant code from being merged. Dashboards provide centralized visibility and actionable remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures security is embedded throughout the development lifecycle, aligning with DevSecOps practices. This proactive approach reduces human error, enforces compliance, and ensures secure code delivery, making it the correct solution.

Question 34:

A company wants to implement centralized monitoring for CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, detect failures early, and correlate events for root cause analysis. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry, provides dashboards, advanced queries, and correlates pipeline and infrastructure events. Evaluating other options clarifies why they are less suitable.

Local pipeline console logs provide only local, limited visibility. They cannot scale across multiple pipelines, repositories, or environments and do not allow correlation with cloud infrastructure metrics.

Manual review of build reports is time-consuming, inconsistent, and reactive. It lacks real-time alerting, correlation, or trend analysis, making proactive intervention impossible.

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but do not provide centralized visibility, dashboards, or correlation across pipelines and infrastructure. Alerts may be missed, delayed, or ignored, reducing operational effectiveness.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines, build agents, and resources. Advanced queries enable detection of trends, anomalies, and root causes. Dashboards visualize performance and health, while alerts enable proactive response. Correlation between CI/CD events and infrastructure metrics allows teams to troubleshoot quickly and prevent recurring issues. This centralized, scalable monitoring approach improves operational efficiency, ensures compliance, and supports enterprise-scale DevOps environments, making it the correct solution.

Question 35:

A company wants to enforce Zero Trust access for workloads in Azure DevOps and GitHub, minimizing static credentials and ensuring auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD workload identities with federated credentials
B) Store secrets in environment variables
C) Use static service principal credentials
D) Manual secret rotation by developers

Answer: A) Azure AD workload identities with federated credentials

Explanation:

Azure AD workload identities with federated credentials allow secure, time-bound authentication without static credentials. Evaluating other options shows their limitations.

Storing secrets in environment variables exposes sensitive data to logs and developers. It does not eliminate static credentials and lacks automated auditing or rotation.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and vulnerable to misuse. They do not provide ephemeral access or automated auditing and increase risk of unauthorized access.

Manual secret rotation depends on human diligence, is error-prone, and cannot scale across multiple pipelines or environments. It does not provide centralized monitoring or automated enforcement.

Azure AD workload identities with federated credentials provide ephemeral, time-bound access to workloads. Tokens are issued dynamically, scoped to specific resources, and logged for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub ensures secure CI/CD operations without exposing long-lived credentials. This solution aligns with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles by minimizing exposure, enforcing secure authentication, and providing complete auditing, making it the correct solution.

Question 36:

A DevOps team wants to prevent the deployment of noncompliant infrastructure in Azure, automatically remediate violations, and continuously monitor resources for security and compliance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy
B) Manual review of deployed resources
C) Azure Monitor metrics only
D) RBAC only

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Azure Policy combines continuous monitoring, proactive enforcement, and automated remediation to ensure Azure resources comply with organizational and regulatory policies. Evaluating the other options clarifies their limitations.

Manual review of deployed resources is labor-intensive, error-prone, and cannot scale across large or dynamic environments. It is reactive and does not prevent misconfigured or noncompliant resources from being deployed.

Azure Monitor metrics provide insights into operational performance, events, and telemetry but do not evaluate resource configurations for compliance or security. While useful for monitoring, it cannot enforce policies or automatically remediate noncompliant resources.

RBAC enforces who can perform actions on Azure resources, supporting least-privilege principles. However, it does not evaluate the compliance or security posture of deployed resources and cannot automatically remediate violations.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud continuously evaluates resources against security benchmarks and policies. Integration with Azure Policy enables automated enforcement of compliance rules, such as applying encryption, restricting public access, or validating network configurations. Dashboards and alerts provide visibility into misconfigurations and violations, while automated remediation reduces manual intervention. This integration ensures resources are compliant from deployment to operation, aligns with DevSecOps practices, and supports enterprise governance. The proactive enforcement and continuous monitoring capabilities make this the correct solution.

Question 37:

A company wants to ensure that only approved container images are deployed to Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and to automatically detect vulnerabilities at runtime. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual image scanning
C) RBAC only
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers enforces approved container images, scans for vulnerabilities, and provides runtime security monitoring. Evaluating the other options clarifies their limitations.

Manual image scanning is reactive and inconsistent. Security gaps may be missed, and compliance cannot be enforced automatically. This method cannot scale across multiple clusters or pipelines and lacks runtime monitoring.

RBAC restricts who can deploy workloads but does not validate container security. While it limits access, it does not prevent vulnerable images from being applied or provide automated remediation.

Local antivirus software only protects endpoints and cannot evaluate container images or enforce policies in pipelines. It does not provide runtime monitoring for deployed workloads.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically scans container images before deployment, enforces security policies, and monitors runtime behavior. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated enforcement, vulnerability detection, and remediation. Dashboards provide centralized visibility into compliance and runtime threats. This combination of proactive enforcement, vulnerability scanning, and runtime monitoring aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 38:

A company wants to automatically detect and remediate vulnerabilities in software dependencies while enforcing license compliance across all repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency reviews
C) Blindly trust open-source libraries
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates dependency updates and vulnerability detection, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance reporting and remediation. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

Manual dependency reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and error-prone. Vulnerabilities or licensing issues may be missed, and enterprise-wide visibility is lacking.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries is highly risky. Unverified dependencies can introduce security vulnerabilities, malware, or license violations, exposing the organization to operational, legal, and compliance risks.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It does not provide enterprise-scale dependency management or automated remediation.

GitHub Dependabot integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud automatically identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates pull requests for remediation, and flags licensing issues. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams, and automated enforcement ensures compliance across all repositories. Integration into CI/CD pipelines embeds security into development workflows, reduces human error, and aligns with DevSecOps practices. This proactive, automated, and enterprise-scale solution makes it the correct choice.

Question 39:

A DevOps team wants to embed security scanning in pull requests to detect code vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before merging to main branches. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates automated scanning into pull requests and CI/CD workflows, detecting vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before code merges. Evaluating other options illustrates their shortcomings.

Manual code reviews are inconsistent and cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secrets. They are labor-intensive and do not scale effectively across multiple teams or repositories.

Local IDE static analysis helps detect issues early but relies on individual developers and lacks integration with CI/CD pipelines or enterprise-wide enforcement.

Build server notifications alert developers after builds are completed, which is reactive. They do not prevent insecure code from being merged and lack centralized visibility and inline guidance during pull requests.

GitHub Advanced Security scans code, dependencies, and secrets automatically during pull requests. Inline alerts prevent insecure or noncompliant code from merging. Dashboards provide centralized visibility and actionable remediation guidance. CI/CD integration ensures security is embedded in the development lifecycle, aligns with DevSecOps principles, and reduces human error. This proactive approach enforces secure coding practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 40:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure performance, detect failures proactively, and correlate events to identify root causes. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud resources, enabling proactive detection, correlation, and root cause analysis. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide only local visibility and cannot scale across multiple pipelines or environments. Correlation with cloud metrics is not possible.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It cannot proactively detect trends, anomalies, or systemic issues.

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack centralized visibility, dashboards, and correlation between pipelines and infrastructure. Alerts may be delayed or missed, limiting operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines, build agents, and cloud resources. Advanced queries detect anomalies, track trends, and correlate failures with infrastructure metrics. Dashboards provide real-time visibility into pipeline health and performance. Alerts enable proactive intervention and faster troubleshooting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures a holistic view of operations, supports compliance reporting, and improves enterprise-scale monitoring. This centralized, actionable solution makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct choice.