Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 3 Q41-60

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

Question 41:

A DevOps team wants to enforce Zero Trust principles by providing temporary, just-in-time access to privileged accounts in Azure DevOps and GitHub. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

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

Explanation:

Azure AD PIM enables just-in-time privileged access, time-bound approvals, and centralized auditing. Evaluating other options clarifies why they are less effective.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and vulnerable to misuse. They do not provide ephemeral, time-bound access or automated auditing. Compromise of these credentials can result in significant security risks.

Developer-managed passwords rely on humans to maintain security. They are error-prone, inconsistent, and cannot enforce access policies or auditing at scale.

Shared access via email is insecure, lacks control, and provides no automated logging or auditing. It violates Zero Trust principles by relying on human enforcement instead of automated security controls.

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated access. Policies enforce approval workflows, duration limits, and notifications. All access activities are logged for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub ensures privileged operations are controlled and traceable, aligning with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. This makes it the correct solution.

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is a service designed to provide secure, time-limited access to privileged roles in Azure Active Directory and other Microsoft services. PIM enables just-in-time access, meaning that users can activate elevated privileges only when necessary, and those privileges automatically expire after a predefined period. This approach significantly reduces the risk associated with permanent or always-active administrative accounts, as it limits the window of opportunity for an attacker to exploit compromised credentials. PIM supports multifactor authentication, approval workflows, and access justification, ensuring that role activations are properly authorized and tracked. Detailed auditing and reporting allow organizations to monitor who accessed which roles and when, supporting compliance requirements and internal governance. PIM also integrates with other Microsoft security tools, such as Microsoft Defender for Cloud, enabling organizations to maintain a continuous security posture and enforce least-privilege principles. By using PIM, organizations reduce their attack surface, prevent privilege misuse, and align with DevSecOps and zero-trust security models.

B) Static service principal credentials are permanent credentials used by applications, scripts, or automation tools to access Azure resources. These credentials typically include a client ID and a secret or certificate that does not expire automatically. While service principals are necessary for programmatic access to resources, using static credentials introduces significant security risks. If the credentials are leaked, an attacker can gain persistent access to critical cloud resources without detection. Unlike PIM, static credentials do not provide time-limited access or require approval for elevated privileges. To mitigate risk, organizations must enforce strict rotation policies, securely store credentials in key vaults, and monitor usage logs. However, even with these measures, the reliance on human management for rotation and storage increases the likelihood of misconfigurations, exposure, or neglect, making static service principal credentials a less secure option compared to dynamic, policy-driven solutions.

C) Developer-managed passwords are credentials created, stored, and managed manually by individual developers. This approach can include local password files, notes, or shared documentation. While simple to implement, developer-managed passwords are prone to human error and security gaps. Developers may reuse passwords across multiple accounts or services, fail to rotate them regularly, or share them insecurely. This practice increases the risk of unauthorized access, insider threats, and credential leaks. Unlike automated or policy-driven identity management solutions, developer-managed passwords do not provide auditing, time-bound access, or integration with multifactor authentication. They are difficult to enforce at scale and are unsuitable for modern cloud environments that require consistent governance, traceability, and compliance with security standards. Additionally, this approach does not support secure automation in DevOps pipelines, as credentials stored manually are vulnerable to interception or misuse.

D) Shared access via email involves sending credentials, passwords, or access keys through email to grant users or developers access to resources. This method is inherently insecure because email is susceptible to interception, phishing attacks, and accidental exposure. Shared credentials sent through email often bypass identity management controls and leave no audit trail of who accessed resources or when. This approach can result in persistent access for unauthorized users if emails are forwarded or compromised. It does not enforce least-privilege principles, multifactor authentication, or just-in-time access. Shared access via email can lead to compliance violations, increased operational risk, and a higher likelihood of credential misuse. It is not aligned with modern security frameworks or DevSecOps practices, where automated, auditable, and temporary access management is preferred.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is the only solution that provides secure, time-limited, auditable access to privileged roles while minimizing the risk of permanent credential exposure. Static service principal credentials, developer-managed passwords, and shared access via email all introduce significant security risks and do not support automated governance, least privilege, or compliance monitoring. PIM aligns with modern cloud security best practices, providing a scalable and secure approach to privileged access management.

Question 42:

A company wants to automatically detect security vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories. 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 directly into pull requests and workflows. Evaluating the other options illustrates their limitations.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming and inconsistent. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secrets, and they lack integration with CI/CD pipelines.

Local IDE static analysis relies on individual developer diligence and does not provide centralized enforcement. It may miss vulnerabilities and misconfigurations before merging code.

Build server notifications alert developers after build completion. This is reactive and cannot prevent insecure or noncompliant code from merging.

A) GitHub Advanced Security is a comprehensive solution for identifying, monitoring, and remediating security vulnerabilities in code repositories. It includes tools such as code scanning, secret scanning, and dependency review, which help detect issues early in the development lifecycle. Code scanning analyzes source code for known patterns of vulnerabilities, insecure coding practices, and potential logic errors. Secret scanning detects credentials or sensitive information that may have been accidentally committed to the repository. Dependency review identifies vulnerabilities in open-source libraries and alerts developers before changes are merged. GitHub Advanced Security integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, ensuring that security checks run automatically whenever code is pushed or pull requests are created. This automated approach reduces human error, provides continuous visibility into the security posture of the codebase, and supports compliance requirements. By leveraging GitHub Advanced Security, organizations can adopt DevSecOps practices, shifting security left in the development lifecycle to prevent vulnerabilities from reaching production environments. It also provides detailed reporting and audit trails, which help security and development teams track remediation efforts, monitor trends, and prioritize risks based on severity and impact. Overall, GitHub Advanced Security enhances security without slowing down development, enabling developers to focus on delivering features while maintaining a secure codebase.

B) Manual code reviews involve human developers or security specialists examining code line by line to identify potential vulnerabilities, logic errors, or insecure practices. This approach can sometimes catch complex or context-specific issues that automated tools might miss, such as architectural flaws or misuse of APIs. However, manual code reviews are time-consuming, resource-intensive, and prone to human error. As modern software projects grow in size and complexity, performing thorough manual reviews for every commit or pull request becomes impractical. The effectiveness of manual reviews heavily depends on the reviewer’s expertise and diligence, creating variability in coverage and quality. Manual code reviews also lack automation for integration with CI/CD pipelines, meaning vulnerabilities may not be detected until late in the development lifecycle. While manual reviews are valuable as a complementary practice, relying solely on them for vulnerability detection can result in slower remediation, increased risk of deploying insecure code, and difficulty scaling across multiple repositories or large teams.

C) Local IDE static analysis refers to tools integrated into the developer’s environment that analyze code for potential errors, vulnerabilities, or adherence to coding standards. IDE static analysis can provide immediate feedback while the developer writes code, helping identify common issues like buffer overflows, null references, or insecure API usage. While useful for early detection, these tools have limitations. They may produce false positives, require proper configuration, and often lack the context of the full project or runtime environment. They do not provide centralized reporting, audit trails, or visibility across multiple repositories or teams. Additionally, IDE static analysis is usually dependent on the developer actively using the tool, meaning some issues may be missed if developers bypass or ignore warnings. Without integration into broader security workflows or CI/CD pipelines, IDE analysis alone cannot provide continuous, automated security monitoring across an organization.

D) Build server notifications are alerts or messages generated by CI/CD pipelines when certain checks fail during code compilation, testing, or deployment. While these notifications can indicate problems such as failed tests, build errors, or policy violations, they are reactive rather than proactive. Build server notifications alone do not automatically detect code vulnerabilities, scan dependencies, or monitor for secrets. They rely on preconfigured tests or security tools within the pipeline to trigger alerts, and if such tools are not properly configured or integrated, vulnerabilities can go undetected. Notifications help teams respond to issues after they are identified, but do not provide the continuous, automated, and proactive security coverage that modern DevSecOps practices require.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, GitHub Advanced Security is the only solution that provides automated, proactive, and centralized vulnerability detection for source code, dependencies, and secrets. Manual code reviews, local IDE static analysis, and build server notifications are valuable complementary practices, but are insufficient on their own for comprehensive and continuous code security. GitHub Advanced Security integrates with workflows, enforces best practices, and provides visibility and remediation guidance at scale.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts, automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis. Dashboards offer centralized visibility and remediation guidance. CI/CD integration ensures security is embedded in the development lifecycle, reduces human error, and enforces secure coding practices. This proactive, automated approach makes it the correct solution.

Question 43:

A company wants to enforce that only approved container images are deployed to Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and to monitor runtime security. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically scans images before deployment and enforces compliance. Evaluating other options highlights their weaknesses.

Manual scanning of images is inconsistent and reactive. Security gaps may be missed, and it cannot scale for multiple clusters or pipelines.

RBAC restricts access but does not validate image security or enforce runtime policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images, enforce pipeline policies, or monitor runtime behavior.A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides a robust and automated approach to securing containerized workloads in Azure. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules and enforce compliance across container images, clusters, and deployed workloads. Policies can ensure that only approved images are deployed, enforce encryption, restrict privileged containers, or mandate specific configurations such as vulnerability scanning. Microsoft Defender for Containers enhances this by continuously monitoring container images and running containers for known vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and threats. It generates alerts, provides remediation guidance, and integrates seamlessly with Azure Security Center dashboards to give visibility into security posture. By combining policy enforcement and real-time threat detection, this solution supports continuous compliance, reduces manual effort, and aligns with DevSecOps practices by embedding security checks directly into the deployment process. Automated evaluation ensures that misconfigured or vulnerable containers are identified and remediated before they pose a risk to the environment, minimizing the attack surface. This integrated approach also provides detailed reporting and audit trails, helping teams meet regulatory requirements and maintain operational governance at scale.

B) Manual scanning of images involves security teams or developers using tools to inspect container images for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, or misconfigurations. While this can be effective in detecting issues at a single point in time, it is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and prone to human error. Manual scanning does not provide continuous monitoring or automated enforcement, meaning containers could be deployed without being checked or re-evaluated when new vulnerabilities emerge. This approach also lacks centralized reporting and visibility, making it difficult to scale across multiple clusters, images, or subscriptions. Relying solely on manual scans increases the risk of undetected vulnerabilities and delays remediation, leaving workloads exposed. While useful as a complementary measure, manual scanning is insufficient for modern container security requirements, especially in dynamic cloud environments.

C) Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) only focuses on assigning permissions to users or service principals to access resources based on roles. While RBAC is essential for enforcing least privilege and controlling who can manage or deploy containers, it does not actively scan container images or running workloads for vulnerabilities. RBAC prevents unauthorized access but does not detect misconfigurations, security risks, or malware within images. Without additional tools or policies, RBAC alone cannot ensure the security or compliance of containerized applications. It is a critical component of security governance, but must be combined with vulnerability scanning and automated enforcement to provide full protection.

D) Local antivirus software protects individual machines or endpoints from malware and malicious activity. While it may detect threats within files or running processes on the host machine, it is not designed to monitor container images, enforce deployment policies, or continuously scan workloads in cloud environments. Antivirus software operates reactively and locally, lacking integration with container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes. It does not provide insight into vulnerabilities in container images, package dependencies, or misconfigurations, making it insufficient for comprehensive container security. Relying on antivirus alone leaves significant gaps in cloud-native security practices.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides the most complete, automated, and continuous solution for securing container workloads. It enforces policies, monitors vulnerabilities, and supports compliance at scale. Manual scanning is limited and not continuous, RBAC only controls access without assessing security posture, and local antivirus does not address container-specific risks. Together, Azure Policy and Microsoft Defender for Containers enable organizations to maintain secure, compliant, and well-governed container environments while integrating seamlessly into DevSecOps workflows.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers enforces approved images, detects vulnerabilities, and monitors runtime behavior. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated enforcement and compliance. Dashboards provide centralized visibility, helping teams remediate issues quickly. This combination aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 44:

A DevOps team wants to embed security scanning for dependencies, code, and secrets in pull requests and automatically generate remediation suggestions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual dependency reviews
C) Trust all open-source libraries
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security scans code, dependencies, and secrets during pull requests and provides automated remediation guidance. Evaluating the other options highlights limitations.

Manual dependency reviews are inconsistent and time-consuming. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or pipelines and may miss vulnerabilities.A) GitHub Advanced Security provides an automated and integrated approach to identifying and remediating vulnerabilities in code repositories, including open-source dependencies. It includes features such as code scanning, dependency review, and secret scanning. Dependency review identifies known vulnerabilities in open-source libraries, alerting developers before code is merged or deployed. Code scanning analyzes source code for insecure coding practices, potential logic errors, and patterns of vulnerabilities. Secret scanning detects accidental inclusion of credentials or sensitive information in repositories. GitHub Advanced Security integrates directly with CI/CD pipelines, ensuring that security checks are automated and continuous throughout the development lifecycle. This proactive approach reduces human error, prevents vulnerable code from being deployed, and helps maintain compliance with regulatory standards. By using automated tooling, organizations can maintain a consistent security posture across multiple repositories, enforce best practices, and provide visibility to security and development teams. It supports DevSecOps principles by embedding security early in the development process, reducing risk while allowing rapid software delivery.

B) Manual dependency reviews involve developers or security teams inspecting libraries and packages used in applications to identify vulnerabilities. While manual reviews can catch issues that automated tools might overlook, they are resource-intensive and prone to human error. Modern applications frequently use hundreds or thousands of open-source libraries, making it impractical to review every dependency manually for updates, patches, or security advisories. Manual dependency reviews are not continuous; vulnerabilities introduced after deployment may go undetected until the next review cycle. Additionally, this approach lacks automated integration into CI/CD pipelines, which delays detection and remediation. While manual reviews can supplement automated security measures, relying solely on them is insufficient for maintaining secure, scalable, and compliant software development practices.

C) Trusting all open-source libraries without scanning introduces significant security risks. Open-source components can contain vulnerabilities, outdated code, or even malicious code inserted by attackers. Blindly trusting libraries assumes that all dependencies are safe, which can result in compromised applications, data breaches, or supply chain attacks. Vulnerabilities in widely used open-source packages can propagate across multiple projects and affect a large number of systems. Without automated or manual scanning, organizations have no visibility into the security state of their dependencies, cannot enforce security policies, and may fail to comply with regulatory requirements. This approach is not aligned with modern software security best practices, as it leaves critical gaps in the software supply chain.

D) Local antivirus software protects individual devices against malware, viruses, or malicious files on the host machine. While effective at detecting certain types of threats, it does not scan code repositories for vulnerable open-source libraries or misconfigurations. Antivirus software operates reactively rather than proactively, and it does not integrate with CI/CD pipelines or provide visibility into the security of code dependencies. It cannot enforce organizational security policies or alert teams about vulnerabilities in open-source components. Relying solely on antivirus software for dependency security leaves significant blind spots, especially in environments where code is continuously developed, deployed, and scaled across cloud and DevOps platforms.

Reasoning about the correct approach: GitHub Advanced Security is the only solution among these choices that provides automated, continuous, and integrated monitoring for vulnerabilities in open-source dependencies. Manual reviews are limited, trust without scanning is unsafe, and antivirus software does not address dependency security. Using GitHub Advanced Security ensures early detection, consistent enforcement of security policies, and alignment with DevSecOps practices, making it the most effective solution for managing dependency risk.

Trusting open-source libraries without scanning introduces significant risk. Vulnerable dependencies or license violations can enter production undetected.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or provide CI/CD integration.

GitHub Advanced Security automates the detection of vulnerabilities and secrets, provides inline alerts, and generates automated remediation pull requests. Dashboards centralize visibility for security teams. Integration into CI/CD pipelines ensures secure coding practices, proactive detection, and continuous enforcement. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 45:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures early, correlate issues, and enable 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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines and cloud infrastructure, enabling centralized monitoring, alerting, and correlation. Evaluating other options illustrates their limitations.

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

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It lacks real-time detection, trend analysis, or correlation.

Developer email notifications are reactive and individual-based. They do not provide dashboards, centralized visibility, or correlations for root cause analysis.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics enables proactive detection, advanced querying, anomaly detection, and correlation of events. Dashboards visualize pipeline and infrastructure health. Alerts allow rapid intervention, improving operational efficiency. Integration with CI/CD pipelines provides enterprise-scale monitoring, compliance support, and holistic observability. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 46:

A company wants to prevent unauthorized deployment of resources in Azure by enforcing security and compliance policies automatically and providing remediation for violations. 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 provides continuous monitoring, automated enforcement, and remediation for Azure resources. Evaluating the other options demonstrates their limitations.

Manual review of deployed resources is labor-intensive, inconsistent, and cannot scale for multiple subscriptions or environments. It is reactive, and misconfigurations may persist unnoticed.

Azure Monitor metrics provide operational telemetry and performance insights, but do not evaluate configurations or enforce compliance. It is limited to monitoring and alerting, not proactive policy enforcement.

RBAC restricts access to resources but does not assess or remediate security or compliance violations. Unauthorized configurations or noncompliant deployments can still occur if access is misused.

Defender for Cloud continuously evaluates Azure resources against security baselines and organizational policies. Integration with Azure Policy enables automated enforcement, such as restricting public access, requiring encryption, and validating network configurations. Alerts, dashboards, and remediation workflows provide visibility and control. This solution ensures resources are compliant and secure from deployment to operation, aligning with DevSecOps and enterprise governance practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 47:

A DevOps team wants to ensure that only approved container images are deployed to AKS and that vulnerabilities are detected at runtime. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers enforces compliance by validating container images before deployment and monitoring runtime behavior. Evaluating other options shows why they are less suitable.

Manual scanning of container images is reactive, inconsistent, and prone to human error. Vulnerabilities may go unnoticed, and it does not provide runtime monitoring.

RBAC restricts access but does not validate image security or enforce policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images, enforce pipeline policies, or monitor runtime activity.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically scans images, enforces approved images, and monitors runtime activity. Integration with CI/CD pipelines provides automated enforcement and compliance. Dashboards offer centralized visibility across clusters, and alerts ensure rapid remediation. This solution reduces risk, enforces security, and aligns with DevSecOps principles, making it the correct choice.

Question 48:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies and enforce license compliance automatically across multiple 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 the detection and remediation of vulnerable dependencies, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance reporting and enforcement. Evaluating other options highlights their weaknesses.

Manual dependency reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and error-prone. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds, and vulnerabilities or licensing issues may be missed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant risk. Vulnerabilities or license violations could be introduced into production, violating security and compliance policies.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot monitor dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines.

GitHub Dependabot, integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates pull requests for remediation, and flags license violations. Dashboards centralize visibility, enabling proactive compliance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated enforcement of secure coding practices, reducing human error and aligning with DevSecOps principles. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 49:

A DevOps team wants to embed security scanning in pull requests to detect code vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before merging. 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 directly into pull requests and CI/CD workflows. Evaluating other options demonstrates their limitations.

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

Local IDE static analysis helps detect issues early but relies on individual developers and lacks centralized enforcement or CI/CD integration. Vulnerabilities could still be merged into the o main branches.

Build server notifications alert developers post-build, which is reactive. They cannot prevent insecure or noncompliant code from merging.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts, automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis. Dashboards offer centralized visibility and remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures security is embedded in the development lifecycle, reduces human error, and enforces secure coding practices. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 50:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and enable 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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines and cloud infrastructure to provide centralized monitoring, alerting, and event correlation. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

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

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It lacks real-time detection, trend analysis, or root cause correlation.

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack centralized visibility, dashboards, or correlation of pipeline and infrastructure events.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics allows advanced queries, anomaly detection, and correlation of CI/CD events with infrastructure metrics. Dashboards visualize performance and health. Alerts enable proactive troubleshooting and rapid remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines provides enterprise-scale monitoring, compliance support, and holistic observability. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 51:

A DevOps team wants to ensure that only compliant infrastructure is deployed in Azure, automatically remediate misconfigurations, and continuously monitor resource 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 provides continuous monitoring, proactive enforcement, and automated remediation of noncompliant Azure resources. Evaluating the other options highlights their limitations.

Manual review of resources is labor-intensive, error-prone, and cannot scale across multiple subscriptions or environments. It is reactive, and misconfigurations may go undetected.

Azure Monitor metrics provide performance and operational telemetry but do not evaluate resource configurations for compliance or security. While useful for detecting operational anomalies, it cannot enforce policy or automatically remediate noncompliant deployments.

RBAC restricts who can access resources, but does not assess compliance or security posture. Unauthorized or misconfigured deployments can still occur if access is misused.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud continuously evaluates resources against security baselines and organizational policies. Integration with Azure Policy enables automated enforcement of compliance rules, such as network configurations, encryption, and access restrictions. Dashboards, alerts, and remediation workflows provide visibility and control, ensuring resources remain compliant throughout their lifecycle. This proactive enforcement, combined with continuous monitoring, reduces risk, aligns with DevSecOps practices, and makes it the correct solution.

Question 52:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers enforces approved container images before deployment and provides runtime security monitoring. Evaluating other options shows their shortcomings.

Manual scanning of container images is reactive, inconsistent, and labor-intensive. Vulnerabilities may be missed, and runtime monitoring is not provided.

RBAC restricts access to clusters but does not validate image security or enforce runtime policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed despite access controls.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images, enforce policies, or monitor runtime activity in AKS.

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

Question 53:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies and enforce 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, identifies vulnerabilities, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance and remediation capabilities. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

Manual dependency reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and error-prone. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds, leaving vulnerabilities or license violations undetected.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant risk. Vulnerable dependencies may enter production, potentially causing security, operational, and legal issues.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines for automated enforcement.

GitHub Dependabot, integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, automatically generates pull requests for remediation, and flags licensing issues. Dashboards centralize visibility, and CI/CD integration ensures proactive enforcement of secure coding practices. This automated, scalable solution reduces human error, ensures compliance, and aligns with DevSecOps principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 54:

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 directly into pull requests and CI/CD workflows. Evaluating other options demonstrates why they are less effective.

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

Local IDE static analysis relies on individual developer diligence and lacks centralized enforcement or integration with CI/CD pipelines. Vulnerabilities may still be merged into main branches.

Build server notifications alert developers after builds complete, which is reactive. They do not prevent insecure or noncompliant code from merging and do not provide centralized visibility.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts, automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis. Dashboards centralize visibility and provide remediation guidance. CI/CD integration ensures security is embedded in the development lifecycle, reduces human error, and enforces secure coding practices. This proactive approach makes it the correct solution.

Question 55:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and enable 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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, enabling centralized monitoring, alerting, and event correlation. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide only localized visibility, cannot scale across multiple pipelines or environments, and lack correlation with cloud infrastructure metrics.

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

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack centralized visibility, dashboards, or event correlation for pipelines and infrastructure.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics allows advanced querying, anomaly detection, and correlation of CI/CD events with infrastructure metrics. Dashboards visualize pipeline and resource health. Alerts enable proactive remediation and rapid troubleshooting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures enterprise-scale monitoring, compliance support, and holistic observability, making it the correct solution.

Question 56:

A DevOps team wants to provide temporary, just-in-time privileged access to administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring auditing and approval workflows. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

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

Explanation:

Azure AD PIM enables just-in-time access, time-bound approvals, and centralized auditing, which aligns with Zero Trust principles. Evaluating the other options shows their limitations.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and vulnerable. They do not provide ephemeral access or automated auditing, making them a security risk.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent, error-prone, and cannot enforce policies or centralized auditing. Human error could result in unauthorized access.

Shared access via email is insecure, lacks control, and provides no automated logging or auditing. It cannot enforce time-bound access or approval workflows.

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary privileged access. Policies enforce approval workflows, duration limits, and notifications. All access is logged for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub ensures privileged operations are controlled and traceable. This proactive, auditable approach aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust, making it the correct solution.

Question 57:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and secrets in pull requests across multiple repositories before merging. 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 directly into pull requests and CI/CD workflows, detecting vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations. Evaluating the other options illustrates their shortcomings.

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

Local IDE static analysis relies on individual developers and lacks centralized enforcement. Vulnerabilities could still be merged before detection.

Build server notifications are reactive and alert only after builds complete. They do not prevent insecure or noncompliant code from being merged and lack centralized visibility.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts, automated scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis. Dashboards centralize visibility and remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures security is embedded into the development lifecycle, reduces human error, and enforces secure coding practices. This proactive approach makes it the correct solution.

Question 58:

A company wants to enforce that only approved container images are deployed to AKS and monitor runtime security for threats and vulnerabilities. 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 with Microsoft Defender for Containers enforces approved images, scans for vulnerabilities, and monitors runtime security. Evaluating other options shows why they are less effective.

Manual image scanning is reactive, inconsistent, and cannot scale across multiple clusters or pipelines. Vulnerabilities may be missed.

RBAC restricts access but does not validate image security or enforce runtime policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images or enforce pipeline and runtime policies.

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

Question 59:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities in dependencies and enforce 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 identifies vulnerabilities, 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. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or pipelines, leaving vulnerabilities or license violations undetected.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant risk. Vulnerable dependencies could enter production, leading to security, operational, and legal issues.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines.

GitHub Dependabot, integrated with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates automated pull requests for remediation, and flags license issues. Dashboards centralize visibility and ensure proactive enforcement. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures secure coding practices and reduces human error, making it the correct solution.

Question 60:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures early, correlate events, and enable 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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics aggregates telemetry from pipelines and cloud resources to provide centralized monitoring, alerting, and correlation. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

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

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

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack centralized visibility, dashboards, and correlation of pipeline and infrastructure events.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics enables advanced querying, anomaly detection, and correlation of CI/CD events with infrastructure metrics. Dashboards visualize performance and health. Alerts allow proactive remediation and rapid troubleshooting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines provides enterprise-scale monitoring, compliance support, and holistic observability, making it the correct solution.