Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 4 Q61-80

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

Question 61:

A DevOps team wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for Azure DevOps administrators while providing 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 provides just-in-time access to privileged accounts, enforcing time-bound approvals and auditing. Evaluating other options shows their limitations.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived, vulnerable, and cannot provide time-limited access. They pose a risk if compromised and do not include audit logs.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 users can activate elevated privileges only when needed, and those privileges automatically expire after a predefined period. This reduces the risk of permanent credential exposure and limits the window of opportunity for attackers to exploit compromised accounts. PIM supports multifactor authentication, approval workflows, and access justification, ensuring that elevated roles are granted only under controlled conditions. It also provides detailed audit logs and reporting, allowing organizations to track who accessed what resources and when, supporting compliance and governance requirements. By integrating with other Microsoft security tools, such as Microsoft Defender for Cloud, PIM allows organizations to maintain continuous monitoring and enforce least-privilege principles across cloud resources. This approach strengthens security posture, reduces the risk of insider threats, and aligns with DevSecOps practices by embedding security controls into everyday operations.

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, using static credentials introduces significant security risks. If the credentials are exposed or compromised, attackers can gain persistent access to critical resources. Unlike PIM, static credentials do not provide time-limited access, approval workflows, or detailed auditing of usage. To mitigate risks, organizations must rotate credentials regularly and store them securely, often using Azure Key Vault. Even with these precautions, the reliance on static credentials increases the likelihood of mismanagement, human error, or accidental exposure, making this approach less secure than dynamic, policy-driven solutions like PIM.

C) Developer-managed passwords involve individual developers creating, storing, and managing credentials manually. This approach is prone to human error, inconsistent practices, and security gaps. Developers may reuse passwords across multiple systems, fail to rotate them, or store them in insecure locations, such as local files or shared documentation. This practice increases the risk of unauthorized access, insider threats, and accidental exposure of sensitive credentials. Developer-managed passwords lack centralized control, auditability, and integration with identity management workflows, making them unsuitable for large or regulated environments. They also do not support automated, time-limited access, leaving resources exposed to potential misuse.

D) Shared access via email refers to distributing credentials or access information by sending them to users through email. This method is highly insecure because emails can be intercepted, forwarded, or accessed by unauthorized individuals. Shared access provides no visibility into who is using the credentials, when they are used, or for what purpose. It bypasses standard identity and access management controls, such as multifactor authentication or approval workflows, and offers no automated expiration or revocation of privileges. This approach greatly increases the risk of credential compromise, noncompliance with security policies, and accidental misuse of resources. It is not aligned with modern security practices or DevSecOps principles.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is the only solution that provides secure, auditable, and time-limited access to privileged roles while minimizing the risk of credential exposure. Static service principal credentials, developer-managed passwords, and shared access via email all introduce significant security risks and lack the automation, control, and governance features that PIM offers. PIM ensures least-privilege access, enhances operational security, and supports compliance at scale, making it the preferred method for managing privileged access in Azure environments.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to maintain security, which is error-prone and inconsistent. They cannot enforce policies or centralized auditing.

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

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated access with automated approval workflows. All activity is logged for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures privileged operations are traceable and compliant with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 62:

A company wants to automatically detect code 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 into pull requests and CI/CD workflows to detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations. Evaluating other options highlights their limitations.

A) GitHub Advanced Security is a comprehensive solution for proactively identifying, monitoring, and remediating security vulnerabilities in source code repositories. It includes features such as code scanning, secret scanning, and dependency review. Code scanning analyzes source code to detect insecure coding practices, logic flaws, and potential vulnerabilities before they reach production. Secret scanning identifies credentials or sensitive data accidentally committed to repositories, preventing accidental leaks. Dependency review checks open-source libraries and third-party packages for known vulnerabilities, alerting developers and generating automated pull requests to remediate them. GitHub Advanced Security integrates directly into CI/CD pipelines, enabling continuous security assessments during development and ensuring that vulnerabilities are caught early. By providing automated alerts, remediation guidance, and audit trails, it reduces human error, improves compliance, and aligns with DevSecOps practices. It allows organizations to maintain a secure codebase at scale, enforce coding standards, and prioritize risk based on severity.

B) Manual code reviews involve developers or security teams inspecting code line by line to identify potential issues such as logic errors, insecure patterns, or vulnerabilities. While manual reviews can catch complex or context-specific problems that automated tools may miss, they are resource-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to human error. Large projects with frequent commits can make it impractical to review all code changes consistently. Manual reviews do not provide real-time detection or automated integration with CI/CD pipelines, which delays remediation and increases the likelihood of insecure code reaching production. They also lack centralized reporting and visibility, making it difficult to track security posture across multiple repositories. While valuable as a complementary practice, manual code reviews alone are insufficient for modern DevSecOps workflows.

C) Local IDE static analysis involves using tools integrated into the developer’s local environment to check code for vulnerabilities, errors, and adherence to coding standards as it is written. This provides immediate feedback and can prevent common coding mistakes. However, local static analysis has limitations. It may generate false positives, requires proper configuration to be effective, and does not provide full visibility into project-wide vulnerabilities or runtime contexts. It also relies on individual developers to run the analysis consistently, which can lead to gaps if it is ignored or bypassed. IDE analysis typically lacks centralized reporting, integration with CI/CD pipelines, and automated remediation, making it less effective for maintaining continuous security at scale.

D) Build server notifications refer to alerts generated by CI/CD pipelines when builds fail or tests do not pass. While these notifications can inform teams of issues such as compilation errors, failing tests, or policy violations, they do not actively identify or remediate security vulnerabilities. Build server notifications are reactive rather than proactive and require prior configuration of security tools to provide meaningful alerts. They cannot automatically scan code for insecure practices, detect secrets, or analyze dependencies without additional integrated tools. While they are useful for alerting teams to failures in the build process, they do not provide continuous, automated security coverage on their own.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, GitHub Advanced Security is the only solution that offers automated, proactive, and integrated security scanning for code, dependencies, and secrets. Manual code reviews, local IDE static analysis, and build server notifications provide important supplemental checks but are insufficient on their own for comprehensive vulnerability detection. GitHub Advanced Security ensures continuous monitoring, early detection, automated remediation guidance, and audit trails, making it the most effective solution for securing modern software development pipelines.

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

Local IDE static analysis relies on developers individually and lacks centralized enforcement. Vulnerabilities may still be merged into main branches before detection.

Build server notifications are reactive and alert only after builds complete. They cannot prevent insecure or noncompliant code from merging and do not provide 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 in the development lifecycle, reduces human error, and enforces secure coding practices. This makes it the correct solution.

Question 63:

A company wants to enforce that only approved container images are deployed to AKS and monitor runtime security for vulnerabilities. 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 images and monitors runtime behavior for vulnerabilities. Evaluating other options shows their limitations.

Manual scanning of images is reactive, inconsistent, and cannot scale across clusters or pipelines. Security gaps may go undetected.

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

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

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically scans images before deployment, enforces compliance policies, and monitors runtime behavior. CI/CD integration ensures automated enforcement. Dashboards provide centralized visibility and rapid remediation. This combination of proactive enforcement, runtime monitoring, and policy alignment makes it the correct solution.

Question 64:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies and enforce license compliance automatically across 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 compliance reporting and remediation. 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.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and license risks. Vulnerable dependencies may enter production undetected.

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, and flags licensing issues. Dashboards provide centralized visibility. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces secure coding practices and reduces human error. This proactive, automated approach makes it the correct solution.

Question 65:

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, enabling centralized monitoring, alerting, and event correlation. Evaluating other options highlights limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited visibility and cannot scale across multiple pipelines or correlate infrastructure events.

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 dashboards, correlation, or actionable insights.

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

Question 66:

A DevOps team wants to implement just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring auditing, approval workflows, and temporary credentials. 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 Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is specifically designed to provide just-in-time privileged access to users with administrative responsibilities in Azure environments. It enables time-bound access requests, automated approval workflows, and auditing of privileged operations, which align directly with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles. Evaluating the other options clarifies why they are not sufficient.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and present significant security risks. If these credentials are compromised, attackers gain persistent access to administrative functions. They do not provide ephemeral access, automated approval workflows, or auditing capabilities. Reliance on static credentials also increases the operational burden for managing rotations manually, which introduces human error and risk.

Developer-managed passwords are another potential alternative, but they are highly error-prone and inconsistent. Relying on individuals to manage privileged credentials manually lacks centralized control, automated auditing, and the enforcement of least-privilege policies. Additionally, manual password management does not integrate seamlessly with automated workflows in CI/CD pipelines, leaving a gap in enforcement and observability.

Shared access via email is insecure and fundamentally noncompliant with modern DevSecOps practices. It does not provide access time limits, cannot enforce approval workflows, and lacks comprehensive auditing. Sharing credentials via email exposes sensitive accounts to interception or misuse and makes it extremely difficult to trace actions performed using these credentials.

Azure AD PIM addresses these challenges comprehensively. Administrators can request temporary elevation of privileges for a limited duration. Approval workflows ensure accountability, and all access requests and actions are logged for auditing. PIM also integrates with Azure DevOps and GitHub to control access to repositories, pipelines, and resources, ensuring that privileged operations are traceable. Conditional access policies can further restrict access based on device compliance, location, or risk signals, reinforcing Zero Trust principles.

Using PIM reduces risk by limiting the exposure of high-privilege accounts, prevents unauthorized access, and supporting regulatory compliance by providing a complete audit trail. Integration with automated DevOps workflows ensures that privileged operations are conducted securely and monitored centrally. Organizations can also configure alerts for unusual or risky access patterns, providing proactive visibility into potential threats.

In summary, Azure AD PIM offers just-in-time access, time-bound approval workflows, and full auditing of privileged activities, while static credentials, developer-managed passwords, and email sharing do not provide ephemeral access, automation, or traceability. PIM enforces security and operational compliance, integrates with DevOps environments, and aligns with modern DevSecOps practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 67:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories and provide remediation guidance. 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 is designed to embed security into the software development lifecycle by providing automated code scanning, secret detection, and dependency analysis during pull requests. This ensures that security vulnerabilities and misconfigurations are detected before code merges into main branches. Evaluating the other approaches highlights their shortcomings.

Manual code reviews are often inconsistent and time-consuming. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secrets and are prone to human error. Reviews are not scalable across multiple repositories or teams and do not integrate with automated CI/CD workflows. As a result, insecure code may still be merged, creating potential operational and security risks.

Local IDE static analysis helps developers detect issues while coding, but relies heavily on developer discipline. It lacks centralized enforcement and cannot consistently integrate with CI/CD pipelines across repositories. This means vulnerabilities or misconfigurations may bypass detection if a developer does not run the analysis or misinterprets results.

Build server notifications alert developers only after the build completes, making them reactive rather than proactive. While they provide visibility into build failures, they do not prevent insecure code from merging and lack real-time inline remediation guidance.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning during pull requests, identifying vulnerabilities, secrets, and dependency issues immediately. It generates alerts and automated remediation suggestions, reducing the risk of insecure code entering main branches. Dashboards provide centralized visibility across repositories, allowing security teams to track issues, assess risk, and prioritize remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that security is enforced consistently, enabling automated security checks and reducing reliance on human intervention.

Additionally, GitHub Advanced Security supports continuous monitoring for emerging vulnerabilities in dependencies and integrates threat intelligence data to flag known exploits. This proactive approach aligns with DevSecOps principles, embedding security into the CI/CD workflow and maintaining regulatory and operational compliance. Teams can automate pull requests for dependency updates, ensure secure coding practices, and maintain traceability and audit logs for all security actions, ensuring accountability.

In conclusion, GitHub Advanced Security enables automated detection, remediation guidance, and centralized visibility for security issues during the pull request process. Manual reviews, IDE scanning, and post-build notifications are either inconsistent, reactive, or dependent on developers, whereas GitHub Advanced Security provides proactive, automated, and enterprise-scale enforcement, making it the correct solution.

Question 68:

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

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual container 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 compliance for container images and provides runtime security monitoring, ensuring vulnerabilities are detected proactively. Evaluating other solutions clarifies why they are insufficient.

Manual container image scanning is labor-intensive and reactive. Security checks may be missed, and compliance enforcement is inconsistent. It cannot scale effectively across multiple clusters or pipelines and lacks runtime monitoring capabilities.

RBAC restricts who can deploy workloads but does not verify the security posture of container images or enforce runtime policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed if access is misused, leaving clusters at risk.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images, enforce pipeline policies, or provide runtime monitoring for deployed workloads. It is insufficient for enterprise container security.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers ensures that only approved container images are deployed by validating images against defined policies during the deployment process. Defender monitors containers at runtime for vulnerabilities, suspicious activity, and configuration violations. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated policy enforcement from build to deployment. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams, and alerts allow rapid remediation of noncompliant or vulnerable containers.

This approach reduces risk, enforces compliance, and ensures runtime security without relying on manual checks. Centralized monitoring, automated remediation, and integration with DevOps workflows align with DevSecOps principles and Zero Trust security models. By preventing the deployment of unapproved or vulnerable containers, organizations can maintain operational integrity and minimize exposure to attacks, making this the correct solution.

Question 69:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and generate pull requests for remediation. 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, vulnerability detection, and licensing compliance. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility and compliance monitoring. Evaluating other approaches demonstrates why they are insufficient.

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

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces substantial risk. Vulnerable dependencies can enter production undetected, exposing the organization to security breaches and licensing violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot analyze 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 across repositories, enabling security teams to assess risk and prioritize remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures consistent enforcement of secure coding practices. This reduces human error, maintains compliance, and aligns with DevSecOps principles. Automated remediation and proactive vulnerability management make this the correct solution.

Question 70:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for 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 provides centralized aggregation of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables anomaly detection, event correlation, alerting, and visualization, which are critical for rapid troubleshooting. Evaluating other options clarifies their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited, isolated visibility. They cannot scale across multiple pipelines, do not correlate infrastructure events, and do not provide actionable insights.

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

Developer email notifications alert individuals only after events occur. They lack dashboards, correlation, and actionable insights, which reduces operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics allows advanced queries, correlation of CI/CD events with infrastructure telemetry, anomaly detection, and creation of centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual behavior. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enables real-time monitoring and operational insight at enterprise scale. This centralized, automated, and correlated approach reduces downtime, supports compliance, and ensures rapid troubleshooting, making it the correct solution.

Question 71:

A DevOps team wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring approval workflows, time-bound access, and auditing. 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 Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides a comprehensive solution for managing privileged access in Azure and DevOps environments. It ensures that administrators can only access sensitive systems when necessary, for a limited time, and under controlled conditions. Evaluating the other solutions illustrates why they are inadequate.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived, which introduces a significant security risk if compromised. They do not enforce time-bound access or automated approval workflows, and they provide no detailed audit logs. The security of an entire environment depends on the secrecy and rotation of these credentials, which are prone to error and misuse.

Developer-managed passwords rely on human discipline to maintain secure practices. They are inconsistent, error-prone, and cannot scale to large teams or complex environments. There is no automated enforcement of least privilege or audit trails to monitor the usage of sensitive credentials.

Shared access via email is fundamentally insecure. It provides no time-limited access, lacks approval workflows, and leaves no detailed record of administrative activities. Credentials can be intercepted, shared further, or misused, making it noncompliant with regulatory or security standards.

Azure AD PIM provides just-in-time access, ensuring that administrators request temporary elevation to privileged accounts. Approval workflows ensure accountability, while time-bound access limits exposure. All activity is logged for auditing and compliance. PIM integrates with Azure DevOps and GitHub to control access to pipelines, repositories, and resources. Conditional access policies enforce access only under secure conditions, such as compliant devices or specific network locations.

By using PIM, organizations reduce attack surfaces, enforce Zero Trust principles, and maintain compliance with industry standards. The proactive control of privileged access ensures that administrators can perform tasks securely while minimizing risk. Alerts and reporting allow security teams to monitor unusual access patterns, detect misuse, and respond promptly.

In summary, Azure AD PIM provides ephemeral access, automated approval workflows, and detailed auditing for privileged accounts. Static credentials, developer-managed passwords, and email sharing do not offer time-bound access, automated approvals, or traceability. PIM aligns with DevSecOps best practices and is the correct solution for managing privileged access in Azure DevOps and GitHub.

Question 72:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories and provide remediation guidance. 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 pipelines, enabling early detection of vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations. Evaluating other options highlights why they are less effective.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle security vulnerabilities or secret leaks, particularly across multiple repositories or teams. Manual reviews lack the scalability needed for large-scale DevOps environments.

Local IDE static analysis relies on individual developers to run scans. It cannot enforce organization-wide policies or centrally track issues. Vulnerabilities may still be merged into main branches if developers miss alerts or misinterpret results.

Build server notifications alert developers after builds complete. This is reactive and does not prevent insecure or misconfigured code from merging. Notifications are typically decentralized and provide minimal visibility for security teams.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts during pull requests, scanning for code vulnerabilities, secrets, and dependency issues. It can automatically generate remediation suggestions or pull requests for vulnerable dependencies. Dashboards offer centralized visibility across repositories, enabling security teams to track issues, prioritize remediation, and maintain compliance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures proactive enforcement of secure coding practices, reduces human error, and supports DevSecOps principles.

Additionally, GitHub Advanced Security continuously monitors repositories for emerging vulnerabilities, integrating threat intelligence to identify known exploits in dependencies. Teams gain actionable insights without slowing development, enabling proactive security and maintaining operational efficiency. This combination of inline scanning, automated remediation, and centralized reporting makes GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution.

Question 73:

A company wants to enforce that only approved container images are deployed to Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and monitor runtime security. 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, combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers, ensures only approved container images are deployed and monitors containers at runtime for security threats and vulnerabilities. Evaluating other approaches highlights their limitations.

Manual scanning of container images is reactive and cannot scale across clusters or pipelines. Vulnerabilities may go undetected, and runtime monitoring is not provided.

RBAC enforces who can access resources, but does not verify the security posture of container images or detect runtime threats. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed if permissions are misused.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images, enforce deployment policies, or provide runtime monitoring in AKS.

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers automatically validates container images against approved policies before deployment. Defender monitors runtime container activity, detects vulnerabilities, and alerts security teams to suspicious activity. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces compliance from build to deployment. Dashboards provide centralized visibility, enabling rapid remediation. This proactive enforcement, continuous monitoring, and automated remediation align with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 74:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and generate pull requests for remediation. 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, detects vulnerabilities, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance monitoring. Evaluating other options highlights their shortcomings.

Manual dependency reviews are slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds, leaving vulnerabilities or licensing issues undetected.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces risk. Vulnerabilities may enter production unnoticed, creating potential security, operational, and legal problems.

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

GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates automated pull requests for remediation, and flags licensing issues. Dashboards centralize visibility across repositories, allowing security teams to track, prioritize, and remediate risks proactively. CI/CD integration ensures consistent enforcement of secure coding practices, reduces human error, and supports DevSecOps principles. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 75:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures early, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for 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 centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, enabling anomaly detection, event correlation, alerting, and visualization. Evaluating other approaches illustrates their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited, isolated visibility and cannot scale across multiple pipelines or correlate infrastructure events. They offer little actionable insight for troubleshooting.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It does not provide proactive detection of trends, anomalies, or systemic issues.

Developer email notifications alert individuals after failures but lack dashboards, correlation, and actionable insights, reducing operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics enables advanced queries, correlation of CI/CD and infrastructure events, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual patterns. Integration with CI/CD pipelines provides real-time monitoring and actionable insights at enterprise scale. Centralized visibility and correlation reduce downtime, support compliance, and accelerate troubleshooting, making it the correct solution.

Question 76:

A DevOps team wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring automated approval workflows, time-limited access, and auditing. 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 Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is a comprehensive solution for managing privileged access, enabling just-in-time access, time-limited elevation, approval workflows, and detailed auditing. Evaluating the other options clarifies why they are insufficient.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and lack ephemeral access controls. If compromised, attackers gain persistent privileges. They do not provide automated approval workflows, nor do they maintain audit logs for tracking privileged activity, increasing security and compliance risks.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to follow best practices and rotate credentials. This method is inconsistent, error-prone, and does not integrate with centralized monitoring or CI/CD pipelines, creating gaps in traceability and security enforcement.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant. It provides no time-bound access, no automated approvals, and lacks traceable audit logs. Credential sharing can result in misuse, interception, or unauthorized access, undermining compliance and security requirements.

Azure AD PIM enforces just-in-time access, allowing administrators to request temporary elevation for specific tasks. Approval workflows ensure accountability and prevent unauthorized access. Access duration is strictly limited, and all actions are logged for auditing purposes. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub ensures privileged operations are controlled, traceable, and compliant with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles. Conditional access policies further restrict access based on device compliance, location, or risk levels.

Using PIM minimizes exposure of high-privilege accounts, reduces the risk of unauthorized actions, and provides proactive visibility into potential threats. Alerts and reporting allow security teams to monitor unusual access patterns and respond swiftly to security incidents. By automating privileged access management and embedding auditing into workflows, PIM aligns with modern DevSecOps practices.

In conclusion, Azure AD PIM offers ephemeral access, automated approvals, and detailed auditing for privileged accounts. Static credentials, developer-managed passwords, and email sharing fail to provide these capabilities. PIM enforces security, compliance, and operational best practices, making it the correct solution.

Question 77:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories while providing remediation guidance. 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 embeds automated security scanning into pull requests and CI/CD pipelines, detecting vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before code is merged. Evaluating the alternatives shows their limitations.

Manual code reviews are slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secret leaks and do not scale effectively across large teams or multiple repositories. Manual review cannot provide real-time remediation guidance, leaving security gaps.

Local IDE static analysis depends on developers running scans individually. While useful for early detection, it lacks centralized enforcement, does not scale across repositories, and cannot prevent vulnerable code from being merged if developers skip or misinterpret results.

Build server notifications are reactive, alerting developers only after builds complete. They do not prevent insecure or misconfigured code from merging and provide limited centralized visibility, leaving gaps in proactive security enforcement.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning, automated code vulnerability detection, secret detection, and dependency analysis. It generates alerts, remediation suggestions, and automated pull requests for vulnerable dependencies. Centralized dashboards allow security teams to monitor repositories, track remediation progress, and prioritize critical issues. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures consistent security enforcement, reduces human error, and supports DevSecOps best practices.

Additionally, GitHub Advanced Security continuously monitors repositories for newly discovered vulnerabilities in dependencies and integrates threat intelligence to flag known exploits. This proactive approach embeds security into the development lifecycle without slowing down teams. It enables secure coding practices, accountability, and traceability while maintaining development efficiency.

In summary, GitHub Advanced Security provides automated vulnerability detection, secret scanning, remediation guidance, and centralized visibility. Manual reviews, IDE scanning, and build notifications are either inconsistent, reactive, or dependent on individual developers. GitHub Advanced Security offers enterprise-scale security enforcement, making it the correct solution.

Question 78:

A company wants to enforce that only approved container images are deployed to AKS and monitor runtime behavior for security threats. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual container 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 ensures only approved container images are deployed and monitors runtime activity for vulnerabilities and threats. Evaluating other options highlights their shortcomings.

Manual container image scanning is reactive, labor-intensive, and inconsistent. It cannot scale across clusters or pipelines and does not provide continuous runtime monitoring. Vulnerabilities may go undetected.

RBAC restricts who can access resources but does not validate container security or enforce runtime policies. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed, leaving the environment exposed.

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

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers validates container images against organizational policies before deployment. Defender continuously monitors runtime activity for vulnerabilities, suspicious processes, or misconfigurations. Alerts and dashboards provide centralized visibility and rapid remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures enforcement from build to deployment, reducing risk exposure.

This proactive approach aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles by enforcing compliance, monitoring runtime security, and automating remediation. Organizations can prevent deployment of unapproved or vulnerable images, detect threats in real time, and maintain operational integrity, making this the correct solution.

Question 79:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. 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 visibility and compliance reporting. Evaluating other options illustrates their limitations.

Manual dependency reviews are slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. They cannot scale across multiple repositories or frequent builds, leaving vulnerabilities and license issues unaddressed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces risk. Vulnerable dependencies may be introduced into production, causing potential security, operational, and compliance issues.

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

GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, automatically generates pull requests for remediation, and flags licensing violations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility, allowing security teams to assess risk and prioritize remediation. CI/CD integration ensures secure coding practices, consistent enforcement, and reduced human error. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 80:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for 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 provides centralized telemetry aggregation, alerting, visualization, and correlation for CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. Evaluating other options demonstrates their limitations.

Local pipeline console logs provide isolated visibility, cannot scale across pipelines or clusters, and lack correlation with infrastructure metrics. They do not provide actionable insights for proactive troubleshooting.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It cannot detect systemic issues or anomalies proactively, leaving the organization vulnerable to failures.

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts and lack dashboards, correlation, or actionable insight. They cannot centralize monitoring or provide enterprise-scale observability.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics enables advanced querying, anomaly detection, event correlation, and centralized dashboards. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures real-time visibility, actionable alerts, and proactive troubleshooting. Organizations can detect failures early, analyze trends, correlate events, and respond rapidly. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and provides operational insights, making it the correct solution.