Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 6 Q101-120

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

Question 101:

A company wants to ensure that only approved infrastructure configurations are deployed to Azure environments and monitor compliance continuously. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard
B) Manual resource review
C) RBAC only
D) Local endpoint antivirus

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard provides a framework to define, enforce, and monitor compliance policies across Azure resources. It ensures that only approved infrastructure configurations are deployed and continuously evaluates resources against compliance rules.

Manual resource review is a process where administrators, security teams, or operations staff inspect each cloud resource individually to ensure it meets organizational policies, compliance standards, and security requirements. While this approach can sometimes catch misconfigurations or policy violations, it is inherently time-consuming and labor-intensive. In modern cloud environments, organizations often manage hundreds or thousands of resources across multiple subscriptions, regions, and services. Attempting to manually review each resource does not scale efficiently and can create bottlenecks in deployment and operations. The reliance on human effort also introduces inconsistencies, as different reviewers may interpret policies differently or miss subtle misconfigurations. Even experienced administrators can overlook critical security issues when working at scale, and the absence of automation makes it difficult to maintain continuous compliance. Because cloud environments are dynamic, resources can be created, modified, or deleted frequently, meaning that manual reviews provide only a snapshot in time. Noncompliant resources may exist undetected between review cycles, creating windows of vulnerability that attackers could exploit. Additionally, manual reviews require significant coordination among teams, documentation, and auditing, which increases operational overhead and costs. The potential for human error further undermines the effectiveness of this approach, as accidental misinterpretation of policies, overlooked exceptions, or missed alerts can result in noncompliant deployments that expose the organization to regulatory violations or security risks.

RBAC, or role-based access control, is an essential component of cloud security that determines which users or service principals can access specific resources based on assigned roles. RBAC enforces the principle of least privilege, ensuring that users can only perform actions they are authorized to execute. While RBAC is crucial for controlling access, it does not provide enforcement for configuration compliance or security posture. For example, even if access to a resource is appropriately restricted, an authorized user could deploy a virtual machine or container with insecure settings, such as disabled encryption, open ports, or outdated software. RBAC does not evaluate whether the resource configuration aligns with organizational policies, security benchmarks, or regulatory standards. As a result, misconfigured or noncompliant resources can still exist in the environment despite proper access controls. RBAC also does not provide automated alerts for policy violations, meaning that organizations must rely on additional tools, monitoring, or manual review to detect and remediate these issues. While RBAC is necessary for enforcing access restrictions, it is insufficient on its own to ensure that deployed resources maintain compliance and security at scale.

Local endpoint antivirus software protects devices by detecting and preventing malware, viruses, and other malicious files. This type of protection is effective for individual computers or servers, butcannoto enforce infrastructure configuration or compliance in cloud environments. Antivirus tools do not assess whether virtual machines, containers, databases, or other resources are configured according to organizational policies. They cannot automatically remediate misconfigured cloud resources, ensure encryption is enabled, or enforce network security settings. Endpoint antivirus is reactive rather than proactive, designed to prevent threats from running on the host rather than continuously monitoring the broader environment for deviations from security standards. In dynamic cloud environments, where resources are constantly being created and modified, relying solely on endpoint antivirus leaves significant gaps in security coverage. Organizations may remain unaware of noncompliant deployments, vulnerabilities, or misconfigurations that could be exploited by attackers. Antivirus solutions also do not integrate into cloud governance frameworks, meaning they cannot provide the continuous, automated compliance monitoring and reporting necessary for modern DevSecOps practices.

Combining manual reviews, RBAC, and antivirus alone is insufficient to maintain cloud security at scale. Manual reviews are slow and error-prone, RBAC controls only access but not compliance, and antivirus protects endpoints without enforcing cloud-wide policies. Organizations require automated, policy-driven solutions that continuously evaluate resource configurations, enforce compliance, and provide visibility and remediation capabilities. These solutions reduce human error, scale across large and dynamic environments, and ensure consistent application of security and governance standards. By automating compliance enforcement, organizations can maintain secure and well-governed cloud infrastructures while reducing operational overhead and risk exposure.

Azure Policy allows organizations to define policies that control resource properties, enforce standards, and prevent noncompliant deployments. Compliance dashboards provide centralized visibility of compliance status, allowing teams to remediate issues proactively. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that deployments are validated against policy before provisioning. Alerts notify teams of deviations, supporting governance and DevSecOps practices. By automating enforcement and continuous monitoring, Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard reduces risk, ensures regulatory compliance, and maintains operational consistency, making it the correct solution.

Question 102:

A company wants to automatically detect secrets in source code, enforce remediation, and track issues across multiple repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Secret Scanning
B) Manual code inspection
C) Local IDE scanning
D) Email notifications to developers

Answer: A) GitHub Secret Scanning

Explanation:

GitHub Secret Scanning automatically detects exposed secrets in repositories, such as API keys, tokens, and passwords, and provides remediation guidance. It scans commits and pull requests to prevent sensitive information from entering source control.

Manual code inspection involves developers or security teams reviewing source code line by line to identify potential vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or secrets. While it can sometimes catch subtle issues that automated tools might miss, this approach is inherently slow and does not scale well in modern software development environments. Large codebases with frequent commits and pull requests make it impractical to manually inspect every change thoroughly. Manual reviews are also inconsistent because they depend on the experience, attention, and knowledge of the individual performing the review. Even highly skilled developers can overlook secrets, such as API keys, tokens, or credentials, especially when these are hidden in configuration files, scripts, or dependencies. Furthermore, manual inspection does not provide automated alerts or enforcement, meaning that issues may go undetected until after deployment or until a separate audit is performed. This delay increases the risk of accidental exposure and makes it difficult to maintain continuous security and compliance in environments with multiple repositories or teams working in parallel.

Local IDE scanning refers to tools integrated into the developer’s development environment that analyze code for potential security issues, such as exposed secrets, insecure function calls, or misconfigured dependencies. These tools provide immediate feedback while developers write code, which can help prevent some errors early in the development process. However, local IDE scanning has several limitations. It depends entirely on individual developers running the scans and interpreting the results correctly. Developers may ignore warnings, fail to configure the tools properly, or inconsistently apply scanning across different projects or environments. IDE scanning lacks centralized enforcement and cannot provide organization-wide reporting, making it difficult for security teams to monitor vulnerabilities across all repositories. Additionally, local IDE tools generally do not offer guidance for remediation or integration with automated pipelines, which means that detected issues may not be fixed promptly. Without centralized control and reporting, organizations cannot ensure consistent application of security policies, leaving gaps in their secret management and vulnerability detection processes.

Email notifications from build servers or security monitoring tools are intended to alert developers after issues have been detected. For example, a CI/CD pipeline might generate an email if a secret is found in a commit, or if a build fails due to a security policy violation. While these notifications provide some awareness of problems, they are reactive rather than proactive. By the time an email is received, the secret may already be committed to the repository, potentially exposing sensitive information. Emails do not prevent the introduction of secrets in the first place and do not enforce security policies automatically. They also do not track remediation progress, which can make it difficult for teams to verify that the identified issues have been properly addressed. In large teams or organizations with many repositories, email notifications can be overwhelming, easy to ignore, or lost among other messages, reducing their effectiveness in maintaining security and compliance.

Combining manual code inspection, local IDE scanning, and email notifications alone is insufficient for modern secure development practices. Manual inspection is slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. Local IDE scanning lacks centralization, reporting, and remediation guidance. Email notifications are reactive and cannot prevent issues from occurring in the first place. Organizations require automated, centralized, and integrated solutions that proactively detect secrets and vulnerabilities, provide remediation guidance, enforce policies, and maintain audit trails across repositories. Solutions like GitHub Advanced Security, integrated CI/CD scanning tools, and secret management systems offer this proactive and scalable approach, enabling organizations to secure codebases effectively while supporting fast and continuous development cycles.

GitHub Secret Scanning integrates directly into repositories, detecting secrets proactively during commits and pull requests. Alerts and dashboards provide visibility for security teams to track and remediate issues. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures compliance with DevSecOps practices. Centralized tracking supports auditability, and automated remediation guidance helps prevent sensitive data leaks. By embedding security into the development lifecycle, GitHub Secret Scanning is the correct solution for managing secrets.

Question 103:

A company wants to implement automated security scanning for container images, enforce policies, and monitor runtime threats across multiple AKS clusters. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Containers with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Containers, combined with Azure Policy, provides a robust, automated, and proactive solution for securing containerized workloads in cloud environments. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules and enforce compliance across container images, clusters, and deployed workloads. It ensures that only approved container images can be deployed, enforces encryption standards, restricts privileged container operations, and applies other configuration policies consistently across all clusters. Microsoft Defender for Containers complements this by continuously monitoring both container images and running containers for known vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and runtime threats. Defender generates alerts when security issues are detected and provides actionable remediation guidance to resolve them. This integrated approach allows security teams to maintain a continuous security posture, detect risks before they impact production, and enforce compliance across dynamic, large-scale container environments. Dashboards and reporting provide visibility into security posture, helping prioritize remediation based on severity and potential impact. Together, Azure Policy and Microsoft Defender for Containers enable organizations to implement DevSecOps principles by embedding security controls directly into the deployment process, ensuring that workloads remain compliant and secure throughout their lifecycle.

Manual container scanning, on the other hand, is labor-intensive and reactive. Security teams or developers must manually scan container images for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, or misconfigurations before deployment. While this can detect some issues at a single point in time, it does not provide continuous monitoring or automated enforcement. In modern cloud environments, where containers can be created, updated, or deleted rapidly across multiple clusters and subscriptions, manual scanning cannot scale effectively. Furthermore, manual processes lack integration with runtime monitoring, meaning that vulnerabilities or misconfigurations introduced after deployment may remain undetected until the next scan. This approach also requires significant human effort, coordination, and documentation, which increases operational overhead and introduces the potential for human error. As a result, relying solely on manual container scanning leaves workloads exposed to threats, delays remediation, and increases operational risk.

Role-based access control (RBAC) is a critical tool for managing who can access and manage container resources. RBAC enforces least-privilege access, ensuring that only authorized users or service principals can deploy or manage containers. While RBAC is essential for controlling access, it does not evaluate the security of container images or detect runtime threats. An authorized user could still deploy an unapproved, vulnerable, or misconfigured container, potentially introducing security risks. RBAC alone does not provide automated alerts for misconfigurations, runtime attacks, or policy violations. Therefore, while RBAC contributes to access governance, it cannot substitute for proactive monitoring and continuous enforcement of container security policies.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints from malware, viruses, and malicious files on the host machine. While useful for protecting individual devices, antivirus tools are not designed to inspect container images, monitor container runtime behavior, or enforce cloud security policies. They cannot detect vulnerabilities in containerized applications, monitor for unauthorized configuration changes, or provide visibility into security issues across multiple clusters. Antivirus operates reactively, detecting threats only on the host where it is installed, leaving significant gaps in cloud-native container security. Containers running in orchestrated environments such as Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) require specialized monitoring and policy enforcement beyond what traditional endpoint protection can offer.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, Microsoft Defender for Containers combined with Azure Policy provides the most complete, automated, and scalable solution for securing container workloads. It ensures policy compliance, monitors for runtime threats, and enforces security standards continuously. Manual scanning is limited and reactive, RBAC only manages access without enforcing security policies, and antivirus software cannot address container-specific risks. By integrating policy enforcement and continuous monitoring, organizations can maintain secure, compliant, and well-governed containerized environments while minimizing operational overhead and risk exposure.

Azure Policy enforces deployment rules for container images, preventing noncompliant images from being deployed. Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime activity, detecting suspicious processes, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations. Alerts, dashboards, and centralized reporting provide visibility for security teams. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that policies are applied atthe  build and deployment stages. This combination aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, providing automated enforcement, runtime monitoring, and operational security, making it the correct solution.

Question 104:

A company wants to automatically identify vulnerable dependencies, enforce license compliance, and create pull requests for remediation across multiple repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automatically identifies vulnerable dependencies, suggests updates, and generates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility and compliance tracking.

Manual dependency review is time-consuming, inconsistent, and error-prone. It cannot scale across repositories or frequent builds.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces risk. Vulnerabilities may be introduced without detection, creating operational and security issues.

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

Dependabot detects outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates automated pull requests, and flags license violations. Dashboards in Microsoft Defender for Cloud provide centralized tracking and remediation reporting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures continuous enforcement, reduces human error, and aligns with DevSecOps best practices. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 105:

A company wants centralized monitoring and correlation of events from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing actionable insights and alerts for failures. 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 pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights.

Local pipeline console logs offer limited visibility and cannot correlate events across multiple resources.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. It does not provide proactive insights or anomaly detection.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack dashboards, correlation, or centralized visibility.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces across pipelines and infrastructure. Log Analytics enables complex queries, correlation of events, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual patterns. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures operational visibility, rapid troubleshooting, and alignment with DevSecOps principles. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and provides actionable insights, making it the correct solution.

Question 106:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time access for administrators in Azure DevOps and ensure all actions are logged for 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 centralized service that enables just-in-time privilege elevation for administrators. PIM ensures that privileged access is granted only when necessary and for a limited duration, minimizing the risk of overexposed administrative rights. It also provides comprehensive logging and audit trails, which are critical for compliance and security monitoring.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and cannot be time-bound. They provide persistent access and do not generate audit logs of usage, which creates a security risk if credentials are compromised.

Developer-managed passwords rely on manual practices that are error-prone and inconsistent. They cannot enforce time-bound access or centralized auditing.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant with modern security standards. It does not provide ephemeral access or automated logging, leaving the organization vulnerable to unauthorized access.

PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated access, enforce approval workflows, and automatically revoke privileges after a specified duration. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures that all privileged operations, such as modifying pipelines or repositories, are auditable. Alerts and reporting provide visibility into unusual or unauthorized activity, supporting Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles. This combination of just-in-time access, automated approval, and auditing makes Azure AD PIM the correct solution.

Question 107:

A company wants to automatically detect 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 security scanning directly into pull requests and CI/CD pipelines, allowing vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations to be detected before code merges. This proactive approach ensures secure code is deployed and reduces the risk of security incidents.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and subject to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or secret leaks across multiple repositories.

Local IDE static analysis depends on individual developers running scans, lacks centralized enforcement, and cannot prevent insecure code from merging if scans are skipped.

Build server notifications are reactive, alerting only after builds complete. They do not prevent insecure or vulnerable code from entering production and provide limited visibility for centralized security monitoring.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning of pull requests, automated detection, secret scanning, dependency analysis, and remediation suggestions. Centralized dashboards allow security teams to monitor repositories, track issues, and prioritize remediation. Continuous monitoring for emerging vulnerabilities ensures proactive security. Integration with CI/CD pipelines reduces human error and enforces secure coding practices, making GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution.

Question 108:

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

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual container 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 provides policy enforcement and runtime monitoring for containerized workloads. Azure Policy ensures that only approved container images are deployed, and Defender monitors runtime activity for vulnerabilities and threats.

Manual container scanning is reactive, inconsistent, and does not scale well. It cannot continuously monitor running workloads, leaving clusters exposed.

RBAC controls access but does not enforce deployment policies or monitor container runtime behavior. Unauthorized or vulnerable images may still be deployed.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot monitor container images or runtime threats within AKS clusters.

Azure Policy enforces compliance rules on container deployments. Defender for Containers continuously monitors running workloads, detecting vulnerabilities, suspicious processes, and misconfigurations. Alerts and dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures policy enforcement from build to deployment, aligning with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. This proactive enforcement makes it the correct solution.

Question 109:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerable dependencies, enforce license compliance, and create remediation pull requests across repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency review
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 of outdated or vulnerable dependencies and creates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility and compliance monitoring across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency reviews are slow, error-prone, and inconsistent. They cannot scale across repositories or frequent builds.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces risk, as vulnerabilities may be introduced into production without detection.

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

Dependabot identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates automated remediation pull requests, and flags license violations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility, allowing security teams to track and remediate issues efficiently. CI/CD integration ensures continuous enforcement and alignment with DevSecOps principles. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 110:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights. 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 collects telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing centralized monitoring, event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited, isolated visibility and cannot correlate events across multiple pipelines or resources.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards or event correlation, limiting operational visibility.

Azure Monitor enables advanced querying, event correlation, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual events. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures real-time visibility, operational insights, and rapid troubleshooting. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and improves operational efficiency, making it the correct solution.

Question 111:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps while maintaining audit logs 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 Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides time-bound, just-in-time access for administrators and ensures that all actions are logged and auditable. PIM reduces the attack surface by allowing elevated privileges only when needed. Approval workflows enforce accountability and ensure proper authorization before sensitive operations are performed.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and provide persistent access without time-bound constraints. They lack automated approval workflows and do not provide centralized logging for auditing, increasing security risk.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to follow secure practices, which introduces inconsistency and human error. They cannot enforce time-limited access or centralize audit logs.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant. It lacks automated approval processes, time-bound access, and auditing. Credentials shared via email can easily be intercepted or misused.

PIM allows administrators to request temporary access, which triggers an approval workflow. Access is automatically revoked after a defined period. Every action performed under elevated privileges is logged for auditing, supporting compliance and regulatory requirements. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures traceability of privileged actions in pipelines, repositories, and environments. Alerts and reports enable security teams to monitor unusual activity, detect potential abuse, and maintain visibility over privileged operations. By combining just-in-time access, approvals, and auditing, PIM enforces security best practices and aligns with DevSecOps principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 112:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and exposed secrets 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 embeds automated security scanning directly into pull requests and CI/CD pipelines, detecting vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and secrets before code merges. This ensures proactive protection against potential security issues.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect all vulnerabilities or secrets across multiple repositories and do not provide automated remediation guidance.

Local IDE static analysis is dependent on developers running scans locally. It lacks central enforcement, reporting, and cannot prevent insecure code from merging if scans are skipped.

Build server notifications are reactive, alerting only after builds complete. This approach does not prevent vulnerable or misconfigured code from entering production, and visibility for security teams is limited.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning for pull requests, automated vulnerability detection, secret scanning, dependency analysis, and remediation suggestions. Dashboards allow security teams to monitor repositories, track vulnerabilities, and prioritize remediation. Continuous monitoring ensures proactive identification of new vulnerabilities. Integration with CI/CD pipelines reduces human error and enforces secure coding practices. Automated remediation guidance and centralized visibility make GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution for maintaining secure and compliant code.

Question 113:

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

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual container 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 provides comprehensive security for container workloads. Azure Policy ensures only approved images are deployed, while Defender monitors runtime behavior for vulnerabilities and threats.

Manual container scanning is reactive, inconsistent, and labor-intensive. It cannot provide continuous monitoring of runtime activity, leaving clusters potentially exposed.

RBAC controls access but does not enforce deployment policies or monitor runtime security. Vulnerable images may still be deployed, exposing the environment to risk.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect container images or monitor runtime threats within AKS clusters.

Azure Policy validates images during deployment, ensuring compliance with organizational standards. Defender for Containers continuously monitors running workloads, detecting vulnerabilities, suspicious activity, and misconfigurations. Centralized dashboards and alerts provide security teams with visibility and remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces security at both build and deployment stages, aligning with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. This proactive enforcement and monitoring make Azure Policy with Defender the correct solution.

Question 114:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation across multiple repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency review
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 of outdated or vulnerable dependencies and generates pull requests to remediate them. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance tracking, and reporting.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. It cannot scale across repositories or frequent builds, leaving vulnerabilities unresolved.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may be deployed without detection, increasing operational risk.

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

Dependabot detects outdated or vulnerable dependencies, creates pull requests for remediation, and flags license violations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams to track and remediate issues efficiently. CI/CD integration ensures continuous enforcement and aligns with DevSecOps principles. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make GitHub Dependabot with Defender the correct solution.

Question 115:

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 collects telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing centralized monitoring, event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights.

Local console logs provide limited visibility and cannot correlate events across pipelines or resources.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without dashboards, correlation, or centralized visibility, limiting operational insight.

Azure Monitor enables advanced querying, event correlation, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notification of failures or unusual activity. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures real-time operational insights and rapid troubleshooting. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and improves operational efficiency. This makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution for comprehensive CI/CD and infrastructure monitoring.

Question 116:

A company wants to ensure that only approved infrastructure templates are deployed to Azure and continuously monitor compliance across all resources. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard
B) Manual resource review
C) RBAC only
D) Local endpoint antivirus

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard enables organizations to define, enforce, and continuously monitor compliance policies across all Azure resources. It ensures that only approved infrastructure templates or configurations are deployed, and provides centralized visibility into compliance status.

Manual resource review is time-consuming and inconsistent. It cannot scale to large environments and may fail to detect noncompliant resources.

RBAC restricts who can access resources but does not validate configuration compliance. Unauthorized or misconfigured resources could still be deployed.

Local endpoint antivirus protects endpoints but cannot enforce infrastructure deployment policies or monitor compliance in the cloud.

Azure Policy allows organizations to create policy definitions to control resource properties, enforce standards, and prevent noncompliant deployments. The Compliance Dashboard provides visibility into the current state of resources, enabling teams to remediate issues proactively. Integration with CI/CD pipelines allows validation of templates before deployment. Alerts notify teams of deviations from policy, supporting governance, compliance, and DevSecOps practices. By automating policy enforcement and providing continuous monitoring, Azure Policy with Compliance Dashboard ensures operational consistency, reduces risk, and maintains compliance, making it the correct solution.

Question 117:

A company wants to automatically detect exposed secrets in source code, prevent their deployment, and provide remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Secret Scanning
B) Manual code inspection
C) Local IDE scanning
D) Email notifications to developers

Answer: A) GitHub Secret Scanning

Explanation:

GitHub Secret Scanning automatically scans repositories for exposed secrets, such as API keys, passwords, and tokens, and guides remediation. It integrates directly with repositories and CI/CD pipelines to prevent sensitive information from being deployed into production.

Manual code inspection is slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. It cannot reliably detect all secrets across multiple repositories and is not scalable.

Local IDE scanning depends on individual developers to run scans, and it lacks centralized enforcement, reporting, or automated remediation.

Email notifications alert developers only after a secret is committed, which is reactive and may allow sensitive data exposure.

GitHub Secret Scanning provides proactive detection by scanning commits, pull requests, and repository history. Alerts are sent to developers and security teams, with guidance on remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces secret scanning before deployment, reducing the risk of data leaks. Dashboards allow centralized tracking and reporting for audit purposes. Automated detection, centralized visibility, and proactive enforcement make GitHub Secret Scanning the correct solution for managing secrets in source code.

Question 118:

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

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual container 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 provides comprehensive security for containerized workloads. Azure Policy enforces that only approved images are deployed, while Defender monitors runtime behavior for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and suspicious activity.

Manual container scanning is reactive, labor-intensive, and cannot provide continuous monitoring of running workloads. Vulnerabilities may go undetected.

RBAC controls access but does not enforce deployment policies or monitor runtime security. Vulnerable or unauthorized images could still run in the cluster.

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

Azure Policy validates images during deployment, ensuring compliance with organizational standards. Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime activity, detecting threats, misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities. Dashboards and alerts provide centralized visibility for security teams. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces security from build to deployment. This proactive approach aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, making Azure Policy with Defender the correct solution.

Question 119:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation across multiple repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency review
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 of outdated or vulnerable dependencies and creates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance tracking, and reporting across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. It cannot scale across repositories or frequent builds, leaving vulnerabilities unresolved.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may be deployed without detection, increasing operational risk.

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

Dependabot detects outdated or vulnerable dependencies, generates remediation pull requests, and flags license violations. Dashboards provide centralized tracking and reporting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures continuous enforcement and aligns with DevSecOps practices. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make GitHub Dependabot with Defender the correct solution.

Question 120:

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 centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, enabling anomaly detection, event correlation, dashboards, and actionable insights.

Local console logs provide isolated visibility, cannot correlate events across resources, and do not provide centralized analysis.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without dashboards, event correlation, or centralized visibility, limiting operational insight.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from pipelines and infrastructure. Log Analytics allows complex queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and visualization through dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual activity. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures real-time operational insights and rapid troubleshooting. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, improves compliance, and enhances operational efficiency, making Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution.