Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 8 Q141-160

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

Question 141:

A company wants to enforce automated scanning of all code for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations before merging into the main branch while providing centralized reporting and 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 provides comprehensive security scanning directly integrated into repositories and CI/CD pipelines. It automatically detects secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations in pull requests, preventing insecure or non-compliant code from merging into production. Centralized dashboards provide reporting and remediation guidance, helping teams maintain security and compliance across multiple repositories.

Manual code reviews rely on human oversight, are time-consuming, and may miss critical vulnerabilities or secrets. While they improve code quality, they cannot scale efficiently across large repositories or enforce policies consistently.

Local IDE static analysis allows individual developers to check code before committing, but it lacks centralized enforcement and reporting. Developers may forget to run scans, or results may not be interpreted correctly, leaving risks unmitigated.

Build server notifications alert developers after a build fails due to detected issues, but they are reactive and may allow insecure code to persist until a build fails. They do not enforce security policies proactively or provide centralized remediation guidance.

GitHub Advanced Security integrates inline scanning, secret detection, dependency scanning, and automated remediation guidance directly in pull requests. Security teams can track vulnerabilities and remediation status across repositories through dashboards. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures consistent enforcement and compliance. Alerts notify security teams of critical issues, enabling proactive remediation. Automated, proactive, and centralized enforcement makes GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution compared to manual reviews, IDE scans, or reactive notifications, aligning with DevSecOps best practices.

Question 142:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access to Azure DevOps environments, ensuring time-limited elevated permissions, approval workflows, and audit logging for all administrative actions. 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) enables organizations to enforce just-in-time (JIT) access for administrators, providing time-limited privileges, approval workflows, and detailed audit logs. Administrators request elevated access, triggering approval workflows. Once approved, access is granted temporarily and automatically revoked after expiration.

Static service principal credentials provide permanent elevated access without time limits, approval workflows, or auditing, creating a significant security risk if credentials are compromised.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent and rely on human oversight, lacking automated approval workflows and ephemeral access controls. Auditability is limited, increasing compliance risk.

Shared access via email is insecure, non-compliant, and cannot enforce JIT access or auditing. Credentials can be intercepted, shared, or misused without traceability.

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is a critical service for managing and securing privileged access within Azure environments. One of its key capabilities is the logging of all privileged actions, which ensures full accountability for any administrative operations performed on resources. Every time a user activates a privileged role, PIM records the action, capturing who performed it, what resources were accessed, and when the activity occurred. This level of visibility is essential for compliance, auditing, and risk management, allowing organizations to demonstrate proper governance and quickly investigate suspicious activity. PIM also integrates seamlessly with Azure DevOps, extending traceability to administrative actions on pipelines, repositories, and environments. This integration ensures that any changes to code, deployment configurations, or operational workflows are linked to a specific privileged user, enabling precise attribution and improving the security posture of the software development lifecycle.

In addition to detailed logging, PIM provides alerts for unusual activity. These alerts are generated when actions deviate from normal patterns, such as unexpected role activations, access from unusual locations, or multiple concurrent activations. By notifying security teams of potentially anomalous behavior, PIM supports proactive risk mitigation and enables rapid response to potential threats. This feature is particularly important in dynamic cloud environments, where privileged credentials could be targeted by attackers seeking to escalate access or manipulate critical resources. Continuous monitoring and alerting help prevent misuse of elevated privileges and reduce the likelihood of data breaches, operational disruption, or noncompliance with regulatory requirements.

PIM also supports just-in-time (JIT) access, which allows users to request and receive temporary elevated privileges only when needed. These privileges automatically expire after a predefined duration, minimizing the window of opportunity for misuse or compromise. JIT access enforces the principle of least privilege by granting users only the permissions necessary for the task at hand, reducing the risk associated with always-on administrative credentials. PIM further incorporates approval workflows and access justification, ensuring that elevated privileges are granted only under controlled and auditable conditions. This combination of features reduces administrative overhead while strengthening security governance, providing a structured and reliable method for managing privileged access.

Integration with continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines supports DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. By embedding PIM into the development and deployment process, organizations ensure that security is enforced consistently throughout the software lifecycle. Every privileged action in the pipeline is logged and auditable, and temporary access controls help prevent unauthorized or risky operations. This approach aligns security governance with agile and automated workflows, maintaining compliance without slowing development. PIM provides a scalable, automated solution for privileged access management, replacing ad hoc or manual methods that are prone to human error and security gaps.

Compared to static service principal credentials, developer-managed passwords, or sharing access via email, PIM offers a significantly more secure and controlled approach. Static credentials are always active, increasing exposure if compromised. Developer-managed passwords can be inconsistent, reused, or poorly stored, creating vulnerabilities. Email-based access is highly insecure, lacks auditability, and bypasses access control mechanisms entirely. PIM addresses these shortcomings by enforcing JIT access, approvals, multifactor authentication, continuous monitoring, and detailed logging, ensuring that privileged access is both secure and accountable.

By combining automated enforcement, comprehensive auditing, alerts for anomalous activity, and integration with CI/CD workflows, Azure AD PIM reduces risk, enforces governance, and aligns with security best practices. It provides a modern, scalable, and reliable method for privileged access management in cloud environments, making it the preferred solution for organizations seeking to implement strong security and compliance controls.

Question 143:

A company wants to enforce encryption of all sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts, continuously monitor compliance across subscriptions, and generate audit reports. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy
B) Manual encryption by developers
C) Local disk encryption only
D) Antivirus scanning of storage data

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption ensures all data at rest is automatically encrypted using strong encryption algorithms. Azure Policy enforces compliance across subscriptions, monitors non-compliant accounts, and provides audit logs for regulatory and operational reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is error-prone and inconsistent. It is difficult to scale across multiple accounts and subscriptions, risking unencrypted sensitive data and non-compliance.

Local disk encryption protects endpoints but does not secure cloud storage. It cannot enforce encryption standards across Azure Storage accounts or provide centralized compliance reporting.

Antivirus scanning focuses on malware detection and does not enforce encryption or monitor compliance. It cannot provide centralized visibility or auditability of storage data.

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy automates encryption and continuously validates compliance. Non-compliant accounts can trigger alerts or be blocked, and dashboards provide centralized visibility. Audit reports enable regulatory compliance and accountability. Integration with CI/CD and DevOps practices ensures consistent enforcement throughout the deployment lifecycle. Automated, centralized, and auditable encryption enforcement makes this the correct solution compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 144:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities and license compliance issues in third-party dependencies and automatically generate remediation pull requests 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, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies and creates pull requests to remediate issues. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, monitoring, and compliance reporting across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. It cannot scale effectively across multiple repositories or fwith requent updates, leaving vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may reach production environments undetected, leading to potential exploits or legal violations.

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

Dependabot is a tool designed to continuously monitor the dependencies used in software projects, particularly those in open-source libraries. It scans for known vulnerabilities, outdated packages, and license compliance issues, providing developers with timely insights into potential risks. When a vulnerability is detected, Dependabot can automatically generate a pull request with the necessary updates to remediate the issue. This automation significantly reduces the time between vulnerability discovery and remediation, preventing insecure dependencies from being deployed to production. Dependabot also flags license violations, helping organizations maintain compliance with legal and policy requirements for open-source software. By integrating directly into source code repositories, Dependabot ensures that dependency security is addressed as part of the normal development workflow, promoting proactive risk management.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud complements Dependabot by providing centralized visibility and governance across cloud environments. It consolidates information about vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and compliance status, presenting actionable insights through dashboards and reports. Defender tracks adherence to organizational security policies and regulatory standards, enabling teams to prioritize remediation efforts effectively. Its integration with Azure Policy and other governance tools allows organizations to enforce compliance automatically, reducing the likelihood of noncompliant resources being deployed. By combining Defender for Cloud with Dependabot, organizations gain both proactive detection at the code level and centralized monitoring at the cloud infrastructure level. This dual approach ensures that vulnerabilities are addressed consistently across development and operational environments.

CI/CD integration further enhances the effectiveness of this combined solution. Security checks can be embedded into automated pipelines, ensuring that code cannot be deployed if it contains vulnerable dependencies or violates license policies. Pull requests generated by Dependabot can trigger additional validation, testing, or approval workflows within the CI/CD system, providing multiple layers of protection before deployment. This automation minimizes human error, prevents delays in addressing security issues, and ensures that best practices are applied consistently across all projects. By integrating security into CI/CD workflows, organizations can adopt DevSecOps principles, embedding security throughout the development lifecycle rather than treating it as a separate, reactive process.

Automated detection, centralized visibility, and proactive remediation together create a robust framework for managing dependency risk. Developers are alerted immediately when an issue arises, remediation can occur without manual intervention, and security teams have a comprehensive overview of the organization’s vulnerability and compliance posture. This approach reduces operational overhead, improves the efficiency of security workflows, and ensures that critical vulnerabilities are not overlooked. Centralized dashboards allow teams to track remediation progress, monitor trends, and focus efforts on high-priority risks, while automated updates and pull requests ensure that low-level vulnerabilities are addressed quickly and consistently.

Compared to manual dependency reviews, trusting open-source libraries without scanning, or relying solely on local antivirus software, the combination of Dependabot and Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a scalable, proactive, and integrated solution. Manual reviews are slow, inconsistent, and prone to human error. Blindly trusting libraries exposes organizations to supply chain risks, and local antivirus software cannot detect vulnerabilities in dependencies or enforce compliance in code repositories. Dependabot with Defender ensures that vulnerabilities are detected automatically, compliance is monitored continuously, and remediation occurs before deployment, creating a secure development and operational environment.

By combining automated detection at the code level, centralized monitoring and compliance at the cloud level, and seamless integration into CI/CD workflows, Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a modern, scalable, and effective approach to dependency management. It reduces human error, enforces governance, improves security posture, and aligns with DevSecOps best practices, making it the preferred solution for organizations seeking to secure their software supply chain comprehensively.

Question 145:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights to improve operational efficiency. 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 collection, event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights across CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables proactive identification of failures and supports operational troubleshooting and continuous improvement.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited, isolated visibility and cannot correlate events across systems, making root cause analysis challenging.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, slow, and inconsistent. It does not enable proactive monitoring or scalable operational insights.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack centralized dashboards, event correlation, and actionable insights. They do not allow teams to detect systemic issues or trends proactively.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from pipelines and infrastructure. Log Analytics allows advanced queries, anomaly detection, and event correlation. Dashboards consolidate visibility into operational health, failures, and performance trends. Alerts notify teams of critical issues for rapid response. Integration with CI/CD ensures continuous monitoring and supports operational excellence. Automated, centralized, and proactive monitoring mmakeAzure Monitor the correct solution compared to console logs, manual reviews, or email notifications.

Question 146:

A company wants to continuously monitor Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) clusters for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and runtime threats, while enforcing approved image policies. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers
B) Manual cluster auditing
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, provides an automated and centralized approach to securing containerized workloads in AKS. Azure Policy enforces compliance with organizational standards by validating container images, network policies, security context settings, and other configurations during deployment. This prevents unapproved or insecure containers from being deployed. Microsoft Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime activity, detecting anomalies, suspicious behaviors, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations, and provides actionable recommendations for remediation.

Manual cluster auditing is reactive, inconsistent, and cannot scale effectively across multiple clusters. Auditors may overlook runtime threats or misconfigurations that occur after deployment, leaving clusters exposed.

RBAC controls access to resources but does not enforce compliance with deployment standards or monitor runtime threats. Unauthorized containers could still run if RBAC is the only control in place.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect containers or monitor cluster runtime activity. It does not enforce deployment policies or detect runtime security issues within AKS.

By combining Azure Policy and Defender for Containers, organizations gain proactive, automated enforcement and continuous runtime monitoring. Alerts notify security teams of suspicious activity, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that security policies are enforced before deployment. This approach reduces risk, enforces governance, aligns with DevSecOps principles, and ensures compliance at scale. Compared to manual auditing, RBAC-only approaches, or endpoint antivirus solutions, Azure Policy with Defender for Containers is the most comprehensive and effective solution for securing AKS clusters.

Question 147:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and automatically create remediation pull requests. 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, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies and creates pull requests to remediate them. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance tracking, and actionable reporting across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency review is time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. It is challenging to scale across multiple repositories and frequent updates, leaving vulnerabilities unresolved for extended periods.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may reach production undetected, potentially causing security breaches or legal compliance issues.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but does not scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is reactive rather than proactive.

Dependabot continuously monitors repositories, detects outdated or vulnerable dependencies, and automatically generates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates visibility across repositories, tracks license compliance, and provides dashboards and reports for auditing. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures automated enforcement and prevents vulnerabilities from reaching production. Alerts notify security teams of critical issues, enabling proactive remediation. Automated detection, remediation, and centralized visibility reduce human error, enhance security posture, and support DevSecOps best practices, making Dependabot with Defender the correct solution.

Question 148:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for Azure DevOps administrators with time-limited elevated permissions, approval workflows, and audit logging. 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) enables organizations to manage privileged access securely by providing time-bound elevated permissions, approval workflows, and detailed audit logs. Administrators request temporary access, which triggers an approval workflow. Access is granted for a predefined duration and automatically revoked when the time expires.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived, providing persistent elevated access without expiration or approval workflows, creating security risks if credentials are compromised.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent, error-prone, and lack automated enforcement, auditing, and time-bound access. Relying on manual password management increases operational and security risks.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant with modern security practices. Credentials can be intercepted or misused without traceability or automated revocation.

PIM ensures that all privileged actions are logged, providing accountability and supporting regulatory compliance. Integration with Azure DevOps allows full traceability of administrative operations on pipelines, repositories, and environments. Alerts notify security teams of unusual access patterns. By automating temporary access, approval workflows, and audit logging, PIM reduces the risk of overprivileged accounts, enhances governance, and aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. This makes PIM the correct solution compared to static credentials, manual password management, or shared access.

Question 149:

A company wants to ensure all sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts is encrypted, continuously monitored for compliance, and audited across subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy
B) Manual encryption by developers
C) Local disk encryption only
D) Antivirus scanning of storage data

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data at rest using strong encryption standards. Azure Policy enforces encryption across subscriptions, monitors compliance, generates alerts, and provides audit logs for security and regulatory reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. It is difficult to enforce across multiple storage accounts, leaving sensitive data vulnerable and noncompliant.

Local disk encryption protects endpoints but does not secure data stored in Azure Storage accounts. It cannot enforce organizational encryption policies or provide centralized monitoring and auditing.

Antivirus scanning focuses on malware detection and does not ensure encryption, monitor compliance, or provide auditability of storage accounts.

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy ensures automated enforcement and continuous monitoring. Non-compliant storage accounts can trigger alerts or remediation actions. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for compliance tracking. Audit logs enable accountability and regulatory compliance. Integration with DevOps processes ensures consistent enforcement throughout deployment. Automated encryption enforcement with monitoring and auditability ensures sensitive data is protected at scale, making this the correct solution.

Question 150:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure in real time, detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for operational efficiency. 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 monitoring of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables event correlation, anomaly detection, and operational insights to identify failures and improve efficiency. Dashboards visualize system health, performance trends, and critical metrics, while alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or anomalies.

Local pipeline console logs provide isolated visibility and cannot correlate events across multiple pipelines or systems, making troubleshooting complex and time-consuming.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and does not scale. It cannot proactively identify trends, anomalies, or recurring issues, delaying remediation.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, event correlation, or actionable insights. Teams may be aware of failures but lack context for operational decision-making.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from pipelines and infrastructure. Log Analytics allows advanced queries, correlation of events, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards consolidate information for operational visibility and strategic decision-making. Alerts enable proactive remediation and integration with automation workflows ,supporting continuous operational improvement. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, enhances reliability, and improves compliance. This proactive and scalable approach makes Azure Monitor the correct solution compared to local logs, manual reviews, or reactive notifications.

Question 151:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps, with time-limited elevated permissions, approval workflows, and full audit logging of all administrative actions. 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 security and governance solution that allows organizations to enforce just-in-time (JIT) access for privileged roles in Azure DevOps. PIM enables administrators to request temporary elevated privileges only when required, which triggers an approval workflow before access is granted. This ensures that access is both time-bound and controlled, reducing the risk of overprivileged accounts. The system also logs all privileged operations, creating an auditable trail for compliance reporting and forensic investigation.

Static service principal credentials are permanent and do not enforce JIT access. They lack approval workflows, making it difficult to track or restrict administrative access. If these credentials are compromised, attackers could gain indefinite access to critical resources, creating substantial security risks.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to control access. They are inconsistent and prone to error or misuse. Such a method cannot enforce time-bound permissions or create a comprehensive audit trail, leaving organizations exposed to insider threats or compliance violations.

Shared access via email is highly insecure and does not provide structured governance. Credentials can be intercepted or misused, and there is no mechanism for automated revocation or auditing. This approach violates modern security principles and cannot support compliance requirements.

Azure AD PIM ensures that elevated access is granted only when necessary and revoked automatically after the assigned duration. Approval workflows allow management or security teams to validate the necessity of elevated access, adding another layer of governance. All privileged actions are logged, including the requester, approver, and specific actions performed during the elevated session. Alerts and notifications allow security teams to identify unusual or suspicious activity in real time. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures that all administrative actions on pipelines, repositories, and deployment environments are fully auditable. By enforcing JIT access, approvals, and detailed logging, PIM minimizes risks associated with permanent credentials and human error while supporting DevSecOps and Zero Trust frameworks.

Compared to static credentials, manual password management, or insecure email sharing, PIM provides automated, controlled, and auditable privileged access. This reduces attack surfaces, ensures accountability, and aligns with security best practices for modern cloud and DevOps environments. By combining governance, monitoring, and automation, PIM is the most comprehensive and secure solution for managing privileged administrative access.

Question 152:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerable dependencies and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and generate pull requests for remediation before deployment. 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 dependency management by scanning repositories for outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured libraries. When vulnerabilities or license compliance issues are detected, it generates pull requests to update or remediate the dependency, ensuring that insecure or non-compliant code does not reach production. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, tracking, and reporting across multiple repositories, allowing security and development teams to monitor compliance status and remediation progress.

Manual dependency review is highly labor-intensive and prone to human error. Teams may overlook vulnerabilities or fail to detect license violations, especially when managing multiple repositories or frequent library updates. This approach is not scalable and delays remediation, increasing the risk of security incidents.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries exposes organizations to security vulnerabilities and legal compliance issues. Without automated detection or monitoring, risky dependencies can propagate into production, leading to potential exploitation or intellectual property violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints from malware but does not inspect code dependencies or enforce license compliance. It is reactive rather than proactive and cannot prevent vulnerabilities from being deployed within repositories or CI/CD pipelines.

GitHub Dependabot ensures continuous monitoring of repositories by scanning for known vulnerabilities in libraries and creating automated remediation pull requests. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates reporting across multiple repositories, helping teams prioritize updates, ensure license compliance, and track remediation progress. Integration with CI/CD pipelines guarantees that updated dependencies are tested and deployed automatically, reducing human error and enhancing security posture. Alerts notify security teams of high-risk dependencies, enabling proactive mitigation. By combining automated scanning, pull request remediation, and centralized visibility, GitHub Dependabot with Defender for Cloud provides a comprehensive, scalable, and proactive solution. Compared to manual reviews, blind trust, or antivirus-based approaches, this solution ensures security, compliance, and operational efficiency in DevSecOps workflows.

Question 153:

A company wants to ensure encryption of all sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts, continuously monitor compliance, and maintain auditability across multiple subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy
B) Manual encryption by developers
C) Local disk encryption only
D) Antivirus scanning of storage data

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts all data at rest using strong encryption algorithms. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across multiple subscriptions, monitors storage accounts for non-compliance, generates alerts, and provides detailed audit logs for regulatory reporting. Together, they ensure sensitive data is encrypted consistently and continuously monitored across the enterprise.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. It is difficult to ensure all storage accounts are encrypted across subscriptions. Human errors can leave sensitive data exposed and violate compliance requirements.

Local disk encryption protects only endpoint devices, not cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce encryption standards or provide centralized compliance monitoring, leaving the organization exposed to data breaches.

Antivirus scanning protects against malware but does not enforce encryption or provide compliance reporting. It cannot monitor storage accounts or ensure regulatory auditability of sensitive data.

Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy automates encryption enforcement and compliance monitoring. Non-compliant storage accounts trigger alerts or remediation actions. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams, enabling proactive management and regulatory compliance. Audit logs allow detailed tracking of compliance status across subscriptions, ensuring accountability and traceability. This combination ensures sensitive data is protected at scale, continuously monitored, and fully auditable, making it the correct solution compared to manual encryption, endpoint disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 154:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, detecting failures, correlating events, and providing actionable insights for operational efficiency. 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 monitoring of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights to identify failures and improve operational efficiency. Dashboards provide visibility into system health, trends, and critical metrics, while alerts notify teams of failures or unusual behavior, enabling proactive remediation.

Local pipeline console logs provide limited and isolated visibility. They cannot correlate events across pipelines or infrastructure, making root cause analysis difficult and time-consuming.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, slow, and inconsistent. It does not allow proactive identification of recurring issues, performance trends, or anomalous patterns.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, correlation, or contextual insights. Teams may be aware of issues but lack actionable intelligence for operational decision-making.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from pipelines and cloud infrastructure. Log Analytics supports advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards consolidate data to provide operational insights. Alerts enable proactive remediation, and integration with CI/CD pipelines allows continuous monitoring and improvement. This automated, centralized, and proactive approach makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards the correct solution compared to console logs, manual reviews, or email notifications, improving reliability, efficiency, and compliance.

Question 155:

A company wants to enforce automated scanning of all code in repositories for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations before merging into the main branch while providing centralized reporting and 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 directly with repositories and CI/CD pipelines to provide automated scanning for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations in pull requests. This prevents insecure code from merging into production. Centralized dashboards provide reporting, remediation guidance, and metrics across all repositories, enabling proactive management of code security and compliance.

Manual code reviews are inconsistent, slow, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect all secrets, vulnerabilities, or misconfigurations, and are difficult to scale across large or multiple repositories.

Local IDE static analysis allows developers to perform scans before committing code, but it is not centralized and relies on developer diligence. Errors or omissions can allow insecure code to reach production.

Build server notifications alert developers after a build fails due to detected issues. While useful for awareness, this approach is reactive and does not prevent insecure code from entering the main branch.

GitHub Advanced Security automatically scans code, detects vulnerabilities and secrets, and generates remediation guidance. Dashboards provide visibility and metrics, helping teams monitor and enforce compliance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures issues are remediated before code merges, reducing risk and supporting DevSecOps principles. Automated scanning, remediation, and centralized reporting make GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution compared to manual reviews, IDE analysis, or build notifications.

Question 156:

A company wants to continuously monitor Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) clusters for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and runtime threats, while enforcing approved image policies. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers is a comprehensive solution for securing containerized workloads in AKS. Azure Policy enforces organizational standards during deployment, including approved container images, network policies, security context rules, and resource quotas. It validates configurations at deployment and blocks non-compliant resources, ensuring that only approved containers run. Microsoft Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime activity to detect anomalies, suspicious processes, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations, providing actionable remediation guidance.

Manual cluster auditing is reactive, time-consuming, and cannot scale efficiently across multiple clusters. Auditors may miss runtime threats or misconfigurations occurring post-deployment.

RBAC manages access but does not enforce compliance or detect runtime threats. Unauthorized containers could still execute even with strict access control.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot monitor containers or enforce security policies within AKS clusters. It does not provide runtime threat detection or centralized compliance reporting.

Azure Policy combined with Defender for Containers offers proactive, automated compliance enforcement and continuous monitoring. Alerts notify security teams of suspicious activity, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures policies are consistently enforced throughout the deployment lifecycle. This approach reduces risk, enforces governance, aligns with DevSecOps principles, and ensures compliance at scale. Compared to manual auditing, RBAC-only approaches, or endpoint antivirus solutions, Azure Policy with Defender for Containers is the most effective solution for securing AKS workloads.

Question 157:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities and license compliance issues in third-party dependencies across multiple repositories and automatically create remediation pull requests. 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 dependency scanning across repositories, detecting outdated, vulnerable, or non-compliant libraries. It generates pull requests for remediation, ensuring security vulnerabilities and licensing issues are resolved before deployment. Microsoft Defender for Cloud centralizes reporting, tracks remediation status, and provides dashboards for compliance monitoring across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. Large numbers of repositories and frequent dependency updates make it impractical, leaving vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and legal risks. Without automated scanning and monitoring, vulnerabilities may reach production undetected, creating potential exploits or compliance violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan code dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is reactive and limited in scope.

Dependabot combined with Defender for Cloud ensures continuous monitoring and proactive remediation of dependencies. Pull requests provide automated fixes, while centralized dashboards track compliance, security risks, and remediation progress. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that vulnerabilities are resolved before production deployment. Alerts notify teams of high-risk dependencies, enabling proactive action. This combination provides a scalable, automated, and comprehensive solution for dependency management, surpassing manual review, blind trust, or antivirus-based approaches.

Question 158:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for Azure DevOps administrators with time-bound elevated permissions, approval workflows, and audit logging. 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 just-in-time access for privileged roles, allowing temporary elevated permissions to be requested and approved via workflow. Access is automatically revoked after the defined period. Audit logs record all privileged activities, supporting compliance and accountability. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures all administrative actions in pipelines, repositories, and environments are logged and traceable.

Static service principal credentials provide indefinite elevated access with no approval workflows or revocation, increasing security risks if compromised.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent, error-prone, and lack automation. They do not enforce time-bound privileges or audit access effectively, creating compliance gaps.

Shared access via email is insecure and non-compliant. Credentials can be intercepted, shared, or misused without automated revocation or logging.

PIM automates temporary access, approval workflows, and audit logging, ensuring governance and security. Alerts notify security teams of unusual activity. By enforcing controlled access, reducing overprivileged accounts, and supporting regulatory requirements, PIM aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Compared to static credentials, manual passwords, or email sharing, PIM is the correct, automated, and auditable solution for managing privileged access.

Question 159:

A company wants to ensure all sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts is encrypted, continuously monitored for compliance, and auditable across subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy
B) Manual encryption by developers
C) Local disk encryption only
D) Antivirus scanning of storage data

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data at rest with strong encryption algorithms, protecting sensitive information. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across subscriptions, monitors storage accounts for non-compliance, generates alerts, and provides audit logs for regulatory reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. Scaling manual encryption across multiple accounts and subscriptions is impractical and leaves sensitive data at risk.

Local disk encryption only protects endpoint devices and does not secure cloud storage. It cannot enforce organization-wide policies or provide auditability.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but cannot ensure encryption or compliance, and it does not provide centralized monitoring or reporting.

By combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy, organizations achieve automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and auditability at scale. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliant accounts, and dashboards provide centralized visibility. Audit logs maintain accountability for compliance and regulatory requirements. Integration with DevOps ensures consistent enforcement across the deployment lifecycle. This automated and centralized approach makes Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy the correct solution compared to manual encryption, endpoint disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 160:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure,to  detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for operational efficiency. 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 collection, event correlation, anomaly detection, and dashboards for CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It allows proactive detection of failures, root cause analysis, and operational efficiency improvement. Alerts notify teams of critical issues in real time, while dashboards visualize trends, system health, and performance metrics.

Local pipeline console logs provide isolated visibility and cannot correlate events across systems, making troubleshooting inefficient and time-consuming.

Manual review of build reports is reactive and inconsistent. It does not scale effectively and cannot provide proactive monitoring, trend analysis, or anomaly detection.

Developer email notifications alert teams reactively but lack centralized dashboards, correlation, or context, limiting operational decision-making.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics consolidate telemetry, provide advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards offer insights into operational health and CI/CD pipeline performance. Alerts enable proactive remediation and integration with automation workflows,supportings continuous improvement. This centralized, automated, and proactive approach ensures operational efficiency, reduces downtime, and improves reliability, making Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution compared to isolated logs, manual review, or reactive notifications.