Microsoft AZ-700 Designing and Implementing Microsoft Azure Networking Solutions Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 10 Q181-200

Visit here for our full Microsoft AZ-700 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 181:

Your organization wants to require MFA for users accessing Microsoft 365 apps from outside the corporate network, but allow seamless access from corporate devices. Which solution should you implement?

A) Conditional Access policy requiring MFA for external access
B) Security Defaults
C) Pass-through Authentication
D) Azure AD B2B collaboration

Answer: A) – Conditional Access policy requiring MFA for external access

Explanation

Conditional Access policies in Azure AD allow administrators to enforce authentication requirements based on specific conditions such as user location, device state, application, or risk level. In this scenario, requiring MFA only for sign-ins originating from external networks reduces security risk while minimizing friction for users on trusted corporate devices. Option B, Security Defaults, enforces MFA for all users without granular conditions, which may unnecessarily impact corporate users. Option C, Pass-through Authentication, only allows on-premises authentication without addressing conditional MFA requirements. Option D, Azure AD B2B collaboration, is used to securely share resources with external users but does not enforce conditional MFA for internal employees. Using Conditional Access, administrators can target all users or specific groups, define trusted locations, require MFA for external sign-ins, integrate device compliance signals, and enforce risk-based authentication. The policy supports audit and compliance tracking, providing visibility into which users accessed which resources and from where. Additionally, Conditional Access integrates seamlessly with Microsoft 365 applications, ensuring a seamless user experience for trusted corporate devices while enforcing strong security controls for external access. This aligns with AZ-700 objectives of designing secure access policies, minimizing risk, and maintaining operational efficiency. Properly implemented, Conditional Access reduces the attack surface by requiring MFA only when necessary, supporting both user convenience and regulatory compliance.

Question 182:

Your organization wants to ensure VPN connections between on-premises networks and Azure are encrypted and resilient. Which solution is recommended?

A) Use ExpressRoute with public peering
B) Deploy site-to-site VPN with IKEv2 and BGP
C) Use VNet peering
D) Implement Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Deploy site-to-site VPN with IKEv2 and BGP

Explanation

A site-to-site VPN provides secure, encrypted connectivity between on-premises networks and Azure over the public internet. Using IKEv2 ensures modern, secure key exchange and support for IPsec encryption standards. BGP allows automatic route propagation, dynamic failover, and simplified route management compared to static routes. Option A, ExpressRoute with public peering, is an alternative private connection but is costlier and requires dedicated circuits. Option C, VNet peering, provides connectivity between VNets but does not connect on-premises networks. Option D, Virtual WAN unsecured hubs, can provide connectivity but lacks enforced encryption unless combined with VPN gateways. Using IKEv2 with BGP ensures secure, highly available, and resilient connectivity. Administrators can monitor tunnel status, route propagation, and latency through Azure Network Watcher. Redundancy can be achieved using multiple VPN tunnels and active-active VPN gateway configurations. Dynamic route propagation via BGP reduces configuration errors, supports hybrid network scaling, and ensures traffic automatically reroutes in case of a link failure. This design aligns with AZ-700 objectives for secure, scalable, and highly available hybrid network connectivity. Proper monitoring, logging, and alerting help maintain operational efficiency and compliance.

Question 183:

Your organization needs to allow secure, scalable communication between VNets in different regions while enforcing centralized firewall inspection. Which design is most suitable?

A) VNet peering without inspection
B) Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in the hub and Azure Route Server
C) Direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets
D) Azure Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in the hub and Azure Route Server

Explanation

Hub-and-spoke architecture centralizes traffic inspection and enforces security policies through NVAs in the hub. Azure Route Server ensures dynamic route propagation between VNets across regions and supports failover, removing the need for manual updates. Option A, peering VNets without inspection, allows connectivity but bypasses security controls. Option C, direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets, increases operational complexity and lacks centralized monitoring. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide connectivity but do not enforce inspection or security policies. Using NVAs in a hub allows logging, policy enforcement, and threat detection, supporting compliance requirements. Traffic is forced through inspection points, and high availability is maintained with multiple NVAs and active-active gateway configurations. Dynamic BGP route propagation reduces configuration errors and ensures proper traffic flow. Monitoring tools such as Network Watcher, NSG flow logs, and Azure Monitor provide operational visibility. This architecture aligns with AZ-700 best practices by providing secure, scalable, and centrally managed multi-region connectivity with centralized inspection, auditability, and compliance.

Question 184:

Your organization wants to enable secure access for external users while minimizing administrative overhead. Which solution is recommended?

A) Conditional Access for internal users only
B) Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews
C) Security Defaults for all users
D) Pass-through Authentication

Answer: B) – Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews

Explanation

Azure AD B2B collaboration enables organizations to securely share resources with external users without creating local accounts. Access reviews allow administrators to periodically verify user access, ensuring that permissions are current and reducing the risk of unauthorized access. Option A, Conditional Access for internal users only, does not address external user access. Option C, Security Defaults, applies blanket policies but does not provide fine-grained external access management. Option D, Pass-through Authentication, allows on-premises credentials for authentication but does not manage external users. B2B collaboration integrates with Microsoft 365, Teams, SharePoint, and other Azure services, providing secure authentication and authorization workflows. Administrators can enforce MFA, conditional access policies, and monitor user activity. Access reviews automate permission validation, helping organizations meet compliance requirements and reduce over-provisioning. This approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives of designing secure external access while maintaining operational efficiency, user convenience, and compliance. It also reduces administrative overhead, enforces security controls, and supports auditing for regulatory requirements.

Question 185:

Your organization wants to ensure all internet-bound traffic from a VNet is inspected for threats before leaving Azure. Which approach is recommended?

A) Use system default routes only
B) Deploy Azure Firewall with forced tunneling
C) VNet peering without inspection
D) Use Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Deploy Azure Firewall with forced tunneling

Explanation

Azure Firewall provides centralized threat inspection, logging, and policy enforcement for all outbound traffic from VNets. Forced tunneling ensures that all internet-bound traffic is routed through the firewall, enabling monitoring, logging, and application of security policies. Option A, using default system routes, bypasses inspection. Option C, VNet peering without inspection, allows direct connectivity but no security controls. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide connectivity but do not enforce inspection. Forced tunneling with Azure Firewall supports high availability, scalability, and integration with logging and monitoring solutions such as Azure Monitor, NSG flow logs, and Threat Intelligence. Administrators can configure application rules, network rules, and logging policies to meet compliance standards. Traffic can be routed dynamically using BGP or UDRs, ensuring proper failover and minimal disruption. This design aligns with AZ-700 objectives by providing secure, scalable, centralized egress inspection, operational efficiency, and auditability. Centralized firewall inspection reduces attack surface, enforces corporate policies, and supports threat detection for outbound traffic.

Question 186:

Your organization wants to enforce that users accessing Microsoft 365 apps from unmanaged devices must use MFA, while users on compliant devices can sign in seamlessly. Which solution should you implement?

A) Security Defaults
B) Conditional Access policies with device compliance conditions
C) Azure AD B2B collaboration
D) Pass-through Authentication

Answer: B) – Conditional Access policies with device compliance conditions

Explanation

Conditional Access allows administrators to enforce MFA and other authentication requirements based on device compliance status. By integrating with Microsoft Intune or other MDM solutions, Conditional Access can detect whether a device is compliant or managed. Users on compliant devices can access applications without MFA, ensuring a seamless experience, while users on unmanaged or non-compliant devices are required to perform MFA, enhancing security. Option A, Security Defaults, enforces MFA universally without flexibility and cannot differentiate based on device compliance. Option C, Azure AD B2B collaboration, is designed for external user access and does not address internal device compliance. Option D, Pass-through Authentication, only supports on-premises credential verification and does not enforce conditional policies. Using Conditional Access with device compliance supports risk-based policies, location-based access, application targeting, and session controls. Administrators can create granular policies targeting specific groups, applications, and scenarios, enhancing security without negatively impacting productivity. The approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives around designing secure and flexible access solutions that adapt to device state, reduce risk, and maintain operational efficiency. Logging and monitoring integration allows visibility into authentication events, enabling auditing, threat detection, and compliance. Dynamic adaptation ensures new devices or users are evaluated automatically, minimizing administrative overhead while maintaining an enterprise-grade security posture.

Question 187:

Your organization wants to implement a multi-region hub-and-spoke network with centralized inspection using NVAs and dynamic routing. What is the best method to ensure route propagation across all hubs and spokes?

A) Use static UDRs in all VNets
B) Deploy Azure Route Server in each hub with BGP sessions to NVAs
C) VNet peering only
D) Use unsecured Virtual WAN hubs

Answer: B) – Deploy Azure Route Server in each hub with BGP sessions to NVAs

Explanation

Azure Route Server provides dynamic route propagation via BGP, allowing NVAs in hub VNets to learn routes from spokes and on-premises networks, and propagate learned routes to spokes automatically. Using static UDRs (Option A) at scale across multiple regions is error-prone, operationally intensive, and does not adapt to network changes dynamically. Option C, VNet peering, does not provide centralized route learning or NVA integration across multiple regions. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide global connectivity but do not enforce dynamic routing or inspection policies. Deploying a Route Server in each hub ensures NVAs are aware of all reachable prefixes, enabling forced tunneling for inspection while reducing manual configuration. BGP supports redundancy, failover, and automatic adaptation to topology changes, enhancing reliability and scalability. Administrators can monitor route health, NVA status, and route propagation metrics for operational efficiency and compliance. This design aligns with AZ-700 objectives by providing a secure, highly available, and scalable multi-region network architecture with centralized inspection and dynamic routing, reducing misconfiguration risks and improving operational efficiency.

Question 188:

Your organization wants to allow external partners access to specific resources in Azure without creating full accounts, while ensuring auditing and compliance. Which solution should you implement?

A) Pass-through Authentication
B) Conditional Access for internal users
C) Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews
D) Security Defaults

Answer: C) – Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews

Explanation

Azure AD B2B collaboration allows organizations to securely share applications and resources with external partners using their existing identities, reducing the need to provision full accounts. Access reviews periodically evaluate external users’ access rights, ensuring compliance and reducing the risk of excessive permissions. Option A, Pass-through Authentication, only supports on-premises credential verification and does not address external collaboration. Option B, Conditional Access for internal users, targets internal employees and does not manage external partner access. Option D, Security Defaults, applies blanket security policies without the granularity required for external collaboration. B2B collaboration integrates seamlessly with Microsoft 365, Teams, and Azure applications while enabling conditional access policies, MFA enforcement, and monitoring. Administrators can enforce compliance, monitor access patterns, and audit activities. This aligns with AZ-700 objectives for secure external access management, operational efficiency, and compliance. It reduces administrative overhead, ensures secure and controlled external collaboration, and supports regulatory requirements with proper logging and reporting.

Question 189:

Your organization needs to ensure all egress traffic from multiple VNets is inspected and logged, while minimizing complexity. Which solution is recommended?

A) Deploy NVAs in each VNet without centralized control
B) Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling
C) Peer VNets using system routes only
D) Use unsecured Virtual WAN hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling

Explanation

Centralizing outbound traffic inspection through a hub using Azure Firewall ensures all egress traffic is inspected, logged, and policy-compliant. Forced tunneling using UDRs ensures traffic from all spokes is routed through the hub firewall, minimizing operational complexity while enabling centralized control. Option A, deploying NVAs in each VNet without centralization, increases cost, complexity, and operational overhead. Option C, peering VNets using system routes only, bypasses inspection. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide connectivity but do not enforce inspection or logging. Azure Firewall supports high availability, scalability, application and network rule enforcement, logging integration with Azure Monitor, and threat intelligence. Using this architecture, administrators gain centralized visibility, simplified configuration, and the ability to audit egress traffic for compliance purposes. This design aligns with AZ-700 objectives of centralized inspection, operational efficiency, and secure, scalable hybrid network architecture. It reduces the risk of unmonitored traffic while supporting regulatory compliance and enterprise-grade security.

Question 190:

Your organization wants to enable secure access to Microsoft 365 apps for remote users, but enforce MFA only when risk signals are detected. Which solution should you implement?

A) Security Defaults
B) Conditional Access policies with user risk and sign-in risk conditions
C) Pass-through Authentication
D) Azure AD B2B collaboration

Answer: B) – Conditional Access policies with user risk and sign-in risk conditions

Explanation

Conditional Access policies in Azure AD allow administrators to enforce MFA or block access based on risk signals such as anomalous sign-ins or risky users detected by Azure AD Identity Protection. This approach balances security and user experience by requiring MFA only when risk is detected, rather than universally. Option A, Security Defaults, enforces MFA for all users without conditional intelligence. Option C, Pass-through Authentication, provides on-premises authentication but does not enforce risk-based MFA. Option D, Azure AD B2B collaboration, is focused on external users and does not address risk-based internal access. By defining Conditional Access policies targeting user risk or sign-in risk levels, administrators can automatically respond to potential threats while providing seamless access to low-risk users. Integration with device compliance signals, location, and application targeting further enhances security. Audit logs and monitoring provide visibility and support regulatory compliance. This aligns with AZ-700 objectives of designing secure, risk-based authentication strategies, operational efficiency, and adaptive access control. Proper configuration ensures that high-risk sign-ins are mitigated while maintaining productivity for users in trusted environments.

Question 191:

Your organization wants to ensure that all remote user traffic to Microsoft 365 and other SaaS applications is inspected for threats before reaching the internet, but internal users should have seamless access. Which solution is recommended?

A) Security Defaults
B) Conditional Access with location and device state conditions
C) Forced tunneling through Azure Firewall for all users
D) Pass-through Authentication

Answer: B) – Conditional Access with location and device state conditions

Explanation

Conditional Access policies allow administrators to enforce MFA, session controls, or inspection requirements based on user location and device compliance. By differentiating between trusted corporate networks or compliant devices and untrusted external networks, internal users experience seamless access, while remote users’ traffic can be inspected or require MFA. Option A, Security Defaults, applies blanket policies to all users and lacks conditional granularity. Option C, forced tunneling for all users, enforces inspection universally, which may degrade user experience and is operationally heavy. Option D, Pass-through Authentication, only provides credential verification without conditional access or inspection enforcement. Conditional Access can integrate with Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, enabling policies such as session controls or cloud app access monitoring for external users. Administrators can define trusted locations (corporate IPs), device compliance rules via Intune, and per-application targeting to balance security and user experience. Logging and reporting via Azure AD Sign-in logs and Azure Monitor provides visibility for auditing, regulatory compliance, and operational monitoring. This approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives, ensuring secure, conditional access, operational efficiency, and minimal friction for trusted users while maintaining threat protection and compliance for remote or risky connections.

Question 192:

Your organization wants VNets in multiple regions to communicate securely while enforcing centralized inspection and logging. Which architecture is most suitable?

A) VNet peering across regions without inspection
B) Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in the hub and Azure Route Server for dynamic routing
C) Direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets
D) Azure Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in the hub and Azure Route Server for dynamic routing

Explanation

Hub-and-spoke architecture centralizes traffic inspection through NVAs deployed in hub VNets while maintaining spoke isolation. Azure Route Server enables dynamic route propagation between hubs and spokes, ensuring that VNets in multiple regions automatically learn routes, and failover is supported. Option A, peering across regions without inspection, bypasses security policies. Option C, direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets, adds operational complexity, increases management overhead, and does not provide centralized inspection or logging. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provides connectivity but not enforced security or centralized inspection. Centralizing inspection ensures compliance, threat detection, and logging of all traffic traversing the hubs. Administrators can monitor routes, NVA performance, and traffic flows using Network Watcher and Azure Monitor. Forced tunneling ensures that outbound and inter-VNet traffic passes through NVAs for inspection. The architecture supports scaling by adding new spokes without manual route adjustments, improving operational efficiency. High availability is maintained using multiple NVAs in active-active configurations and BGP route propagation for dynamic failover. This aligns with AZ-700 objectives for secure, compliant, and scalable multi-region network design with centralized traffic inspection and operational manageability.

Question 193:

Your organization wants to enforce MFA for external users accessing sensitive Azure resources, but allow internal users on compliant devices to bypass MFA. Which solution should you implement?

A) Security Defaults
B) Conditional Access with location and device compliance conditions
C) Azure AD B2B collaboration
D) Pass-through Authentication

Answer: B) – Conditional Access with location and device compliance conditions

Explanation

Conditional Access allows administrators to enforce MFA selectively based on network location, device compliance, and user or group targeting. By defining policies that target external users or sign-ins from untrusted networks, MFA can be required only for high-risk scenarios, while internal users on compliant devices have seamless access. Option A, Security Defaults, enforces MFA universally and cannot differentiate between trusted and untrusted devices or locations. Option C, Azure AD B2B collaboration, is for external partner access and does not provide conditional enforcement for internal users. Option D, Pass-through Authentication, only validates credentials on-premises and cannot enforce risk-based MFA. Administrators can define granular policies, combining user and group targeting, application selection, and device compliance signals via Intune. Integration with risk-based policies from Azure AD Identity Protection enhances adaptive security. Logging and monitoring provide visibility for auditing, compliance, and reporting. This approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives, enabling secure access, regulatory compliance, minimal friction for trusted users, and operational efficiency while reducing the attack surface. MFA is applied intelligently, minimizing user disruption while maximizing security.

Centralized inspection using Azure Firewall in a hub VNet provides a unified and controlled security layer for all connected spokes, ensuring that traffic is evaluated consistently regardless of where workloads reside. By placing the firewall at the hub, organizations avoid fragmented security models and eliminate the need to deploy, manage, and update multiple firewall instances across different VNets. Forced tunneling using user-defined routes ensures that all outbound traffic must pass through the firewall, preventing any direct internet access from spokes. This guarantees that every packet is subject to inspection, logging, and policy enforcement, strengthening the organization’s security posture and reducing the chance of accidental bypass routes.

In contrast, deploying individual NVAs in each VNet, as described in Option A, creates operational silos. Each device must be monitored, patched, scaled, and configured independently, significantly increasing administrative workload. Additionally, inconsistencies between configurations across NVAs can lead to uneven enforcement of security policies and a higher risk of misconfigurations going undetected. This approach becomes increasingly inefficient as environments grow, especially in multi-region or large-scale enterprise deployments.

Option C, using VNet peering with system routes only, does not allow traffic to be redirected to a security appliance for inspection. System routes alone send traffic directly to the internet or along default Azure paths without any filtering or logging. This presents visibility gaps, reduces threat detection capabilities, and violates many compliance frameworks that require centralized monitoring or egress filtering.

Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, offers global connectivity and simplified routing but no enforced security inspection unless security features are explicitly enabled. Without security controls in the hub, organizations lose the ability to perform threat detection, enforce outbound rules, or maintain uniform logging.

A hub-and-spoke design with Azure Firewall also integrates smoothly with Azure Route Server for dynamic routing in hybrid environments. When BGP is enabled, Azure Firewall or NVAs in the hub can automatically learn and advertise routes, reducing manual configuration and improving resiliency. High availability is built in by deploying the firewall in an active-active state, with autoscaling to meet traffic demand. Administrators gain real-time visibility through Azure Monitor, NSG flow logs, and Network Watcher, helping them detect anomalies and optimize traffic patterns.

Overall, this architecture streamlines operations, enforces consistent policies, reduces the attack surface, and supports regulatory compliance, aligning closely with AZ-700 best practices for secure, scalable, and efficient Azure network design.

Question 194:

Your organization needs to connect multiple branch offices to Azure VNets while providing centralized threat inspection and routing optimization. Which solution is recommended?

A) Deploy individual site-to-site VPNs from each branch to each VNet
B) Use Azure Virtual WAN with secure hubs and optional NVAs for inspection
C) Use VNet peering exclusively
D) Configure static UDRs for each branch connection

Answer: B) – Use Azure Virtual WAN with secure hubs and optional NVAs for inspection

Explanation

Azure Virtual WAN enables a scalable, centralized approach for connecting multiple branch offices to Azure VNets. Secure hubs can enforce inspection through Azure Firewall or third-party NVAs, while route optimization is managed centrally. Option A, deploying individual site-to-site VPNs for each branch, increases management overhead, complexity, and potential for misconfiguration. Option C, VNet peering, only connects VNets and does not provide connectivity from branches or central inspection. Option D, static UDRs, are cumbersome at scale and do not adapt dynamically to network changes. Virtual WAN hubs simplify routing, enforce centralized security, integrate with forced tunneling for inspection, and provide high availability and scalability. BGP routing supports dynamic route propagation and failover. Administrators gain operational efficiency, centralized visibility, monitoring, and logging via Azure Monitor and Network Watcher. This approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives for designing secure, scalable, and manageable hybrid networks connecting multiple branches with centralized inspection and dynamic routing.

Question 195:

Your organization wants to enforce inspection of outbound internet traffic from multiple VNets while minimizing operational overhead. Which solution is most suitable?

A) Deploy NVAs in each VNet individually
B) Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling
C) Peer VNets using system routes without inspection
D) Use unsecured Virtual WAN hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling

Explanation

Centralized inspection using Azure Firewall in a hub VNet ensures all outbound traffic from spokes is routed through a single inspection point. Forced tunneling via UDRs enforces that all egress traffic passes through the firewall for logging, threat detection, and policy enforcement. Option A, deploying NVAs individually in each VNet, increases operational complexity, cost, and monitoring overhead. Option C, VNet peering using system routes only, bypasses inspection and logging entirely. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provides connectivity but no traffic inspection. This architecture provides scalability, central management, high availability with active-active firewall deployment, and dynamic route propagation when integrated with Azure Route Server. Administrators can monitor traffic using Network Watcher, Azure Monitor, and firewall logs, ensuring compliance and visibility. Centralized inspection reduces misconfiguration risk, supports regulatory requirements, simplifies operational overhead, and provides consistent security enforcement across multiple VNets. This aligns with AZ-700 objectives by balancing security, operational efficiency, scalability, and centralized control.

Question 196:

Your organization wants to enable secure access for external partners to specific Azure resources, but minimize administrative overhead and enforce periodic access review. Which solution should you implement?

A) Pass-through Authentication
B) Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews
C) Security Defaults
D) Conditional Access for internal users only

Answer: B) – Azure AD B2B collaboration with access reviews

Explanation

Azure AD B2B collaboration enables organizations to securely share applications and resources with external users using their existing identities. Access reviews allow administrators to periodically verify that using Azure AD B2B collaboration ensures that external users are granted only the permissions they need while maintaining a secure and manageable structure for identity lifecycle governance. External identities are invited to the directory as guest accounts, allowing them to authenticate using their own identity providers while still being subject to the organization’s security controls. This model minimizes administrative overhead because administrators do not need to manually create or maintain accounts for every external partner, contractor, or vendor. Instead, guest users retain control of their own credentials, and the hosting organization maintains control over access, permissions, and policy enforcement. Access reviews play a major role in keeping permissions appropriate over time by prompting resource owners to periodically verify whether guests still require access. This reduces the likelihood of lingering permissions, unauthorized access, or compliance gaps.

Pass-through Authentication, as referenced in Option A, only validates user credentials against an on-premises Active Directory environment. It does not provide tools for managing external identities, nor does it offer governance mechanisms such as access reviews, entitlement management, or lifecycle workflows. Because PTA focuses strictly on authentication rather than external collaboration, it cannot address scenarios involving external partners or ensure that their permissions remain appropriate.

Security Defaults, described in Option C, apply fundamental baseline protections intended for smaller or less complex environments. These defaults enforce MFA and other basic security features uniformly across all users, but they lack advanced controls required for external identity lifecycle management. They do not support external access reviews, conditional access refinement, entitlement management, or differentiated security requirements for guest users. As a result, they are not suitable for organizations with structured external collaboration needs or regulatory requirements that demand detailed oversight.

Option D, applying Conditional Access only to internal users, fails to protect external collaborators and provides no mechanism for ensuring their access remains secure and appropriate. External users often interact with sensitive internal applications such as Teams, SharePoint, or line-of-business apps, and excluding them from Conditional Access policies exposes the environment to risk. Without MFA or device requirements applied to external guest accounts, the organization loses critical layers of protection.

Azure AD B2B collaboration integrates naturally with Microsoft 365, Teams, SharePoint, Azure services, and SaaS applications. Administrators can enforce policies such as MFA, compliant device requirements, user risk evaluation, or location-based access for external users, strengthening the overall security posture. Access reviews enable automated, scheduled verification of permissions by resource owners, ensuring that only the appropriate users retain access over time. This is essential for meeting regulatory standards such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, and GDPR, which require evidence of ongoing access governance.

Centralized logging, monitoring, and alerting provide visibility into external user activity and authentication patterns. Azure AD logs can be ingested into Azure Monitor, Sentinel, or third-party SIEM tools to detect anomalous activity, compromised accounts, or unusual sign-in attempts. Identity Protection adds another layer of intelligence by detecting leaked credentials, risky sign-in behaviors, and suspicious access attempts that may indicate an attack.

This approach aligns strongly with AZ-700 objectives, which emphasize secure external collaboration, governance, policy enforcement, and operational efficiency. By automating reviews, applying consistent security policies, and enabling visibility into user activity, organizations reduce administrative burden while maintaining strong, compliant security controls for all external partners.

Question 197:

Your organization wants to ensure all VNets’ outbound internet traffic is inspected, logged, and protected from threats while minimizing latency and operational overhead. Which architecture is recommended?

A) Deploy NVAs in each VNet individually
B) Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling
C) Peer VNets with system routes only
D) Use unsecured Virtual WAN hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling

Explanation

Using a hub-and-spoke architecture with Azure Firewall provides a centralized, scalable, and manageable foundation for secure traffic inspection across multiple VNets. In this design, the hub acts as the central point for egress filtering, threat intelligence enforcement, logging, and routing control, while spoke VNets host workloads without needing their own individual firewalls or complex routing structures. The centerpiece of this architecture is the Azure Firewall, which provides Layer 3 through Layer 7 visibility and control, DNS filtering, TLS inspection where needed, and integration with Microsoft threat intelligence feeds. By centralizing these capabilities, organizations minimize deployment complexity and eliminate redundant configurations across multiple spoke VNets.

Forced tunneling using user-defined routes ensures that all outbound traffic from each spoke VNet is routed to the hub for inspection. This eliminates the risk of accidental bypass, where workload traffic might otherwise flow directly to the internet without passing through the firewall. Such forced routing guarantees consistent policy enforcement, enhances visibility into traffic patterns, and ensures that security and compliance guidelines apply uniformly across all connected workloads. It also helps organizations meet regulatory obligations that require full packet logging, threat detection, and secure egress control.

Option A, deploying individual NVAs in each VNet, introduces fragmentation and operational burden. Each VNet would require its own firewall instance, policy set, routing configuration, monitoring pipeline, and scaling strategy. This dramatically increases cost, complicates lifecycle management, and elevates the risk of configuration drift. In contrast, a hub-based Azure Firewall enables uniformity and centralized governance, reducing the risks associated with decentralized network security deployments.

Option C, relying on VNet peering with system routes only, does not provide the necessary security controls. System routes do not automatically enforce traffic inspection, and without UDRs to redirect traffic through the hub, workloads may communicate directly with the internet or with each other without passing through a security device. This undermines principles of Zero Trust, reduces visibility, and creates significant compliance gaps.

Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provides simplified global connectivity but does not enforce meaningful inspection or outbound control. Without security or firewall capabilities enabled, Virtual WAN routing alone cannot satisfy strict audit, compliance, or workload isolation requirements.

The hub-and-spoke model also integrates well with Azure Route Server when dynamic route propagation is needed. Route Server allows NVAs or firewalls to exchange routes dynamically with the Azure fabric through BGP, reducing manual configuration and ensuring consistent routing behavior. This becomes especially important in hybrid environments where on-premises networks advertise prefixes that must be learned quickly by Azure resources.

High availability is a built-in advantage of Azure Firewall, as it supports active-active scaling and automatic resilience across availability zones when deployed appropriately. Administrators gain centralized visibility using Azure Monitor, NSG flow logs, and firewall logs, enabling deep traffic analysis, anomaly detection, and compliance reporting. This holistic management model reduces the attack surface, simplifies operations, and provides predictable performance.

This architecture aligns closely with AZ-700 principles of designing secure, scalable, hybrid-capable Azure networks. It balances performance and manageability while ensuring consistent enforcement of security policies across distributed workloads. By maximizing centralization and minimizing complexity, organizations achieve a long-term, maintainable solution that supports growth and evolving security requirements.

Question 198:

Your organization wants VNets in multiple regions to communicate securely while maintaining centralized inspection and dynamic route propagation. Which solution is recommended?

A) VNet peering without inspection
B) Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in hubs and Azure Route Server
C) Direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets
D) Azure Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with NVAs in hubs and Azure Route Server

Explanation

A multi-region hub-and-spoke architecture with NVAs in the hubs enables centralized traffic inspection, logging, and policy enforcement. Azure Route Server supports dynamic route propagation via BGP, automatically sharing learned routes between hubs and spokes, which simplifies management and reduces misconfiguration risk. Option A, peering without inspection, allows connectivity but bypasses security and compliance policies. Option C, direct site-to-site VPNs between VNets, adds operational complexity and lacks centralized inspection. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide connectivity but do not enforce traffic inspection or logging. Centralizing inspection ensures compliance, threat detection, and monitoring of all inter-VNet traffic. High availability is achieved by deploying multiple NVAs and active-active configurations. Administrators can monitor route propagation, NVA health, and traffic flow using Network Watcher and Azure Monitor. This approach aligns with AZ-700 objectives by providing secure, scalable, compliant multi-region network design with centralized control, operational efficiency, and automated routing, reducing manual effort and improving network resilience.

Question 199:

Your organization wants to allow external partners secure access to specific Azure applications while enforcing MFA only under risky conditions. Which solution should you implement?

A) Security Defaults
B) Conditional Access policies targeting external users with risk-based conditions
C) Pass-through Authentication
D) VNet peering

Answer: B) – Conditional Access policies targeting external users with risk-based conditions

Explanation:

Conditional Access policies provide a flexible and intelligent framework for enforcing security requirements such as multi-factor authentication while reducing unnecessary interruptions for legitimate users. By leveraging signals from Azure AD Identity Protection, Conditional Access can evaluate user risk and sign-in risk in real time, deciding whether MFA should be required, access should be blocked, or additional controls should be applied. This adaptive approach is especially valuable for organizations working with external guests, partners, and contractors, because it ensures that MFA challenges occur only when behavior deviates from expected patterns. For example, if an external guest attempts access from an unfamiliar location, unknown device, or anonymous IP address, a risk-based Conditional Access policy can require MFA or block the session outright. Conversely, if the same user signs in from a trusted location or known device, they may not be prompted for MFA, improving usability and reducing friction.

Security Defaults, as noted in Option A, provide a broad, one-size-fits-all security baseline that enforces MFA for all users. While this approach enhances security, it lacks the precision needed for environments that require varying levels of protection based on user type or risk. Many organizations require more nuanced controls, such as enforcing MFA only for high-risk activities or external collaborators. Security Defaults cannot satisfy these requirements because they do not support conditional logic, custom conditions, exclusions, or risk-based evaluation.

Pass-through Authentication, as mentioned in Option C, simply validates credentials against on-premises Active Directory. It does not consider risk signals, cannot enforce MFA independently, and does not integrate with adaptive security models. While PHS or PTA may serve as part of an identity infrastructure, they are not designed to provide risk-based controls or enforce MFA for external users. Therefore, they do not meet the requirements for adaptive, context-aware authentication.

Option D, VNet peering, is entirely unrelated to authentication and identity management. VNet peering facilitates Azure network routing but provides no mechanism for controlling user access, evaluating risk levels, or enforcing MFA. Because authentication challenges occur at the identity layer rather than the network layer, VNet peering cannot influence user login security.

Conditional Access allows administrators to combine multiple signals and conditions to design precise, high-security policies. Policies can target specific user groups, roles, applications, device platforms, network locations, or compliance states. This ensures that MFA is required when risk is present without overwhelming users with unnecessary prompts. The integration with Identity Protection enables automated detection of leaked credentials, impossible travel events, atypical locations, malware-linked IP addresses, or anomalous client behavior. Each of these factors contributes to a real-time risk score that Conditional Access evaluates before granting access.

Comprehensive monitoring and auditing tools provide visibility into policy behavior, user activity, and potential security incidents. Administrators can examine sign-in logs, risk detections, and policy impact to ensure policies are functioning correctly and meeting compliance requirements. These logs assist in forensic investigations, regulatory audits, and continuous improvement of security posture.

This approach aligns strongly with AZ-700 objectives, which focus on secure external access, adaptive authentication, and operational efficiency. By minimizing friction for legitimate users while enforcing strong protection during risky scenarios, Conditional Access delivers a balanced security model that supports both usability and comprehensive protection for sensitive cloud applications and external collaboration.

Question 200:

Your organization wants all internet-bound traffic from VNets to be inspected for threats, logged, and policy-enforced, while minimizing complexity. Which architecture is recommended?

A) Deploy NVAs individually in each VNet
B) Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling
C) Peer VNets with system routes only
D) Azure Virtual WAN unsecured hubs

Answer: B) – Hub-and-spoke with Azure Firewall in the hub and forced tunneling

Explanation

Centralized outbound traffic inspection using Azure Firewall in a hub VNet ensures all internet-bound traffic from spoke VNets is inspected, logged, and subject to corporate policies. Forced tunneling using UDRs enforces routing of all egress traffic through the hub firewall, providing centralized control and visibility. Option A, deploying NVAs individually in each VNet, increases operational overhead, cost, and monitoring complexity. Option C, peering VNets with system routes only, bypasses inspection and logging entirely. Option D, unsecured Virtual WAN hubs, provide connectivity but lack enforced inspection. Centralizing traffic inspection ensures scalability, high availability with active-active firewall deployment, dynamic route propagation via Route Server if needed, and operational efficiency. Administrators can monitor traffic using Azure Monitor, Network Watcher, and firewall logs for compliance and security auditing. This architecture aligns with AZ-700 objectives of designing secure, scalable, and operationally efficient network designs while maintaining consistent security enforcement, compliance, and visibility. It reduces the attack surface, enforces centralized policies, and supports enterprise-grade outbound traffic protection with minimal administrative effort.