Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 10 Q181-200

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

Question 181:

A company wants to monitor all Microsoft 365 accounts for suspicious login attempts, unusual behavior, and potential account compromises. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Identity
B) Microsoft Planner
C) Microsoft OneDrive
D) Microsoft Intune

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Identity

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Identity is a cloud-based security solution that continuously monitors Microsoft 365 and on-premises Active Directory for suspicious activities, unusual login patterns, and potential account compromises. It uses machine learning to detect behavioral anomalies, lateral movement, and privilege escalation attempts, providing actionable alerts to security teams.

Microsoft Planner is a task and project management tool and does not provide security monitoring or threat detection.

Microsoft OneDrive is a cloud storage platform that provides file access, sharing, and synchronization capabilities, but does not monitor user activity for security threats.

Microsoft Intune primarily manages devices and applications to enforce compliance and security policies. While it can enforce conditional access and device compliance, it does not provide real-time behavioral analysis or detect suspicious login attempts.

Defender for Identity collects telemetry from user accounts, monitors authentication logs, and integrates with Azure AD and other Microsoft 365 services to identify potential threats proactively. Alerts can trigger investigation workflows, enabling security teams to remediate compromised accounts rapidly. Compared to Planner, OneDrive, or Intune, Defender for Identity is the specialized solution for user account security monitoring, ensuring early detection of compromises and strengthening organizational cybersecurity posture.

Question 182:

A company wants to enforce automated detection and blocking of phishing emails, malware, and malicious links in Microsoft 365. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365
B) Microsoft Teams
C) Microsoft SharePoint
D) Microsoft Forms

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 protects organizations against email- and collaboration-based threats, including phishing, malware, and malicious links. It integrates with Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive, and Microsoft Teams to scan emails, documents, and links in real-time. Safe Attachments ensures that email attachments are sandboxed before delivery, while Safe Links rewrites URLs to evaluate them at the time of click.

Microsoft Teams is primarily designed as a collaboration and communication platform, allowing users to chat, conduct video meetings, share files, and work together on projects in real time. While Teams includes features to manage content and restrict access within channels, it does not provide dedicated tools for detecting phishing attempts, malware, or malicious links. Emails, attachments, and links shared within Teams can potentially contain security threats, but the platform itself does not perform real-time threat analysis, scanning, or automated blocking of such content. Organizations using Teams must rely on integrated security solutions such as Microsoft Defender for Office 365 or endpoint protection platforms to protect against these threats. Teams can facilitate collaboration and productivity, but its security capabilities are limited to identity management, access controls, and administrative oversight, rather than proactive threat detection. Without additional security layers, users remain vulnerable to phishing campaigns, malware-laden attachments, and other social engineering attacks that exploit collaboration tools.

Microsoft SharePoint is a content management and file-sharing platform that enables organizations to store, organize, and collaborate on documents and other digital content. SharePoint allows for versioning, access control, and workflow automation, making it a powerful tool for document management and team collaboration. However, SharePoint is not designed to provide real-time threat detection or protection against malicious emails, phishing attempts, or unsafe links. While SharePoint includes certain compliance and data governance features, such as retention policies, access audits, and permission management, it does not actively scan content for malware or prevent users from uploading or sharing files containing threats. SharePoint’s focus is on content availability, collaboration, and regulatory compliance rather than proactive cybersecurity. Organizations that rely solely on SharePoint for data storage and collaboration without integrating dedicated threat protection solutions risk exposure to malware, ransomware, and other attacks that can compromise sensitive information.

Both Microsoft Teams and SharePoint serve critical roles in enabling collaboration, file sharing, and communication across organizations, but neither is intended to act as a security tool for email or web-based threats. They provide access control, data governance, and collaboration features but lack built-in capabilities for real-time scanning, threat detection, or automated remediation of malicious content. Users working within these platforms can still click on unsafe links or download malicious attachments if additional protective measures are not in place. Organizations must implement layered security controls to mitigate these risks, such as advanced threat protection solutions that integrate with Office 365, cloud access security brokers, endpoint detection and response tools, and secure email gateways. These additional measures provide automated threat detection, phishing protection, and malware scanning, which are essential for protecting sensitive data and maintaining a secure collaboration environment.

Relying on Teams or SharePoint alone for protection against threats is insufficient because their core design focuses on collaboration rather than proactive security. While both platforms can enforce access restrictions, audit usage, and manage content, they cannot prevent users from interacting with malicious emails, links, or files. Without dedicated security solutions, organizations face increased exposure to phishing, ransomware, and malware attacks, which can lead to data breaches, operational disruption, and reputational damage.

Therefore, while Microsoft Teams and SharePoint are essential tools for productivity and content management, they must be complemented by dedicated threat protection solutions to provide comprehensive security for enterprise environments. Combining collaboration platforms with integrated security tools ensures that users can work efficiently while minimizing risk from modern cyber threats.

Microsoft Forms allows organizations to create surveys and quizzes, and has no email threat protection capabilities.

Defender for Office 365 includes anti-phishing, anti-spoofing, and threat intelligence policies. Administrators can configure quarantine, alerts, and notifications. Centralized reporting provides insights into detected threats, user interactions, and remediation actions. Compared to Teams, SharePoint, or Forms, Defender for Office 365 is the dedicated security solution for proactive protection against email and collaboration threats.

Question 183:

A company wants to automatically detect security misconfigurations and compliance violations across Azure resources, enforce policies, and generate alerts. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual resource auditing
C) Local antivirus software
D) Azure DevOps boards

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Azure Policy enforces organizational standards and compliance rules across Azure resources. It automatically evaluates resource configurations, ensures policy compliance, and can block deployment of non-compliant resources. Microsoft Defender for Cloud continuously monitors Azure resources for misconfigurations, threats, and vulnerabilities, generating alerts and actionable guidance.

Manual resource auditing involves administrators or security teams reviewing each cloud resource individually to ensure compliance with organizational policies and regulatory requirements. While this method can occasionally identify misconfigurations or policy violations, it is inherently time-consuming and prone to human error. In large and dynamic cloud environments with multiple subscriptions, hundreds of virtual machines, storage accounts, and other resources, manual audits are extremely difficult to scale. Auditors may overlook critical details, misinterpret policies, or inconsistently apply standards across different teams and environments. Additionally, manual auditing typically provides only a snapshot of the environment at a specific point in time. Because cloud resources can be created, modified, or deleted rapidly, noncompliant or vulnerable configurations may exist between audits, leaving gaps in security coverage and increasing the risk of breaches or regulatory violations. The effort required for repeated manual audits also consumes significant operational resources, which can slow down deployment cycles and reduce overall efficiency.

Local antivirus software is widely used to protect endpoint devices such as laptops, desktops, and servers from malware, viruses, and malicious files. While antivirus solutions are essential for detecting threats at the device level, they do not provide any enforcement of cloud resource policies or centralized monitoring of compliance across subscriptions. Antivirus cannot detect misconfigured virtual machines, insecure network settings, or noncompliant storage accounts. It operates reactively, scanning for threats that have already been introduced to the device, rather than proactively preventing misconfigurations or policy violations in the cloud environment. Relying solely on endpoint protection leaves gaps in visibility and governance for cloud-native resources, as it does not provide alerts, dashboards, or automated remediation for noncompliant configurations.

Azure DevOps boards are a task management and project tracking tool used to manage work items, plan sprints, and organize development tasks. While DevOps boards help teams track progress, assign responsibilities, and coordinate workflow, they do not provide security monitoring, policy enforcement, or compliance auditing. DevOps boards cannot detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or unauthorized resource deployments. They are designed to facilitate productivity and collaboration, not to enforce security governance or provide real-time insight into the compliance state of cloud resources. Using DevOps boards alone does not address the critical need for continuous monitoring, automated enforcement, or alerting, leaving organizations exposed to operational and security risks.

Combining Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud addresses these limitations by providing an automated, scalable, and proactive approach to cloud security management. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules and standards for resource configuration, enforce compliance automatically, and block or remediate noncompliant deployments. Policies can cover a wide range of requirements, including encryption enforcement, access restrictions, network security configurations, and approved image deployment. Microsoft Defender for Cloud complements this by continuously monitoring the environment for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and security threats. Alerts are generated when deviations from policies or suspicious activities are detected, enabling rapid response by security teams. Dashboards consolidate compliance visibility, providing a centralized view of the organization’s security posture across multiple subscriptions and regions. Integration with DevOps processes ensures that security policies are enforced throughout the development lifecycle, from resource deployment to production operation. This combination of automation, continuous monitoring, and integration with workflow processes reduces human error, ensures consistent policy enforcement, and provides actionable insights to maintain compliance at scale.

Compared to manual audits, antivirus solutions, or DevOps boards, using Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides comprehensive governance, continuous monitoring, and proactive remediation. Manual audits are slow and inconsistent, antivirus only protects endpoints, and DevOps boards manage workflow rather than enforce security. The combined solution enables organizations to maintain secure, compliant, and well-governed cloud environments while reducing operational overhead and risk exposure, making it the preferred choice for modern cloud security management.

Question 184:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipelines for security vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and failed builds while providing centralized reporting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with GitHub Advanced Security
B) Local pipeline logs
C) Manual build report review
D) Developer email alerts

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

Azure Monitor provides centralized monitoring of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, and applications. It collects data, detects anomalies, and correlates events for actionable insights. GitHub Advanced Security complements this by scanning source code for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and secrets before merging. Together, they enable real-time monitoring, automated detection, and proactive remediation.

Local pipeline logs are generated by individual continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines during the build, test, and deployment processes. While these logs contain valuable information about the execution of each pipeline, they are typically isolated and siloed, meaning that each project or repository maintains its own logs independently. This isolation makes it difficult to gain a centralized view of the organization’s security posture or to correlate issues across multiple systems and pipelines. Without aggregation and analysis, security teams cannot easily detect patterns, identify recurring vulnerabilities, or understand the broader impact of issues across the entire development environment. In large enterprises with multiple pipelines, repositories, and development teams, relying solely on local logs results in fragmented visibility, making it difficult to enforce consistent security policies, monitor trends, or respond to incidents efficiently. Additionally, accessing and interpreting these logs often requires manual effort, increasing the risk of human error and delaying detection of critical security or operational problems.

Manual build report reviews involve security or development teams inspecting CI/CD build outputs and reports after a build has completed. This process is reactive, as it occurs only after a pipeline has run and vulnerabilities or misconfigurations have already been introduced into the code or deployment environment. Manual reviews are prone to human error; reviewers may overlook subtle issues, misinterpret warnings, or inconsistently apply criteria across multiple projects. Furthermore, manual reviews are time-consuming and cannot scale effectively in modern development environments where builds and deployments occur frequently across many teams and repositories. The reactive nature of this process means that security vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or compliance violations can remain undetected for extended periods, increasing the risk of exposure and operational disruption. Manual reviews cannot aggregate insights from multiple pipelines, making it challenging to identify trends, recurring mistakes, or systemic weaknesses that could be addressed proactively.

Developer email alerts provide notifications about build failures, detected vulnerabilities, or other pipeline issues. These alerts improve awareness of problems but are limited in their effectiveness because they lack centralized dashboards, correlation capabilities, and detailed actionable insights. Emails are often scattered among different recipients, and the volume of notifications can be overwhelming, causing critical issues to be overlooked or delayed. Email alerts are reactive by nature, providing information after an issue has occurred rather than preventing it proactively. They also do not provide a holistic view of trends, patterns, or recurring issues across multiple repositories or pipelines. Without centralized reporting and analysis, it is difficult for security or operations teams to prioritize remediation, track progress, or enforce consistent standards across the organization. Relying on email alerts alone does not provide the structured visibility or proactive management required to maintain secure and compliant CI/CD processes.

Taken together, local pipeline logs, manual build report reviews, and developer email alerts are insufficient for ensuring effective security monitoring, vulnerability detection, and proactive governance in modern software development environments. Local logs are isolated and fragmented, manual reviews are reactive and prone to error, and email alerts provide limited visibility and actionable insights. Organizations require centralized, automated, and integrated solutions that collect data across pipelines, correlate findings, provide dashboards for monitoring trends, and generate actionable alerts with remediation guidance. By implementing such solutions, security teams can proactively identify vulnerabilities, enforce consistent policies, reduce human error, and maintain a comprehensive view of their development and deployment environments. This approach supports DevSecOps principles, enables continuous improvement, and ensures that security and compliance are embedded into the software lifecycle rather than treated as an afterthought.

Azure Monitor and GitHub Advanced Security together offer automated scanning, centralized reporting, alerts, and dashboards. This ensures that security issues in code or pipelines are identified and remediated proactively. Compared to local logs, manual reviews, or email alerts, this integrated approach provides the highest level of visibility, security, and operational efficiency for CI/CD pipelines.

Question 185:

A company wants to enforce encryption of all Azure SQL databases, monitor compliance, and maintain audit logs for regulatory reporting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) with Azure Policy
B) Manual database encryption by developers
C) Local disk encryption only
D) Antivirus scanning of databases

Answer: A) Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) automatically encrypts Azure SQL databases at rest. Azure Policy enforces compliance by ensuring that all databases have TDE enabled, monitoring non-compliance, generating alerts, and maintaining audit logs for regulatory reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is error-prone and inconsistent. It is difficult to scale and leaves gaps in compliance if developers fail to configure encryption properly.

Local disk encryption only protects the underlying VM storage and does not guarantee encryption at the database layer.

Antivirus scanning protects against malware but does not ensure encryption or compliance of database content.

Combining TDE with Azure Policy ensures automated enforcement, centralized monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliant databases, and dashboards provide visibility across subscriptions. Integration with DevOps pipelines ensures encryption is consistently applied during deployment. This solution reduces risk, ensures sensitive data protection, and supports compliance requirements, making it the correct choice over manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 186:

A company wants to detect suspicious lateral movement and abnormal activities in on-premises Active Directory and Azure AD environments. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Identity
B) Microsoft OneDrive
C) Microsoft Intune
D) Microsoft Planner

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Identity

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Identity is designed to protect hybrid environments by monitoring user and entity behavior in both on-premises Active Directory and Azure Active Directory. It identifies abnormal activities such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, brute force attempts, and suspicious logins. Machine learning models detect unusual behavior by comparing typical user patterns against current activity. Alerts provide actionable insights to security teams, enabling rapid response to potential compromises.

Microsoft OneDrive is a cloud storage solution and does not provide monitoring for security threats or abnormal activities in directory services.

Microsoft Intune manages devices and applications to enforce compliance policies, but does not monitor identity activity or detect abnormal behaviors within AD or Azure AD.

Microsoft Planner is a task management tool that does not have security monitoring capabilities.

By deploying Defender for Identity, organizations gain continuous monitoring of authentication logs, privileged accounts, and behavioral anomalies. Alerts are integrated with Microsoft 365 Security Center, enabling centralized visibility and workflow integration for incident response. It also supports compliance and audit requirements by maintaining detailed activity logs. Compared to OneDrive, Intune, or Planner, Defender for Identity is the specialized solution for detecting suspicious movements and abnormal behavior in identity environments, making it the correct choice for proactive security monitoring.

Question 187:

A company wants to detect and remediate security misconfigurations in Azure resources, generate alerts, and maintain compliance across multiple subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual auditing of each resource
C) Local antivirus software
D) Azure Boards

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Azure Policy provides automated enforcement of organizational standards and rules across Azure resources. It evaluates configurations at deployment and prevents non-compliant resources from being provisioned. Microsoft Defender for Cloud continuously monitors Azure resources for misconfigurations, threats, and vulnerabilities. Together, they generate alerts and provide actionable recommendations to remediate issues.

Manual auditing is time-consuming, reactive, and prone to errors. It lacks the scalability and automation required for large environments with multiple subscriptions.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot monitor Azure resource configurations, enforce compliance policies, or generate alerts for misconfigurations.

Azure Boards is a work tracking tool for DevOps projects. While useful for task management, it does not provide security monitoring or compliance enforcement.

Using Azure Policy with Defender for Cloud ensures automated compliance enforcement, centralized monitoring, and proactive remediation. Dashboards provide visibility into non-compliant resources, alerts notify security teams of policy violations, and integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces security during deployment. Compared to manual auditing, antivirus solutions, or Azure Boards, this solution provides a scalable, automated, and proactive approach to maintaining security and compliance across Azure resources.

Question 188:

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

A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual dependency review
C) Trust open-source libraries without scanning
D) Local antivirus software

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates scanning of repositories to detect outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies. When a vulnerability or license violation is detected, it generates pull requests for remediation, allowing developers to quickly update dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized dashboards and reporting across multiple repositories, enabling teams to monitor compliance and remediation status.

Manual dependency review is labor-intensive, inconsistent, and difficult to scale across multiple repositories. Vulnerabilities may be missed, and license compliance may not be tracked effectively.

Trusting open-source libraries without scanning introduces significant risk. Vulnerabilities could be deployed to production undetected, exposing systems to potential attacks, and license violations could lead to legal issues.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan source code dependencies or enforce license compliance in repositories.

Dependabot with Defender for Cloud provides automated, scalable, and centralized monitoring and remediation. Pull requests generated by Dependabot allow developers to act quickly. Defender for Cloud dashboards track compliance and remediation progress. Integration with CI/CD ensures vulnerabilities are remediated before deployment. This proactive approach ensures security, compliance, and operational efficiency, making it superior to manual review, blind trust, or antivirus scanning.

Question 189:

A company wants to ensure that all Azure Storage accounts encrypt data at rest, continuously monitor compliance, and provide audit logs for regulatory purposes. 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 accounts

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

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

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent, error-prone, and difficult to scale across multiple storage accounts. Human error may leave sensitive data unencrypted, resulting in compliance violations.

Local disk encryption protects only endpoint devices, not cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce organization-wide encryption policies or provide centralized auditing.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but does not ensure encryption or compliance for storage accounts. It cannot monitor multiple accounts centrally or provide audit reports.

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy provides automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliance, dashboards centralize visibility, and audit logs support regulatory reporting. Integration with DevOps ensures encryption is consistently applied during deployment. Compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning, this solution offers a scalable, automated, and compliant approach to protecting sensitive data in Azure Storage.

Question 190:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect anomalies, 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 logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics collects telemetry data from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing centralized monitoring, anomaly detection, event correlation, and actionable insights. Dashboards visualize operational health, performance trends, and critical metrics. Alerts notify teams of issues, enabling immediate remediation and operational improvement.

Local pipeline logs offer limited visibility and cannot correlate events across systems, making troubleshooting inefficient.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and does not provide proactive insights. It is labor-intensive and cannot scale to support large or complex pipelines.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack centralized dashboards, correlation, and actionable insights. Teams may be aware of issues but cannot act efficiently to improve performance or reliability.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics enable advanced queries, anomaly detection, event correlation, and centralized dashboards. Alerts trigger proactive remediation, and integration with automation workflows supports continuous operational improvement. Compared to local logs, manual review, or email alerts, this centralized and automated monitoring solution provides the best operational visibility, efficiency, and reliability for CI/CD pipelines and infrastructure.

Question 191:

A company wants to detect and respond to insider threats by analyzing user activities, permission changes, and abnormal behavior in Microsoft 365. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Identity
B) Microsoft Planner
C) Microsoft Teams
D) Microsoft OneDrive

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Identity

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Identity is designed to detect insider threats by continuously monitoring user behavior and analyzing activities across Microsoft 365 and on-premises Active Directory. It identifies suspicious behavior, such as unusual logins, privilege escalation, and lateral movement. Machine learning models compare typical user behavior against current activity, detecting anomalies and generating alerts for investigation.

Microsoft Planner is a task management tool and does not provide security monitoring or detection of insider threats.

Microsoft Teams is a collaboration platform that facilitates communication and file sharing, but lacks threat detection capabilities.

Microsoft OneDrive is primarily a cloud storage service for file access and sharing, and does not analyze user behavior or detect insider threats.

Defender for Identity integrates with Azure AD and Microsoft 365 to provide centralized monitoring and alerting. Alerts include detailed information about suspicious activities, affected users, and recommended actions for remediation. Administrators can track account changes, logins, and permissions modifications to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of insider threats. Compared to Planner, Teams, or OneDrive, Defender for Identity provides proactive threat detection, making it the correct solution for insider threat monitoring in Microsoft 365.

Question 192:

A company wants to enforce automated phishing, malware, and malicious link protection in Microsoft 365 email and documents. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365
B) Microsoft OneDrive
C) Microsoft Teams
D) Microsoft Forms

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Office 365

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 protects organizations from email and collaboration-based threats, including phishing, malware, and malicious links. It integrates with Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive, and Teams to scan emails, attachments, and shared documents in real time. Safe Attachments ensures that email attachments are analyzed in a secure sandbox before delivery, while Safe Links rewrites URLs to evaluate them at the time of click, preventing access to malicious sites.

Microsoft OneDrive is a cloud storage solution and does not include real-time threat detection for emails or collaboration platforms.

Microsoft Teams is a collaboration platform and lacks dedicated security features for email-based threats.

Microsoft Forms is a survey and quiz tool and does not provide email or document threat protection.

Defender for Office 365 also includes anti-phishing, anti-spoofing, and threat intelligence capabilities. Administrators can configure quarantine policies, alerts, and notifications. Centralized reporting and dashboards provide visibility into threats, user activity, and remediation. Compared to OneDrive, Teams, or Forms, Defender for Office 365 is a specialized solution for automated threat detection and protection in Microsoft 365.

Question 193:

A company wants to detect security misconfigurations and enforce compliance policies across Azure resources, generating alerts for non-compliant resources. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual auditing of resources
C) Antivirus scanning
D) Azure DevOps Boards

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Azure Policy enforces compliance rules and standards across Azure resources. It automatically evaluates resource configurations and prevents deployment of non-compliant resources. Microsoft Defender for Cloud continuously monitors Azure resources for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and threats, generating alerts and providing remediation guidance.

Manual auditing is reactive, labor-intensive, and prone to errors. It cannot scale efficiently across multiple subscriptions or provide real-time alerts.

Antivirus scanning protects endpoints but cannot enforce resource compliance or detect misconfigurations in Azure resources.

Azure DevOps Boards is a work tracking tool and does not provide security monitoring or compliance enforcement.

The combination of Azure Policy and Defender for Cloud offers automated compliance enforcement, centralized monitoring, and proactive remediation. Dashboards provide visibility into non-compliant resources, alerts notify teams of policy violations, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures compliance is maintained during deployment. Compared to manual auditing, antivirus, or DevOps Boards, this solution is scalable, automated, and ensures consistent security and compliance across Azure resources.

Question 194:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerable dependencies, remediate them through pull requests, and monitor license compliance across repositories. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection of outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies across repositories. It generates pull requests to remediate vulnerabilities and update dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized dashboards and reporting to track remediation progress and license compliance across multiple repositories.

Manual dependency review is time-consuming, inconsistent, and difficult to scale. Human error can leave vulnerabilities unresolved and license violations undetected.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant risk. Vulnerable dependencies may reach production, exposing systems to potential attacks, and licensing violations can create legal issues.

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

Using Dependabot with Defender for Cloud provides automated scanning, remediation, and centralized compliance tracking. Pull requests allow developers to act proactively, and dashboards track progress across repositories. Integration with CI/CD ensures remediation occurs before production deployment. This approach is automated, scalable, and proactive, making it superior to manual review, blind trust, or antivirus-based solutions.

Question 195:

A company wants to ensure encryption of all Azure Storage accounts, monitor compliance, and maintain audit logs for regulatory reporting. 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 accounts

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data at rest using strong encryption standards, protecting sensitive information. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across multiple subscriptions, monitors non-compliant accounts, generates alerts, and maintains audit logs for regulatory reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent, error-prone, and difficult to scale across multiple accounts. Human error may leave sensitive data unencrypted, creating compliance risks.

Local disk encryption only protects endpoint devices, not cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce organization-wide encryption policies or provide centralized monitoring and auditing.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but does not ensure encryption or compliance for storage accounts.

The combination of Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy provides automated enforcement, continuous compliance monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliance, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and audit logs support regulatory reporting. Integration with DevOps ensures encryption is consistently applied during deployment. Compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning, this solution provides the most scalable, automated, and compliant approach to protecting Azure Storage data.

Question 196:

A company wants to detect suspicious lateral movement, abnormal activities, and potential account compromises across on-premises Active Directory and Azure AD. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Identity
B) Microsoft OneDrive
C) Microsoft Intune
D) Microsoft Planner

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Identity

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Identity is designed to protect hybrid identity environments by monitoring user and entity behaviors across on-premises Active Directory and Azure AD. It detects suspicious activities such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, brute force attacks, and abnormal logins using advanced analytics and machine learning. By continuously analyzing authentication patterns, account behaviors, and permissions changes, it can generate actionable alerts for security teams to investigate potential compromises.

Microsoft OneDrive is a cloud storage service that provides file access and collaboration, but does not analyze user behavior or detect identity-based threats.

Microsoft Intune manages devices and application compliance but does not monitor identity activity, detect suspicious logins, or identify lateral movement attacks.

Microsoft Planner is a task management tool and does not provide any security monitoring capabilities.

Defender for Identity integrates with Azure AD, Microsoft 365, and security management tools to provide a centralized monitoring solution. It tracks user activities, detects anomalies, and provides alerts with detailed contextual information, such as the affected accounts, systems involved, and recommended remediation steps. By enabling proactive detection of potential insider threats, suspicious logins, or compromised accounts, it reduces organizational risk and strengthens security posture. Compared to OneDrive, Intune, or Planner, Defender for Identity is the correct solution for detecting and responding to suspicious identity activities across hybrid environments.

Question 197:

A company wants to detect misconfigurations and enforce compliance policies across Azure resources, generate alerts for violations, and provide remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual auditing
C) Antivirus software
D) Azure DevOps Boards

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Azure Policy allows organizations to define and enforce rules across Azure resources. It evaluates configurations at deployment and runtime, ensuring resources meet security and compliance requirements. Microsoft Defender for Cloud enhances this by continuously monitoring Azure resources for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and threats. It generates alerts and provides actionable recommendations for remediation.

Manual auditing is labor-intensive, reactive, and prone to human error. It cannot scale effectively across large or complex environments and lacks real-time monitoring.

Antivirus software protects endpoints from malware but does not enforce cloud resource compliance or detect misconfigurations across Azure resources.

Azure DevOps Boards is a task management platform for tracking work items and does not provide security monitoring or compliance enforcement.

Combining Azure Policy with Defender for Cloud provides automated enforcement of security and compliance policies, real-time monitoring, and centralized reporting. Dashboards provide visibility into non-compliant resources, alerts notify teams of policy violations, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that policies are enforced during deployment. Compared to manual audits, antivirus software, or DevOps Boards, this combination provides a scalable, proactive, and automated approach for maintaining security and compliance across Azure resources.

Question 198:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities in dependencies, remediate them via pull requests, and track license compliance 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 scanning of repository dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, and misconfigurations. It generates pull requests to remediate vulnerabilities and update dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized dashboards and compliance monitoring across repositories, enabling security teams to track remediation and license compliance.

Manual dependency review is labor-intensive and inconsistent. In large repositories, it is difficult to ensure that all vulnerabilities and license violations are detected and remediated promptly.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and legal risks. Vulnerable dependencies may be deployed to production, exposing systems to attacks, and licensing violations can create compliance issues.

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

The combination of Dependabot and Defender for Cloud provides automated scanning, pull request remediation, and centralized visibility across repositories. Dashboards allow tracking of security and compliance progress. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures vulnerabilities are addressed before deployment. Compared to manual review, blind trust, or antivirus-based approaches, this solution provides a proactive, scalable, and automated approach to dependency management.

Question 199:

A company wants to enforce encryption of all Azure Storage accounts, continuously monitor compliance, and maintain audit logs for regulatory reporting. 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 accounts

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data at rest, ensuring sensitive information is protected. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across subscriptions, monitors non-compliant accounts, generates alerts, and maintains audit logs for regulatory purposes.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. Human error can leave sensitive data unencrypted, leading to compliance violations.

Local disk encryption only protects endpoint devices, not cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce centralized policies or provide audit logs for compliance purposes.

Antivirus scanning protects against malware but does not enforce encryption or compliance of storage accounts.

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy provides automated enforcement, continuous compliance monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliance, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and audit logs support regulatory reporting. Integration with DevOps ensures encryption is applied consistently during deployment. Compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning, this solution provides a scalable, automated, and compliant approach to protecting Azure Storage data.

Question 200:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect anomalies, 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 logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics collects telemetry from CI/CD pipelines, cloud infrastructure, and applications. It provides centralized monitoring, anomaly detection, event correlation, and actionable insights. Dashboards visualize operational health, performance metrics, and trends, while alerts notify teams of critical issues, enabling rapid remediation and operational improvement.

Local pipeline logs provide limited visibility and cannot correlate events across multiple systems, making troubleshooting inefficient.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, labor-intensive, and inconsistent. It fails to provide proactive insights into recurring issues or operational anomalies.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack centralized dashboards, correlation, and actionable insights. Teams may become aware of problems but cannot efficiently respond or improve performance.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics enable advanced queries, anomaly detection, event correlation, and centralized dashboards. Alerts trigger proactive remediation, and integration with automation workflows supports continuous operational improvement. Compared to local logs, manual reviews, or email alerts, this centralized and automated solution provides superior operational visibility, reliability, and efficiency for CI/CD pipelines and infrastructure.