Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 5 Q81-100

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

Question 81:

A DevOps team wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring approval workflows, time-limited access, and auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

Answer: A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)

Explanation

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides time-limited, just-in-time privileged access, approval workflows, and detailed auditing. It ensures that administrators can perform sensitive actions only when necessary, aligning with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles.

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is a service designed to provide secure, time-limited access to privileged roles in Azure Active Directory and other Microsoft cloud services. PIM enables just-in-time access, meaning users can activate elevated privileges only when needed, and those privileges automatically expire after a predefined period. This significantly reduces the risk of permanent credential exposure and limits the opportunity for attackers to exploit compromised accounts. PIM includes features such as multifactor authentication, approval workflows, and access justification to ensure that elevated roles are granted under controlled and auditable conditions. Detailed audit logs track who activated roles, what actions were performed, and for how long, supporting both governance and compliance requirements. By integrating with other Microsoft security tools, such as Microsoft Defender for Cloud, PIM allows continuous monitoring of privileged access and ensures adherence to least-privilege principles. Organizations benefit from reduced insider threat risks, improved operational security, and alignment with DevSecOps best practices by embedding secure access controls into everyday operations.

B) Static service principal credentials are permanent credentials used by applications, scripts, or automation tools to access Azure resources. These credentials typically consist of a client ID and a secret or certificate that does not expire automatically. While service principals are essential for programmatic access, using static credentials introduces significant security risks. If these credentials are exposed or compromised, attackers can gain persistent, unrestricted access to critical resources. Unlike PIM, static credentials do not provide time-limited access, approval workflows, or automated deactivation. Organizations must implement strict rotation policies and securely store the credentials in tools such as Azure Key Vault, but human error or negligence can still result in exposure. Even with best practices, static credentials inherently expand the attack surface and create ongoing security management challenges compared to dynamic, policy-driven access solutions like PIM.

C) Developer-managed passwords involve individual developers creating, storing, and managing credentials manually. This approach is highly prone to human error and inconsistent security practices. Developers may reuse passwords across multiple accounts, fail to rotate them regularly, or store them in insecure locations such as local files, spreadsheets, or shared documents. These practices increase the risk of unauthorized access, insider threats, and accidental exposure. Developer-managed passwords also lack centralized control, auditing, and integration with identity management workflows, making it difficult to maintain security across large teams or multiple environments. Without automation or governance, this approach cannot enforce least-privilege access, time-limited privileges, or secure rotation, leaving critical resources vulnerable.

D) Shared access via email involves distributing credentials or access information through email to grant users access to resources. This method is highly insecure because email can be intercepted, forwarded, or accessed by unauthorized parties. Shared credentials provide no visibility into who is using them, when, or for what purpose. This approach bypasses identity management controls such as multifactor authentication, approval workflows, or automated expiration, leaving resources exposed to misuse. It also makes auditing and compliance difficult, as there is no systematic way to track credential usage. Shared access via email greatly increases operational and security risks and is not aligned with modern cloud security best practices.

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

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and pose a security risk if compromised. They do not support ephemeral access, automated approvals, or auditing.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to maintain security practices. They are error-prone, inconsistent, and cannot scale across large teams or pipelines.

Shared access via email is insecure and lacks time-bound access, automated approval workflows, and auditability.

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated access, ensures approval workflows, and logs all actions for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub enforces traceability of privileged operations. Conditional access policies can further restrict access by location, device compliance, or risk. PIM reduces attack surfaces, ensures regulatory compliance, and supports proactive monitoring of privileged activities, making it the correct solution.

Question 82:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories and provide remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security embeds automated security scanning into pull requests and CI/CD workflows. It detects vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before code merges, reducing risk early in the development process.

Manual code reviews are inconsistent, slow, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle security issues or secrets across multiple repositories.

Local IDE static analysis is developer-dependent, lacks central enforcement, and cannot prevent insecure code from merging if scans are skipped.A) GitHub Advanced Security is a comprehensive solution for detecting, monitoring, and remediating security vulnerabilities in code repositories. It includes features such as code scanning, secret scanning, and dependency review. Code scanning analyzes the source code for insecure coding patterns, logic flaws, and potential vulnerabilities before the code reaches production. Secret scanning identifies sensitive information, such as API keys or credentials, accidentally committed to repositories. Dependency review checks open-source libraries and third-party packages for known vulnerabilities and generates automated pull requests to remediate them. GitHub Advanced Security integrates directly into CI/CD pipelines, allowing security checks to run automatically with each commit or pull request. This automated and proactive approach reduces human error, ensures continuous monitoring, enforces compliance, and supports DevSecOps practices. Detailed reports and audit trails help teams track remediation efforts, monitor trends, and prioritize risks based on severity. By embedding security early in the development process, GitHub Advanced Security enables organizations to maintain a secure codebase while supporting fast software delivery.

B) Manual code reviews involve developers or security experts examining code line by line to identify potential issues, such as logic errors, insecure practices, or vulnerabilities. Manual reviews can sometimes catch complex or context-specific problems that automated tools might miss, such as architectural flaws or misuse of APIs. However, manual reviews are time-consuming, resource-intensive, and prone to human error. Large codebases or frequent commits make it impractical to review all code changes consistently. Manual reviews lack continuous monitoring, real-time detection, and automated integration with CI/CD pipelines, delaying vulnerability detection and remediation. Additionally, tracking security issues across multiple repositories is challenging, as manual reviews do not provide centralized reporting. While manual code reviews are valuable as a complementary measure, they are insufficient alone for ensuring secure and scalable software development.

C) Local IDE static analysis involves tools integrated into the developer’s development environment that analyze code as it is written. These tools provide immediate feedback on potential errors, coding standard violations, or security vulnerabilities. While helpful for catching basic issues early, IDE static analysis has limitations. It often generates false positives, requires proper configuration to be effective, and does not provide a full project-wide or runtime context for vulnerabilities. These tools are dependent on developers actively using them, which can lead to inconsistent coverage if ignored. Local IDE analysis lacks centralized reporting, integration with CI/CD pipelines, and automated remediation, which are necessary for continuous security monitoring across teams and repositories.

D) Build server notifications refer to alerts generated by CI/CD pipelines when builds fail or tests do not pass. These notifications can inform teams about compilation errors, failed tests, or policy violations, helping ensure the quality of code before deployment. However, built-in server notifications are reactive rather than proactive, as they do not automatically detect or remediate vulnerabilities. They depend on preconfigured security tools integrated into the pipeline to provide meaningful alerts. Without proper integration, built notifications alone cannot identify insecure code patterns, secrets, or vulnerable dependencies. While useful for tracking build issues, they do not provide comprehensive security coverage or continuous monitoring.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, GitHub Advanced Security is the only solution that provides automated, proactive, and integrated security scanning for code, dependencies, and secrets. Manual code reviews, local IDE static analysis, and build server notifications are valuable supplemental practices but do not offer comprehensive or continuous vulnerability detection. GitHub Advanced Security ensures early detection, automated remediation guidance, audit trails, and CI/CD integration, making it the most effective solution for securing modern software development pipelines.

Build server notifications are reactive, alerting only after builds complete. They do not prevent insecure code from merging and lack centralized visibility.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline alerts during pull requests, automated code scanning, secret detection, dependency analysis, and remediation suggestions. Dashboards centralize visibility, enabling security teams to track issues, prioritize remediation, and maintain compliance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures proactive enforcement of secure coding practices. Continuous monitoring for emerging vulnerabilities and dependency threats adds layer of security, making it the correct solution.

Question 83:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers ensures only approved images are deployed and continuously monitors runtime behavior.

A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides a comprehensive and automated approach to securing containerized workloads in Azure. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules and enforce compliance across container images, clusters, and deployed workloads. Policies can ensure that only approved images are deployed, enforce encryption, restrict privileged containers, and mandate specific configurations such as vulnerability scanning. Microsoft Defender for Containers complements this by continuously monitoring container images and running containers for known vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and threats. Alerts are generated when risks are detected, along with actionable remediation guidance. This integration enables continuous evaluation and enforcement, helping organizations maintain compliance and reduce security risks. By embedding policy enforcement and threat detection into the deployment process, teams can prevent insecure containers from reaching production, align with DevSecOps practices, and maintain operational governance at scale. Dashboards and reporting provide visibility into container security posture, helping prioritize remediation efforts and meet regulatory requirements.

B) Manual scanning of container images involves developers or security teams inspecting images for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, or misconfigurations. While manual scanning can detect issues at a specific point in time, it is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and prone to human error. Manual processes do not provide continuous monitoring or automated enforcement, which means that containers could be deployed without being checked or re-evaluated when new vulnerabilities emerge. Additionally, manual scanning lacks centralized reporting, making it difficult to scale across multiple clusters, images, or subscriptions. This reactive approach can leave workloads exposed to threats, delay remediation, and increase operational risk. Although manual scanning can supplement automated solutions, it is insufficient as a standalone strategy for securing containerized environments in modern cloud deployments.

C) Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) only focuses on assigning permissions to users or service principals to access resources based on roles. RBAC is essential for enforcing least-privilege principles and controlling who can manage or deploy containers, but it does not provide proactive scanning, vulnerability detection, or policy enforcement for container images. RBAC prevents unauthorized access but does not identify misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, or malware within images or running workloads. While RBAC is a critical component of cloud security governance, it must be combined with automated scanning and monitoring tools to provide comprehensive container security. Relying solely on RBAC leaves containers unprotected from runtime threats and configuration issues.

D) Local antivirus software protects individual machines or endpoints from malware and malicious files. While useful for endpoint protection, antivirus software is not designed to scan container images, enforce deployment policies, or continuously monitor workloads in cloud environments. It operates reactively, detecting threats only on the host where it is installed, and does not provide insights into vulnerabilities in container images, packages, or orchestration platforms such as Kubernetes. Antivirus software cannot enforce security standards or integrate with CI/CD pipelines, leaving significant gaps in cloud-native container security.

Reasoning about the correct approach: Among these choices, Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides the most complete, automated, and continuous solution for securing container workloads. It enforces policies, monitors vulnerabilities, and supports compliance at scale. Manual scanning is limited and not continuous, RBAC only controls access without assessing security posture, and local antivirus does not address container-specific risks. Together, Azure Policy and Microsoft Defender for Containers enable organizations to maintain secure, compliant, and well-governed container environments while integrating seamlessly into DevSecOps workflows.

Manual container scanning is reactive, labor-intensive, and inconsistent. It cannot scale across multiple clusters and does not provide continuous runtime monitoring.

RBAC restricts access but does not validate container security or monitor runtime activity. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed.

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

Azure Policy with Defender validates images against defined policies during deployment. Defender monitors runtime activity for vulnerabilities and suspicious behavior. Alerts and dashboards provide centralized visibility and remediation guidance. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces security throughout the deployment lifecycle. This approach aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 84:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection and remediation of vulnerabilities in dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance reporting, and risk management.

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

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces risk. Vulnerabilities may enter production, causing security, operational, and legal issues.

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

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

Question 85:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for troubleshooting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It provides anomaly detection, event correlation, alerting, and dashboards for troubleshooting.

Local console logs offer isolated visibility, cannot scale across pipelines or clusters, and lack correlation and actionable insights.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards or correlation, reducing operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics enables advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notification of failures or unusual events. CI/CD pipeline integration ensures real-time monitoring, centralized insights, and rapid troubleshooting. This reduces downtime, supports compliance, and provides enterprise-scale observability, making it the correct solution.

Question 86:

A DevOps team wants to provide just-in-time privileged access to administrators in Azure DevOps while ensuring approval workflows, time-bound access, and detailed auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

Answer: A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is designed to manage and enforce just-in-time access to privileged accounts in Azure environments. PIM provides time-bound access requests, automated approval workflows, and full auditing, ensuring that administrative actions are traceable and compliant with security policies.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and pose security risks if compromised. They lack ephemeral access, automated approvals, and auditing capabilities. If an attacker gains these credentials, they have persistent access with no time restrictions or logging.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to maintain proper security practices, which introduces human error. This method cannot enforce organizational policies, track access centrally, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines, leaving gaps in security enforcement.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant. It does not provide time-limited access, automated approval workflows, or traceable auditing. Credential sharing can be intercepted or misused, increasing risk.

Azure AD PIM enforces just-in-time access by allowing administrators to request temporary elevated permissions. Approval workflows ensure accountability and prevent unauthorized access. Access duration is limited, and all actions are logged for auditing. Integration with Azure DevOps provides visibility and control over repository and pipeline operations. Conditional access policies add a security layer by restricting access based on device compliance, location, or risk assessment.

By using PIM, organizations minimize the attack surface, reduce the risk of unauthorized access, and maintain regulatory compliance. Alerts and reporting enable security teams to monitor unusual access patterns and respond to potential threats proactively. This approach aligns with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles, making Azure AD PIM the correct solution.

Question 87:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories and provide remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates automated code scanning into pull requests and CI/CD workflows to identify vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before code merges. This ensures that security issues are addressed early in the development lifecycle.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secret leaks, especially across multiple repositories or large teams. They also do not provide automated remediation guidance.

Local IDE static analysis depends on individual developers to run scans and interpret results. While useful for early detection, it lacks centralized enforcement and cannot prevent vulnerable code from merging if skipped or misconfigured.

Build server notifications alert developers only after builds complete. This reactive approach does not prevent insecure or misconfigured code from merging and provides limited visibility to security teams.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning in pull requests, automated vulnerability detection, secret scanning, and dependency analysis. It generates alerts, remediation suggestions, and automated pull requests for dependency updates. Centralized dashboards allow security teams to monitor repositories, assess risk, and prioritize remediation. Continuous monitoring for emerging threats ensures proactive security. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces secure coding practices consistently, reduces human error, and supports DevSecOps principles.

In conclusion, GitHub Advanced Security provides automated detection, remediation guidance, and centralized visibility. Manual reviews, IDE scans, and build notifications are either inconsistent, reactive, or reliant on developers. GitHub Advanced Security provides enterprise-scale security enforcement, making it the correct solution.

Question 88:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers ensures that only approved container images are deployed and monitors runtime behavior for security threats and vulnerabilities.

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

RBAC restricts access but does not validate container security or monitor runtime activity. Unauthorized or vulnerable images could still be deployed, leaving the environment exposed.

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

Azure Policy validates container images against organizational policies during deployment. Microsoft Defender continuously monitors runtime behavior for vulnerabilities, suspicious activity, and misconfigurations. Alerts and dashboards provide centralized visibility and rapid remediation guidance. CI/CD integration enforces security from build to deployment. This proactive enforcement aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, reducing risk and maintaining operational integrity, making it the correct solution.

Question 89:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection of vulnerabilities in dependencies and generates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance monitoring and visibility across multiple repositories.

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

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant risk. Vulnerable dependencies may be deployed in production, creating security and operational risks.

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

GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud identifies outdated or vulnerable dependencies, flags license violations, and generates automated remediation pull requests. Dashboards centralize visibility, allowing security teams to prioritize and track remediation. CI/CD integration ensures consistent enforcement, reduces human error, and aligns with DevSecOps principles. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 90:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for troubleshooting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics provides centralized telemetry aggregation, alerting, correlation, dashboards, and actionable insights across CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure.

Local console logs provide limited, isolated visibility, cannot scale across pipelines, and lack correlation. They do not allow proactive detection of systemic issues or actionable insights.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, correlation, or actionable insight, reducing operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics allows advanced queries, correlation of events across pipelines and infrastructure, anomaly detection, and centralized dashboards. Alerts provide proactive notifications, enabling rapid troubleshooting. CI/CD pipeline integration ensures enterprise-scale visibility, operational insight, and proactive remediation. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and improves operational efficiency, making it the correct solution.

Question 91:

A DevOps team wants to provide just-in-time privileged access to administrators in Azure DevOps while ensuring approval workflows, time-limited access, and auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

Answer: A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is a Microsoft solution that allows organizations to manage, monitor, and control privileged access within Azure environments. PIM provides just-in-time access, meaning administrators can elevate privileges only when necessary, for a limited duration. This ensures that high-risk administrative actions are tightly controlled and auditable.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and lack the flexibility required for just-in-time access. They cannot enforce approval workflows, time-bound access, or provide auditing for privileged actions. If such credentials are compromised, they can provide persistent access to sensitive resources, posing a significant security risk.

Developer-managed passwords require individuals to securely handle and rotate credentials, which is inconsistent and prone to error. They do not enforce organizational policies, nor do they integrate with centralized monitoring or CI/CD workflows. This lack of automation increases the risk of human error and unauthorized access.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant with modern security standards. It provides no automated workflow, time-bound access, or auditing. Credentials shared through email are at high risk of interception or misuse, leaving privileged systems exposed.

PIM addresses these issues comprehensively by enabling temporary privilege elevation through automated approval workflows. Administrators request elevation, which can require multi-level approval, ensuring accountability. Access is granted only for a predefined time, after which privileges are automatically revoked. All activity is logged, providing a detailed audit trail for compliance and security teams. Integration with Azure DevOps allows enforcement of PIM policies across pipelines, repositories, and other resources, aligning with DevSecOps principles. Conditional access policies can further restrict access based on device compliance, location, or risk level.

The proactive management of privileged access minimizes attack surfaces, reduces exposure to insider threats, and ensures regulatory compliance. Security teams can configure alerts for unusual access patterns, enabling early detection of potential threats. By combining time-bound access, approval workflows, and comprehensive auditing, Azure AD PIM ensures secure administration in modern DevOps environments.

In summary, Azure AD PIM offers ephemeral access, automated approval workflows, and audit logging for privileged accounts. Static credentials, developer-managed passwords, and shared access via email cannot provide these security controls. PIM is the correct solution for managing just-in-time privileged access in Azure DevOps.

Question 92:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories and provide automated remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates security directly into the development lifecycle by automatically scanning pull requests for code vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations. It enables proactive detection and remediation, ensuring that insecure code does not reach production environments.

Manual code reviews are time-intensive, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secret leaks across multiple repositories, and they do not provide automated remediation guidance. Manual reviews cannot scale effectively for large DevOps teams and are dependent on reviewer expertise.

Local IDE static analysis helps developers detect issues while coding, but lacks centralized enforcement and visibility. Vulnerabilities may still enter the repository if developers do not run scans or misinterpret the results. IDE scanning also does not provide integrated remediation guidance or reporting for security teams.

Build server notifications are reactive, alerting developers after builds complete. They do not prevent vulnerable code from merging and provide limited centralized visibility. This approach delays detection and remediation, increasing potential security risks.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning of pull requests, automated vulnerability detection, secret scanning, and dependency analysis. It generates automated remediation suggestions or pull requests for vulnerable dependencies. Centralized dashboards allow security teams to monitor multiple repositories, assess risk, and prioritize remediation efforts. Continuous monitoring for new vulnerabilities ensures proactive protection. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces secure coding practices and reduces human error, aligning with DevSecOps principles.

In conclusion, GitHub Advanced Security offers automated detection, remediation guidance, and centralized visibility. Manual code reviews, IDE scanning, and build notifications are reactive, inconsistent, or reliant on individuals. GitHub Advanced Security provides enterprise-scale security enforcement and is the correct solution for detecting vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in pull requests.

Question 93:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy, combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers, enforces compliance for container image deployment and continuously monitors runtime behavior. This ensures only approved images are deployed and vulnerabilities are detected in real-time.

Manual scanning of container images is reactive, labor-intensive, and inconsistent. It cannot scale across multiple clusters or pipelines, and runtime security threats may go undetected.

RBAC controls access but does not validate the security of container images or monitor runtime activity. Unauthorized or vulnerable images may still be deployed, leaving the environment exposed to attacks.

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

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

Question 94:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection of outdated or vulnerable dependencies, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized compliance monitoring and reporting.

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

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may enter production without detection.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot detect or remediate vulnerable dependencies or enforce license compliance.

GitHub Dependabot with Defender for Cloud identifies vulnerabilities, generates automated pull requests for remediation, and flags license violations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams to track, prioritize, and remediate issues. CI/CD integration ensures consistent enforcement, reduces human error, and aligns with DevSecOps best practices. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make it the correct solution.

Question 95:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for troubleshooting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing anomaly detection, event correlation, dashboards, and actionable insights.

Local pipeline console logs provide isolated visibility, cannot scale across pipelines, and lack event correlation and actionable insights.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards or event correlation, reducing operational efficiency.

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

Question 96:

A DevOps team wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps and GitHub while ensuring approval workflows, time-bound access, and auditing. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)
B) Static service principal credentials
C) Developer-managed passwords
D) Shared access via email

Answer: A) Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM)

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) is designed to manage privileged access securely, providing just-in-time access, automated approval workflows, and detailed auditing. PIM ensures that administrators can perform high-risk operations only when needed, reducing exposure to security threats.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and lack automated workflows, ephemeral access, or audit logging. If compromised, they provide persistent access to critical resources, increasing security risk.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals maintaining security best practices, which is inconsistent and error-prone. They provide no centralized control, auditing, or integration with DevOps workflows.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant with modern security standards. It lacks time-bound access, automated approval, and traceable auditing. Credentials shared via email can be intercepted or misused.

Azure AD PIM allows administrators to request temporary elevated privileges, subject to approval workflows. Access is limited in duration, and all actions are logged for auditing and compliance. Integration with Azure DevOps and GitHub ensures traceability of privileged operations, aligning with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Conditional access policies restrict access based on device compliance, location, or risk assessment.

By using PIM, organizations minimize attack surfaces, reduce unauthorized access risks, and maintain compliance. Alerts for unusual access patterns allow proactive security monitoring. PIM’s combination of just-in-time access, approval workflows, and auditing makes it the correct solution.

Question 97:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations in pull requests across multiple repositories while providing automated remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) GitHub Advanced Security
B) Manual code reviews
C) Local IDE static analysis
D) Build server notifications

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates automated security scanning into pull requests and CI/CD pipelines, detecting vulnerabilities, secrets, and misconfigurations before code merges.

Manual code reviews are time-intensive, inconsistent, and prone to human error. They cannot reliably detect subtle vulnerabilities or secret leaks, especially at scale, and do not provide automated remediation guidance.

Local IDE static analysis depends on individual developers running scans and interpreting results. While useful for early detection, it lacks centralized enforcement and cannot prevent insecure code from merging.

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

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline pull request scanning, vulnerability detection, secret scanning, dependency analysis, and remediation suggestions. Centralized dashboards allow teams to monitor repositories, track issues, and prioritize remediation. Continuous monitoring for emerging threats ensures proactive security. Integration with CI/CD pipelines enforces secure coding practices consistently, reduces human error, and aligns with DevSecOps principles.

In conclusion, GitHub Advanced Security delivers automated detection, remediation guidance, and centralized visibility. Other approaches are reactive, inconsistent, or human-dependent, making GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution.

Question 98:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy, combined with Microsoft Defender for Container, ensures only approved images are deployed and continuously monitors runtime behavior.

Manual container image scanning is reactive, inconsistent, and labor-intensive. It cannot scale across clusters or pipelines, and runtime threats may go undetected.

RBAC restricts access but does not validate container security or monitor runtime activity. Vulnerable or unauthorized images may still be deployed.

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

Azure Policy validates images during deployment to ensure compliance. Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime behavior for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and suspicious activity. Dashboards provide centralized visibility and remediation guidance. CI/CD integration enforces security throughout the deployment lifecycle. This proactive enforcement aligns with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles, reducing risk and ensuring operational integrity, making it the correct solution.

Question 99:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities in software dependencies, enforce license compliance, and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection and remediation of vulnerabilities in software dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized monitoring, compliance tracking, and visibility across repositories.

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

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

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

GitHub Dependabot identifies vulnerable or outdated dependencies, generates automated pull requests for remediation, and flags licensing violations. Dashboards centralize visibility, allowing teams to track, prioritize, and remediate issues. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures consistent enforcement and reduced human error. Automated remediation, continuous monitoring, and compliance enforcement make this the correct solution.

Question 100:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for troubleshooting. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards
B) Local pipeline console logs
C) Manual review of build reports
D) Developer email notifications

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics centralizes telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, providing anomaly detection, event correlation, dashboards, and actionable insights for troubleshooting.

Local console logs provide isolated visibility, cannot scale across pipelines, and lack event correlation or actionable insights.

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

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, correlation, or actionable insights, reducing operational efficiency.

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