Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 7 Q121-140

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

Question 121:

A company wants to enforce conditional access policies for Azure DevOps users based on device compliance, location, and risk levels. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Conditional Access
B) RBAC only
C) Local antivirus software
D) Manual user reviews

Answer: A) Azure AD Conditional Access

Explanation:

Azure AD Conditional Access allows organizations to enforce access policies based on multiple risk factors such as user location, device compliance, sign-in risk, and the application being accessed. This ensures that only secure and authorized users can access Azure DevOps resources under controlled conditions.

Role-based access control (RBAC) is a fundamental tool in cloud and enterprise environments for managing permissions. It allows administrators to assign users or service principals specific roles, defining what actions they can perform on which resources. RBAC is essential for enforcing the principle of least privilege, ensuring that users have only the access necessary to perform their job functions. However, RBAC alone does not enforce conditional policies such as device compliance, location-based access, or risk-based restrictions. For example, a user may be assigned the correct role to access sensitive data, but if they attempt to connect from an unauthorized device or an unapproved location, RBAC by itself cannot prevent access. Without the enforcement of such conditions, unauthorized or risky access could occur even when RBAC roles are properly assigned. This limitation makes RBAC insufficient as a standalone control for dynamic environments where access decisions need to be context-aware and adaptable based on real-time risk assessments. Organizations must complement RBAC with tools that enforce conditional access, monitor user behavior, and automatically block risky access attempts to maintain a secure environment.

Local antivirus software is widely used to protect individual endpoints, such as laptops, desktops, and servers, from malware, viruses, and other malicious files. Antivirus solutions are effective at detecting known threats on the host device, isolating infected files, and preventing the execution of malicious software. However, endpoint antivirus does not manage access to cloud resources, enforce organizational policies, or ensure compliance with conditional access requirements. While it protects the device itself, it does not prevent unauthorized users from logging into cloud applications, deploying resources, or accessing sensitive data if they have valid credentials. Antivirus software operates reactively, focusing on detecting and removing threats after they are introduced, rather than proactively enforcing security or access policies across cloud environments. It provides no insight into user behavior, device compliance, or network context, making it inadequate for controlling access to cloud resources or enforcing policies that depend on environmental conditions.

Manual user reviews involve periodically auditing user access and permissions to ensure they comply with organizational policies and least-privilege principles. Administrators or security teams examine each account, verifying whether roles, permissions, or access rights are appropriate for the user’s job function. While manual reviews can help identify misassigned permissions or unusual activity, this approach is reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. In large enterprise environments with hundreds or thousands of users, manual reviews are difficult to scale effectively. They cannot provide continuous monitoring or dynamic enforcement of access policies, meaning that users may retain inappropriate access between review cycles. Additionally, human error can lead to incomplete reviews, missed policy violations, or delayed remediation. Relying solely on manual reviews exposes organizations to risks such as privilege creep, insider threats, or noncompliance with regulatory requirements. Because cloud environments are dynamic, with users frequently changing roles, locations, and devices, manual reviews cannot provide the automation, agility, or responsiveness required to maintain secure and compliant access consistently.

Combining RBAC, antivirus, and manual reviews alone is insufficient for modern security governance. RBAC effectively manages role assignments but does not enforce conditional policies. Antivirus protects endpoints but cannot control cloud access or enforce policy compliance. Manual reviews are slow, inconsistent, and unable to scale for large or dynamic environments. Organizations require automated, policy-driven solutions that enforce conditional access based on device compliance, location, and risk in real-time. By integrating RBAC with conditional access policies, continuous monitoring, and automated remediation workflows, organizations can ensure secure, scalable, and dynamic access management while minimizing the risk of unauthorized access and improving compliance.

Conditional Access evaluates access requests in real time, determining whether the request meets security requirements. Organizations can enforce multi-factor authentication, block high-risk logins, or restrict access to compliant devices. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures that user access aligns with corporate security policies. Alerts and logging provide visibility into conditional access events for auditing and compliance. By dynamically controlling access based on risk, Azure AD Conditional Access reduces security exposure and supports Zero Trust principles, making it the correct solution.

Question 122:

A company wants to automatically enforce encryption of sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts while monitoring compliance. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption ensures data is encrypted at rest using strong encryption standards. Azure Policy enforces that all storage accounts comply with encryption requirements and provides monitoring for policy compliance.

Manual encryption by developers is error-prone, inconsistent, and difficult to scale across multiple storage accounts.

Local disk encryption only protects data on individual endpoints and does not cover cloud storage.

Antivirus scanning only detects malware and does not enforce encryption or monitor compliance.

Azure Storage Service Encryption transparently encrypts data without requiring developer intervention. Policies can be applied to audit or enforce compliance across subscriptions. Alerts notify teams if resources are noncompliant. Integration with Azure Security Center provides dashboards for monitoring encryption compliance. By automating encryption and continuous monitoring, organizations protect sensitive data at scale and meet regulatory requirements, making this the correct solution.

Question 123:

A company wants to monitor and remediate vulnerabilities in virtual machines and containers across multiple Azure subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual patch management
C) Local antivirus only
D) RBAC only

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides comprehensive security management and threat protection for Azure workloads, including virtual machines and containers. It continuously assesses vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and compliance status across subscriptions and provides automated remediation guidance.

Manual patch management is reactive and error-prone. It is difficult to scale across multiple subscriptions and cannot provide centralized visibility.

Local antivirus protects endpoints, but cannot monitor or remediate vulnerabilities at the cloud infrastructure level.

RBAC only controls access and does not provide vulnerability scanning, threat detection, or automated remediation.

Defender for Cloud continuously assesses security configurations, identifies vulnerabilities, and provides actionable recommendations. Integration with CI/CD pipelines and dashboards allows security teams to monitor and remediate risks across virtual machines and containers in real time. Alerts and reports provide visibility for compliance and operational security. By centralizing security management and automating vulnerability detection and remediation, Microsoft Defender for Cloud reduces risk and ensures enterprise-scale protection, making it the correct solution.

Question 124:

A company wants to detect misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and compliance deviations in Kubernetes clusters while enforcing remediation policies. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy, combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers, provides proactive enforcement and continuous monitoring of Kubernetes clusters. Azure Policy ensures that deployments comply with organizational standards, while Defender monitors runtime activity for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.

Manual cluster audits are labor-intensive, inconsistent, and cannot scale for multiple clusters.

RBAC controls access but does not enforce configuration compliance or detect runtime security issues. Misconfigured deployments can still run.

Local antivirus protects endpoints but cannot inspect Kubernetes clusters or enforce deployment policies.

Azure Policy validates configurations during deployment, enforcing standards such as image approval, security context rules, and network policies. Defender monitors runtime clusters for threats, vulnerabilities, and anomalous behavior. Alerts and dashboards provide centralized visibility and guidance for remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures secure deployment practices, aligning with DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Automated enforcement and continuous monitoring make Azure Policy with Defender the correct solution.

Question 125:

A company wants to automatically detect vulnerabilities and license compliance issues in third-party dependencies and create remediation pull requests. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the identification of outdated or vulnerable dependencies and creates pull requests for remediation. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, tracking, and compliance reporting across repositories.

Manual dependency review is inconsistent, slow, and error-prone. It cannot scale across multiple repositories or handle frequent updates.

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

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

Dependabot detects vulnerable or outdated dependencies, generates remediation pull requests, and flags license violations. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for security teams to monitor remediation progress. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures continuous enforcement of security and compliance policies. Automated remediation, centralized visibility, and compliance monitoring make GitHub Dependabot with Defender the correct solution.

Question 126:

A company wants to ensure that only approved container images are deployed to Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) clusters and continuously monitor runtime activity for security threats, misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides a comprehensive, automated approach to securing containerized workloads on AKS. Azure Policy enables organizations to define and enforce deployment standards, such as approved images, proper network configurations, and required security contexts. It ensures that only compliant containers are deployed in production environments. Microsoft Defender for Containers continuously monitors the runtime environment, detecting suspicious behaviors, vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and potential threats in real time.

Manual container scanning is reactive, resource-intensive, and error-prone. While it may catch vulnerabilities in static images, it does not provide ongoing runtime protection. It cannot enforce policies automatically, requiring significant human intervention to ensure compliance, which increases operational risk and the likelihood of non-compliant deployments.

RBAC controls who can access the clusters and resources, but does not prevent unapproved or vulnerable images from being deployed. While RBAC is essential for access management, it cannot scan images or monitor running workloads for threats, leaving runtime security gaps.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints, not containerized workloads in a Kubernetes environment. It cannot monitor container processes, network traffic, or runtime behavior in AKS clusters. This approach provides very limited protection against sophisticated attacks targeting containers.

Azure Policy ensures that only approved images are deployed by evaluating image metadata, labels, and compliance criteria at the time of deployment. Any non-compliant images are automatically blocked, reducing the attack surface. Defender for Containers monitors container processes, file integrity, network activity, and configuration drift, providing alerts and detailed reports for remediation. Together, they enable a Zero Trust security model for containerized workloads, integrating seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines for automated security enforcement.

The solution also includes dashboards and reporting tools that provide centralized visibility across multiple clusters and environments. Alerts can be configured for suspicious activity, enabling security teams to respond proactively. This approach minimizes the potential impact of runtime attacks, ensures compliance with organizational policies, and maintains operational integrity across AKS clusters.

In summary, Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides automated deployment enforcement, runtime monitoring, vulnerability detection, and proactive remediation. It is a scalable, centralized, and effective security solution compared to manual scanning, RBAC-only approaches, or local antivirus solutions, which are either reactive, incomplete, or insufficient for containerized workloads.

Question 127:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time privileged access for administrators in Azure DevOps while maintaining detailed audit logs, approval workflows, and time-bound access. 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 by providing just-in-time access, approval workflows, time-bound privileges, and detailed audit logs. This ensures that administrators can perform sensitive operations only when required, reducing the risk of overprivileged accounts and insider threats. PIM integrates with Azure DevOps to provide traceability of all privileged operations, supporting compliance and regulatory standards.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and do not support just-in-time access. They lack automated approval workflows and centralized logging, creating a persistent attack vector if compromised. They also do not allow organizations to enforce time-bound access or detailed auditing, which is essential for sensitive operations.

Developer-managed passwords are prone to human error, lack centralized control, and cannot enforce ephemeral access or provide comprehensive audit trails. Relying on individuals to manage privileged credentials creates inconsistency and potential security gaps.

Shared access via email is insecure and noncompliant with modern security standards. Email sharing does not support time-limited access or auditing. Credentials can be intercepted, misused, or leaked without any mechanism to revoke access automatically.

Azure AD PIM enables administrators to request temporary elevated privileges, subject to approval workflows. Once approved, access is granted for a predefined duration and automatically revoked after expiration. Every action taken under elevated privileges is logged for auditing purposes, providing a complete trace of who accessed which resources and when. Alerts can notify security teams of unusual access patterns or unauthorized attempts. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures privileged actions on pipelines, repositories, and environments are fully auditable. This approach aligns with DevSecOps best practices, minimizes the attack surface, and ensures compliance with governance and regulatory frameworks.

In summary, Azure AD PIM provides secure, time-bound, and auditable access to sensitive operations, making it the correct solution compared to static credentials, manual password management, or insecure email sharing, all of which are prone to errors, security gaps, and lackof auditabilityy.

Question 128:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities, license violations, and outdated dependencies across multiple repositories and automatically generate pull requests for remediation. 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, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance monitoring, and reporting across multiple repositories. Dependabot automatically generates pull requests to remediate vulnerabilities, update libraries, and enforce license compliance.

Manual dependency review is labor-intensive, inconsistent, and prone to human error. It is difficult to scale across multiple repositories, and delays can leave vulnerabilities unresolved for long periods, increasing risk.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may enter production undetected, potentially leading to security breaches or regulatory violations.

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

Dependabot detects outdated or vulnerable dependencies in real time, flags license violations, and generates pull requests to remediate issues automatically. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates visibility, allowing security teams to track remediation progress across repositories. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures continuous enforcement of security and compliance policies. Centralized reporting, automated remediation, and continuous monitoring reduce human error, enhance security posture, and align with DevSecOps practices. This approach ensures vulnerabilities are addressed before code reaches production, making Dependabot with Defender the correct solution.

Question 129:

A company wants centralized monitoring of CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure to detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights for operational 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 collection, monitoring, and analysis of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It offers event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, alerts, and actionable insights that enable proactive operational troubleshooting.

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

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

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack centralized dashboards, event correlation, or actionable insights, reducing visibility and operational efficiency.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from pipelines and infrastructure. Log Analytics enables advanced queries, anomaly detection, and event correlation. Dashboards visualize trends, highlight critical failures, and support proactive troubleshooting. Alerts notify teams in real time when failures or anomalies occur. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures rapid detection and resolution of issues, enhancing reliability and compliance. Centralized monitoring reduces downtime, supports auditability, and improves operational efficiency, making Azure Monitor the correct solution.

Question 130:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption ensures that data at rest is encrypted using strong encryption algorithms, protecting sensitive information in Azure Storage accounts. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across subscriptions, audits non-compliant storage accounts, and provides alerts for remediation.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent, error-prone, and difficult to enforce at scale. Human errors can lead to unencrypted storage and data exposure.

Local disk encryption only protects endpoint devices, not cloud storage. It cannot secure data stored in Azure Storage accounts or enforce compliance across the cloud.

Antivirus scanning only detects malware and does not enforce encryption, monitor compliance, or protect data from unauthorized access.

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data without requiring developer intervention. Azure Policy evaluates all storage accounts to ensure encryption is applied and compliance standards are met. Alerts notify administrators when a storage account is non-compliant, allowing timely remediation. Dashboards provide centralized visibility for auditing and regulatory reporting. This approach ensures sensitive data is protected, consistently encrypted, and monitored across the organization, making it the correct solution compared to manual or partial approaches.

Question 131:

A company wants to enforce conditional access for Azure DevOps users, restricting access based on device compliance, user location, and sign-in risk, while ensuring continuous monitoring of policy effectiveness. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Azure AD Conditional Access
B) RBAC only
C) Local antivirus software
D) Manual user reviews

Answer: A) Azure AD Conditional Access

Explanation:

Azure AD Conditional Access is a policy-based access control solution that evaluates multiple conditions before granting access to resources. Conditions such as device compliance, geographic location, sign-in risk, and the application being accessed allow organizations to implement fine-grained security controls for Azure DevOps users. Conditional Access integrates seamlessly with Azure DevOps and other Microsoft services to enforce Zero Trust principles.

RBAC is essential for defining who can access resources, but it does not evaluate risk conditions or device compliance. RBAC alone cannot block access from noncompliant devices or high-risk locations, leaving potential security gaps.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints from malware but does not control or restrict access to cloud resources. It cannot evaluate user identity, device compliance, or contextual risk before granting access.

Manual user reviews are reactive, inconsistent, and time-consuming. They cannot dynamically enforce access policies based on real-time risk factors. Human oversight is prone to error and may fail to identify high-risk access attempts.

Azure AD Conditional Access allows administrators to create policies that automatically enforce multi-factor authentication for high-risk users, block access from untrusted locations, or require compliant devices. Continuous monitoring provides insights into policy effectiveness, user behavior, and risk trends. Integration with audit logs and reporting ensures accountability and supports regulatory compliance. Alerts notify security teams when policies are violated or bypassed. This proactive, automated approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access compared to relying solely on RBAC, antivirus, or manual reviews. By combining access enforcement, conditional evaluation, and continuous monitoring, Conditional Access ensures secure, compliant, and context-aware access to Azure DevOps, making it the correct solution.

Question 132:

A company wants to continuously detect, remediate, and track vulnerabilities across virtual machines, containers, and cloud services in multiple Azure subscriptions. Which solution is most appropriate?

A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud
B) Manual patch management
C) Local antivirus only
D) RBAC only

Answer: A) Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a comprehensive security posture management and threat protection platform for Azure and hybrid environments. It continuously evaluates virtual machines, containers, and cloud services for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and threats. Defender also provides actionable recommendations for remediation and tracks compliance over time.

Manual patch management is reactive and highly error-prone. While it addresses vulnerabilities when discovered, it does not provide continuous monitoring, centralized tracking, or visibility into emerging risks. Manual processes scale poorly across multiple subscriptions and can lead to inconsistencies and unpatched systems.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan cloud resources, virtual machines, or container workloads. It is insufficient for enterprise-level vulnerability detection and management.

RBAC controls access but does not provide vulnerability detection, threat assessment, or remediation guidance. While necessary for access control, RBAC alone cannot improve the security posture of cloud workloads.

Defender for Cloud offers continuous assessment of workloads across Azure subscriptions, identifying missing patches, insecure configurations, and exposed services. Security recommendations are prioritized based on severity, and integration with automation workflows enables rapid remediation. Detailed dashboards provide visibility into vulnerabilities and compliance status. Alerts notify security teams of high-risk issues, enabling proactive action before exploitation. By combining monitoring, remediation, and reporting, Microsoft Defender for Cloud ensures enterprise-level security across complex cloud environments. Its automation capabilities, centralized visibility, and alignment with DevSecOps principles make it far superior to manual patching, antivirus software, or RBAC-only approaches, making it the correct solution.

Question 133:

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

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

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security integrates directly into repositories and CI/CD pipelines to provide automated detection of secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations in pull requests. It enforces remediation before code merges, ensuring that only secure and compliant code is deployed to production environments.

Manual code reviews are time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. While useful for code quality, they cannot reliably detect all secrets, vulnerabilities, or misconfigurations across multiple repositories. Scaling manual reviews is challenging, especially in large organizations.

Local IDE static analysis depends on individual developers to run scans. It lacks central enforcement, reporting, or integration into automated pipelines, leaving gaps in security coverage. Developers may forget to run scans or misinterpret results, allowing vulnerabilities to slip through.

Build server notifications alert developers after builds fail due to detected issues. While useful for awareness, they are reactive, provide limited context, and do not prevent insecure or vulnerable code from merging.

GitHub Advanced Security provides inline scanning, secret detection, dependency scanning, and remediation pull requests. Security dashboards allow centralized tracking of vulnerabilities and compliance across all repositories. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that security policies are enforced automatically, reducing human error and ensuring proactive remediation. Alerts notify security teams of high-risk issues, while automated remediation ensures that code does not reach production until issues are resolved. This proactive, integrated approach aligns with DevSecOps principles, reduces security risks, and ensures compliance, making GitHub Advanced Security the correct solution compared to manual reviews, IDE analysis, or reactive notifications.

Question 134:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics provides centralized monitoring, telemetry collection, event correlation, anomaly detection, dashboards, and actionable insights for CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables proactive detection and resolution of issues, improving operational efficiency and reliability.

Local pipeline console logs provide only isolated visibility. They cannot correlate events across pipelines, applications, or infrastructure, making it difficult to identify root causes and systemic issues.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, time-consuming, and inconsistent. It cannot provide proactive alerts or actionable insights. It also does not scale for complex, enterprise-level environments.

Developer email notifications are reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, event correlation, or advanced analysis. They may alert teams to issues but provide no contextual insights, limiting operational effectiveness.

Azure Monitor collects metrics, logs, and traces from CI/CD pipelines and cloud resources. Log Analytics enables advanced queries, correlation of events, anomaly detection, and trend analysis. Dashboards provide a consolidated view of system health, failures, and performance. Alerts trigger proactive notifications for critical events, enabling rapid remediation. Integration with CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure ensures continuous visibility and operational intelligence. This comprehensive, automated, and proactive approach to monitoring makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution compared to console logs, manual reviews, or reactive notifications.

Question 135:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption automatically encrypts data at rest using strong, standardized encryption algorithms. Combined with Azure Policy, organizations can enforce encryption compliance across subscriptions, monitor non-compliant storage accounts, and maintain audit logs for regulatory and operational purposes.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent, error-prone, and difficult to scale across multiple storage accounts and subscriptions. Human errors can lead to unencrypted storage and data exposure, creating security and compliance risks.

Local disk encryption protects endpoint devices but does not secure data stored in Azure Storage accounts. It cannot enforce encryption policies or provide centralized monitoring for compliance across cloud resources.

Antivirus scanning focuses on detecting malware and cannot ensure encryption of data, enforce compliance, or provide auditability. It addresses threats at a different layer and is not a substitute for encryption enforcement.

Azure Storage Service Encryption transparently encrypts all stored data without requiring manual intervention. Azure Policy audits storage accounts for compliance with encryption standards and can block non-compliant resources. Centralized dashboards and reports provide visibility for security and audit teams, ensuring accountability and regulatory compliance. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliant resources, enabling timely remediation. This automated, scalable, and auditable approach ensures sensitive data is protected across the enterprise, making Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy the correct solution compared to manual or partial methods.

Question 136:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers provides a complete and automated solution for securing containerized workloads in AKS. Azure Policy ensures that only approved container images are deployed, enforces security configurations such as network policies, security context rules, and resource quotas, and validates compliance before deployment. Defender for Containers continuously monitors runtime activity, detects vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, suspicious processes, and anomalous behaviors, and provides actionable remediation guidance.

Manual cluster auditing is labor-intensive, inconsistent, and reactive. It cannot scale across multiple clusters, making it difficult to ensure ongoing compliance and security. Audits may miss runtime threats or misconfigurations that occur after deployment.

RBAC controls access but does not enforce compliance with deployment policies or monitor runtime activity. While important for access management, it does not prevent unapproved images from running or detect runtime security threats.

Local antivirus software protects endpoint devices but cannot monitor or secure containerized workloads within AKS. It does not provide policy enforcement or runtime threat detection for clusters.

Azure Policy evaluates compliance at deployment time, blocking non-compliant containers, nd enforcing security standards automatically. Defender for Containers provides continuous runtime monitoring, detecting anomalous network activity, file changes, and privilege escalations within containers. Dashboards and alerts provide centralized visibility for security teams, enabling rapid response to threats. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that policies are enforced automatically throughout the deployment lifecycle, supporting DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and centralized reporting make Azure Policy with Defender for Containers the correct solution for securing AKS clusters compared to manual auditing, RBAC, or local antivirus approaches.

Question 137:

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

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the identification of outdated or vulnerable dependencies and generates pull requests to remediate issues. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, compliance monitoring, and reporting across multiple repositories, ensuring that dependencies meet organizational and regulatory standards.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. It cannot scale effectively across multiple repositories or frequent updates, which may allow vulnerabilities to persist for extended periods.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may be deployed into production environments without detection, exposing the organization to potential exploits or legal violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but does not scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is reactive and insufficient for managing open-source risk in source code.

Dependabot continuously monitors repositories, detects vulnerabilities, and automatically creates pull requests to update or remediate dependencies. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates visibility, tracks license compliance, and provides actionable dashboards. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that dependency updates are enforced and vulnerabilities are mitigated before deployment. Alerts notify security teams of high-risk issues, enabling proactive remediation. Automated detection, remediation, and centralized visibility reduce human error, enhance security posture, and support DevSecOps practices, making GitHub Dependabot with Defender the correct solution compared to manual reviews, blind trust, or antivirus approaches.

Question 138:

A company wants to enforce just-in-time access for administrators in Azure DevOps, with time-bound privileges, approval workflows, and detailed audit logging. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

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

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) allows organizations to provide just-in-time privileged access to administrators, with clearly defined time-bound privileges. Approval workflows ensure that elevated access is granted only after authorization, and detailed audit logs capture all activities performed during the elevated access period, ensuring accountability and regulatory compliance. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures all privileged actions on pipelines, repositories, and environments are fully auditable.

Static service principal credentials are long-lived and do not support ephemeral access, approval workflows, or detailed auditing. They introduce persistent security risks if compromised and cannot ensure compliance or governance standards are met.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individual responsibility and cannot enforce temporary access or centralized logging. They are inconsistent and prone to human error.

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

PIM allows administrators to request temporary access, trigger approval workflows, and automatically revoke access after a defined period. Each privileged action is logged for auditing purposes. Security alerts notify teams of unusual activity, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures traceability of sensitive operations. This approach reduces the risk of overprivileged accounts, supports regulatory compliance, and aligns with DevSecOps principles. Automated access, approval workflows, and auditing make Azure AD PIM the correct solution compared to static credentials, manual password management, or shared access.

Question 139:

A company wants to enforce encryption for all sensitive data in Azure Storage accounts and continuously monitor compliance across subscriptions with auditability. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption provides automatic encryption of data at rest using strong algorithms. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across all subscriptions, monitors non-compliant storage accounts, and provides alerts and centralized dashboards for auditability.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent, prone to errors, and difficult to scale across multiple storage accounts and subscriptions. Errors can leave sensitive data unprotected, resulting in security and compliance risks.

Local disk encryption protects endpoint devices but does not secure cloud-stored data or enforce encryption compliance across subscriptions.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but does not ensure encryption, compliance monitoring, or auditability of storage data.

Azure Storage Service Encryption automates encryption of all data without developer intervention. Azure Policy audits storage accounts for compliance, blocking non-compliant resources, and providing alerts for remediation. Dashboards enable security teams to monitor compliance status across subscriptions. Integration with reporting and auditing tools ensures regulatory compliance and accountability. This scalable, automated, and auditable approach ensures that sensitive data is encrypted and continuously monitored, making Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy the correct solution compared to manual methods, local encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 140:

A company wants to monitor CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure in real time, detect failures, correlate events, and provide actionable insights to improve operational efficiency. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics collects telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure, enabling centralized monitoring, event correlation, anomaly detection, and actionable insights. Dashboards visualize trends and operational health, while alerts provide proactive notifications for failures or unusual activity. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures real-time monitoring and rapid troubleshooting.

Local pipeline console logs provide isolated visibility, cannot correlate events across systems, and lack actionable insights, making root cause analysis difficult.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, slow, and inconsistent. It cannot proactively identify trends, detect anomalies, or provide centralized visibility for complex environments.

Developer email notifications provide alerts but lack context, correlation, and dashboards. They are reactive and do not enable proactive operational decisions.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics provide advanced querying, anomaly detection, and event correlation across pipelines and cloud infrastructure. Dashboards consolidate metrics, logs, and alerts for visibility, while integrations enable automated remediation workflows. Proactive monitoring reduces downtime, supports compliance, and improves operational efficiency. This centralized, automated, and real-time approach makes Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution for CI/CD and infrastructure monitoring, compared to local logs, manual reviews, or reactive notifications.