Microsoft SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 9 Q161-180

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

Question 161:

A company wants to enforce automated scanning of all code for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations before merging into the main branch, while providing centralized reporting and remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security provides an integrated approach to securing source code repositories by automatically scanning for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations in pull requests. This proactive mechanism prevents insecure code from being merged into main branches, ensuring that only compliant code reaches production. Centralized dashboards provide visibility into vulnerabilities, remediation status, and compliance metrics across repositories, enabling security teams and developers to act promptly.

Manual code reviews are a traditional method of ensuring code quality and security by having developers or security teams inspect source code line by line. While these reviews can be effective for detecting logic errors, insecure coding practices, or potential vulnerabilities, they are highly dependent on human oversight. Reviewers may overlook subtle issues or misinterpret the context of certain code patterns, making the process inconsistent and prone to human error. Large-scale software projects, which often involve hundreds or thousands of commits across multiple repositories, exacerbate these limitations. Scaling manual code reviews across such environments is impractical because it requires significant time, coordination, and effort. Additionally, manual reviews are typically reactive, occurring after code is written and committed, which means that issues such as exposed secrets or vulnerable dependencies could already be present in the repository before detection. The reliance on human attention makes it difficult to ensure consistent application of security policies, and errors can lead to delayed remediation or noncompliant code being deployed. While manual reviews have value for catching complex, context-specific issues that automated tools might miss, they cannot be relied upon as the primary method for securing code at scale.

Local IDE static analysis provides developers with tools integrated into their development environments to scan code as it is written. These tools can detect insecure coding patterns, potential vulnerabilities, or exposed secrets before the code is committed to a repository. This approach offers immediate feedback and can prevent certain classes of errors from entering the codebase. However, local IDE scanning has several limitations. It relies on individual developers to run scans consistently and interpret the results correctly. Developers may forget to run scans, misconfigure tools, or ignore warnings due to time pressures or false positives. Because the analysis is performed locally, there is no centralized enforcement or reporting across the organization. Security teams cannot track whether all repositories have been scanned or whether detected issues have been addressed. This lack of centralized visibility and control limits the effectiveness of IDE static analysis as a standalone security measure. While useful for early detection, it does not guarantee that all vulnerabilities are identified or remediated before code reaches production.

Build server notifications, generated by CI/CD pipelines or automated security tools, provide alerts to developers when issues such as failed tests, policy violations, or detected vulnerabilities are identified. While these notifications improve awareness of problems, they are inherently reactive. Security issues may already exist in the main branch or have been deployed before developers receive alerts. Notifications do not prevent the introduction of insecure code or exposed secrets; they only inform teams after detection. In environments with multiple repositories or frequent commits, the volume of alerts can become overwhelming, and important notifications may be missed or delayed. Build server notifications also do not provide automated remediation guidance or enforce compliance consistently across projects. They serve as a helpful monitoring tool but are insufficient to maintain proactive security and continuous governance.

Taken together, manual code reviews, local IDE static analysis, and build server notifications are insufficient for modern secure software development practices when used in isolation. Manual reviews are slow, inconsistent, and error-prone, making them difficult to scale. IDE static analysis lacks central enforcement and relies on individual diligence. Build server notifications that alert developers reactively, which do not prevent security issues from entering the codebase. Organizations require integrated, automated solutions that continuously scan code, detect secrets and vulnerabilities proactively, provide centralized visibility, enforce security policies, and support automated remediation workflows. Tools such as GitHub Advanced Security address these limitations, offering a scalable, consistent, and proactive approach to securing code across repositories while supporting DevSecOps principles and minimizing human error.

GitHub Advanced Security also integrates with CI/CD pipelines to ensure continuous scanning during the development lifecycle. Alerts and automated remediation guidance reduce human error and accelerate the fixing of vulnerabilities. It provides centralized logging, historical data for audit purposes, and supports DevSecOps principles. Compared to manual reviews, IDE static analysis, or build notifications, this automated, centralized, and integrated solution ensures proactive security, compliance, and operational efficiency, making it the correct choice.

Question 162:

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

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

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

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides secure, just-in-time access for privileged roles. It allows administrators to request temporary elevated permissions with automated approval workflows. Access is time-limited and automatically revoked, reducing the risk of overprivileged accounts. Audit logs capture all administrative actions, ensuring accountability and compliance with regulatory standards. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures all administrative operations in pipelines, repositories, and environments are traceable.

Static service principal credentials provide indefinite elevated access without approval workflows or time-bound restrictions. If compromised, attackers could gain unlimited access, creating a significant security risk.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals for control and do not enforce automated temporary access or auditing. They are prone to human error and inconsistencies.

Shared access via email is insecure and non-compliant with modern security practices. Credentials can be intercepted or misused, and there is no automated revocation or audit logging.

PIM automates privileged access management by providing JIT access, approval workflows, and detailed audit logs. Alerts notify security teams of unusual activity, and integration with Azure DevOps ensures comprehensive monitoring and compliance. By combining governance, monitoring, and automation, PIM reduces risks associated with permanent credentials, enforces accountability, and supports DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Compared to static credentials, manual passwords, or email sharing, PIM is the correct and secure solution for privileged access.

Question 163:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and automatically generate pull requests for remediation before deployment. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the detection of outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies in repositories. It generates pull requests to remediate vulnerabilities, ensuring that only secure and compliant dependencies are deployed. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized reporting, compliance tracking, and dashboards across multiple repositories, allowing teams to monitor remediation progress and enforce licensing requirements.

Manual dependency review is slow, error-prone, and difficult to scale across large repositories. Frequent updates make manual tracking impractical, leaving potential vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies can be deployed into production without detection, increasing the likelihood of exploitation or licensing violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot inspect dependencies or enforce license compliance. It is reactive and does not integrate with CI/CD pipelines.

Dependabot ensures continuous scanning, automatically generates pull requests for remediation, and tracks compliance status. Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates repository data into actionable dashboards, providing security teams with insights and reporting for audit purposes. Integration with CI/CD ensures remediation occurs before production deployment, reducing operational risk. Automated scanning, remediation, and centralized visibility make this the correct solution compared to manual reviews, blind trust, or antivirus approaches.

Question 164:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption provides automatic encryption of data at rest using strong algorithms. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across subscriptions, monitors non-compliant accounts, generates alerts, and provides detailed audit logs for security and regulatory reporting.

Manual encryption by developers involves individuals applying encryption to data stored in cloud storage accounts or databases. While this method can secure sensitive information if done correctly, it is highly dependent on human diligence and technical expertise. Developers may misconfigure encryption settings, use weak keys, or forget to apply encryption to all sensitive datasets. These inconsistencies are amplified in large cloud environments with multiple storage accounts, subscriptions, or regions, making it difficult to maintain uniform encryption practices. The lack of automation and centralized enforcement increases the likelihood of human error, leaving sensitive data unprotected. In addition, manual encryption processes are difficult to scale across enterprise environments and do not provide visibility into compliance status. This could result in violations of regulatory requirements, such as GDPR, HIPAA, or PCI DSS, as auditors would have no reliable method to verify that all data is encrypted according to organizational policies. Manual methods also increase operational overhead, as teams must dedicate significant time and resources to verify encryption and manage encryption keys, reducing efficiency and increasing the risk of oversight.

Local disk encryption is designed to protect data at rest on endpoint devices, such as laptops, desktops, or mobile devices. While it ensures that sensitive files stored locally are inaccessible to unauthorized users if the device is lost or stolen, it does not extend to cloud storage or network-attached storage. Local disk encryption cannot enforce organizational encryption policies across multiple Azure Storage accounts or subscriptions. It also lacks centralized monitoring and reporting capabilities, making it impossible for security teams to verify that encryption is consistently applied across all cloud resources. Furthermore, local encryption does not integrate with cloud-native features such as key rotation, centralized key management, or automated compliance checks. While local disk encryption is an important security control for endpoint protection, it cannot replace enterprise-level encryption enforcement for cloud data, leaving gaps in security coverage and compliance assurance.

Antivirus scanning protects against malware, viruses, and other malicious software on endpoints or servers. While useful for detecting threats that could compromise the confidentiality or integrity of local files, antivirus software does not ensure that data is encrypted in storage accounts or other cloud environments. Antivirus solutions operate reactively, identifying threats after they occur rather than proactively enforcing security policies. They do not provide centralized reporting or auditability, making it impossible for organizations to confirm that encryption policies are applied consistently across multiple accounts or subscriptions. Additionally, antivirus tools cannot enforce regulatory compliance requirements or validate that encryption keys meet organizational or legal standards. While antivirus software is essential for endpoint security, it does not address the broader challenges of protecting sensitive data stored in cloud resources and ensuring compliance at scale.

Together, these approaches—manual encryption, local disk encryption, and antivirus scanning—are insufficient for ensuring consistent, scalable, and auditable data protection in cloud environments. Manual encryption is error-prone and cannot scale effectively, local disk encryption is limited to endpoints and lacks central monitoring, and antivirus scanning does not enforce encryption or provide compliance visibility. Organizations require automated, cloud-native solutions that enforce encryption policies consistently, manage keys centrally, and provide comprehensive monitoring and audit capabilities. Tools such as Azure Storage Service Encryption and Azure Key Vault allow automatic encryption of data at rest, integration with identity and access management, and centralized enforcement across multiple accounts and subscriptions. These solutions reduce human error, ensure compliance with regulatory standards, and provide the visibility and control necessary for modern cloud security governance.

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy ensures automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and auditability. Non-compliant accounts trigger alerts or remediation actions, and dashboards provide centralized visibility. Audit logs maintain accountability for compliance purposes. Integration with DevOps processes ensures consistent encryption enforcement throughout deployment. This approach reduces risks, ensures sensitive data protection, and provides operational efficiency, making it the correct solution compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 165:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

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

Local pipeline console logs offer isolated visibility, cannot correlate events, and make root cause analysis challenging.

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and does not provide proactive operational intelligence. It cannot identify recurring issues or performance trends effectively.

Developer email notifications alert teams reactively but lack centralized dashboards, correlation, and actionable insights. Teams may be aware of issues but cannot make operational improvements effectively.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics enable advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards provide centralized visibility into operational performance and CI/CD pipelines. Alerts trigger proactive remediation, and integration with automation workflows ensures continuous operational improvement. This centralized, automated, and proactive monitoring approach reduces downtime, increases efficiency, and improves reliability, making Azure Monitor the correct solution compared to local logs, manual reviews, or email notifications.

Question 166:

A company wants to enforce automated scanning of all code for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations before merging into the main branch while providing centralized reporting and remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security is a comprehensive solution that integrates automated security scanning into source code repositories. It detects secrets, misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities in pull requests before code is merged into the main branch, preventing insecure code from entering production. Centralized dashboards provide visibility across repositories, offering remediation guidance and compliance metrics for developers and security teams.

Manual code reviews are dependent on human effort, which can be inconsistent and error-prone. Human reviewers may overlook secrets, misconfigurations, or vulnerabilities. The process does not scale efficiently across multiple repositories and cannot provide automated remediation guidance or reporting.

Local IDE static analysis allows individual developers to run scans before committing code, but the results are not centralized. Compliance monitoring is limited, and developers may forget to run scans or misinterpret results, leaving potential risks undetected.

Build server notifications alert developers when a build fails due to vulnerabilities or other issues. This approach is reactive and does not prevent insecure code from reaching the main branch. Notification-based methods lack centralized reporting and remediation guidance, reducing operational efficiency.

GitHub Advanced Security integrates directly with CI/CD pipelines, allowing proactive detection and prevention of security issues. Automated scanning ensures vulnerabilities are addressed before code reaches production. Centralized reporting provides insights into the security posture of repositories and the remediation status of detected issues. Alerts and dashboards facilitate efficient collaboration between developers and security teams. Compared to manual code reviews, local IDE scans, or build server notifications, GitHub Advanced Security offers an automated, centralized, and integrated approach to code security, ensuring compliance, reducing human error, and supporting DevSecOps principles.

Question 167:

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

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

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

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides secure, time-bound elevated access to privileged roles in Azure DevOps. Administrators request temporary permissions, triggering approval workflows before access is granted. Access is automatically revoked after a specified duration, reducing risk from overprivileged accounts. Audit logs capture all administrative activities, ensuring accountability and compliance. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures all actions in pipelines, repositories, and environments are traceable.

Static service principal credentials provide permanent access without automated revocation or approval workflows. If compromised, they create significant security risks, as attackers could gain indefinite access.

Developer-managed passwords rely on individuals to control access. These are inconsistent, error-prone, and cannot enforce time-limited privileges or logging. Human error can lead to security and compliance issues.

Shared access via email is insecure and non-compliant. Credentials may be intercepted, shared, or misused, with no audit trail or automated revocation.

PIM automates privilege management, approval workflows, and logging, ensuring governance and security. Alerts notify security teams of unusual activity. Integration with Azure DevOps provides full visibility of administrative actions, supporting compliance and regulatory requirements. By combining automation, governance, and auditing, PIM reduces security risks, enforces accountability, and aligns with Zero Trust and DevSecOps principles. Compared to static credentials, manual passwords, or email sharing, PIM is the correct, secure, and auditable solution for privileged access.

Question 168:

A company wants to detect vulnerabilities and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and automatically generate pull requests for remediation before deployment. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates scanning of repositories to detect outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies. It creates pull requests to remediate vulnerabilities, ensuring that secure, compliant code reaches production. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized visibility, tracking, dashboards, and compliance reporting across multiple repositories, allowing security teams to monitor progress and enforce license compliance.

Manual dependency review is time-consuming, inconsistent, and prone to human error. Large numbers of repositories and frequent updates make this approach impractical. Vulnerabilities may be overlooked, leaving security gaps.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces significant security and compliance risks. Vulnerable dependencies may reach production, increasing the likelihood of exploitation or regulatory violations.

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

Dependabot and Microsoft Defender for Cloud provide a scalable, automated, and proactive solution. Pull requests generated by Dependabot allow developers to remediate vulnerabilities quickly. Defender for Cloud consolidates information into dashboards, providing centralized oversight, reporting, and alerting. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures that remediation occurs before production deployment, reducing operational risk. Automated scanning, remediation, and centralized visibility make this the correct solution compared to manual review, blind trust, or antivirus-based approaches.

Question 169:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

Azure Storage Service Encryption provides automatic encryption of data at rest using strong algorithms. Azure Policy enforces encryption compliance across subscriptions, monitors non-compliant accounts, generates alerts, and provides detailed audit logs for regulatory and security reporting.

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. Scaling manual encryption across multiple accounts is difficult, and human errors can leave sensitive data unprotected, creating compliance risks.

Local disk encryption protects endpoints but does not secure Azure Storage accounts. It cannot enforce organization-wide policies or provide audit logs.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but does not ensure encryption or compliance. It lacks centralized monitoring and reporting capabilities.

The combination of Storage Service Encryption and Azure Policy provides automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and auditability. Non-compliant accounts trigger alerts and remediation actions. Centralized dashboards allow visibility into compliance across subscriptions. Audit logs maintain accountability, support regulatory requirements, and ensure that sensitive data is continuously protected. Integration with DevOps processes ensures consistent enforcement throughout the deployment lifecycle. This automated and scalable solution reduces risks and ensures sensitive data protection, making it the correct choice compared to manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 170:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics provides centralized monitoring of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables proactive detection of failures, anomaly detection, event correlation, and operational insights. Dashboards provide visualization of performance trends, operational health, and critical metrics, while alerts notify teams of issues in real time, enabling prompt remediation.

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

Manual review of build reports is reactive and inconsistent. It cannot scale effectively, and teams may miss recurring issues or trends in operational performance.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts but lack centralized dashboards, event correlation, and actionable insights. Teams may be aware of problems but cannot improve operations efficiently.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics allow advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards provide centralized visibility into CI/CD pipelines and infrastructure health. Alerts trigger proactive remediation, while integration with automation workflows supports continuous operational improvement. This centralized, automated, and proactive approach ensures operational efficiency, reduces downtime, and improves reliability, making Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution compared to local logs, manual reviews, or email notifications.

Question 171:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Policy with Microsoft Defender for Containers

Explanation:

Azure Policy, combined with Microsoft Defender for Containers, provides a comprehensive security framework for AKS clusters. Azure Policy enforces compliance rules at deployment time, validating container images, network policies, security context settings, and resource configurations. This ensures that only approved and secure containers are deployed. Microsoft Defender for Containers continuously monitors the runtime behavior of clusters, detecting suspicious activity, vulnerabilities, or configuration drift, and providing actionable remediation guidance.

Manual cluster auditing is reactive, labor-intensive, and cannot scale effectively across multiple clusters. It also lacks real-time monitoring, making it prone to missing runtime threats.

RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) manages access permissions but does not enforce security policies or detect misconfigurations and runtime threats. Unauthorized or non-compliant containers could still execute even with strict access control in place.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot monitor containerized workloads or enforce policy compliance within AKS. It cannot detect runtime threats, vulnerabilities, or misconfigurations in deployed containers.

By combining Azure Policy and Defender for Containers, organizations gain proactive, automated enforcement and continuous monitoring. Alerts notify security teams of suspicious activity, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures consistent policy enforcement across environments. This solution reduces operational risk, enforces governance, and aligns with DevSecOps principles. Compared to manual auditing, RBAC-only approaches, or antivirus solutions, Azure Policy with Defender for Containers provides a comprehensive, scalable, and automated approach to securing AKS clusters.

Question 172:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and automatically generate pull requests for remediation before deployment. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates the identification of outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies across repositories. When vulnerabilities or license compliance issues are detected, Dependabot generates pull requests to remediate them. Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides centralized monitoring, dashboards, and compliance reporting across repositories, allowing security and development teams to track remediation status and enforce policies.

Manual dependency review is time-consuming and error-prone. In large environments with multiple repositories and frequent updates, it is impractical to manually track dependencies and identify vulnerabilities consistently.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries introduces security and compliance risks. Vulnerabilities may reach production undetected, and licensing violations could create legal exposure.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan code dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is reactive and insufficient for proactive dependency management.

Using Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud ensures continuous scanning, automated remediation, and centralized reporting. Pull requests allow developers to fix issues proactively. Dashboards provide actionable insights and track remediation progress. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures vulnerabilities are addressed before production deployment. This automated, scalable, and centralized approach is superior to manual reviews, blind trust, or antivirus solutions, making it the correct solution for dependency management.

Question 173:

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

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

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

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides time-bound elevated access to privileged roles in Azure DevOps. Administrators request temporary permissions, triggering approval workflows before access is granted. Access is automatically revoked after a defined duration, reducing risk from permanently elevated permissions. Audit logs capture all administrative actions, supporting compliance and regulatory requirements. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures that all administrative activities in pipelines, repositories, and environments are traceable.

Static service principal credentials provide permanent elevated access with no approval workflows or revocation. If compromised, attackers could gain unrestricted access, creating significant security risks.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent, error-prone, and cannot enforce time-limited privileges or audit access effectively. Human error increases the risk of security incidents.

Shared access via email is insecure and non-compliant. Credentials may be intercepted or misused, and there is no automated revocation or audit trail.

PIM automates temporary access, approval workflows, and detailed audit logging. Alerts notify security teams of unusual activity, and integration with Azure DevOps ensures full visibility. By combining automation, governance, and monitoring, PIM minimizes risks, enforces accountability, and supports DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Compared to static credentials, manual passwords, or email sharing, PIM is the correct, secure, and auditable solution.

Question 174:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

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

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. Scaling manual encryption across multiple accounts and subscriptions is difficult, and human errors may leave sensitive data exposed.

Local disk encryption protects endpoints but does not secure cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce organization-wide encryption policies or provide auditability.

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

Combining Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy provides automated enforcement, continuous monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliant accounts, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and audit logs maintain accountability for regulatory requirements. Integration with DevOps processes ensures encryption is applied consistently during deployment. This automated, scalable, and comprehensive solution ensures sensitive data protection, making it the correct choice over manual encryption, local disk encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 175:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

Azure Monitor with Log Analytics provides centralized monitoring of telemetry from CI/CD pipelines and cloud infrastructure. It enables proactive detection of failures, anomaly detection, and event correlation. Dashboards visualize performance trends, operational health, and key metrics, while alerts notify teams of critical issues, enabling immediate remediation.

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

Manual review of build reports is reactive and inconsistent. It does not scale effectively and cannot provide proactive operational intelligence or trend analysis.

Developer email notifications alert teams reactively but lack centralized dashboards, correlation, or actionable insights. Teams may be aware of issues, but cannot efficiently improve operational performance.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics support advanced queries, event correlation, anomaly detection, and reporting. Dashboards consolidate information for operational insights, while alerts trigger proactive remediation. Integration with automation workflows enables continuous operational improvement. This centralized, automated, and proactive approach reduces downtime, increases efficiency, and improves reliability, making Azure Monitor with Log Analytics the correct solution over local logs, manual reviews, or email notifications.

Question 176:

A company wants to enforce automated scanning of all code for secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations before merging into the main branch while providing centralized reporting and remediation guidance. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Advanced Security

Explanation:

GitHub Advanced Security is designed to provide continuous code security scanning integrated directly into repositories. It detects secrets, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations during pull requests, ensuring insecure code does not reach production. Centralized dashboards offer insights into vulnerabilities across repositories, along with remediation guidance and compliance reporting. This proactive approach enables developers and security teams to address issues before they affect operational environments.

Manual code reviews are dependent on human oversight. They are inconsistent, time-consuming, and error-prone. Reviewers may overlook critical secrets or vulnerabilities, and scaling across multiple repositories is impractical.

Local IDE static analysis allows developers to scan code before committing, but it is not centralized. Developers may forget to run scans, misinterpret results, or fail to follow up on warnings, leaving risks unresolved.

Build server notifications alert teams after vulnerabilities are detected during builds. While useful for awareness, this approach is reactive and cannot prevent insecure code from merging. Alerts do not provide centralized remediation or visibility across multiple repositories.

GitHub Advanced Security integrates with CI/CD pipelines, enabling automated scanning and remediation guidance. Alerts, dashboards, and compliance reports help enforce secure coding practices and support DevSecOps principles. Automating detection, remediation, and centralized reporting, it provides a scalable and proactive approach. Compared to manual code reviews, local IDE scans, or build server notifications, GitHub Advanced Security ensures continuous security enforcement, accountability, and operational efficiency, making it the correct solution.

Question 177:

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

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

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

Explanation:

Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides secure, time-bound access to privileged roles. Administrators request temporary elevated permissions, triggering automated approval workflows before access is granted. Permissions are revoked automatically after the defined period. Audit logs capture all privileged activities, supporting accountability and compliance. Integration with Azure DevOps ensures complete visibility of administrative actions in pipelines, repositories, and environments.

Static service principal credentials provide permanent elevated access with no time limitation or approval workflows. If compromised, attackers could gain unrestricted access, creating major security risks.

Developer-managed passwords are inconsistent and error-prone. They cannot enforce temporary privileges, approval workflows, or auditing. Human error can lead to unauthorized access and compliance violations.

Shared access via email is insecure. Credentials may be intercepted or misused, and there is no automated revocation or audit trail.

PIM automates temporary access, approval workflows, and auditing, minimizing risk, ensuring accountability, and supporting DevSecOps and Zero Trust principles. Alerts notify security teams of unusual activity. Compared to static credentials, manual passwords, or email sharing, PIM is the most secure, scalable, and auditable solution for managing privileged access.

Question 178:

A company wants to detect vulnerable dependencies and license compliance issues across multiple repositories and automatically generate pull requests for remediation before deployment. Which solution is most appropriate?

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

Answer: A) GitHub Dependabot with Microsoft Defender for Cloud

Explanation:

GitHub Dependabot automates scanning of repositories for outdated, vulnerable, or misconfigured dependencies. Pull requests are generated automatically to remediate vulnerabilities or update libraries. Microsoft Defender for Cloud centralizes monitoring, dashboards, and compliance reporting across multiple repositories. This enables security and development teams to track remediation progress and enforce licensing compliance.

Manual dependency review is slow, inconsistent, and error-prone. Frequent updates across multiple repositories make manual tracking impractical, leaving vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Blindly trusting open-source libraries creates risks. Vulnerabilities may reach production undetected, increasing the chance of exploitation or licensing violations.

Local antivirus software protects endpoints but cannot scan dependencies, enforce license compliance, or integrate with CI/CD pipelines. It is reactive and insufficient for proactive dependency management.

Dependabot with Defender for Cloud provides automated scanning, pull request remediation, and centralized dashboards. Integration with CI/CD pipelines ensures remediation occurs before production deployment. Alerts notify teams of high-risk dependencies, enabling timely mitigation. Compared to manual review, blind trust, or antivirus-based approaches, this solution is scalable, automated, and proactive, ensuring security, compliance, and operational efficiency.

Question 179:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy

Explanation:

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

Manual encryption by developers is inconsistent and error-prone. Scaling across multiple accounts is challenging, and errors can leave sensitive data exposed.

Local disk encryption protects endpoints but does not secure cloud storage accounts. It cannot enforce organization-wide encryption policies or provide centralized monitoring and auditing.

Antivirus scanning detects malware but does not ensure encryption or compliance. It cannot monitor storage accounts, enforce encryption policies, or provide auditability.

Using Storage Service Encryption with Azure Policy ensures automated enforcement, continuous compliance monitoring, and auditability. Alerts notify administrators of non-compliance, dashboards provide centralized visibility, and audit logs support regulatory reporting. Integration with DevOps pipelines ensures consistent encryption throughout deployment. This approach reduces risk, protects sensitive data, and supports operational efficiency, making it superior to manual encryption, endpoint encryption, or antivirus scanning.

Question 180:

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

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

Answer: A) Azure Monitor with Log Analytics and dashboards

Explanation:

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

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

Manual review of build reports is reactive, inconsistent, and cannot scale. It fails to provide proactive insights into recurring issues, performance trends, or operational anomalies.

Developer email notifications provide reactive alerts without centralized dashboards, event correlation, or actionable insights. Teams may become aware of issues but lack context for improvement.

Azure Monitor and Log Analytics support advanced queries, anomaly detection, event correlation, and centralized dashboards. Alerts trigger proactive remediation, while integration with automation workflows ensures continuous operational improvement. This centralized, automated, and proactive monitoring approach reduces downtime, improves efficiency, and enhances reliability. Compared to local logs, manual reviews, or email alerts, Azure Monitor with Log Analytics is the correct solution for scalable, actionable insights across CI/CD pipelines and infrastructure.