Microsoft MS-102 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Build a hunting query with the relevant data source, fields and time window. is directed at a separate task: An SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes.

Inspect the incident's linked alert list and its status and assignment fields. implements a different mechanism for: A SOC analyst needs to distinguish one detection alert from the investigation case that groups related alerts. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization.

Add the malicious file indicator with a block action and intended scope. is directed at a separate task: A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes.

The report separates observed threats from analyst-classified false detections. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable.

Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence. is evidence of another system state: An incident handler sees unusual email links and wants to correlate click telemetry with a specific phishing campaign. The acceptance evidence here instead is: Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes.

The incident disposition records whether the impossible travel signal represents a real risk. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable.

Hunting filters failed to constrain the data source, time window or detection logic. would fit a different circumstance involving: An SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. Here the actual symptom is: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable.

Email and URL-click event evidence was omitted from the threat investigation. is a plausible failure in another case: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory. It does not explain the current incident: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable.

Contextual sign-in evidence for an anomaly was not reviewed. would fit a different circumstance involving: An analyst sees an impossible-travel alert for a user with two distant sign-ins. Here the actual symptom is: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable.

Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization. can be useful when a chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. However, it does not specifically achieve: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

Create a well-scoped advanced-hunting query to identify the defined anomaly in available telemetry. addresses another administrative need: An SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. This question instead requires the outcome: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

Use email authentication and anti-phishing spoof-intelligence policies. can be useful when an email domain is being spoofed and the tenant wants better recognition of unauthenticated forged senders. However, it does not specifically achieve: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

Review the recommendation details and the devices/resources still reported as exposed. is directed at a separate task: A company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

Review the recommended improvement actions and assign accountable owners for applicable controls. implements a different mechanism for: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Investigate the correlated Microsoft Defender XDR incident rather than two disconnected alerts.

Integrate eligible endpoint discovery data for remote devices and validate ingestion. is directed at a separate task: An organization wants Cloud Discovery data for remote laptops that never traverse corporate firewalls. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

The remediation owner can distinguish active exposure from a retired asset record. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Two separate response teams miss the cross-workload identity and device relationship.

The query returns events that satisfy the documented suspicious transfer criteria. is evidence of another system state: An SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The incident investigation connects identity and endpoint indicators to one response workflow.

The app appears classified as unsanctioned and eligible enforcement blocks its use. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Two separate response teams miss the cross-workload identity and device relationship.

The Secure Score improvement actions were not evaluated and assigned for remediation. would fit a different circumstance involving: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. Here the actual symptom is: Two separate response teams miss the cross-workload identity and device relationship.

Asset inventory or data freshness was not reconciled with the exposure recommendation. is a plausible failure in another case: A resolved recommendation appears repeatedly for a decommissioned endpoint. It does not explain the current incident: Two separate response teams miss the cross-workload identity and device relationship.

The app was not formally marked unsanctioned in Cloud Apps policy workflow. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants to mark an investigated cloud app as prohibited for corporate use. Here the actual symptom is: Two separate response teams miss the cross-workload identity and device relationship.

Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization. can be useful when a chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. However, it does not specifically achieve: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

Cross-check security exposure recommendations against the live affected asset inventory. addresses another administrative need: A company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. This question instead requires the outcome: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

Review Cloud Discovery app risk scoring and usage evidence. can be useful when a manager asks which shadow SaaS application poses the greatest risk to the business. However, it does not specifically achieve: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

Review the recommended improvement actions and assign accountable owners for applicable controls. is directed at a separate task: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

Review the recommendation details and the devices/resources still reported as exposed. implements a different mechanism for: A company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use Defender XDR incidents to group and track related detection alerts.

Submit the file for analysis and apply an eligible narrow allow if justified by evidence. is directed at a separate task: A confirmed benign file is being repeatedly blocked by an overly broad detection. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A responder closes an individual alert but assumes the whole incident is resolved.

The remediation owner can distinguish active exposure from a retired asset record. is evidence of another system state: A company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The investigation tracks multiple relevant alerts under a single case.

A blocked malicious URL produces the appropriate Safe Links protection event. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A responder closes an individual alert but assumes the whole incident is resolved.

The Secure Score improvement actions were not evaluated and assigned for remediation. would fit a different circumstance involving: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. Here the actual symptom is: A responder closes an individual alert but assumes the whole incident is resolved.

Asset inventory or data freshness was not reconciled with the exposure recommendation. is a plausible failure in another case: A resolved recommendation appears repeatedly for a decommissioned endpoint. It does not explain the current incident: A responder closes an individual alert but assumes the whole incident is resolved.

The training assignment or campaign follow-up rule was omitted. would fit a different circumstance involving: A team wants to assign follow-up training to users who fail a controlled phishing simulation. Here the actual symptom is: A responder closes an individual alert but assumes the whole incident is resolved.