Microsoft MS-102 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

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.

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 query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

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 query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

Review outbound anti-spam limits and the restricted-user response workflow. can be useful when a compromised account starts sending unusually large volumes of outbound spam. However, it does not specifically achieve: The query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

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: The query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

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: Use Defender XDR advanced hunting with the appropriate endpoint event table.

Review spoof intelligence and configure the supported domain protections and actions. is directed at a separate task: An email domain is being spoofed and the tenant wants better recognition of unauthenticated forged senders. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

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: The analyst searches the Microsoft 365 service health page for device process telemetry.

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 query returns matching process events with device and timestamp context.

Lookalike domain messages receive the expected policy verdict. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The analyst searches the Microsoft 365 service health page for device process telemetry.

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: The analyst searches the Microsoft 365 service health page for device process telemetry.

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: The analyst searches the Microsoft 365 service health page for device process telemetry.

The exception was broader or longer-lived than the verified false positive required. would fit a different circumstance involving: A confirmed benign file is being repeatedly blocked by an overly broad detection. Here the actual symptom is: The analyst searches the Microsoft 365 service health page for device process telemetry.

Cross-check security exposure recommendations against the live affected asset inventory. can be useful when a company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. However, it does not specifically achieve: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

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: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

Configure training assignment logic in an Attack simulation training campaign. can be useful when a team wants to assign follow-up training to users who fail a controlled phishing simulation. However, it does not specifically achieve: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

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: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

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: Hunt for the relevant Microsoft 365 email or URL-click events in Defender XDR.

Review spoof intelligence and configure the supported domain protections and actions. is directed at a separate task: An email domain is being spoofed and the tenant wants better recognition of unauthenticated forged senders. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

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: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory.

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: Matching user, URL and time data connect suspicious clicks to investigation evidence.

Lookalike domain messages receive the expected policy verdict. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory.

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: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory.

Hunting filters failed to constrain the data source, time window or detection logic. is a plausible failure in another case: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident. It does not explain the current incident: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory.

The restricted-sender state was cleared without resolving the underlying compromise. would fit a different circumstance involving: An infected mailbox account is placed in the Defender restricted entities list. Here the actual symptom is: The team declares no phishing exposure because it only reviewed device software inventory.

Create a well-scoped advanced-hunting query to identify the defined anomaly in available telemetry. can be useful when an SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. However, it does not specifically achieve: The indicator is correlated with threat context and the affected tenant entities.

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 indicator is correlated with threat context and the affected tenant entities.

Confirm policy applicability and device reported settings rather than relying on deployment intent. can be useful when a Defender endpoint configuration appears deployed, but the devices are still in an unsafe state. However, it does not specifically achieve: The indicator is correlated with threat context and the affected tenant entities.

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 indicator is correlated with threat context and the affected tenant entities.

Build a hunting query with the relevant data source, fields and time window. implements a different mechanism for: An SOC wants repeatable analysis of unusual data exfiltration event patterns rather than manual clicking for each alert. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence indicator context to support the investigation.

Review the applicable post-delivery actions and remediation status for the affected messages. is directed at a separate task: A malicious attachment was delivered and later discovered to be harmful by updated protection. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The indicator is correlated with threat context and the affected tenant entities.