Microsoft MS-102 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Set the incident status appropriately and record the classification and analyst notes. is directed at a separate task: An analyst must document whether a suspicious Microsoft Defender incident is still being actively investigated. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The query returns events that satisfy the documented suspicious transfer criteria.

Inspect related remediation actions and the incident activity history. implements a different mechanism for: Investigators want to understand every response action already taken against a suspicious device during an incident. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Create a well-scoped advanced-hunting query to identify the defined anomaly in available telemetry.

Inspect email campaign metadata and related messages in the investigation view. is directed at a separate task: A help desk sees multiple alerts for one mass-phishing campaign and needs to group messages by campaign. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The query returns events that satisfy the documented suspicious transfer criteria.

The queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident.

Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes. is evidence of another system state: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The query returns events that satisfy the documented suspicious transfer criteria.

The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident.

The incident lifecycle was updated without verifying the complete case state. would fit a different circumstance involving: An analyst must document whether a suspicious Microsoft Defender incident is still being actively investigated. Here the actual symptom is: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident.

Detection volume was interpreted without the relevant investigation dispositions. is a plausible failure in another case: Leaders infer threat growth from more alerts without examining false-positive trends. It does not explain the current incident: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident.

Domain impersonation protection was not configured for the organizational domain. would fit a different circumstance involving: A global executive is frequently targeted by lookalike sending-domain impersonation. Here the actual symptom is: An investigator uses an unrestricted all-time query and mistakes old benign events for the incident.

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 queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization. addresses another administrative need: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. This question instead requires the outcome: The queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

Investigate the Cloud Apps anomaly with user and session evidence. can be useful when an analyst sees an impossible-travel alert for a user with two distant sign-ins. However, it does not specifically achieve: The queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

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 queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

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: Manage the Defender incident's status and classification as distinct fields.

Review onboarding and sensor-health reports for the newly provisioned cohort. is directed at a separate task: Security wants to track whether the Defender endpoint agent is enabled on recently provisioned machines. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

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: An open investigation is marked resolved because a single low-impact alert was dismissed.

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 queue shows an accurate investigation state with documented disposition.

Forged messages receive an appropriate authentication/spoof verdict and action. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: An open investigation is marked resolved because a single low-impact alert was dismissed.

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: An open investigation is marked resolved because a single low-impact alert was dismissed.

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: An open investigation is marked resolved because a single low-impact alert was dismissed.

Conditional Access App Control session routing or applicability was not configured. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants to prevent sensitive file downloads during certain monitored cloud application sessions. Here the actual symptom is: An open investigation is marked resolved because a single low-impact alert was dismissed.

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: The investigation identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization. addresses another administrative need: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. This question instead requires the outcome: The investigation identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

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 investigation identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

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 identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

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 Defender XDR user entity details and related incident evidence.

Deploy the applicable onboarding package or managed integration to eligible server groups. is directed at a separate task: A large fleet of Windows servers needs consistent Defender endpoint onboarding without manual portal actions. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The investigation identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

The query returns events that satisfy the documented suspicious transfer criteria. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: An attacker-linked user is cleared because the analyst checked only one email message.

Security owners can track specific posture-improvement actions and associated score changes. is evidence of another system state: A chief information security officer wants a prioritized view of actionable security posture recommendations. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The investigation identifies relevant user evidence across linked workloads.

Spam verdicts follow the selected handling while partner false positives can be reviewed. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: An attacker-linked user is cleared because the analyst checked only one email message.

Asset inventory or data freshness was not reconciled with the exposure recommendation. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants to confirm whether exposure recommendations target obsolete or still-present assets. Here the actual symptom is: An attacker-linked user is cleared because the analyst checked only one email message.

The Secure Score improvement actions were not evaluated and assigned for remediation. is a plausible failure in another case: The team reports a single score but cannot explain which improvements remain actionable. It does not explain the current incident: An attacker-linked user is cleared because the analyst checked only one email message.

Spoof protection or authentication handling was not correctly applied to the domain. would fit a different circumstance involving: An email domain is being spoofed and the tenant wants better recognition of unauthenticated forged senders. Here the actual symptom is: An attacker-linked user is cleared because the analyst checked only one email message.