100% Latest & Updated Microsoft MS-102 Practice Test Questions, Exam Dumps & Verified Answers!
30 Days Free Updates, Instant Download!
Question 620
A compromised laptop must be isolated from ordinary network communication while allowing response investigation. The team observes: Malicious outbound connections continue after the team only adds an incident comment. Which configuration mistake best explains this reported failure?
- The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers.
- The device isolation action was never executed.
- The discovered app classification was not updated after the security review.
- The recipient or workload was outside the Safe Links policy scope.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:The device isolation action was never executed. That issue explains the observed symptom: Malicious outbound connections continue after the team only adds an incident comment. The relevant correction is: Initiate isolation from the Defender device action workflow and record the action.
Incorrect Answers
A:The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers. would fit a different circumstance involving: A large fleet of Windows servers needs consistent Defender endpoint onboarding without manual portal actions. Here the actual symptom is: Malicious outbound connections continue after the team only adds an incident comment.
C:The discovered app classification was not updated after the security review. is a plausible failure in another case: Approved business software continues to be flagged as an unsanctioned exception. It does not explain the current incident: Malicious outbound connections continue after the team only adds an incident comment.
D:The recipient or workload was outside the Safe Links policy scope. would fit a different circumstance involving: Employees frequently click newly discovered malicious URLs in incoming emails. Here the actual symptom is: Malicious outbound connections continue after the team only adds an incident comment.
Question 621
A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. Which administration approach most directly meets this requirement?
- Create a supported Defender for Endpoint indicator action targeting the file hash.
- Compare onboarded devices against expected device inventory and sensor-health status.
- Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism.
- Use supported post-delivery remediation such as Zero-hour Auto Purge where applicable.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Create a supported Defender for Endpoint indicator action targeting the file hash. This decision addresses the specific business context: A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. It is the architectural choice that supports the expected result: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
Incorrect Answers
B:Compare onboarded devices against expected device inventory and sensor-health status. can be useful when security wants to track whether the Defender endpoint agent is enabled on recently provisioned machines. However, it does not specifically achieve: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
C:Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism. addresses another administrative need: A newly managed Windows laptop needs to appear in the Microsoft Defender for Endpoint device inventory. This question instead requires the outcome: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
D:Use supported post-delivery remediation such as Zero-hour Auto Purge where applicable. can be useful when a malicious attachment was delivered and later discovered to be harmful by updated protection. However, it does not specifically achieve: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
Question 622
A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. Which concrete administrative action is appropriate in this case?
- Deploy the applicable onboarding package or managed integration to eligible server groups.
- Review onboarding and sensor-health reports for the newly provisioned cohort.
- Review matching events and adjust narrowly defined rules or exclusions.
- Add the malicious file indicator with a block action and intended scope.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Add the malicious file indicator with a block action and intended scope. This action operationalizes the selected approach: Create a supported Defender for Endpoint indicator action targeting the file hash. The organization can then confirm success by checking: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
B:Review onboarding and sensor-health reports for the newly provisioned cohort. implements a different mechanism for: Security wants to track whether the Defender endpoint agent is enabled on recently provisioned machines. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Create a supported Defender for Endpoint indicator action targeting the file hash.
C:Review matching events and adjust narrowly defined rules or exclusions. is directed at a separate task: The security team wants a repeatable review of Cloud Apps policies that produced many false alarms. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
Question 623
A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. Which recorded outcome is the best success criterion for this requirement?
- The device health view identifies the sensor or network communication problem.
- The specific affected devices and fixed-version recommendation are recorded.
- An exceeded outbound threshold generates an alert and appropriate sending restriction.
- The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked. This directly checks the stated goal: A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. It distinguishes success from the reported failure mode: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
Incorrect Answers
A:The device health view identifies the sensor or network communication problem. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
B:The specific affected devices and fixed-version recommendation are recorded. is evidence of another system state: A CVE affects one outdated application installed on a subset of corporate laptops. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The hash indicator appears in applicable Defender policy and matching execution is blocked.
C:An exceeded outbound threshold generates an alert and appropriate sending restriction. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
Question 624
A suspicious file hash must be blocked across eligible onboarded devices. The team observes: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope. What is the most likely primary cause of the observed problem?
- The file indicator's block action or device applicability was configured incorrectly.
- The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers.
- Post-delivery response configuration or remediation coverage is missing.
- The inbound spam policy was tuned without considering legitimate sender behavior and quarantine review.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:The file indicator's block action or device applicability was configured incorrectly. That issue explains the observed symptom: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope. The relevant correction is: Add the malicious file indicator with a block action and intended scope.
Incorrect Answers
B:The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers. would fit a different circumstance involving: A large fleet of Windows servers needs consistent Defender endpoint onboarding without manual portal actions. Here the actual symptom is: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
C:Post-delivery response configuration or remediation coverage is missing. is a plausible failure in another case: A later malicious verdict is recorded but no eligible post-delivery response occurs. It does not explain the current incident: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
D:The inbound spam policy was tuned without considering legitimate sender behavior and quarantine review. would fit a different circumstance involving: A mail administrator wants to reduce inbound spam while preserving legitimate external partner mail. Here the actual symptom is: The known malicious file continues to run on devices outside the indicator scope.
Question 625
An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. Which primary Microsoft 365 capability best addresses the stated requirement?
- Use the Defender for Endpoint device timeline to reconstruct event sequence.
- Use a supported automated server onboarding deployment method.
- Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism.
- Use Microsoft Secure Score and Microsoft Security Exposure Management recommendations for prioritization.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Use the Defender for Endpoint device timeline to reconstruct event sequence. This decision addresses the specific business context: An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. It is the architectural choice that supports the expected result: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
Incorrect Answers
B:Use a supported automated server onboarding deployment method. can be useful when a large fleet of Windows servers needs consistent Defender endpoint onboarding without manual portal actions. However, it does not specifically achieve: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
C:Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism. addresses another administrative need: A newly managed Windows laptop needs to appear in the Microsoft Defender for Endpoint device inventory. This question instead requires the outcome: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
D: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 recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
Question 626
An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. What should the administrator configure to deliver the intended result?
- Deploy the applicable onboarding package or managed integration to eligible server groups.
- Open the device timeline and filter around the incident time and event type.
- Review the recommended improvement actions and assign accountable owners for applicable controls.
- Add the confirmed malicious domain to the appropriate blocked sender/domain entry.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Open the device timeline and filter around the incident time and event type. This action operationalizes the selected approach: Use the Defender for Endpoint device timeline to reconstruct event sequence. The organization can then confirm success by checking: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
C: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 the Defender for Endpoint device timeline to reconstruct event sequence.
D:Add the confirmed malicious domain to the appropriate blocked sender/domain entry. is directed at a separate task: An email administrator needs to block a confirmed malicious sender domain during an active campaign. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
Question 627
An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. What should be verified to confirm the implementation works?
- The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
- Lookalike domain messages receive the expected policy verdict.
- The correction is reviewed while broad anti-phishing protection stays enabled.
- Subsequent in-scope messages receive the intended block verdict.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events. This directly checks the stated goal: An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. It distinguishes success from the reported failure mode: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
Incorrect Answers
B: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 uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
C:The correction is reviewed while broad anti-phishing protection stays enabled. is evidence of another system state: A legitimate sender's recurring invoices are quarantined as phishing and the team needs a safe review workflow. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The recorded timeline shows process execution and relevant follow-on events.
D:Subsequent in-scope messages receive the intended block verdict. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
Question 628
An endpoint security analyst wants to inspect the processes that executed before a malware incident. The team observes: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history. Which implementation gap accounts for the symptom?
- The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers.
- Spoof protection or authentication handling was not correctly applied to the domain.
- A per-message false positive was handled as a tenant-wide policy override.
- Exposure inventory was confused with event-by-event endpoint timeline telemetry.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Exposure inventory was confused with event-by-event endpoint timeline telemetry. That issue explains the observed symptom: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history. The relevant correction is: Open the device timeline and filter around the incident time and event type.
Incorrect Answers
A:The onboarding deployment mechanism did not reach or enroll the servers. would fit a different circumstance involving: A large fleet of Windows servers needs consistent Defender endpoint onboarding without manual portal actions. Here the actual symptom is: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
B:Spoof protection or authentication handling was not correctly applied to the domain. is a plausible failure in another case: Spoofed sender mail passes through because the applicable spoof policy was disabled. It does not explain the current incident: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
C:A per-message false positive was handled as a tenant-wide policy override. would fit a different circumstance involving: A legitimate sender's recurring invoices are quarantined as phishing and the team needs a safe review workflow. Here the actual symptom is: The analyst uses a vulnerability list as if it were a process-execution history.
Question 629
A Defender endpoint configuration appears deployed, but the devices are still in an unsafe state. Which technology or control should the team select for this specific need?
- Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism.
- Use Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management recommendations and exposure views.
- Review Defender XDR incident evidence and action history for the affected entity.
- Confirm policy applicability and device reported settings rather than relying on deployment intent.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Confirm policy applicability and device reported settings rather than relying on deployment intent. This decision addresses the specific business context: A Defender endpoint configuration appears deployed, but the devices are still in an unsafe state. It is the architectural choice that supports the expected result: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
Incorrect Answers
A:Onboard the eligible endpoint using a supported deployment mechanism. can be useful when a newly managed Windows laptop needs to appear in the Microsoft Defender for Endpoint device inventory. However, it does not specifically achieve: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
B:Use Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management recommendations and exposure views. addresses another administrative need: A security owner needs to review software weaknesses reported across managed endpoints. This question instead requires the outcome: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
C:Review Defender XDR incident evidence and action history for the affected entity. can be useful when investigators want to understand every response action already taken against a suspicious device during an incident. However, it does not specifically achieve: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
Question 630
A Defender endpoint configuration appears deployed, but the devices are still in an unsafe state. Which implementation step most directly establishes the required behavior?
- Open vulnerability management recommendations and filter by affected software and assets.
- Enable and scope tamper protection according to policy and tenant capabilities.
- Compare targeted device groups, policy status and actual endpoint protection configuration.
- Add protected users or domains and apply the appropriate anti-phishing policy actions.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Compare targeted device groups, policy status and actual endpoint protection configuration. This action operationalizes the selected approach: Confirm policy applicability and device reported settings rather than relying on deployment intent. The organization can then confirm success by checking: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
Incorrect Answers
A:Open vulnerability management recommendations and filter by affected software and assets. is directed at a separate task: A security owner needs to review software weaknesses reported across managed endpoints. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
B:Enable and scope tamper protection according to policy and tenant capabilities. implements a different mechanism for: Endpoint operators want a tamper-resistant Defender configuration to prevent local disabling of protection. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Confirm policy applicability and device reported settings rather than relying on deployment intent.
D:Add protected users or domains and apply the appropriate anti-phishing policy actions. is directed at a separate task: Users receive phishing messages impersonating the company's chief executive. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Targeted endpoints show the expected protection setting and enforcement state.
Microsoft 365 Administrator (MS-102) Practice Tests
