Microsoft MS-102 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Create a retention label policy that makes approved labels available to the target location. is directed at a separate task: A records manager wants an employee to manually choose a retention classification on eligible documents. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Documents containing protected code words produce the intended sensitive-information match.

Query the relevant Activity explorer labeling event or audit record with identity and time filters. implements a different mechanism for: A data protection officer wants to prove that a label was changed by an employee on a certain day. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use a sensitive information type with a curated keyword list where appropriate.

Configure the rule's policy tip text and notification scope. is directed at a separate task: A DLP policy detects genuine sensitive material but should inform employees why an action was blocked. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Documents containing protected code words produce the intended sensitive-information match.

A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive.

The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces. is evidence of another system state: Security wants employees to see an Internal label in Office desktop clients. The acceptance evidence here instead is: Documents containing protected code words produce the intended sensitive-information match.

The policy reports expected matches without immediately interrupting production actions. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive.

The retention label or its publication scope does not enforce the required period. would fit a different circumstance involving: An HR department must retain employee-related records for a designated period to meet its policy. Here the actual symptom is: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive.

The sensitivity label was not published to the employee's policy scope. is a plausible failure in another case: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app. It does not explain the current incident: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive.

The Power BI workload was not included or is not covered by the selected rule. would fit a different circumstance involving: A managed Power BI environment should alert when regulated data in supported artifacts violates a compliance rule. Here the actual symptom is: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive.

Create a custom sensitive information type using a supported regular-expression pattern and confidence evidence. can be useful when compliance needs to detect a proprietary employee identifier that follows a distinct pattern in documents. However, it does not specifically achieve: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

Use a sensitive information type with a curated keyword list where appropriate. addresses another administrative need: An organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. This question instead requires the outcome: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

Configure Purview DLP for Exchange Online with sensitive data conditions and actions. can be useful when a company wants to stop employees emailing files containing regulated identifiers outside the organization. However, it does not specifically achieve: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

Open Content explorer with the necessary role and inspect sensitive information summaries. is directed at a separate task: A data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

Configure the protected keyword list and applicable match conditions in Purview. implements a different mechanism for: An organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use Microsoft Purview retention labels and retention policies according to item-specific lifecycle requirements.

Open DLP alerts or activity events and filter by policy, time and workload. is directed at a separate task: Compliance officers want to review whether a DLP rule blocked an external transfer yesterday. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

Test content matching the intended identifier is detected while unrelated strings are not. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Documents are deleted before the organization-approved retention period ends.

Documents containing protected code words produce the intended sensitive-information match. is evidence of another system state: An organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. The acceptance evidence here instead is: Labeled employee records retain the required lifecycle behavior in the supported location.

The affected employee sees the intended policy explanation during a blocked action. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: Documents are deleted before the organization-approved retention period ends.

The regex or supporting match criteria are too broad for the intended sensitive information. would fit a different circumstance involving: Compliance needs to detect a proprietary employee identifier that follows a distinct pattern in documents. Here the actual symptom is: Documents are deleted before the organization-approved retention period ends.

The protected keyword list was not updated to include the new alias. is a plausible failure in another case: Documents with a new project alias are not classified as sensitive. It does not explain the current incident: Documents are deleted before the organization-approved retention period ends.

The DLP rule conditions or Exchange workload scope do not match the messages. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants to stop employees emailing files containing regulated identifiers outside the organization. Here the actual symptom is: Documents are deleted before the organization-approved retention period ends.

Use a sensitive information type with a curated keyword list where appropriate. can be useful when an organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. However, it does not specifically achieve: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

Create a custom sensitive information type using a supported regular-expression pattern and confidence evidence. addresses another administrative need: Compliance needs to detect a proprietary employee identifier that follows a distinct pattern in documents. This question instead requires the outcome: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

Apply Purview DLP to eligible OneDrive accounts for specific sensitive data patterns. can be useful when employees store sensitive customer files in OneDrive and the organization wants targeted sharing protection. However, it does not specifically achieve: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

Configure the protected keyword list and applicable match conditions in Purview. is directed at a separate task: An organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

Open Content explorer with the necessary role and inspect sensitive information summaries. implements a different mechanism for: A data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Publish suitable retention labels to the relevant Microsoft 365 workload.

Configure the rule's policy tip text and notification scope. is directed at a separate task: A DLP policy detects genuine sensitive material but should inform employees why an action was blocked. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

Documents containing protected code words produce the intended sensitive-information match. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The label exists in Purview but is unavailable to document owners.

The steward identifies content locations associated with the defined sensitive information type. is evidence of another system state: A data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. The acceptance evidence here instead is: The intended retention label appears as a selection for eligible content.

A matching OneDrive file triggers the documented protective DLP action. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: The label exists in Purview but is unavailable to document owners.

The protected keyword list was not updated to include the new alias. would fit a different circumstance involving: An organization wants to identify a short list of confidential project code words in stored content. Here the actual symptom is: The label exists in Purview but is unavailable to document owners.

The regex or supporting match criteria are too broad for the intended sensitive information. is a plausible failure in another case: The custom detector flags arbitrary numbers without the required employee identifier structure. It does not explain the current incident: The label exists in Purview but is unavailable to document owners.

The SharePoint location or sharing restriction was omitted from applicable DLP conditions. would fit a different circumstance involving: Confidential documents uploaded to SharePoint must not be shared to anonymous recipients. Here the actual symptom is: The label exists in Purview but is unavailable to document owners.