Microsoft MS-102 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Apply the supported Purview retention setting for the content location and duration. is directed at a separate task: A policy requires keeping content for seven years even when users try to delete it. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: A labeled document applies the intended access restrictions and visual marking.

Define and test the custom sensitive information type in Microsoft Purview with the required regex and evidence. implements a different mechanism for: Compliance needs to detect a proprietary employee identifier that follows a distinct pattern in documents. It does not configure the mechanism needed here: Use Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels for file protection where supported.

Create an eligible custom Purview DLP policy selecting the Copilot and Copilot Chat location and supported conditions. is directed at a separate task: An organization enables Copilot but must protect matching sensitive information within supported Microsoft 365 Copilot scenarios. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: A labeled document applies the intended access restrictions and visual marking.

An attempted user deletion does not defeat the required retention obligation. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A confidential document has a label name but no specified access protection.

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: A labeled document applies the intended access restrictions and visual marking.

A supported Power BI artifact triggers the intended sensitive-data policy alert. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A confidential document has a label name but no specified access protection.

The protected location was not under an effective preservation policy. would fit a different circumstance involving: A policy requires keeping content for seven years even when users try to delete it. Here the actual symptom is: A confidential document has a label name but no specified access protection.

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: A confidential document has a label name but no specified access protection.

The Teams chat or channel workload was absent from policy scope. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants DLP to apply to sensitive messages sent through supported Microsoft Teams chats. Here the actual symptom is: A confidential document has a label name but no specified access protection.

Use Microsoft Purview Content explorer for supported sensitive-content visibility. can be useful when a data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. However, it does not specifically achieve: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

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: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

Use Purview DLP for supported SharePoint Online content and external sharing controls. can be useful when confidential documents uploaded to SharePoint must not be shared to anonymous recipients. However, it does not specifically achieve: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

Apply the supported Purview retention setting for the content location and duration. is directed at a separate task: A policy requires keeping content for seven years even when users try to delete it. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

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 an appropriate sensitivity label to the target users and supported apps.

Include the Teams workload and sensitive information conditions in a DLP policy. is directed at a separate task: A company wants DLP to apply to sensitive messages sent through supported Microsoft Teams chats. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

The steward identifies content locations associated with the defined sensitive information type. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app.

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: The Internal label appears in eligible Office labeling interfaces.

A protected file's external sharing action is restricted when the policy matches. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app.

The appropriate Content explorer visibility or permission was not available. would fit a different circumstance involving: A data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. Here the actual symptom is: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app.

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: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app.

Endpoint DLP device onboarding or the removable-media rule is missing. would fit a different circumstance involving: A security team must prevent copying regulated files from managed laptops to removable drives. Here the actual symptom is: A correctly created label is invisible in the employee's Office app.

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: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

Use Microsoft Purview Content explorer for supported sensitive-content visibility. addresses another administrative need: A data steward needs to locate repositories containing identified sensitive information types. This question instead requires the outcome: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

Use supported DLP test or simulation mode before turning on blocking actions. can be useful when a new DLP policy might disrupt legitimate workflows and must be assessed before enforcement. However, it does not specifically achieve: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

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: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

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 sensitivity labels for classification/protection and retention labels for lifecycle controls.

Deploy the policy in a nonblocking evaluation mode and examine matched events. is directed at a separate task: A new DLP policy might disrupt legitimate workflows and must be assessed before enforcement. It does not produce the required configuration outcome: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

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: A file is encrypted but its mandatory record-retention duration is missing.

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: A document can have the planned classification protection and lifecycle obligations.

An in-scope Teams message with regulated data triggers the expected response. would assess a different control. In this case it does not rule out the specific failure: A file is encrypted but its mandatory record-retention duration is missing.

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: A file is encrypted but its mandatory record-retention duration is missing.

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: A file is encrypted but its mandatory record-retention duration is missing.

The Teams chat or channel workload was absent from policy scope. would fit a different circumstance involving: A company wants DLP to apply to sensitive messages sent through supported Microsoft Teams chats. Here the actual symptom is: A file is encrypted but its mandatory record-retention duration is missing.