McAfee Secure

Microsoft MS-102 Bundle

Exam Code: MS-102

Exam Name Microsoft 365 Administrator

Certification Provider: Microsoft

Corresponding Certification: Microsoft 365 Certified: Administrator Expert

Microsoft MS-102 Bundle $44.99
MS-102 Sample 1 MS-102 Sample 2 MS-102 Sample 3 MS-102 Sample 4 MS-102 Sample 5 MS-102 Sample 6 MS-102 Sample 7 MS-102 Sample 8 MS-102 Sample 9 MS-102 Sample 10

100% Microsoft MS-102 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real MS-102 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    MS-102 Questions & Answers

    473 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual MS-102 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • MS-102 Video Course

    MS-102 Training Course

    61 Video Lectures

    MS-102 Video Course is developed by Microsoft Professionals to help you pass the MS-102 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Microsoft 365 Administrator exam.
  • Study Guide

    MS-102 Study Guide

    298 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 298-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace MS-102 exam.

Microsoft 365 Administrator (MS-102) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $194.97
Bundle Price: $149.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    473 Questions

    $124.99
  • MS-102 Video Course

    Training Course

    61 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    298 PDF Pages

    $29.99

Microsoft MS-102 Practice Test 43

Question 420

An admin receives a user-reported phishing message but treats its subject line as enough evidence to quarantine similar emails. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Analyze the email headers, sender authentication and threat verdict before scoping campaign response.
  2. Investigate the outbound-sending restriction and complete an approved unblock workflow after remediation.
  3. Review and configure appropriate anti-phishing, Safe Attachments and Safe Links policies for the risk profile.
  4. Configure the appropriate Defender for Office 365 alert policy and notification recipients.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is subject lines alone are weak identifiers for a phishing campaign. The action 'Analyze the email headers, sender authentication and threat verdict before scoping campaign response.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: The confirmed indicator set identifies malicious variants without matching legitimate unrelated messages.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Restoring a password does not automatically remove every Defender or Exchange outbound sending restriction. The problem described here is that subject lines alone are weak identifiers for a phishing campaign.

C:

Unrestricted allowlists can reduce the effectiveness of otherwise enabled mail protection. The problem described here is that subject lines alone are weak identifiers for a phishing campaign.

D:

Historical reports do not automatically route real-time operational notifications. The problem described here is that subject lines alone are weak identifiers for a phishing campaign.

Question 421

A legitimate marketing automation service is blocked from outbound mail and the team proposes disabling all outbound spam protection. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Review the blocked sender reason and correct the specific restricted entity after validating sender hygiene.
  2. Configure a compliant Defender alert notification route and minimize sensitive content in outbound messages.
  3. Update Defender for Office 365 alert recipient configuration and verify routing to a maintained group.
  4. Use Defender for Office 365 Threat Explorer or supported investigation to scope and remediate the campaign.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is a single restricted sender does not justify disabling protections for every mailbox. The action 'Review the blocked sender reason and correct the specific restricted entity after validating sender hygiene.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: The approved automation resumes within policy without relaxing the tenant's general outbound controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Security notification workflows must meet their own data-sharing and privacy requirements. The problem described here is that a single restricted sender does not justify disabling protections for every mailbox.

C:

Alert policies lose operational value when recipient lists are not maintained. The problem described here is that a single restricted sender does not justify disabling protections for every mailbox.

D:

A single deleted email does not remove other copies of the same phishing campaign. The problem described here is that a single restricted sender does not justify disabling protections for every mailbox.

Question 422

An administrator ignores repeated leaked-credential alerts because the affected user has never signed in from a new country. The administrator proposes: Use Identity Protection leaked-credential and user-risk signals rather than relying solely on location changes. What acceptance evidence would demonstrate the desired behavior?

  1. The user enrolls an approved factor and can access the application without a long-lived bypass.
  2. A confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication.
  3. A pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action.
  4. A pilot user cannot finish sign-in to the sensitive app without an accepted second factor.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The administrator plans 'Use Identity Protection leaked-credential and user-risk signals rather than relying solely on location changes.' to correct the fact that compromised passwords can be used from ordinary or previously seen network locations. The direct acceptance evidence is A confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The user enrolls an approved factor and can access the application without a long-lived bypass. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication.

C:

A pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication.

D:

A pilot user cannot finish sign-in to the sensitive app without an accepted second factor. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication.

Question 423

A user exports a labeled confidential Word document to an unsupported format and managers assume encryption persists identically everywhere. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Test supported sensitivity-label protection and inheritance for each export and file type.
  2. Create the appropriate Microsoft Purview retention label or retention policy with the approved regulatory retention period.
  3. Configure supported keyword lists and matching behavior in the appropriate Purview sensitive information type.
  4. Use Microsoft Purview Content explorer to investigate supported labeled or classified content locations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is label metadata and protection propagation differ across file formats and workloads. The action 'Test supported sensitivity-label protection and inheritance for each export and file type.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A permitted export shows the documented protection behavior and unsupported formats are handled safely.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Retention obligations differ from mailbox cleanup preferences and need explicit governance configuration. The problem described here is that label metadata and protection propagation differ across file formats and workloads.

C:

Ad hoc case-sensitive searches can miss supported alternative forms of classified keywords. The problem described here is that label metadata and protection propagation differ across file formats and workloads.

D:

Mail security threat alerts are not an inventory of classified content stored across Microsoft 365. The problem described here is that label metadata and protection propagation differ across file formats and workloads.

Question 424

A tenant's on-call group discovers planned Microsoft 365 maintenance only when users contact the helpdesk. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Configure relevant Service health notification preferences and recipient routing for the tenant.
  2. Configure the appropriate Microsoft 365 Apps update channel and monitor update compliance for eligible devices.
  3. Create a new Microsoft 365 tenant after documenting directory, subscription, and identity boundary requirements.
  4. Review Microsoft 365 usage and adoption reports for actual workload activity and relevant trends.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is service-health details are not useful operationally if no responsible team receives relevant notifications. The action 'Configure relevant Service health notification preferences and recipient routing for the tenant.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A test or real targeted advisory reaches the owned distribution channel with actionable incident context.

Incorrect Answers

B:

An update channel policy determines servicing behavior but is not proof that every endpoint installed it. The problem described here is that service-health details are not useful operationally if no responsible team receives relevant notifications.

C:

A Microsoft 365 tenant is a directory and administrative boundary, not just a second SharePoint site. The problem described here is that service-health details are not useful operationally if no responsible team receives relevant notifications.

D:

License assignment measures entitlement and cannot by itself establish meaningful service adoption. The problem described here is that service-health details are not useful operationally if no responsible team receives relevant notifications.

Question 425

A company plans conditional access but has no inventory of legacy mail clients and service identities that may fail enforcement. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Correct Conditional Access targeting of cloud applications, user groups and policy exclusions.
  2. Assess identities, application dependencies and sign-in methods before designing identity protection policy scope.
  3. Plan a staged compliant-device policy using report-only data and a documented remediation path.
  4. Require an approved multifactor authentication strength by using Conditional Access for the target applications.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The deciding issue is a broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown. The action 'Assess identities, application dependencies and sign-in methods before designing identity protection policy scope.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A report-only pilot identifies legacy applications and protected identities needing remediation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Policy existence cannot protect an app omitted from its target scope. The problem described here is that a broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown.

C:

A technically correct device requirement can disrupt operations when endpoint readiness is unknown. The problem described here is that a broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown.

D:

Inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy. The problem described here is that a broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown.

Question 426

A tenant has conflicting Conditional Access policies and administrators assume the most recently created policy always overrides others. What is the BEST corrective Microsoft 365 action for this tenant?

  1. Assess identities, application dependencies and sign-in methods before designing identity protection policy scope.
  2. Evaluate combined applicable Conditional Access grant and session controls using report-only or What If tools.
  3. Use a controlled fresh sign-in and examine the applied Conditional Access authentication requirement.
  4. Enable the validated Conditional Access policy after confirming report-only results and recovery mechanisms.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The deciding issue is conditional Access evaluates applicable policies together, not a universal last-writer override. The action 'Evaluate combined applicable Conditional Access grant and session controls using report-only or What If tools.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A pilot sign-in displays the expected combined policy result for its user, app and device context.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown. The problem described here is that conditional Access evaluates applicable policies together, not a universal last-writer override.

C:

Existing sessions and authentication claims can satisfy controls without an apparent new MFA prompt. The problem described here is that conditional Access evaluates applicable policies together, not a universal last-writer override.

D:

Report-only evaluation does not enforce the selected block or grant control. The problem described here is that conditional Access evaluates applicable policies together, not a universal last-writer override.

Question 427

An AU contains a dynamic workforce group but newly hired regional staff are missing from the delegated team's scope. The team believes no other action is necessary. Which misconception most directly led to the observed problem?

  1. Permanent privileged standing access expands compromise risk beyond the actual maintenance period.
  2. Administrative unit scope depends on accurate object membership, not merely branch naming conventions.
  3. Just-in-time human role activation is not a substitute for managed service identity permissions.
  4. Read-only access does not grant role-specific management permissions for collaboration workloads.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The actual failure mechanism is Administrative unit scope depends on accurate object membership, not merely branch naming conventions. Its relevance follows from the stated tenant facts, not just a generic security recommendation. Correct it by maintain administrative unit membership with the supported rules or approved manual process. Then verify: A staged new-hire object appears in the correct AU and delegated admins can operate on it.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Permanent privileged standing access expands compromise risk beyond the actual maintenance period. The stated symptoms instead indicate that administrative unit scope depends on accurate object membership, not merely branch naming conventions.

C:

Just-in-time human role activation is not a substitute for managed service identity permissions. The stated symptoms instead indicate that administrative unit scope depends on accurate object membership, not merely branch naming conventions.

D:

Read-only access does not grant role-specific management permissions for collaboration workloads. The stated symptoms instead indicate that administrative unit scope depends on accurate object membership, not merely branch naming conventions.

Question 428

A company denies authentication to a certain application for unapproved users but excludes the entire All cloud apps scope by mistake. The change owner plans to: Correct Conditional Access targeting of cloud applications, user groups and policy exclusions. What is the highest-priority residual-risk control before rollout?

  1. Monitor exception owners and expiration dates with a documented review cycle.
  2. Use What If validation and sign-in logs for both allowed and denied test cases.
  3. Revoke test sessions only in an approved environment and inspect sign-in token details.
  4. Plan emergency-access exclusions and a rollback process before tenant-wide policy changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The specific rollout control is Use What If validation and sign-in logs for both allowed and denied test cases. It protects the proposed intervention 'Correct Conditional Access targeting of cloud applications, user groups and policy exclusions.' against the failure mode that policy existence cannot protect an app omitted from its target scope. Success should also be checked through: A target-app sign-in is denied while approved applications remain accessible as intended.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Permanent exclusions create access paths that no longer enforce the intended MFA requirement. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Policy existence cannot protect an app omitted from its target scope. The applicable safeguard is: Use What If validation and sign-in logs for both allowed and denied test cases.

C:

Existing sessions and authentication claims can satisfy controls without an apparent new MFA prompt. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Policy existence cannot protect an app omitted from its target scope. The applicable safeguard is: Use What If validation and sign-in logs for both allowed and denied test cases.

D:

A broad access policy can disrupt critical workflows when sign-in dependencies are unknown. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Policy existence cannot protect an app omitted from its target scope. The applicable safeguard is: Use What If validation and sign-in logs for both allowed and denied test cases.

Question 429

A security team configures redundant Defender for Office 365 alerts for one mail-threat signature, overwhelming its responders. The administrator proposes: Consolidate or tune supported alert policy conditions, thresholds and severity based on triage need. What acceptance evidence would demonstrate the desired behavior?

  1. A test campaign produces actionable notifications without excessive duplicate incident tickets.
  2. Audit notes show compromised credentials and suspicious forwarding were addressed prior to unblock.
  3. The incident distinguishes blocked attachments from verified execution on a specific device.
  4. The exercise report differentiates clicks, reported messages and completed training across the intended cohort.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The administrator plans 'Consolidate or tune supported alert policy conditions, thresholds and severity based on triage need.' to correct the fact that poorly tuned alert logic creates fatigue without necessarily increasing detection quality. The direct acceptance evidence is A test campaign produces actionable notifications without excessive duplicate incident tickets. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Audit notes show compromised credentials and suspicious forwarding were addressed prior to unblock. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test campaign produces actionable notifications without excessive duplicate incident tickets.

C:

The incident distinguishes blocked attachments from verified execution on a specific device. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test campaign produces actionable notifications without excessive duplicate incident tickets.

D:

The exercise report differentiates clicks, reported messages and completed training across the intended cohort. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test campaign produces actionable notifications without excessive duplicate incident tickets.

Question 430

A compromised Microsoft 365 mailbox is placed on the restricted entities list after suspicious outbound email, and the admin only resets its password. The administrator proposes: Investigate the outbound-sending restriction and complete an approved unblock workflow after remediation. What acceptance evidence would demonstrate the desired behavior?

  1. A safe test attachment or link follows the intended inspection and protection route.
  2. A permitted simulated malicious URL produces the required time-of-click protection result.
  3. The account can send legitimate mail again once the compromise and restriction have been reviewed.
  4. The report links the compromised sender to suspicious outbound messages and affected recipients.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The administrator plans 'Investigate the outbound-sending restriction and complete an approved unblock workflow after remediation.' to correct the fact that restoring a password does not automatically remove every Defender or Exchange outbound sending restriction. The direct acceptance evidence is The account can send legitimate mail again once the compromise and restriction have been reviewed. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A safe test attachment or link follows the intended inspection and protection route. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the account can send legitimate mail again once the compromise and restriction have been reviewed.

B:

A permitted simulated malicious URL produces the required time-of-click protection result. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the account can send legitimate mail again once the compromise and restriction have been reviewed.

D:

The report links the compromised sender to suspicious outbound messages and affected recipients. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the account can send legitimate mail again once the compromise and restriction have been reviewed.