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 85

Question 840

During an Exchange Online disruption, support investigates laptop CPU graphs and overlooks Microsoft 365 service advisories. The change owner plans to: Review the Microsoft 365 admin center Service health dashboard for incidents and targeted advisories. Which validation or governance guardrail is best suited to the proposed fix?

  1. Check licensing, verified domains, cross-tenant collaboration and data residency before provisioning.
  2. Inventory proxy addresses, UPNs, DNS control and mail migration order before releasing a production domain.
  3. Correlate tenant advisories with local monitoring rather than assuming every outage is provider-wide.
  4. Pilot sharing settings using representative Teams, SharePoint and OneDrive resources before broad rollout.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The specific rollout control is Correlate tenant advisories with local monitoring rather than assuming every outage is provider-wide. It protects the proposed intervention 'Review the Microsoft 365 admin center Service health dashboard for incidents and targeted advisories.' against the failure mode that client performance diagnostics cannot establish whether Microsoft has acknowledged a cloud service outage. Success should also be checked through: The service-health incident displays affected workloads and administrative updates corresponding to the user reports.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A Microsoft 365 tenant is a directory and administrative boundary, not just a second SharePoint site. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Client performance diagnostics cannot establish whether Microsoft has acknowledged a cloud service outage. The applicable safeguard is: Correlate tenant advisories with local monitoring rather than assuming every outage is provider-wide.

B:

A custom domain generally cannot be concurrently verified as an ordinary domain in two different Entra tenants. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Client performance diagnostics cannot establish whether Microsoft has acknowledged a cloud service outage. The applicable safeguard is: Correlate tenant advisories with local monitoring rather than assuming every outage is provider-wide.

D:

Tenant and workload settings jointly determine external-sharing behavior; one toggle is not a complete access model. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Client performance diagnostics cannot establish whether Microsoft has acknowledged a cloud service outage. The applicable safeguard is: Correlate tenant advisories with local monitoring rather than assuming every outage is provider-wide.

Question 841

An administrator sees Password Protection DC agent errors but responds by changing every user's passwords. What should the administrator do FIRST to correct the problem?

  1. Scope authentication method policies to approved users and groups with appropriate enrollment controls.
  2. Investigate application protocol support and sign-in logs before changing the user's account status.
  3. Check domain-controller agent and proxy health to restore on-premises Password Protection enforcement.
  4. Inspect sign-in logs, authentication details and Conditional Access results for the affected identity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The deciding issue is a broken local policy enforcement agent is an infrastructure issue, not proof all existing passwords are compromised. The action 'Check domain-controller agent and proxy health to restore on-premises Password Protection enforcement.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A test password change is checked by the agent and diagnostics show a healthy policy path.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Available authentication methods must be governed by policy rather than enabled indiscriminately. The problem described here is that a broken local policy enforcement agent is an infrastructure issue, not proof all existing passwords are compromised.

B:

Different client authentication protocols can produce different access outcomes for the same identity. The problem described here is that a broken local policy enforcement agent is an infrastructure issue, not proof all existing passwords are compromised.

D:

MFA prompts and conditional access failures are not necessarily password validation errors. The problem described here is that a broken local policy enforcement agent is an infrastructure issue, not proof all existing passwords are compromised.

Question 842

An organization receives many unsuccessful sign-ins with unknown locations and immediately resets every user's account. The administrator proposes: Analyze Microsoft Entra sign-in error codes, IP details and risk signals to identify affected principals. What test distinguishes successful remediation from an unrelated improvement?

  1. The test sign-in invokes an approved verification method and blocks password-only completion.
  2. The investigation isolates actual risky accounts and confirms benign traffic does not trigger mass remediation.
  3. A staged password change rejects variants of the restricted organizational terms.
  4. An eligible external-location test user completes the approved reset flow securely.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The administrator plans 'Analyze Microsoft Entra sign-in error codes, IP details and risk signals to identify affected principals.' to correct the fact that a failed sign-in event can represent invalid credentials, blocked policy, or benign noise. The direct acceptance evidence is The investigation isolates actual risky accounts and confirms benign traffic does not trigger mass remediation. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The test sign-in invokes an approved verification method and blocks password-only completion. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the investigation isolates actual risky accounts and confirms benign traffic does not trigger mass remediation.

C:

A staged password change rejects variants of the restricted organizational terms. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the investigation isolates actual risky accounts and confirms benign traffic does not trigger mass remediation.

D:

An eligible external-location test user completes the approved reset flow securely. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: the investigation isolates actual risky accounts and confirms benign traffic does not trigger mass remediation.

Question 843

A security team wants to prioritize risky users but has no definition of which login anomalies trigger response. The administrator proposes: Plan Microsoft Entra risk-based identity protection with clear user and sign-in risk remediation thresholds. What test distinguishes successful remediation from an unrelated improvement?

  1. A pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action.
  2. A confirmed exposed account triggers approved credential remediation and protected reauthentication.
  3. A pilot user cannot finish sign-in to the sensitive app without an accepted second factor.
  4. A controlled noncompliant sign-in is blocked under the enforced policy and recorded in logs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The administrator plans 'Plan Microsoft Entra risk-based identity protection with clear user and sign-in risk remediation thresholds.' to correct the fact that identity risk signals need policy and response decisions rather than automatic blanket account deletion. The direct acceptance evidence is A pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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

C:

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 pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action.

D:

A controlled noncompliant sign-in is blocked under the enforced policy and recorded in logs. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a pilot risk event maps to the documented challenge or investigation action.

Question 844

An organization wants to enforce stronger controls only for highly privileged directory roles but scopes CA to a manually maintained list of ten admins. What should the administrator do FIRST to correct the problem?

  1. Use supported directory-role targeting for appropriate privileged Conditional Access policies.
  2. Require an approved multifactor authentication strength by using Conditional Access for the target applications.
  3. Plan Microsoft Entra risk-based identity protection with clear user and sign-in risk remediation thresholds.
  4. Review Identity Protection detection details and decide remediation according to validated risk context.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators. The action 'Use supported directory-role targeting for appropriate privileged Conditional Access policies.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A newly eligible privileged admin receives the required challenge without manual list edits.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy. The problem described here is that manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators.

C:

Identity risk signals need policy and response decisions rather than automatic blanket account deletion. The problem described here is that manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators.

D:

Automated risk scoring can produce signals requiring investigation and proportional response. The problem described here is that manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators.

Question 845

A new group is missing after synchronization while its members have synced successfully. The change owner plans to: Check group filtering, supported group types and sync errors before recreating the group in Entra ID. Which validation or governance guardrail is best suited to the proposed fix?

  1. Inspect aliases for shared and resource mailboxes before changing legacy Exchange objects.
  2. Stage changes and verify source anchor, scope and feature compatibility before switching configurations.
  3. Verify group source authority and downstream licensing dependencies before repairs.
  4. Tune alerts for persistent failures and avoid exposing sensitive user details in broad messages.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The specific rollout control is Verify group source authority and downstream licensing dependencies before repairs. It protects the proposed intervention 'Check group filtering, supported group types and sync errors before recreating the group in Entra ID.' against the failure mode that object synchronization scope may differ for groups and their member user objects. Success should also be checked through: The intended source group appears without a conflicting cloud-only duplicate after correcting scope.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A unique mail routing address cannot be reliably assigned to two separate synchronized recipients. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Object synchronization scope may differ for groups and their member user objects. The applicable safeguard is: Verify group source authority and downstream licensing dependencies before repairs.

B:

Overlapping synchronization engines can apply incompatible attribute rules to the same cloud objects. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Object synchronization scope may differ for groups and their member user objects. The applicable safeguard is: Verify group source authority and downstream licensing dependencies before repairs.

D:

Unmonitored sync errors can persist even when overall server availability appears normal. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Object synchronization scope may differ for groups and their member user objects. The applicable safeguard is: Verify group source authority and downstream licensing dependencies before repairs.

Question 846

A startup closes security improvement recommendations without checking whether users still have weak sign-in methods. What should the administrator do FIRST to correct the problem?

  1. Reconcile protected-device reporting with the full authorized device inventory and excluded assets.
  2. Validate the actual tenant security control configuration associated with the Secure Score action.
  3. Use observed Defender XDR artifacts and independent intelligence evidence to classify the attack behavior.
  4. Review the incident's evidence, impacted assets and investigation graph before disposition.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The deciding issue is administrative completion markers do not always demonstrate that the preventive control is effective. The action 'Validate the actual tenant security control configuration associated with the Secure Score action.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A test sign-in confirms the required authentication strength rather than a checklist-only completion.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Reports limited to onboarded devices can undercount unprotected inventory outside the sensor population. The problem described here is that administrative completion markers do not always demonstrate that the preventive control is effective.

C:

Threat intelligence associations and local confirmed incident behaviors are not interchangeable evidence. The problem described here is that administrative completion markers do not always demonstrate that the preventive control is effective.

D:

Alert severity alone is not a reliable substitute for investigation of correlated activity. The problem described here is that administrative completion markers do not always demonstrate that the preventive control is effective.

Question 847

The security team wants to inspect Microsoft 365 connected-app activity in Defender for Cloud Apps but has not connected its Microsoft 365 environment. The change owner plans to: Configure the supported Microsoft 365 app connector in Defender for Cloud Apps and verify integration. Which validation or governance guardrail is best suited to the proposed fix?

  1. Validate connector roles, licensing and ingestion latency before treating missing events as safe.
  2. Review Defender for Endpoint integration health and allow legitimate exception channels.
  3. Validate timestamps, source IP handling and privacy obligations before large imports.
  4. Pilot policy effects and review integration with sensitivity labels before enforcement.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The specific rollout control is Validate connector roles, licensing and ingestion latency before treating missing events as safe. It protects the proposed intervention 'Configure the supported Microsoft 365 app connector in Defender for Cloud Apps and verify integration.' against the failure mode that defender for Cloud Apps requires appropriate connectivity and permissions to analyze connected app events. Success should also be checked through: The Cloud Apps activity view receives supported Microsoft 365 events for an approved test action.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Marking an app unsanctioned does not guarantee all devices or network paths are immediately blocked. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Defender for Cloud Apps requires appropriate connectivity and permissions to analyze connected app events. The applicable safeguard is: Validate connector roles, licensing and ingestion latency before treating missing events as safe.

C:

Unsupported or malformed traffic logs do not yield reliable app identification. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Defender for Cloud Apps requires appropriate connectivity and permissions to analyze connected app events. The applicable safeguard is: Validate connector roles, licensing and ingestion latency before treating missing events as safe.

D:

Broad cloud-app control rules can unintentionally interrupt routine business processes. The proposed change also needs protection against this risk: Defender for Cloud Apps requires appropriate connectivity and permissions to analyze connected app events. The applicable safeguard is: Validate connector roles, licensing and ingestion latency before treating missing events as safe.

Question 848

A company activates MFA per-user on some staff but wants centrally managed enforcement for all sensitive Microsoft 365 applications. The team believes no other action is necessary. Which failure mechanism best matches the observed facts?

  1. Manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators.
  2. Tenant-wide access control errors can lock out normal administrators without a recovery path.
  3. Inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy.
  4. Compromised passwords can be used from ordinary or previously seen network locations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The actual failure mechanism is Inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy. Its relevance follows from the stated tenant facts, not just a generic security recommendation. Correct it by require an approved multifactor authentication strength by using Conditional Access for the target applications. Then verify: A pilot user cannot finish sign-in to the sensitive app without an accepted second factor.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Manually enumerated privileged users can omit new or rotated administrators. The stated symptoms instead indicate that inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy.

B:

Tenant-wide access control errors can lock out normal administrators without a recovery path. The stated symptoms instead indicate that inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy.

D:

Compromised passwords can be used from ordinary or previously seen network locations. The stated symptoms instead indicate that inconsistent per-user MFA configuration is not a substitute for coherent application access policy.

Question 849

Microsoft Entra Connect Sync has rising export errors yet the team notices them only after payroll staff fail to sign in. The administrator proposes: Configure Connect Health notifications and routinely review export and synchronization error trends. What test distinguishes successful remediation from an unrelated improvement?

  1. The scoped pilot users synchronize through healthy agents with approved attributes.
  2. A pilot joins the appropriate linked objects into one authorized cloud user without duplicate accounts.
  3. A pilot verifies the necessary attribute or device behavior with the selected sync topology.
  4. A test or real connector failure produces an actionable health alert before the next access escalation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The administrator plans 'Configure Connect Health notifications and routinely review export and synchronization error trends.' to correct the fact that unmonitored sync errors can persist even when overall server availability appears normal. The direct acceptance evidence is A test or real connector failure produces an actionable health alert before the next access escalation. This observation is linked to this change's intended outcome.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The scoped pilot users synchronize through healthy agents with approved attributes. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test or real connector failure produces an actionable health alert before the next access escalation.

B:

A pilot joins the appropriate linked objects into one authorized cloud user without duplicate accounts. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test or real connector failure produces an actionable health alert before the next access escalation.

C:

A pilot verifies the necessary attribute or device behavior with the selected sync topology. However, that result would not establish the required outcome: a test or real connector failure produces an actionable health alert before the next access escalation.

Question 850

A bulk script disables accounts with a wildcard matching similar surnames and accidentally targets active employees. What should the administrator do FIRST to correct the problem?

  1. Use immutable object IDs and preview the exact affected identity set before bulk account modifications.
  2. Use mail contacts for external directory recipients that do not require login or hosted mailboxes.
  3. Assign a supported license bundle or group-based licensing policy with required service plans enabled.
  4. Adjust the Microsoft 365 Group privacy and membership governance to meet the approved collaboration boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The deciding issue is display names are not unique stable identifiers for destructive directory automation. The action 'Use immutable object IDs and preview the exact affected identity set before bulk account modifications.' targets that issue rather than a neighboring Microsoft 365 workload. Confirm it by checking: A controlled dry run identifies only the approved offboarding objects and leaves a namesake active.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Creating user principals for address-only contacts introduces needless identity and license exposure. The problem described here is that display names are not unique stable identifiers for destructive directory automation.

C:

An assigned SKU without the intended enabled service plan can leave a workload unavailable. The problem described here is that display names are not unique stable identifiers for destructive directory automation.

D:

Group visibility and membership determine broad collaboration exposure across related workloads. The problem described here is that display names are not unique stable identifiers for destructive directory automation.