McAfee Secure

Microsoft SC-300 Bundle

Exam Code: SC-300

Exam Name Microsoft Identity and Access Administrator

Certification Provider: Microsoft

Corresponding Certification: Microsoft Certified: Identity and Access Administrator Associate

Microsoft SC-300 Bundle $44.99
SC-300 Sample 1 SC-300 Sample 2 SC-300 Sample 3 SC-300 Sample 4 SC-300 Sample 5 SC-300 Sample 6 SC-300 Sample 7 SC-300 Sample 8 SC-300 Sample 9 SC-300 Sample 10

100% Microsoft SC-300 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real SC-300 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    SC-300 Questions & Answers

    490 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual SC-300 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • SC-300 Video Course

    SC-300 Training Course

    43 Video Lectures

    SC-300 Video Course is developed by Microsoft Professionals to help you pass the SC-300 exam.

    Description

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

    SC-300 Study Guide

    599 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 599-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace SC-300 exam.

Microsoft Identity and Access Administrator (SC-300) 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

    490 Questions

    $124.99
  • SC-300 Video Course

    Training Course

    43 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    599 PDF Pages

    $29.99

Microsoft SC-300 Practice Test 23

Question 220

Which implementation fits the following specific identity problem? Security wants to require all selected grant controls, not allow satisfying any one of them, for a protected application.

  1. Use Conditional Access app-enforced restrictions for supported SharePoint Online/Exchange Online experiences or a compatible Defender for Cloud Apps Conditional Access App Control session policy, testing the actual unmanaged-browser route
  2. Configure protected actions that require the appropriate Conditional Access authentication context for supported directory operations
  3. Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users
  4. Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct implementation. Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy. It meets the stated requirement: Security wants to require all selected grant controls, not allow satisfying any one of them, for a protected application. Acceptance evidence is: A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The app or client is not in the enforcement-capable session path, or an app-enforced control was configured for an unsupported resource. That condition is not the problem here: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The targeted implementation is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

B:

The protected action was not associated with its intended authentication context. That condition is not the problem here: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The targeted implementation is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

C:

The Conditional Access policy checks MFA instead of the device-compliance grant requirement. That condition is not the problem here: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The targeted implementation is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

Question 221

The team implemented the following change: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy. The acceptance requirement was: Security wants to require all selected grant controls, not allow satisfying any one of them, for a protected application. Which observed outcome most directly proves the change works?

  1. The selected foreign sign-in triggers the configured control while approved emergency access remains possible
  2. The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied
  3. Employee and guest pilot accounts receive their respective intended grants or blocks on the target app
  4. A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct acceptance check. A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if building a named-location-based Conditional Access policy with the intended user/app assignments succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied.

B:

Even if checking the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied.

C:

Even if scoping Conditional Access user succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied.

Question 222

A change appears correct at a glance, but the requirement is still unmet: Security wants to require all selected grant controls, not allow satisfying any one of them, for a protected application. The key observed symptom is: A user satisfying just device compliance bypasses the additional MFA requirement. Which cause should be investigated first?

  1. The protected action was not associated with its intended authentication context
  2. The sensitive library was never tagged with the authentication context used by the policy
  3. The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path
  4. Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct diagnosis. Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. This fault explains the observed failure: A user satisfying just device compliance bypasses the additional MFA requirement. The intended configuration would instead be: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The protected action was not associated with its intended authentication context. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The corrective action is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

B:

The sensitive library was never tagged with the authentication context used by the policy. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The corrective action is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

C:

The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. The corrective action is: Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy.

Question 223

A change board will approve one identity configuration to satisfy: A vendor's high-risk test login must produce an understandable Conditional Access failure reason for incident review. Which change should it approve?

  1. Create the appropriate Conditional Access legacy-client policy with scoped app/user assignments and test in report-only mode before enforcing
  2. Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode
  3. Build a named-location-based Conditional Access policy with the intended user/app assignments and emergency account exclusion
  4. Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct implementation. Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context. It meets the stated requirement: A vendor's high-risk test login must produce an understandable Conditional Access failure reason for incident review. Acceptance evidence is: The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The client-app condition wasn't set to include the targeted legacy authentication traffic. That condition is not the problem here: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The targeted implementation is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

B:

The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. That condition is not the problem here: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The targeted implementation is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

C:

An emergency account was included by the all-users assignment without a specific exclusion. That condition is not the problem here: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The targeted implementation is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

Question 224

An auditor must verify this deployment decision: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context. Its purpose was: A vendor's high-risk test login must produce an understandable Conditional Access failure reason for incident review. Which test result is the strongest evidence?

  1. Supported sign-ins show evaluated Report-only results in the sign-in details while the pilot policy itself never blocks the sign-in
  2. The selected foreign sign-in triggers the configured control while approved emergency access remains possible
  3. The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied
  4. The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if setting the proposed Conditional Access policy to Report-only succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied.

B:

Even if building a named-location-based Conditional Access policy with the intended user/app assignments succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied.

D:

Even if creating a policy from a Microsoft-provided template succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The evaluated policies explain the block including which conditions and controls applied.

Question 225

The service desk escalates the following unsuccessful identity rollout. Requirement: A vendor's high-risk test login must produce an understandable Conditional Access failure reason for incident review. Observed: Simulation predicts Allow although the actual sign-in was denied by another scoped policy. Which underlying misconfiguration is most consistent?

  1. The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes
  2. The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in
  3. The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path
  4. The protected action was not associated with its intended authentication context

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. This fault explains the observed failure: Simulation predicts Allow although the actual sign-in was denied by another scoped policy. The intended configuration would instead be: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The corrective action is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

C:

The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The corrective action is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

D:

The protected action was not associated with its intended authentication context. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reviewer tests What If with a different cloud app or user context than the failed sign-in. The corrective action is: Check the sign-in log's Conditional Access tab and What If results using matched user, app, device, and location context.

Question 226

An identity engineer has two independent tasks. Task 1: An organization wants a repeatable baseline Conditional Access policy that can be customized and tested before activation. Task 2: Admins should gain access to a sensitive Azure portal only from devices marked compliant by endpoint management. Which TWO configuration changes jointly meet both tasks?

  1. Build a named-location-based Conditional Access policy with the intended user/app assignments and emergency account exclusion
  2. Set the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy
  3. Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users
  4. Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode
  5. Set the proposed Conditional Access policy to Report-only, run representative actual sign-ins, and inspect report-only results plus What If predictions before separately enabling enforcement

Explanation

Correct Answers

C:

Correct for task 2. Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users. This addresses the independent second requirement: Admins should gain access to a sensitive Azure portal only from devices marked compliant by endpoint management. Verify it by checking: A compliant managed device succeeds while a noncompliant test device is denied at the intended app.

D:

Correct for task 1. Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode. This directly addresses the first requirement: An organization wants a repeatable baseline Conditional Access policy that can be customized and tested before activation. Verify it by checking: The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

An emergency account was included by the all-users assignment without a specific exclusion. To satisfy task 1, use: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode. For task 2, use: Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users.

B:

Grant controls use Require one of the selected controls instead of Require all. To satisfy task 1, use: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode. For task 2, use: Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users.

E:

The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path. To satisfy task 1, use: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode. For task 2, use: Configure a Conditional Access grant control requiring device compliance for the scoped portal/application and users.

Question 227

After configuring: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode, an engineer performs a targeted pilot for this objective: An organization wants a repeatable baseline Conditional Access policy that can be customized and tested before activation. What result constitutes a pass?

  1. The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks
  2. Supported sign-ins show evaluated Report-only results in the sign-in details while the pilot policy itself never blocks the sign-in
  3. Employee and guest pilot accounts receive their respective intended grants or blocks on the target app
  4. A pilot sign-in meeting both controls succeeds while a test meeting only one is denied

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if setting the proposed Conditional Access policy to Report-only succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks.

C:

Even if scoping Conditional Access user succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks.

D:

Even if setting the Conditional Access grant control operator to Require all selected controls for the scoped policy succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The policy matches the intended target after customization and the pilot records no unexpected blocks.

Question 228

During post-change review of the requirement “An organization wants a repeatable baseline Conditional Access policy that can be customized and tested before activation,” an auditor observes: Unexpected user groups encounter the template's controls before review. Which root-cause finding would explain that symptom?

  1. The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes
  2. The Conditional Access policy checks MFA instead of the device-compliance grant requirement
  3. The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path
  4. An emergency account was included by the all-users assignment without a specific exclusion

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. This fault explains the observed failure: Unexpected user groups encounter the template's controls before review. The intended configuration would instead be: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The Conditional Access policy checks MFA instead of the device-compliance grant requirement. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. The corrective action is: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode.

C:

The policy was switched On instead of kept Report-only, making the pilot a live enforcement path. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. The corrective action is: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode.

D:

An emergency account was included by the all-users assignment without a specific exclusion. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The template was enabled without checking who or what it includes and excludes. The corrective action is: Create a policy from a Microsoft-provided template, review each inclusion/exclusion/grant control, and pilot it in report-only mode.

Question 229

An identity engineer has two independent tasks. Task 1: An organization wants to block high-sign-in-risk attempts while preserving lower-risk authentication for normal users. Task 2: A tenant must register employees for multifactor methods before enforcing a stricter sign-in risk policy. Which TWO configuration changes jointly meet both tasks?

  1. Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response
  2. Use the sign-in risk details and Conditional Access evaluation to investigate the detection and apply the targeted policy response
  3. Run a scoped MFA registration campaign and verify usable methods for intended users before activating enforcement
  4. Configure the supported Microsoft Entra diagnostic log export for identity risk-related datasets to the intended destination
  5. Use the supported user-risk Require risk remediation Conditional Access control; require the automatically selected authentication strength and every-time sign-in, and validate secure password change or passwordless session revocation as applicable

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

Correct for task 1. Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response. This directly addresses the first requirement: An organization wants to block high-sign-in-risk attempts while preserving lower-risk authentication for normal users. Verify it by checking: A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not.

C:

Correct for task 2. Run a scoped MFA registration campaign and verify usable methods for intended users before activating enforcement. This addresses the independent second requirement: A tenant must register employees for multifactor methods before enforcing a stricter sign-in risk policy. Verify it by checking: Pilot users register approved methods and can satisfy the later risk policy; excluded accounts are unaffected.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The response changes unrelated tenant-wide MFA settings rather than addressing the specific risk event. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response. For task 2, use: Run a scoped MFA registration campaign and verify usable methods for intended users before activating enforcement.

D:

Required risk data categories weren't included in the diagnostic setting. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response. For task 2, use: Run a scoped MFA registration campaign and verify usable methods for intended users before activating enforcement.

E:

The tenant configured only sign-in-risk controls or the risky user lacks the registered strong authentication and hybrid password-writeback prerequisites. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response. For task 2, use: Run a scoped MFA registration campaign and verify usable methods for intended users before activating enforcement.

Question 230

The owner wants independent acceptance evidence after the team chose: Apply a sign-in risk Conditional Access policy with the intended risk threshold and grant/block response. It was meant to solve: An organization wants to block high-sign-in-risk attempts while preserving lower-risk authentication for normal users. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. New sign-ins fail after containment and the risk record documents the subsequent investigation
  2. A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not
  3. The high-risk password user completes the protected MFA-backed password-change flow and hybrid writeback where required; a passwordless identity follows the supported reauthentication/session-revocation path
  4. The remediation evidence is present and the final risk action reflects the completed password change

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct acceptance check. A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if blocking sign-in or take appropriate account action succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not.

C:

Even if using the supported user-risk Require risk remediation Conditional Access control succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not.

D:

Even if inspecting risk history succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A simulated qualifying high-risk sign-in is challenged or blocked, while a low-risk control login is not.