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 44

Question 430

A team is reviewing its proposed Microsoft Entra change. The required outcome is: A SaaS provider supports direct API integration and security teams need alerts from its own activity rather than inferred endpoint traffic. What is the most suitable implementation?

  1. Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials
  2. Analyze Defender for Cloud Apps Cloud Discovery from supported endpoint/network signals and classify identified applications
  3. Review OAuth application permissions and publishers in Defender for Cloud Apps and apply an appropriate OAuth-app policy
  4. Configure an activity policy in Defender for Cloud Apps with appropriate download thresholds and test sample behavior

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct implementation. Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials. It meets the stated requirement: A SaaS provider supports direct API integration and security teams need alerts from its own activity rather than inferred endpoint traffic. Acceptance evidence is: Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Required discovery data sources or endpoint integration were not connected. That condition is not the problem here: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The targeted implementation is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

C:

The monitoring rule watches Cloud Discovery app traffic but not OAuth grant events. That condition is not the problem here: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The targeted implementation is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

D:

The activity policy threshold or time window excludes the intended suspicious sequence. That condition is not the problem here: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The targeted implementation is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

Question 431

The owner wants independent acceptance evidence after the team chose: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials. It was meant to solve: A SaaS provider supports direct API integration and security teams need alerts from its own activity rather than inferred endpoint traffic. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions
  2. The analyst can cite the app's catalog risk factors and distinguish exposure from confirmed compromise
  3. The suspicious OAuth grant is visible and a policy or remediation workflow can revoke the prohibited app consent
  4. Discovery identifies the previously unknown app with user/device usage details suitable for review

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if reviewing the Cloud app catalog risk score attributes succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions.

C:

Even if reviewing OAuth application permissions succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions.

D:

Even if analyzing Defender for Cloud Apps Cloud Discovery from supported endpoint/network signals succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Connected-app activity events arrive and policy detections include SaaS-side actions.

Question 432

The deployment was intended to satisfy: A SaaS provider supports direct API integration and security teams need alerts from its own activity rather than inferred endpoint traffic. During testing, this happened: The cloud app appears in the catalog but no provider-side audit activities populate. Which configuration defect best explains the failure?

  1. A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification
  2. The activity policy threshold or time window excludes the intended suspicious sequence
  3. Required discovery data sources or endpoint integration were not connected
  4. The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct diagnosis. The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. This fault explains the observed failure: The cloud app appears in the catalog but no provider-side audit activities populate. The intended configuration would instead be: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The corrective action is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

B:

The activity policy threshold or time window excludes the intended suspicious sequence. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The corrective action is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

C:

Required discovery data sources or endpoint integration were not connected. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The corrective action is: Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials.

Question 433

During an access-management pilot, the engineer is tasked with the following: Security team wants to distinguish allowed corporate SaaS apps from blocked alternatives in the discovered catalog. Which action best addresses the requirement?

  1. Classify the verified risky cloud app as Unsanctioned and confirm an active supported Defender for Endpoint or secure web gateway policy actually blocks the pilot traffic
  2. Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials
  3. Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services
  4. Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct implementation. Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services. It meets the stated requirement: Security team wants to distinguish allowed corporate SaaS apps from blocked alternatives in the discovered catalog. Acceptance evidence is: A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The catalog tag was set but no supported enforcement channel or applicable endpoint/web gateway policy applied to the pilot. That condition is not the problem here: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The targeted implementation is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

B:

The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. That condition is not the problem here: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The targeted implementation is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

D:

The operator deletes the enterprise application when only the sanctioned status should change. That condition is not the problem here: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The targeted implementation is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

Question 434

An operational review checks whether the change “Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services” meets this need: Security team wants to distinguish allowed corporate SaaS apps from blocked alternatives in the discovered catalog. Which finding supports acceptance?

  1. A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction
  2. A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent
  3. The analyst can cite the app's catalog risk factors and distinguish exposure from confirmed compromise
  4. The Cloud Discovery catalog marks the reviewed app unsanctioned and a connected endpoint/network enforcement channel denies its traffic during a controlled pilot

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if implementing supported app governance/OAuth policy detection succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction.

C:

Even if reviewing the Cloud app catalog risk score attributes succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction.

D:

Even if classifying the verified risky cloud app as Unsanctioned succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction.

Question 435

An engineer troubleshoots an identity solution for: Security team wants to distinguish allowed corporate SaaS apps from blocked alternatives in the discovered catalog. The pilot result is: A newly sanctioned app is shown in the catalog but still lacks the user's required SaaS role. What is the most likely relevant fault?

  1. The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval
  2. Required discovery data sources or endpoint integration were not connected
  3. The operator deletes the enterprise application when only the sanctioned status should change
  4. A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct diagnosis. A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. This fault explains the observed failure: A newly sanctioned app is shown in the catalog but still lacks the user's required SaaS role. The intended configuration would instead be: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. The reported symptom instead has this cause: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The corrective action is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

B:

Required discovery data sources or endpoint integration were not connected. The reported symptom instead has this cause: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The corrective action is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

C:

The operator deletes the enterprise application when only the sanctioned status should change. The reported symptom instead has this cause: A sanctioned tag was treated as a default access grant rather than merely a governance classification. The corrective action is: Apply the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review, and connect enforcement only for disallowed services.

Question 436

Select the most appropriate first configuration decision for this scenario: A regulated department needs browser session controls on a specific app while other apps remain outside monitoring.

  1. Classify the verified risky cloud app as Unsanctioned and confirm an active supported Defender for Endpoint or secure web gateway policy actually blocks the pilot traffic
  2. Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population
  3. Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged
  4. Route the supported SharePoint Online browser session through scoped Conditional Access App Control and apply a compatible Defender for Cloud Apps session policy that blocks protected file downloads

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct implementation. Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population. It meets the stated requirement: A regulated department needs browser session controls on a specific app while other apps remain outside monitoring. Acceptance evidence is: Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The catalog tag was set but no supported enforcement channel or applicable endpoint/web gateway policy applied to the pilot. That condition is not the problem here: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The targeted implementation is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

C:

The operator deletes the enterprise application when only the sanctioned status should change. That condition is not the problem here: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The targeted implementation is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

D:

The browser session bypassed Conditional Access App Control or the app/session policy did not cover that specific SharePoint resource. That condition is not the problem here: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The targeted implementation is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

Question 437

After a deployment under this requirement — A regulated department needs browser session controls on a specific app while other apps remain outside monitoring — administrators claim the following solution is in place: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population. Which pilot finding supports that claim?

  1. The app's governance label changes while the Entra service principal and its app assignments remain intact
  2. A sanctioned test app remains usable and an unsanctioned one receives the intended restriction
  3. Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot
  4. A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if updating the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot.

B:

Even if applying the Sanctioned/Unsanctioned tags based on review succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot.

D:

Even if implementing supported app governance/OAuth policy detection succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Only the scoped application's sessions are monitored/restricted in the pilot.

Question 438

A change appears correct at a glance, but the requirement is still unmet: A regulated department needs browser session controls on a specific app while other apps remain outside monitoring. The key observed symptom is: Unrelated SaaS sessions are unexpectedly routed through the restrictive proxy control. Which cause should be investigated first?

  1. The monitoring rule watches Cloud Discovery app traffic but not OAuth grant events
  2. The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app
  3. The activity policy threshold or time window excludes the intended suspicious sequence
  4. The browser session bypassed Conditional Access App Control or the app/session policy did not cover that specific SharePoint resource

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. This fault explains the observed failure: Unrelated SaaS sessions are unexpectedly routed through the restrictive proxy control. The intended configuration would instead be: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The monitoring rule watches Cloud Discovery app traffic but not OAuth grant events. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The corrective action is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

C:

The activity policy threshold or time window excludes the intended suspicious sequence. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The corrective action is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

D:

The browser session bypassed Conditional Access App Control or the app/session policy did not cover that specific SharePoint resource. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. The corrective action is: Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population.

Question 439

Two teams share the same release window but not the same access policy. Team A needs: Administrators must prevent users from authorizing a high-risk OAuth app with broad delegated mail permissions. Team B needs: An operations manager needs to change a SaaS application's allowed status but not disable its enterprise application service principal. Which TWO implementations should be included?

  1. Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged
  2. Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents
  3. Scope Conditional Access app control and the session policy to the sensitive app and intended user population
  4. Review OAuth application permissions and publishers in Defender for Cloud Apps and apply an appropriate OAuth-app policy
  5. Configure the supported Defender for Cloud Apps app connector using approved delegated integration credentials

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

Correct for task 2. Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged. This addresses the independent second requirement: An operations manager needs to change a SaaS application's allowed status but not disable its enterprise application service principal. Verify it by checking: The app's governance label changes while the Entra service principal and its app assignments remain intact.

B:

Correct for task 1. Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents. This directly addresses the first requirement: Administrators must prevent users from authorizing a high-risk OAuth app with broad delegated mail permissions. Verify it by checking: A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent.

Incorrect Answers

C:

The Conditional Access policy includes all cloud apps instead of the regulated app. To satisfy task 1, use: Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents. For task 2, use: Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged.

D:

The monitoring rule watches Cloud Discovery app traffic but not OAuth grant events. To satisfy task 1, use: Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents. For task 2, use: Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged.

E:

The application connector was never authenticated or the consent scope does not permit activity retrieval. To satisfy task 1, use: Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents. For task 2, use: Update the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification and any separate enforcement policy, leaving the Entra app object unchanged.

Question 440

The team implemented the following change: Implement supported app governance/OAuth policy detection and revoke or block prohibited consents. The acceptance requirement was: Administrators must prevent users from authorizing a high-risk OAuth app with broad delegated mail permissions. Which observed outcome most directly proves the change works?

  1. A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent
  2. A tagged sensitive test file triggers the configured alert/block, while an allowed ordinary file does not
  3. The app's governance label changes while the Entra service principal and its app assignments remain intact
  4. The suspicious OAuth grant is visible and a policy or remediation workflow can revoke the prohibited app consent

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if applying supported discovery/file/session controls succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent.

C:

Even if updating the Cloud app catalog's sanctioned classification succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent.

D:

Even if reviewing OAuth application permissions succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A test grant is detected and the unauthorized application is remediated while approved apps retain consent.