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 52

Question 510

During post-change review of the requirement “A resource owner must manually revoke access for a particular reviewed employee before the whole campaign closes,” an auditor observes: The review says access should be removed but the sensitive application's role is unchanged. Which root-cause finding would explain that symptom?

  1. The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource
  2. The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees
  3. The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role
  4. The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. This fault explains the observed failure: The review says access should be removed but the sensitive application's role is unchanged. The intended configuration would instead be: Record the review decision and perform an authorized resource assignment removal under the supported workflow.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. The corrective action is: Record the review decision and perform an authorized resource assignment removal under the supported workflow.

C:

The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. The corrective action is: Record the review decision and perform an authorized resource assignment removal under the supported workflow.

D:

The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. The corrective action is: Record the review decision and perform an authorized resource assignment removal under the supported workflow.

Question 511

The security architect is given this constraint: A team wants annual access reviews for privileged roles, not ordinary directory group memberships. Which technical approach meets it without relying on unrelated controls?

  1. Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification
  2. Create a recurring access review for the group with the correct guest population, reviewers and quarterly recurrence
  3. Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence
  4. Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct implementation. Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence. It meets the stated requirement: A team wants annual access reviews for privileged roles, not ordinary directory group memberships. Acceptance evidence is: The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. That condition is not the problem here: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The targeted implementation is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

B:

The reviewer scope includes only internal members and excludes the guest accounts. That condition is not the problem here: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The targeted implementation is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

D:

The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. That condition is not the problem here: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The targeted implementation is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

Question 512

An auditor must verify this deployment decision: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence. Its purpose was: A team wants annual access reviews for privileged roles, not ordinary directory group memberships. Which test result is the strongest evidence?

  1. The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record
  2. A denied pilot user loses the reviewed group/app assignment after the review ends and auto-apply processes; existing cached sessions are checked separately
  3. The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members
  4. Each included employee receives their own review task, and submits a recorded decision

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if exporting the historical access review decision details succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members.

B:

Even if enabling Auto apply results to resource in the supported review succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members.

D:

Even if configuring the review's reviewers as the users themselves for the scoped resource when self-attestation meets policy succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The review lists eligible or active principals for the designated privileged role rather than general group members.

Question 513

A team must isolate a broken configuration. Goal: A team wants annual access reviews for privileged roles, not ordinary directory group memberships. Symptom: The privileged role holders never appear in the annual review. Which hypothesis most precisely accounts for the observed result?

  1. The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource
  2. The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role
  3. The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees
  4. Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. This fault explains the observed failure: The privileged role holders never appear in the annual review. The intended configuration would instead be: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The corrective action is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

C:

The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The corrective action is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

D:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The corrective action is: Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence.

Question 514

Two teams share the same release window but not the same access policy. Team A needs: A sensitive app should be reviewed by its designated application owner rather than a fixed tenant security analyst. Team B needs: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. Which TWO implementations should be included?

  1. Configure appropriate backup or fallback reviewers under the review's supported options
  2. Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection
  3. Analyze the access review's decision history and final apply-result details separately
  4. Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it
  5. Configure an access review with supported usage-based recommendations and explicit reviewer decisions

Explanation

Correct Answers

B:

Correct for task 1. Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection. This directly addresses the first requirement: A sensitive app should be reviewed by its designated application owner rather than a fixed tenant security analyst. Verify it by checking: New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email.

D:

Correct for task 2. Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it. This addresses the independent second requirement: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. Verify it by checking: A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. To satisfy task 1, use: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection. For task 2, use: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

C:

The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded. To satisfy task 1, use: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection. For task 2, use: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

E:

The team treated inactivity recommendations as automatic proof of access abuse. To satisfy task 1, use: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection. For task 2, use: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

Question 515

After configuring: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection, an engineer performs a targeted pilot for this objective: A sensitive app should be reviewed by its designated application owner rather than a fixed tenant security analyst. What result constitutes a pass?

  1. A backup reviewer can submit a permitted decision before the review closes
  2. Reviewers see recommendations and still submit approve/deny decisions justified by access context
  3. The named employee loses the exact reviewed assignment and the change appears in audit logs
  4. New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct acceptance check. New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if configuring appropriate backup or fallback reviewers under the review's supported options succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email.

B:

Even if configuring an access review with supported usage-based recommendations succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email.

C:

Even if recording the review decision succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email.

Question 516

The deployment owner asks why this identity requirement failed: A sensitive app should be reviewed by its designated application owner rather than a fixed tenant security analyst. The test shows: The access review reports no available app owners to complete decisions. Which fault is the best diagnosis?

  1. The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource
  2. The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app
  3. The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded
  4. The reviewer scope includes only internal members and excludes the guest accounts

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. This fault explains the observed failure: The access review reports no available app owners to complete decisions. The intended configuration would instead be: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The administrator edited an unrelated group instead of the specific reviewed resource. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. The corrective action is: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection.

C:

The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. The corrective action is: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection.

D:

The reviewer scope includes only internal members and excludes the guest accounts. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. The corrective action is: Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection.

Question 517

A change board will approve one identity configuration to satisfy: Auditors need to trace who approved access during a review that ran several months earlier. Which change should it approve?

  1. Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification
  2. Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence
  3. Analyze the access review's decision history and final apply-result details separately
  4. Configure appropriate backup or fallback reviewers under the review's supported options

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct implementation. Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification. It meets the stated requirement: Auditors need to trace who approved access during a review that ran several months earlier. Acceptance evidence is: The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. That condition is not the problem here: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The targeted implementation is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

C:

The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded. That condition is not the problem here: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The targeted implementation is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

D:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. That condition is not the problem here: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The targeted implementation is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

Question 518

The requirement is: Auditors need to trace who approved access during a review that ran several months earlier. The technical change was: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification. Which observation validates the intended boundary?

  1. The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record
  2. A denied pilot user loses the reviewed group/app assignment after the review ends and auto-apply processes; existing cached sessions are checked separately
  3. Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate
  4. A backup reviewer can submit a permitted decision before the review closes

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if enabling Auto apply results to resource in the supported review succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record.

C:

Even if configuring the review's notifications succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record.

D:

Even if configuring appropriate backup or fallback reviewers under the review's supported options succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The audit report contains the decision maker and time for a randomly sampled old review record.

Question 519

The deployment was intended to satisfy: Auditors need to trace who approved access during a review that ran several months earlier. During testing, this happened: The audit team sees who currently has access but not who previously approved it. Which configuration defect best explains the failure?

  1. Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer
  2. The review recorded a denial but its auto-apply results setting was disabled or the review has not yet ended
  3. The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group
  4. Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct diagnosis. Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. This fault explains the observed failure: The audit team sees who currently has access but not who previously approved it. The intended configuration would instead be: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The corrective action is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

B:

The review recorded a denial but its auto-apply results setting was disabled or the review has not yet ended. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The corrective action is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

C:

The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The corrective action is: Export the historical access review decision details, including reviewer, timestamp and justification.

Question 520

An identity project has this requirement: A large group review must notify reviewers before the deadline rather than relying on manual reminders. Which configuration should the administrator implement?

  1. Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls
  2. Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it
  3. Configure an access review with supported usage-based recommendations and explicit reviewer decisions
  4. Configure the review's reviewers as the users themselves for the scoped resource when self-attestation meets policy

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct implementation. Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls. It meets the stated requirement: A large group review must notify reviewers before the deadline rather than relying on manual reminders. Acceptance evidence is: Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate.

Incorrect Answers

B:

No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. That condition is not the problem here: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

C:

The team treated inactivity recommendations as automatic proof of access abuse. That condition is not the problem here: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

D:

The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees. That condition is not the problem here: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.