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 53

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.

Question 521

The owner wants independent acceptance evidence after the team chose: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls. It was meant to solve: A large group review must notify reviewers before the deadline rather than relying on manual reminders. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate
  2. Each included employee receives their own review task, and submits a recorded decision
  3. Reviewers see recommendations and still submit approve/deny decisions justified by access context
  4. The scheduled review lists the intended guests and their manager decisions are recorded each quarter

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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: Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate.

C:

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: Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate.

D:

Even if creating a recurring access review for the group with the correct guest population succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: Assigned reviewers receive reminder messages while the review is still open and the deadline remains accurate.

Question 522

An engineer troubleshoots an identity solution for: A large group review must notify reviewers before the deadline rather than relying on manual reminders. The pilot result is: Reviewers receive no reminder as the review deadline approaches. What is the most likely relevant fault?

  1. The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group
  2. The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role
  3. Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer
  4. Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. This fault explains the observed failure: Reviewers receive no reminder as the review deadline approaches. The intended configuration would instead be: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The corrective action is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

C:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The corrective action is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

D:

Only current application assignments were exported, not historical review decisions. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reminder option was disabled or addressed to an obsolete reviewer group. The corrective action is: Configure the review's notifications, reminders and duration using supported scheduling controls.

Question 523

A team is reviewing its proposed Microsoft Entra change. The required outcome is: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. What is the most suitable implementation?

  1. Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it
  2. Analyze the access review's decision history and final apply-result details separately
  3. Configure the review's reviewers as the users themselves for the scoped resource when self-attestation meets policy
  4. Configure appropriate backup or fallback reviewers under the review's supported options

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct implementation. Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it. It meets the stated requirement: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. Acceptance evidence is: A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded. That condition is not the problem here: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

C:

The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees. That condition is not the problem here: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

D:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. That condition is not the problem here: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The targeted implementation is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

Question 524

An operational review checks whether the change “Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it” meets this need: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. Which finding supports acceptance?

  1. An audited user shows recommendation, explicit decision, and eventual assignment effect as distinct fields
  2. The scheduled review lists the intended guests and their manager decisions are recorded each quarter
  3. Reviewers see recommendations and still submit approve/deny decisions justified by access context
  4. A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct acceptance check. A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if analyzing the access review's decision history succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal.

B:

Even if creating a recurring access review for the group with the correct guest population succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal.

C:

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: A no-response pilot follows the defined fallback decision rather than an accidental access retention/removal.

Question 525

A change appears correct at a glance, but the requirement is still unmet: A review is meant to automatically remove users who do not respond only if the organization's policy explicitly requires that consequence. The key observed symptom is: Nonresponding reviewers cause assignments to be retained when policy explicitly called for removal. Which cause should be investigated first?

  1. The reviewer scope includes only internal members and excludes the guest accounts
  2. No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy
  3. The review recorded a denial but its auto-apply results setting was disabled or the review has not yet ended
  4. The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. This fault explains the observed failure: Nonresponding reviewers cause assignments to be retained when policy explicitly called for removal. The intended configuration would instead be: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The reviewer scope includes only internal members and excludes the guest accounts. The reported symptom instead has this cause: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The corrective action is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

C:

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: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The corrective action is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

D:

The review was assigned to group owners rather than the employees. The reported symptom instead has this cause: No-response behavior defaults to an outcome inconsistent with the chosen compliance policy. The corrective action is: Configure the review's action for nonresponding reviewers to the approved outcome and test it.

Question 526

An identity engineer has two independent tasks. Task 1: A sponsor wants review decisions applied to an enterprise app but recognizes that some integrated SaaS systems may not instantly revoke existing sessions. Task 2: A compliance lead wants rejected access-review decisions to remove assignments after the review closes. Which TWO configuration changes jointly meet both tasks?

  1. Enable Auto apply results to resource in the supported review and independently verify access removal after its scheduled end or explicit stop, accounting for downstream sessions and separate existing assignments
  2. Configure a Microsoft Entra role assignment access review with the intended PIM/role scope and recurrence
  3. Assign the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection
  4. Analyze the access review's decision history and final apply-result details separately
  5. Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

Correct for task 2. Enable Auto apply results to resource in the supported review and independently verify access removal after its scheduled end or explicit stop, accounting for downstream sessions and separate existing assignments. This addresses the independent second requirement: A compliance lead wants rejected access-review decisions to remove assignments after the review closes. Verify it by checking: A denied pilot user loses the reviewed group/app assignment after the review ends and auto-apply processes; existing cached sessions are checked separately.

E:

Correct for task 1. Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior. This directly addresses the first requirement: A sponsor wants review decisions applied to an enterprise app but recognizes that some integrated SaaS systems may not instantly revoke existing sessions. Verify it by checking: The disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The review selected an ordinary Microsoft 365 group instead of a directory role. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior. For task 2, use: Enable Auto apply results to resource in the supported review and independently verify access removal after its scheduled end or explicit stop, accounting for downstream sessions and separate existing assignments.

C:

The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior. For task 2, use: Enable Auto apply results to resource in the supported review and independently verify access removal after its scheduled end or explicit stop, accounting for downstream sessions and separate existing assignments.

D:

The report contains only the suggested decision and not whether auto-application succeeded. To satisfy task 1, use: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior. For task 2, use: Enable Auto apply results to resource in the supported review and independently verify access removal after its scheduled end or explicit stop, accounting for downstream sessions and separate existing assignments.

Question 527

After a deployment under this requirement — A sponsor wants review decisions applied to an enterprise app but recognizes that some integrated SaaS systems may not instantly revoke existing sessions — administrators claim the following solution is in place: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior. Which pilot finding supports that claim?

  1. New app owners receive review tasks without manually changing each campaign's reviewer email
  2. Reviewers see recommendations and still submit approve/deny decisions justified by access context
  3. A denied pilot user loses the reviewed group/app assignment after the review ends and auto-apply processes; existing cached sessions are checked separately
  4. The disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct acceptance check. The disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if assigning the review to the enterprise application owners in the supported reviewer selection succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing.

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: The disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing.

C:

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 disallowed user's Entra app assignment is removed while the auditor separately validates SaaS enforcement timing.

Question 528

The service desk escalates the following unsuccessful identity rollout. Requirement: A sponsor wants review decisions applied to an enterprise app but recognizes that some integrated SaaS systems may not instantly revoke existing sessions. Observed: A denied employee keeps an existing vendor session even though the assignment removal was recorded. Which underlying misconfiguration is most consistent?

  1. The reviewer assumed deleting an Entra assignment instantly invalidates all sessions at every SaaS vendor
  2. Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer
  3. The review recorded a denial but its auto-apply results setting was disabled or the review has not yet ended
  4. The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The reviewer assumed deleting an Entra assignment instantly invalidates all sessions at every SaaS vendor. This fault explains the observed failure: A denied employee keeps an existing vendor session even though the assignment removal was recorded. The intended configuration would instead be: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Backup reviewers were not configured for the unavailable primary reviewer. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reviewer assumed deleting an Entra assignment instantly invalidates all sessions at every SaaS vendor. The corrective action is: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior.

C:

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: The reviewer assumed deleting an Entra assignment instantly invalidates all sessions at every SaaS vendor. The corrective action is: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior.

D:

The app object has no owner or the reviewer selection targets the wrong app. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The reviewer assumed deleting an Entra assignment instantly invalidates all sessions at every SaaS vendor. The corrective action is: Apply the supported review result to the enterprise app assignment and separately check downstream session/reprovisioning behavior.

Question 529

An identity engineer has two independent tasks. Task 1: An administrator needs temporary Global Administrator privileges for an emergency change without making the role permanently active. Task 2: A sensitive Microsoft Entra role must require approval before eligible staff can activate it. Which TWO configuration changes jointly meet both tasks?

  1. Remove the corresponding PIM eligible or active privileged role assignment and validate resource access again
  2. Configure PIM for Groups with eligible ownership and its specific activation policy
  3. Export PIM audit history filtered by role and time and correlate activation justification and approver details
  4. Enable approval in the PIM role settings and choose authorized approvers and activation duration
  5. Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls

Explanation

Correct Answers

D:

Correct for task 2. Enable approval in the PIM role settings and choose authorized approvers and activation duration. This addresses the independent second requirement: A sensitive Microsoft Entra role must require approval before eligible staff can activate it. Verify it by checking: Activation stays pending until an approved reviewer authorizes it, and rejection prevents activation.

E:

Correct for task 1. Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls. This directly addresses the first requirement: An administrator needs temporary Global Administrator privileges for an emergency change without making the role permanently active. Verify it by checking: The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Only the most recent PIM activation was ended while eligibility remained. To satisfy task 1, use: Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls. For task 2, use: Enable approval in the PIM role settings and choose authorized approvers and activation duration.

B:

The principal was granted eligible membership instead of eligible ownership. To satisfy task 1, use: Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls. For task 2, use: Enable approval in the PIM role settings and choose authorized approvers and activation duration.

C:

Investigators examined directory group change logs but not the PIM role activation records. To satisfy task 1, use: Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls. For task 2, use: Enable approval in the PIM role settings and choose authorized approvers and activation duration.

Question 530

An auditor must verify this deployment decision: Set the operator eligible for the Microsoft Entra role in PIM and require time-bound activation with policy controls. Its purpose was: An administrator needs temporary Global Administrator privileges for an emergency change without making the role permanently active. Which test result is the strongest evidence?

  1. Membership appears on approved activation and is removed when the duration ends
  2. Activation stays pending until an approved reviewer authorizes it, and rejection prevents activation
  3. The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion
  4. The report shows users eligible to request elevation separately from principals currently holding active role grants

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if configuring Privileged Identity Management for Groups with eligible membership succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion.

B:

Even if enabling approval in the PIM role settings succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion.

D:

Even if using PIM assignment views or reports separating eligibility succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The approved activation grants the role for a limited interval and expires without manual deletion.