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 60

Question 590

After configuring: Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters, an engineer performs a targeted pilot for this objective: An enterprise needs one visual report showing risky sign-ins and identity usage trends for leadership. What result constitutes a pass?

  1. A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored
  2. The time chart counts actual group changes by the requested interval and actor context
  3. The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures
  4. Returned rows are failed sign-ins to the named app within the selected time interval

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if reviewing Identity Secure Score recommended actions succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures.

B:

Even if using AuditLogs in Log Analytics succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures.

D:

Even if filtering SigninLogs by TimeGenerated succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures.

Question 591

The deployment owner asks why this identity requirement failed: An enterprise needs one visual report showing risky sign-ins and identity usage trends for leadership. The test shows: Leadership sees an empty trend report despite current risky sign-ins. Which fault is the best diagnosis?

  1. The workbook's data source is SigninLogs rather than AuditLogs
  2. The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window
  3. The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur
  4. The diagnostic settings point to a different Event Hub namespace or lack its send authorization

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. This fault explains the observed failure: Leadership sees an empty trend report despite current risky sign-ins. The intended configuration would instead be: Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The workbook's data source is SigninLogs rather than AuditLogs. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. The corrective action is: Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters.

C:

The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. The corrective action is: Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters.

D:

The diagnostic settings point to a different Event Hub namespace or lack its send authorization. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. The corrective action is: Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters.

Question 592

A change board will approve one identity configuration to satisfy: A security lead wants actionable recommendations for identity control maturity but must not interpret the metric as a guarantee of zero breaches. Which change should it approve?

  1. Configure the applicable diagnostic categories to an authorized Azure Event Hubs destination
  2. Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls
  3. Export the required directory log categories to a suitably protected Azure Storage account with defined retention controls
  4. Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct implementation. Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls. It meets the stated requirement: A security lead wants actionable recommendations for identity control maturity but must not interpret the metric as a guarantee of zero breaches. Acceptance evidence is: A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The diagnostic settings point to a different Event Hub namespace or lack its send authorization. That condition is not the problem here: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The targeted implementation is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

C:

No diagnostic storage export was configured for the audit log category. That condition is not the problem here: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The targeted implementation is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

D:

The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. That condition is not the problem here: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The targeted implementation is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

Question 593

The requirement is: A security lead wants actionable recommendations for identity control maturity but must not interpret the metric as a guarantee of zero breaches. The technical change was: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls. Which observation validates the intended boundary?

  1. A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored
  2. The workbook refreshes with recent relevant events and displays both agreed risk and activity measures
  3. A matching test audit event arrives on the expected Event Hub with correct source fields
  4. The time chart counts actual group changes by the requested interval and actor context

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if using Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored.

C:

Even if configuring the applicable diagnostic categories to an authorized Azure Event Hubs destination succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored.

D:

Even if using AuditLogs in Log Analytics succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A completed remediation changes the applicable recommendation assessment while incident risk is still separately monitored.

Question 594

The deployment was intended to satisfy: A security lead wants actionable recommendations for identity control maturity but must not interpret the metric as a guarantee of zero breaches. During testing, this happened: Management signs off zero risk solely because the numeric identity posture score increased. Which configuration defect best explains the failure?

  1. The analyst examined only interactive sign-in events instead of provisioning transactions
  2. The query uses an audit event table or omits the failure/result predicate
  3. The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur
  4. The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct diagnosis. The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. This fault explains the observed failure: Management signs off zero risk solely because the numeric identity posture score increased. The intended configuration would instead be: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The analyst examined only interactive sign-in events instead of provisioning transactions. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The corrective action is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

B:

The query uses an audit event table or omits the failure/result predicate. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The corrective action is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

D:

The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. The corrective action is: Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls.

Question 595

An identity project has this requirement: A production tenant must investigate unusual sign-ins by a service principal instead of relying on employee interactive login records. Which configuration should the administrator implement?

  1. Use AuditLogs in Log Analytics and filter the relevant group-management operation names and result status
  2. Filter provisioning logs to the enterprise application, target account and failed provisioning steps
  3. Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs
  4. Query Microsoft Entra sign-in logs with the targeted app, user, time range and Conditional Access status

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct implementation. Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs. It meets the stated requirement: A production tenant must investigate unusual sign-ins by a service principal instead of relying on employee interactive login records. Acceptance evidence is: The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The workbook's data source is SigninLogs rather than AuditLogs. That condition is not the problem here: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The targeted implementation is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

B:

The analyst examined only interactive sign-in events instead of provisioning transactions. That condition is not the problem here: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The targeted implementation is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

D:

The analyst searched directory audit logs instead of sign-in logs. That condition is not the problem here: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The targeted implementation is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

Question 596

The owner wants independent acceptance evidence after the team chose: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs. It was meant to solve: A production tenant must investigate unusual sign-ins by a service principal instead of relying on employee interactive login records. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period
  2. Returned rows are failed sign-ins to the named app within the selected time interval
  3. The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events
  4. A sampled old event can be retrieved from the configured storage destination after the portal's shorter window

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if generating a safe test event succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events.

B:

Even if filtering SigninLogs by TimeGenerated succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events.

D:

Even if exporting the required directory log categories to a suitably protected Azure Storage account with defined retention controls succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The service principal report identifies the actual app principal and target resource for the suspicious client-credential sign-in, without relying on user sign-in events.

Question 597

An engineer troubleshoots an identity solution for: A production tenant must investigate unusual sign-ins by a service principal instead of relying on employee interactive login records. The pilot result is: The service principal's failed token requests do not appear in the user sign-in report. What is the most likely relevant fault?

  1. Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication
  2. The analyst examined only interactive sign-in events instead of provisioning transactions
  3. The engineer searched only the sign-in logs, which record authentication rather than directory writes
  4. The workbook's data source is SigninLogs rather than AuditLogs

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. This fault explains the observed failure: The service principal's failed token requests do not appear in the user sign-in report. The intended configuration would instead be: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The analyst examined only interactive sign-in events instead of provisioning transactions. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The corrective action is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

C:

The engineer searched only the sign-in logs, which record authentication rather than directory writes. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The corrective action is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

D:

The workbook's data source is SigninLogs rather than AuditLogs. The reported symptom instead has this cause: Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The corrective action is: Inspect service principal sign-in activity (or the corresponding exported service-principal log category) filtered by the app/service principal ID, target resource and status, rather than interactive user SigninLogs.

Question 598

A team is reviewing its proposed Microsoft Entra change. The required outcome is: A security review needs to confirm whether newly enabled diagnostic categories produce records without assuming that the export is instantaneous. What is the most suitable implementation?

  1. Configure the applicable diagnostic categories to an authorized Azure Event Hubs destination
  2. Use Microsoft Entra workbooks or supported reporting backed by the required log data and time filters
  3. Review Identity Secure Score recommended actions and validate improvement after applying suitable controls
  4. Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct implementation. Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing. It meets the stated requirement: A security review needs to confirm whether newly enabled diagnostic categories produce records without assuming that the export is instantaneous. Acceptance evidence is: The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The diagnostic settings point to a different Event Hub namespace or lack its send authorization. That condition is not the problem here: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The targeted implementation is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

B:

The workbook has no connected data source or uses an expired time window. That condition is not the problem here: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The targeted implementation is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

C:

The analyst reported a high Secure Score as proof no identity compromise can occur. That condition is not the problem here: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The targeted implementation is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

Question 599

An operational review checks whether the change “Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing” meets this need: A security review needs to confirm whether newly enabled diagnostic categories produce records without assuming that the export is instantaneous. Which finding supports acceptance?

  1. A matching test audit event arrives on the expected Event Hub with correct source fields
  2. The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period
  3. The results list relevant failed attempts, policy outcomes and correlation IDs while excluding unrelated apps
  4. A sampled old event can be retrieved from the configured storage destination after the portal's shorter window

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct acceptance check. The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if configuring the applicable diagnostic categories to an authorized Azure Event Hubs destination succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period.

C:

Even if querying Microsoft Entra sign-in logs with the targeted app succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period.

D:

Even if exporting the required directory log categories to a suitably protected Azure Storage account with defined retention controls succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The event appears in the chosen category with expected fields within an observed ingestion period.

Question 600

A change appears correct at a glance, but the requirement is still unmet: A security review needs to confirm whether newly enabled diagnostic categories produce records without assuming that the export is instantaneous. The key observed symptom is: The destination has events for authentication but not the specific configuration change audit record. Which cause should be investigated first?

  1. The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting
  2. The diagnostic export sent data to another destination or omitted the required AuditLogs category from the selected workspace
  3. Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication
  4. The analyst searched directory audit logs instead of sign-in logs

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. This fault explains the observed failure: The destination has events for authentication but not the specific configuration change audit record. The intended configuration would instead be: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The diagnostic export sent data to another destination or omitted the required AuditLogs category from the selected workspace. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The corrective action is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

C:

Investigators searched interactive user SigninLogs instead of service principal sign-in events for this nonuser authentication. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The corrective action is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.

D:

The analyst searched directory audit logs instead of sign-in logs. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The engineer tests a log category that wasn't selected in the diagnostic setting. The corrective action is: Generate a safe test event, verify category configuration and ingestion latency, and query the destination after reasonable processing.