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 9

Question 80

After configuring: Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions, an engineer performs a targeted pilot for this objective: A supplier must collaborate on a SharePoint site using its own organizational credentials rather than receiving a new employee account. What result constitutes a pass?

  1. The terminated guest cannot access the app and the access review records the removal decision
  2. An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned
  3. The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site
  4. An unauthorized member cannot invite a new vendor, and an existing approved guest can still reach its allocated resource

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct acceptance check. The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if removing the obsolete guest's resource assignments succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site.

B:

Even if configuring source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site.

D:

Even if restricting new guest invitations to authorized inviters while preserving explicitly granted access for existing guests succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site.

Question 81

The service desk escalates the following unsuccessful identity rollout. Requirement: A supplier must collaborate on a SharePoint site using its own organizational credentials rather than receiving a new employee account. Observed: The supplier cannot redeem their home-tenant credential invitation and has an internal account instead. Which underlying misconfiguration is most consistent?

  1. The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow
  2. The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope
  3. The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization
  4. The policy removes all existing guest objects instead of restricting who may send invitations

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct diagnosis. The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow. This fault explains the observed failure: The supplier cannot redeem their home-tenant credential invitation and has an internal account instead. The intended configuration would instead be: Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow. The corrective action is: Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions.

C:

The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow. The corrective action is: Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions.

D:

The policy removes all existing guest objects instead of restricting who may send invitations. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow. The corrective action is: Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions.

Question 82

During an access-management pilot, the engineer is tasked with the following: A joint venture needs only one trusted partner tenant to access a sensitive enterprise application. Which action best addresses the requirement?

  1. Publish and require Microsoft Entra terms of use through the intended Conditional Access policy scope
  2. Invite the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant and resource permissions
  3. Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model
  4. Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct implementation. Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes. It meets the stated requirement: A joint venture needs only one trusted partner tenant to access a sensitive enterprise application. Acceptance evidence is: A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A terms document exists but is not assigned through the relevant access policy. That condition is not the problem here: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The targeted implementation is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

B:

The invitee is created as an ordinary internal member without the intended external collaboration flow. That condition is not the problem here: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The targeted implementation is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

C:

The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. That condition is not the problem here: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The targeted implementation is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

Question 83

The requirement is: A joint venture needs only one trusted partner tenant to access a sensitive enterprise application. The technical change was: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes. Which observation validates the intended boundary?

  1. The removed source-scope user is soft-deleted or otherwise denied target access according to the tested cross-tenant synchronization behavior, while remaining in-scope users stay available
  2. A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked
  3. A partner login with trusted MFA satisfies the protected app; a login without MFA still requires appropriate controls
  4. The intended guest redeems using the approved current identity and retains only authorized resource access

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct acceptance check. A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if removing the departing internal member from the source provisioning scope succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked.

C:

Even if configuring the approved partner's inbound cross-tenant trust for MFA succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked.

D:

Even if reviewing the guest object's redemption state succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: A permitted partner user can access the approved app while another organization is blocked.

Question 84

During post-change review of the requirement “A joint venture needs only one trusted partner tenant to access a sensitive enterprise application,” an auditor observes: The approved partner receives a cross-tenant access denial while an unrelated tenant policy was edited. Which root-cause finding would explain that symptom?

  1. The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope
  2. The guest restriction is left at the permissive member-equivalent setting
  3. The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID
  4. The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct diagnosis. The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. This fault explains the observed failure: The approved partner receives a cross-tenant access denial while an unrelated tenant policy was edited. The intended configuration would instead be: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The corrective action is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

B:

The guest restriction is left at the permissive member-equivalent setting. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The corrective action is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

D:

The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The corrective action is: Set Microsoft Entra cross-tenant access inbound B2B collaboration settings to allow the named partner, with suitable app and user scopes.

Question 85

Select the most appropriate first configuration decision for this scenario: A cross-tenant collaboration partner wants its compliant devices recognized when Conditional Access evaluates guest sign-ins.

  1. Configure the approved partner's inbound cross-tenant trust for MFA and scope the access policy accordingly
  2. Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model
  3. Configure the supported SAML federation settings for the external identity provider with validated issuer, endpoints, and trust material
  4. Remove the departing internal member from the source provisioning scope and verify supported target soft-deletion/deprovisioning without treating cross-tenant sync as an independent account migration

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct implementation. Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model. It meets the stated requirement: A cross-tenant collaboration partner wants its compliant devices recognized when Conditional Access evaluates guest sign-ins. Acceptance evidence is: An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The host assumed all external tenants' MFA claims were automatically trusted. That condition is not the problem here: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The targeted implementation is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

C:

The SAML issuer or signing certificate does not match the configured trust. That condition is not the problem here: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The targeted implementation is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

D:

The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope. That condition is not the problem here: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The targeted implementation is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

Question 86

The owner wants independent acceptance evidence after the team chose: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model. It was meant to solve: A cross-tenant collaboration partner wants its compliant devices recognized when Conditional Access evaluates guest sign-ins. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. An unauthorized member cannot invite a new vendor, and an existing approved guest can still reach its allocated resource
  2. An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails
  3. The removed source-scope user is soft-deleted or otherwise denied target access according to the tested cross-tenant synchronization behavior, while remaining in-scope users stay available
  4. Partner sign-in follows the expected federated issuer and rejects an invalid assertion signature

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct acceptance check. An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Even if restricting new guest invitations to authorized inviters while preserving explicitly granted access for existing guests succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails.

C:

Even if removing the departing internal member from the source provisioning scope succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails.

D:

Even if configuring the supported SAML federation settings for the external identity provider with validated issuer succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An approved compliant partner device satisfies the intended control, while an untrusted noncompliant device fails.

Question 87

A team must isolate a broken configuration. Goal: A cross-tenant collaboration partner wants its compliant devices recognized when Conditional Access evaluates guest sign-ins. Symptom: A compliant partner device is still challenged as if no device-compliance claim can be trusted. Which hypothesis most precisely accounts for the observed result?

  1. The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID
  2. A terms document exists but is not assigned through the relevant access policy
  3. The SAML issuer or signing certificate does not match the configured trust
  4. The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct diagnosis. The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. This fault explains the observed failure: A compliant partner device is still challenged as if no device-compliance claim can be trusted. The intended configuration would instead be: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The corrective action is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

B:

A terms document exists but is not assigned through the relevant access policy. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The corrective action is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

C:

The SAML issuer or signing certificate does not match the configured trust. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. The corrective action is: Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model.

Question 88

The security architect is given this constraint: An enterprise must supply synchronized B2B users to a receiving tenant instead of emailing each employee an invitation. Which technical approach meets it without relying on unrelated controls?

  1. Review the guest object's redemption state and follow supported reset-redemption or reinvitation steps rather than creating duplicate uncontrolled access
  2. Evaluate and configure cross-tenant inbound trust for partner device claims only when the organization accepts the associated trust model
  3. Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant
  4. Remove the departing internal member from the source provisioning scope and verify supported target soft-deletion/deprovisioning without treating cross-tenant sync as an independent account migration

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Correct implementation. Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant. It meets the stated requirement: An enterprise must supply synchronized B2B users to a receiving tenant instead of emailing each employee an invitation. Acceptance evidence is: An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The guest is still bound to a previously redeemed external identity when the new address invitation is sent. That condition is not the problem here: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The targeted implementation is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

B:

The resource tenant did not enable the relevant cross-tenant trust setting for the partner. That condition is not the problem here: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The targeted implementation is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

D:

The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope. That condition is not the problem here: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The targeted implementation is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

Question 89

An operational review checks whether the change “Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant” meets this need: An enterprise must supply synchronized B2B users to a receiving tenant instead of emailing each employee an invitation. Which finding supports acceptance?

  1. An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned
  2. The supplier redeems the invitation, appears with the expected guest identity, and accesses only the granted site
  3. A normal guest cannot enumerate restricted directory profiles but can access explicitly shared resources
  4. The removed source-scope user is soft-deleted or otherwise denied target access according to the tested cross-tenant synchronization behavior, while remaining in-scope users stay available

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Correct acceptance check. An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned. This tests the intended access or synchronization boundary instead of merely checking that a setting exists.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Even if inviting the supplier through Microsoft Entra B2B collaboration with appropriate tenant succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned.

C:

Even if applying the supported external-collaboration guest access restrictions succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned.

D:

Even if removing the departing internal member from the source provisioning scope succeeds, this does not prove the required identity-control outcome. The decisive check is: An in-scope source internal member is provisioned as a cross-tenant B2B object in the target while source external guests and excluded members are not provisioned.

Question 90

The deployment owner asks why this identity requirement failed: An enterprise must supply synchronized B2B users to a receiving tenant instead of emailing each employee an invitation. The test shows: Synchronization logs show the targeted source user was skipped or rejected. Which fault is the best diagnosis?

  1. The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope
  2. The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization
  3. The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID
  4. The guest restriction is left at the permissive member-equivalent setting

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Correct diagnosis. The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. This fault explains the observed failure: Synchronization logs show the targeted source user was skipped or rejected. The intended configuration would instead be: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The employee stays in the source-side provisioning assignment or filter scope. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The corrective action is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

C:

The inbound cross-tenant policy was configured for the wrong tenant ID. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The corrective action is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.

D:

The guest restriction is left at the permissive member-equivalent setting. The reported symptom instead has this cause: The user is outside source-side assignment scope, or the target tenant has not allowed inbound cross-tenant user synchronization. The corrective action is: Configure source-tenant push synchronization of in-scope internal members with source attribute mappings, and authorize inbound synchronization and redemption in the target tenant.