McAfee Secure

Microsoft SC-900 Bundle

Exam Code: SC-900

Exam Name Microsoft Security, Compliance, and Identity Fundamentals

Certification Provider: Microsoft

Corresponding Certification: Microsoft Certified: Security, Compliance, and Identity Fundamentals

Microsoft SC-900 Bundle $44.99
SC-900 Sample 1 SC-900 Sample 2 SC-900 Sample 3 SC-900 Sample 4 SC-900 Sample 5 SC-900 Sample 6 SC-900 Sample 7 SC-900 Sample 8 SC-900 Sample 9 SC-900 Sample 10

100% Microsoft SC-900 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real SC-900 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    SC-900 Questions & Answers

    259 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual SC-900 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • SC-900 Video Course

    SC-900 Training Course

    147 Video Lectures

    SC-900 Video Course is developed by Microsoft Professionals to help you pass the SC-900 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Microsoft Security, Compliance, and Identity Fundamentals exam.
  • Study Guide

    SC-900 Study Guide

    413 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 413-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace SC-900 exam.

Microsoft Security, Compliance, and Identity Fundamentals (SC-900) 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

    259 Questions

    $124.99
  • SC-900 Video Course

    Training Course

    147 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    413 PDF Pages

    $29.99

Microsoft SC-900 Practice Test 66

Question 650

At the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, a confirmed compromised account and endpoint require a coordinated containment decision but analysts operate each tool without a common record. What risk should the team identify as the primary issue?

  1. URL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection
  2. Filtering by destination alone does not inspect the encrypted application payload
  3. Cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities
  4. The first matching NSG rule by priority controls the traffic decision for that rule evaluation

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The evidence indicates that cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities. The appropriate response is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows and demonstrate that a safe exercise records both selected account and device actions against the same incident. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Eastbrook nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This explanation belongs to a different security or compliance situation. In this case, the observable gap is that cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

B:

Filtering by destination alone does not inspect the encrypted application payload. That may occur elsewhere, but the evidence at the Eastbrook nonprofit organization instead points to the fact that cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities.

D:

The first matching NSG rule by priority controls the traffic decision for that rule evaluation. That is not the mechanism that accounts for the stated failure at the Eastbrook nonprofit organization.

Question 651

At the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, a confirmed compromised account and endpoint require a coordinated containment decision but analysts operate each tool without a common record. What is the strongest acceptance test for this change?

  1. A safe test campaign produces a traceable automated investigation with the configured approval behavior
  2. A test incident process retrieves the protected resource's relevant DDoS metrics and routes an alert
  3. A safe exercise records both selected account and device actions against the same incident
  4. A blocked resource creation violates a deny policy while another recommendation appears in posture reporting

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This tests the real business behavior: a safe exercise records both selected account and device actions against the same incident. It specifically checks whether the risk that cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities has been reduced. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Eastbrook nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That observation may be useful for another security or compliance workflow, but the current acceptance test must demonstrate that a safe exercise records both selected account and device actions against the same incident. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

B:

At the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, a result about ddos telemetry and incident response would not show that the team corrected the failure where cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities.

D:

This result would validate azure policy versus defender cloud, not the intended improvement. The needed observation is that a safe exercise records both selected account and device actions against the same incident. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

Question 652

At the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, a confirmed compromised account and endpoint require a coordinated containment decision but analysts operate each tool without a common record. Which setting or practice should be reviewed in future?

  1. Review escalation boundaries for integrated response actions
  2. Review investigation access permissions and data retention after policy changes
  3. Review DDoS monitoring recipients after operations staffing changes
  4. Review benchmark applicability as regulations and cloud services change

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

After implementation, the team should review escalation boundaries for integrated response actions as the appropriate recurring safeguard against the identified issue. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Eastbrook nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This is a maintenance action for a different security or compliance situation, rather than the one that originally failed because cross-domain threats may require complementary containment on devices and identities. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

C:

The option would have the team review DDoS monitoring recipients after operations staffing changes. For this situation, the preventive control should instead be to review escalation boundaries for integrated response actions. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

D:

Although the proposed practice may address cases where policy-based standards provide repeatable expectations for cloud resource configurations, it does not maintain the specific correction here. For the Eastbrook nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to coordinate appropriate endpoint and identity response actions through supported Defender XDR investigation workflows.

Question 653

At the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, employees receive credential phishing emails that reach the mailbox despite basic spam filtering. Which corrective action best meets the requirement?

  1. Use supported Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Safe Attachments policies
  2. Evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users
  3. Constrain the network security group rule to approved source prefixes ports and protocol
  4. Configure suitable Azure Firewall application rules to govern supported web destinations

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The primary failure mode is that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling. The proposed action directly fixes it by requiring the team to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users; afterward, verify that a safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The option addresses the separate situation where file detonation and analysis can identify threats not evident from simple file extension or signature checks. For this case, the more appropriate response is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

C:

Constrain the network security group rule to approved source prefixes ports and protocol can be useful for another workload, but it leaves the immediate failure unresolved. Here the priority is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

D:

The suggested action is to configure suitable Azure Firewall application rules to govern supported web destinations, but the facts at the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace require a correction for the distinct problem that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling.

Question 654

At the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, employees receive credential phishing emails that reach the mailbox despite basic spam filtering. Which underlying issue most directly explains this situation?

  1. On-premises domain identity threat telemetry requires visibility into the relevant domain services
  2. Targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling
  3. A policy object alone cannot inspect requests that bypass its associated listener or endpoint
  4. Inbound translation maps an approved external address and port to a protected internal endpoint

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The specific data failure is that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling. It can be addressed through the controlled change to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposed cause is relevant to defender for identity domain controller sensors, but it does not explain why targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling in the reported case. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

C:

The case does not describe the failure mode involving azure waf deployment association. Its core issue is that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

D:

Although inbound translation maps an approved external address and port to a protected internal endpoint, the presented symptoms do not support that as the primary cause; they indicate that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

Question 655

At the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, employees receive credential phishing emails that reach the mailbox despite basic spam filtering. What evidence would justify considering this concern addressed?

  1. A safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior
  2. A sample query correlates known device and identity events for the intended incident
  3. The deployed app reads its approved secret from Key Vault and repository scans find no active credential
  4. A sample incident records assigned owner status changes and final resolution notes

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This tests the real business behavior: a safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior. It specifically checks whether the risk that targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling has been reduced. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This result would validate defender xdr advanced hunting, not the intended improvement. The needed observation is that a safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

C:

This verifies a separate issue in security administration. It does not prove that a safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior for the reported situation. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

D:

The cited result is too remote from the corrective action to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users. The direct evidence should show that a safe phish simulation triggers the intended detection and user-facing protection behavior. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

Question 656

At the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, employees receive credential phishing emails that reach the mailbox despite basic spam filtering. How should the organization sustain the improvement?

  1. Evaluate priority and suppression rules after detection tuning
  2. Review incident synchronization and connector scope after SOC platform updates
  3. Review anti-phishing protection scope when mailboxes change
  4. Reconsider access method when administration needs expand beyond VM sessions

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The continuing safeguard is to review anti-phishing protection scope when mailboxes change. It helps avoid the original condition: targeted phishing and malicious links require email threat controls beyond basic junk-mail handling. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The option would have the team evaluate priority and suppression rules after detection tuning. For this situation, the preventive control should instead be to review anti-phishing protection scope when mailboxes change. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

B:

Although the proposed practice may address cases where integrated security operations can link product alerts and related incident context across Microsoft workloads, it does not maintain the specific correction here. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

D:

The suggested review does not track the condition behind the incident. Sustained improvement requires the team to review anti-phishing protection scope when mailboxes change. For the Tarnbridge consumer e-commerce marketplace, the direct corrective action is to evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 anti-phishing and threat protection policies for the affected users.

Question 657

At the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, a user clicks a malicious URL in an email that appeared safe when delivered but later became dangerous. Which approach best resolves the identified risk?

  1. Use the Microsoft Defender portal unified incident and alert experience for supported integrated products
  2. Use workload threat protection alongside CSPM for both runtime threats and configuration weaknesses
  3. Evaluate supported just-in-time VM access capabilities where available to limit the exposure window
  4. Configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts is the best response because uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection. A focused validation would establish that a safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Fairhaven nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use the Microsoft Defender portal unified incident and alert experience for supported integrated products can be useful for another workload, but it leaves the immediate failure unresolved. Here the priority is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

B:

The suggested action is to use workload threat protection alongside CSPM for both runtime threats and configuration weaknesses, but the facts at the Fairhaven nonprofit organization require a correction for the distinct problem that uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection.

C:

This alternative would be suitable where time-bounded management access can reduce the risk of always-open administrative ports. It does not by itself resolve the need to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

Question 658

At the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, a user clicks a malicious URL in an email that appeared safe when delivered but later became dangerous. Which explanation best accounts for the concern?

  1. File detonation and analysis can identify threats not evident from simple file extension or signature checks
  2. Inbound translation maps an approved external address and port to a protected internal endpoint
  3. Built-in platform protections and separately provisioned enhanced DDoS services may differ in management and guarantees
  4. URL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This identifies the root issue: uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection. At the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the team should therefore configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The case does not describe the failure mode involving defender for office 365 safe attachments. Its core issue is that uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

B:

Although inbound translation maps an approved external address and port to a protected internal endpoint, the presented symptoms do not support that as the primary cause; they indicate that uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

C:

This explanation belongs to a different security or compliance situation. In this case, the observable gap is that uRL reputation can change after delivery so supported time-of-click protection provides added detection. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

Question 659

At the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, a user clicks a malicious URL in an email that appeared safe when delivered but later became dangerous. Which test result best shows the requirement is met?

  1. A controlled unusual download activity pattern appears in the appropriate investigation workflow
  2. A protected test cluster shows the appropriate container security recommendations and signals
  3. A test outbound connection matches the intended firewall rule while unapproved destinations are blocked
  4. A safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The team can confirm the fix by showing that a safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy. This aligns with the corrective design to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Fairhaven nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This verifies a separate issue in security administration. It does not prove that a safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy for the reported situation. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

B:

The cited result is too remote from the corrective action to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts. The direct evidence should show that a safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

C:

That observation may be useful for another security or compliance workflow, but the current acceptance test must demonstrate that a safe test URL click is evaluated according to the enabled Safe Links policy. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

Question 660

At the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, a user clicks a malicious URL in an email that appeared safe when delivered but later became dangerous. Which ongoing control best prevents this issue from recurring?

  1. Review escalation boundaries for integrated response actions
  2. Reconsider access method when administration needs expand beyond VM sessions
  3. Review peering settings when network addresses change
  4. Review URL policy scope and exclusions after email security updates

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This control works beyond the initial remediation because it requires the team to review URL policy scope and exclusions after email security updates. This result addresses the stated challenge at the Fairhaven nonprofit organization.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That routine supports defender xdr response coordination, but the relevant ongoing risk requires the team to review URL policy scope and exclusions after email security updates. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

B:

The suggested review does not track the condition behind the incident. Sustained improvement requires the team to review URL policy scope and exclusions after email security updates. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.

C:

Review peering settings when network addresses change is not the primary recurring safeguard for this problem. The team should review URL policy scope and exclusions after email security updates. For the Fairhaven nonprofit organization, the direct corrective action is to configure supported Defender for Office 365 Safe Links protection for eligible email and application contexts.