Free Microsoft SC-200 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

To remediate active attacks automatically once alerts or incidents are detected, Microsoft Sentinel uses playbooks , which are workflows built on Azure Logic Apps . These playbooks can execute remediation actions—such as isolating a machine, blocking an account, or triggering other security control chang es—without manual intervention. Microsoft’s documentation clearly states that “playbooks in Microsoft Sentinel are based on workflows built in Azure Logic Apps” and that they can “automate and orchestrate your threat response by using playbooks … run a pla ybook on-demand or automatically in response to specific alerts or incidents.”

When an analytics rule in Sentinel triggers an alert or incident, you can attach an automation rule which in turn invokes a playbook (i.e. a Logic Apps workflow) to perform the remediation steps. The automation rule defines the trigger conditions and calls the playbook action as part of its response actions.

Let us evaluate other options:

Azure Automation runbooks (Option A) are powerful for scripting in Azure (e.g., PowerShell o r Python) and can perform remediation tasks, but they are not the native mechanism within Sentinel for orchestrated, alert-driven response workflows.

Azure Functions (Option C) are serverless compute for custom code, but you would have to build and integra te orchestration logic manually; they are not the out-of-box SOAR component in Sentinel.

Azure Sentinel livestreams (Option D) is not a recognized remediation automation component—it is irrelevant in this context.

Therefore, the correct solution to remedia te active attacks (triggering automated actions in response to alerts/incidents with minimal manual effort) is to use Azure Logic Apps (via Sentinel playbooks) as the orchestration engine. Logic Apps are the documented foundation of Sentinel’s automation r esponse capabilities.

In Microsoft Sentinel (built on Azure Monitor Logs), analytics and hunting queries are executed within a Log Analytics workspace . To run Sentinel queries for Fabrikam, the tenant must have at least one workspace (with Sentinel enabled) in its subscription to host rules, incidents, hunting queries, and workbooks. Sentinel’ s cross-workspace/tenant capability is provided by cross-resource queries in Kusto Query Language (KQL). The key construct for reaching outside the current workspace is the workspace() function, which lets you reference another Log Analytics workspace by name or resource ID—even across subscriptions or tenants when proper permissions (often via Azure Lighthouse or guest access) are in place.

Typical correlation looks like:

union workspace( ' Fabrikam-WS ' ).SecurityEvent, workspace( ' Contoso-WS ' ).SecurityEvent | …

Here, workspace() is the required element to bring together data sets from multiple tenants; operators like extend and project only shape columns and do not establish cross-tenant scope. Therefore, to meet the requirements with minimal overhead: Fabrik am needs one workspace to host its Sentinel content, and you use workspace() in your KQL to correlate Contoso and Fabrikam data.

 Table: DeviceFileEvents

 Aggregation function: count()

In Microsoft Defender XDR advanced hunting, data tables such as DeviceFileEvents , DeviceProcessEvents , and CloudAppEvents are used to investigate various types of activities. Since this query aims to investigate an issue related to file activity—specifically identifying when files have been accessed, modified, or created repeatedly—the correct data source table is DeviceFileEvents . This table contains information about file-level activities recorded by Defender for Endpoint sensors, including file path, file name, action type, and user account involved.

The KQL structure shown in the image follows standard hunting query syntax:

DeviceFileEvents

| where Timestamp > ago(2d)

| summarize activityCount = count() by FolderPath, FileName, ActionType, AccountDisplayName

| where activityCount > 5

Here’s why:

The where Timestamp > ago(2d) clause filters results from the last 2 days, a typi cal timeframe for immediate investigations.

The summarize operator groups events by FolderPath, FileName, ActionType, and AccountDisplayName, then uses count() to determine how many times each file was acted upon.

Finally, where activityCount > 5 filters t o show only unusually high-frequency activity, which might indicate suspicious or automated file manipulation.

Microsoft Defender XDR documentation highlights that DeviceFileEvents is the correct schema for file activity investigations, while DeviceProcess Events focuses on process creation and execution, and CloudAppEvents targets cloud application usage.

Thus, the verified and documented correct completions are:

Table: DeviceFileEvents

Aggregation function: count()

According to Microsoft Security Operations documentation, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is designed to protect endpoint devices—including Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS —against cyberattacks through advanced behavioral analysis, threat intelligence, and automated investigation and remediation. In the given case study, the sales team exclusively uses iOS devices and has previously experienced attacks while exchanging files using third-party applications. These unmanaged file-sharing methods exposed the te am to malware, phishing, and data leakage threats.

By implementing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on iOS, Contoso can apply unified endpoint protection across all mobile devices. Defender for Endpoint’s mobile threat defense (MTD) capabilities detect mali cious apps, risky network connections, jailbroken devices, and phishing attempts. It also integrates with Microsoft Intune for compliance enforcement and conditional access—ensuring only secure, compliant devices can access corporate resources. This direct ly mitigates the security challenges faced by the sales team while minimizing manual investigation effort through automated response.

Therefore, the issue affecting the sales team (mobile device attacks and unsafe file transfers) can be effectively resolve d using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint .

As outlined in Microsoft’s official Defender for Of fice 365 documentation, this service provides comprehensive protection against threats targeting Microsoft 365 collaboration tools—such as SharePoint Online , OneDrive for Business , and Microsoft Teams . The marketing team uses SharePoint Online for vendor c ollabora tion and has experienced incidents in which vendors uploaded malicious files. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 specifically addresses this scenario through features like Safe Attachments and Safe Links , which automatically scan uploaded or shared files for malware and block access to harmful content.

When a vendor uploads a file to SharePoint Online, Defender for Office 365 inspects the file in real time within a virtual sandbox environment before allowing users to open or share it. If malware is d etected, the system quarantines or removes the file and notifies administrators. These detection and remediation capabilities prevent infection propagation, protect sensitive marketing data, and maintain compliance with Contoso’s security posture.

By leveraging Defender for Office 365, Contoso’s marketing team can continue external collaboration safely, ensuring that all uploaded files are scanned and validated before internal access—thereby resolving their specific malware-related issue.

In Microsoft Sentinel’s Advanced Security Information Model (ASI M) , DNS queries are normalized through the Im_Dns parser, which unifies DNS telemetry from multiple sources (Infoblox, Windows DNS, Azure Firewall DNS proxy, etc.). Microsoft guidance states that when you need broad compatibility and want to “use built-in ASIM parsers whenever possible,” you should call the generic Im_Dns() parser . To minimize overhead , ASIM provides a pack parameter that restricts the parser to a specific content pack (vendor/source) so it won’t iterate through all available source parsers under the hood. For Infoblox NIOS, you pass the Infoblox pack via the pack parameter, which limits parsing to the Infoblox implementation and reduces query cost/latency while keeping the query portable across environments.

Putting it together, the recomme nded pattern is:

Im_Dns(pack= " InfobloxNIOS " )

| where DnsResponseCodeName == " NXDOMAIN "

| summarize count()

This approach satisfies all requirements:

Uses built-in ASIM (Im_Dns).

Minimizes query overhead (uses pack to limit parsing to Infoblox).

Targets NXD OMAIN responses for counting DNS request failures from Infoblox1 .

In this scenario, App1 is a custom web app published through Microsoft Entra Application Proxy and authenticated using Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) . Because it’s integrated with Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) for access control, the most appropriate and supported way to require MFA for users accessing the application is through Conditional Access .

Microsoft Entra Conditional Access policies evaluate user sign-in conditions such as risk level, device compliance, location, and sensitivity of data before granting access. Specificall y, Microsoft’s documentation states:

“Conditional Access policies allow administrators to require multi-factor authentication, block access, or enforce specific controls such as app protection or session policies for cloud and on-premises applications inte grated with Microsoft Entra ID.”

Therefore, to make MFA mandatory for users accessing App1, a Conditional Access policy must be created targeting that application.

For the second part, to implement a session policy that controls or monitors user behavior (such as downloading highly confidential documents), the correct choice is Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDA) . Microsoft’s official guidance says:

“Session policies in Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps provide real-time session controls that enable ad ministrators to monitor and restrict user activity in cloud apps, including download, cut/copy, and upload actions based on sensitivity labels or user risk.”

These session policies integrate seamlessly with Conditional Access via the “Use Conditional Acces s App Control” setting to apply continuous access evaluation during a user’s session.

Hence, the correct verified configuration is:

Require MFA: Conditional Access

Implement session policy: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

 First blank (create a stub table): datatable

 Second blank (union option): isfuzzy=true

In KQL for Microsoft Sentinel, a safe way to test whether a table exists across multiple workspaces (without throwing an error when it doesn’t) is to union a guaranteed single-row “stub” table with a query against the target table, and use union isfuzzy=true . The stu b is created with datatable , e.g., let mtable = datatable(isMissing:int) [1]; which always yields one row ( isMissing=1 ). The second branch queries the real table and, if it exists, emits a row with isMissing=0 . When the table is missing, that branch return s no rows, but because isfuzzy=true is used, the reference to a potentially missing table is treated as an empty input rather than an error. Finally, selecting a single row (e.g., | top 1 by isMissing asc ) ensures you return 0 if the table exists (preferre d), otherwise 1 from the stub.

A complete pattern for the answer area is:

let mtable = datatable(isMissing:int) [1];

union isfuzzy=true

mtable,

(AzureActivity | getschema | project isMissing=0)

| top 1 by isMissing asc

This meets the requirements: it checks existence per workspace, returns one row with isMissing=0 if the table exists, or one row with isMissing=1 if it does not, with minimal overhead and no failures when the table is absent.

To attach notes that you can later see during investigations and hunting, you use Bookmarks in Microsoft Sentinel. Bookmarks are created from the Hunting (or Logs) experience inside the Sentinel workspace and let you pin a specific query result (including IPs, accounts, hosts) with notes, tags, and mappe d entities so it appears in the investigation graph and is easily referenceable. The correct workflow is: first, run your KQL query from the Microsoft Sentinel workspace (not from generic Azure Monitor), because Sentinel’s hunting experience is where bookmarks integrate with incidents and the investigation graph. Next, select a specific query result that represents the suspicious activity (e.g., a data access event from the target IP). Finally, create a Bookmark and map the relevant entity (IP address, Account, etc.) while adding your notes . Mapping the entity ensures the bookmarked event is connected in the investigation graph; the notes provide the narrative/context you need when pivoting later. Adding the query to favorites is optional for convenience but does not attach notes to a specific event, and running the query from Azure Monitor would not place the bookmark within Sentinel’s investigation context.