Free Practice Questions for Microsoft SC-900 Exam

The recommended way to enable and use Azure AD Multi-Factor Authentication is with Conditional Access policies. Conditional Access lets you create and define policies that react to sign-in events and that request additional actions before a user is granted access to an application or service.

In Microsoft guidance, network segmentation and isolation are core security principles. Azure virtual networks (VNets) are “a fundamental building block… that enable isolation and segmentation of resources,” and multiple VNets are commonly used to separate environments, business units, or security boundaries. This aligns with Zero Trust and SCI guidance that recommends isolating workloads to reduce blast radius and to apply least privilege and policy-based controls per boundary. Microsoft also emphasizes governance alignment, stating that enterprises should structure Azure resources so that policies, RBAC, and compliance requirements can be applied at appropriate scopes (management group, subscription, resource group, or network boundary). Deploying multiple VNets supports these goals by enabling per-environment policy assignment (for example, dev/test vs. production), differentiated security controls (such as NSGs, ASGs, and firewalls), and independent address spaces to prevent overlap across organizations or regions. Options A and D are not primary drivers: budgeting is handled at subscription/resource group scopes rather than VNet count, and a single VNet can already host and connect many resource types; creating multiple VNets is therefore primarily about governance and isolation that reduce risk and enforce organizational policies.

Microsoft states that Azure AD Multi-Factor Authentication “adds a second form of verification” to sign-ins and supports multiple verification methods. The documented methods include Microsoft Authenticator app notifications or verification codes, text message (SMS) codes, and phone call verification. In Microsoft’s description, users can approve a push notification in the Microsoft Authenticator app or enter a code from the app; they can receive a text message containing a verification code; or they can answer a phone call to complete the challenge. Email verification and security questions are not listed as supported MFA methods for Azure AD sign-ins and are not valid second factors in Azure AD MFA. Consequently, the correct methods from the options provided are Phone call, Text message (SMS), and Microsoft Authenticator app. These align with Azure AD’s core MFA capabilities used in Conditional Access and per-user MFA to strengthen authentication beyond the password and to meet compliance and security requirements for strong user verification.

Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager is designed to give organizations a continuous view of their compliance posture. In Microsoft’s Security, Compliance, and Identity guidance, Compliance Manager is described as a capability that assesses your compliance posture against regulatory standards and data protection baselines and updates the compliance score as you implement or fail controls. The platform aggregates signals from assessments, controls, and improvement actions, then recalculates your compliance score as evidence is collected and actions are marked complete or tested. Because these evaluations are tied to live improvement actions and mapped controls (such as access, data protection, and governance controls), your organization’s status isn’t limited to a fixed reporting cycle; rather, it reflects ongoing progress and gaps across supported regulations and standards.

SCI study materials also emphasize that the score is not a one-time audit: it’s a running indicator of risk reduction and control implementation. As you address recommendations, add or update evidence, or connect automated tests where available, the score and related dashboards refresh to show the latest compliance state. This makes Compliance Manager suitable for continuous assessment, enabling organizations to monitor posture, prioritize work, and demonstrate incremental improvements over time—hence, it assesses compliance data continually for an organization.

In Microsoft Sentinel, playbooks are the feature that integrates with Azure Logic Apps to automate response. Microsoft’s documentation describes them as “collections of procedures that can be run from Microsoft Sentinel in response to an alert” and clarifies that “playbooks are built on Azure Logic Apps” providing a workflow engine and a gallery of connectors to other Microsoft and third-party services. Playbooks can be triggered automatically from analytics rules or manually from incidents and alerts, enabling orchestration such as assigning owners, creating tickets, disabling accounts, blocking IPs, or posting to collaboration channels. The platform emphasizes that the Logic Apps foundation gives security teams a visual designer, managed connectors, and run history to track execution and outcomes. In short, Sentinel uses playbooks to “automate and orchestrate responses to alerts and incidents”, reducing mean-time-to-respond and standardizing actions across your SOC. Other Sentinel components serve different purposes: analytic rules detect threats, hunting queries aid proactive investigation, and workbooks provide dashboards and visualizations. Therefore, the correct completion is: Microsoft Sentinel playbooks use Azure Logic Apps to automate and orchestrate responses to alerts.

Microsoft guidance describes Azure Blueprints as the native way to stamp out governed environments consistently across tenants and subscriptions. Microsoft states: “Azure Blueprints enables cloud architects and central information technology groups to define a repeatable set of Azure resources that implements and adheres to an organization’s standards, patterns, and requirements.” It further explains that “Blueprints make it possible to package artifacts, such as role assignments, policy assignments, ARM templates, and resource groups, into a single blueprint definition that can be assigned to your subscriptions.” This is precisely what’s required when you need to deploy Azure resources across multiple subscriptions in a consistent manner—you define a blueprint (with policies, RBAC, templates, and resource groups) and assign it to one or more subscriptions to get uniform, compliant deployments. While services like Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Azure Policy help assess and enforce security and compliance, Blueprints orchestrate multi-artifact deployment and governance at scale from day one of an environment’s lifecycle, ensuring standardization and repeatability across subscriptions.

Microsoft Entra Conditional Access evaluates signals to make real-time access decisions. Microsoft describes it as bringing “signals together to make decisions and enforce organizational policies,” where administrators choose controls such as Block access, Require multi-factor authentication, Require device to be marked as compliant, or Require hybrid Azure AD joined device. Because MFA is only one of several grant controls, it is incorrect that policies always enforce MFA; they can also simply block, allow, or require other conditions.

Location is a first-class condition. Microsoft states you can define named locations (by countries/regions or IP ranges) and then use them in policy conditions to block or grant access. A common scenario is “Block access from specific locations” or require additional controls when a sign-in originates from an untrusted network. Therefore, Conditional Access can block access to an application based on user location.

Finally, Conditional Access targets users, groups, workload identities, and cloud apps regardless of device join state. Device-related conditions and filters are optional; policies are not limited to “Azure AD-joined devices.” Controls like Require device to be marked as compliant or Require Hybrid Azure AD joined device are only enforced if configured. Hence, Conditional Access does not only affect users on Azure AD-joined devices.

Microsoft Secure Score in the Microsoft 365 Defender portal aggregates improvement actions across Microsoft security workloads, including Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (formerly Cloud App Security). Microsoft states that “Defender for Cloud Apps automatically provides SSPM data in Microsoft Secure Score, for any supported and connected app.” This means Secure Score can surface and recommend actions tied to Cloud App Security/Defender for Cloud Apps, validating statement 1 as Yes. Microsoft Learn

Secure Score also includes peer comparison so organizations can benchmark their progress. The Microsoft documentation explicitly notes: “Compare your score to organizations like yours. There are two places to see how your score compares to organizations that are similar to yours.” This capability appears on the Overview experience in the Defender portal, confirming statement 2 as Yes. Microsoft Learn

Finally, Secure Score recognizes mitigations implemented outside Microsoft tooling. In the official guidance for improvement actions, Microsoft explains the status options “Resolved through third party and Resolved through alternate mitigation,” adding: “You’ll gain the points that the action is worth, so your score better reflects your overall security posture.” Therefore, if you address an improvement action via a third-party product, Secure Score awards the associated points—making statement 3 Yes.

In the Microsoft Cloud Adoption Framework (CAF) for Azure, the methodology is organized into sequential stages that guide an organization from initial intent through operations. Microsoft describes the flow as: “Strategy → Plan → Ready → Adopt → Govern → Manage.” The guidance explains that before building landing zones or preparing environments (Ready), organizations should complete the Strategy and Plan work. Microsoft states that the framework “helps you create and align your business strategy, define business outcomes, and justify cloud adoption” in the Strategy stage; then, in Plan, you “translate that strategy into an actionable adoption plan, rationalize portfolios, and prepare a cloud adoption backlog.” Only after these two stages does the Ready phase occur, where you “prepare your cloud environment (landing zone) to host the workloads.”

Additionally, CAF emphasizes that Govern and Manage are ongoing disciplines that operate alongside and after adoption rather than preceding Ready: “Govern and Manage provide iterative guardrails and operational baselines that evolve as you adopt more workloads.” Therefore, the two phases addressed before the Ready phase are Define Strategy and Plan, aligning with Microsoft’s prescribed order and intent of the Cloud Adoption Framework methodology.

Compliance score

In Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager, the Compliance score is the metric that measures an organization’s progress in completing improvement actions that help reduce compliance and data-protection risk. Microsoft describes this score as a quantifiable indicator of your compliance posture across regulatory standards and data-protection baselines. Each recommended improvement action in Compliance Manager is assigned points; completing, testing, and attesting to those actions increases your score. Points are weighted by risk, so implementing controls with greater impact on reducing risk contributes more to the overall score. Microsoft also clarifies that the Compliance score is an operational progress indicator, not a certification or a legal determination of compliance, but it enables organizations to track, prioritize, and demonstrate the implementation of controls across frameworks such as GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001, NIST 800-53, and Microsoft Data Protection Baselines.

By contrast, Microsoft Purview compliance portal reports provide reporting and insights (for example, DLP, Insider Risk, Audit) but do not calculate a unified risk-reduction progress metric. The Trust Center is Microsoft’s public site for transparency about security, privacy, and compliance commitments, and Trust Documents (auditor reports, certifications, and white papers) supply evidence and reference materials. Neither of these provide an in-product, points-based measure of progress—Compliance score does.