Microsoft SC-200 - Microsoft Security Operations Analyst

The Sentinel requirement states:

“Ensure that multiple alerts generated by rulequery1 in response to a single user launching Azure Cloud Shell multiple times are consolidated as a single incident.”

This behavior is controlled by the event grouping setting in the analytics rule configuration.

Microsoft Sentinel documentation explains:

“Event grouping determines how alerts generated from the same rule are grouped into incidents. Selecting ‘Group all alerts triggered by this rule into a single incident’ allows all related alerts to be combined.”

Hence, configuring event grouping ensures that all alerts from rulequery1 related to the same user are consolidated into one incident, satisfying the requirement.

✅ Answer for Question 10: C. event grouping

The requirement is to enable Microsoft Defender for Servers Plan 2 on all Azure VMs while excluding Server2 from agentless scanning. Defender for Cloud provides a built-in mechanism to exclude specific machines from agentless scanning based on resource tags. The process is: assign a distinct tag name:value to the VM you want to exclude (Server2), and then, in Defender for Cloud’s Agentless scanning for machines settings, specify that tag pair under exclusions. Defender’s continuous discovery honors these exclusions and skips any VM that matches the configured tag. This approach aligns with the business requirement of least privilege and minimal administrative effort: it avoids broad configuration changes, requires no extensions on the VM, and is reversible by simply removing or changing the tag. The Microsoft Antimalware extension and Automanage configuration are unrelated to agentless scanning behavior, and a resource lock would only prevent modifications/deletions, not scanning. Therefore, to meet the Defender for Cloud requirement precisely, configure an Azure resource tag on Server2 and reference that tag in the agentless scanning exclusion settings.

To monitor Windows Security events from Server1 using the Windows Security Events via AMA connector, the first object you must create is a Data Collection Rule (DCR). With the Azure Monitor Agent (AMA) model used by Microsoft Sentinel, data flow is controlled by DCRs, not by the legacy MMA/OMS workspace settings. A DCR defines what to collect (e.g., the Security event log, specific event IDs or XPath queries), from where (the target machines or machine groups), and where to send it (the Sentinel/Log Analytics workspace). After creating the DCR, you associate it with Server1 (Arc-enabled), and the connector will begin streaming Security events to your Sentinel workspace. Creating a Sentinel scheduled rule or an automation rule does not enable collection; those features act after data is already ingested. Event Grid topics are unrelated to Windows event collection. Therefore, the correct first step for meeting the Sentinel requirement to monitor Server1’s Security log via AMA is to create a DCR, then assign it to Server1 and the Sentinel workspace.

To have a Microsoft Sentinel workbook pull live data from an external web service, you use the workbook’s built-in JSON data source. Workbooks can query REST endpoints that return JSON and render results dynamically in visuals. Because the Azure portal (where the workbook runs) is a different origin than your on-prem/public Webapp1, browsers will block these cross-origin requests unless the endpoint explicitly allows them. Therefore, the external service must enable CORS to permit the portal’s origin to fetch the JSON. This aligns with Microsoft guidance that Workbooks can query HTTP/HTTPS JSON endpoints and that external endpoints must allow cross-origin requests for client-side calls from the Azure portal. Enforcing CORS on Webapp1 satisfies the security model while enabling the workbook to retrieve data at view time—meeting the requirement to “dynamically retrieve data from Webapp1.” Options like “custom endpoint” or “custom resource provider” aren’t needed here, and enabling SOP or only enforcing TLS 1.2 wouldn’t address the browser’s cross-origin policy blocking the call.

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 changes—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 playbook 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 or 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 integrate 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 remediate 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 response capabilities.

ï‚· Internal threat: Modify the access policy settings for the key vault.

ï‚· External threat: Modify the Key Vault firewall settings.

For internal threats involving a potential compromise of Fabrikam’s own Azure AD applications, the most direct and least disruptive remediation is to modify the Key Vault access policies (or RBAC assignments, if RBAC for Key Vault data-plane is in use) to immediately remove or reduce the compromised service principal’s permissions (Get/List/Decrypt/Sign/Wrap). Microsoft guidance for Key Vault access emphasizes least privilege and promptly revoking credentials or app permissions when compromise is suspected. Access policies (or data-plane RBAC) govern which identities can access secrets, keys, and certificates; adjusting these stops further data-plane actions by the compromised app. “Resource locks” protect against deletion or configuration changes at the management plane, but they do not remove a compromised identity’s ability to read or use vault objects, so they are not an appropriate first response for this scenario.

For external threats, Microsoft recommends hardening Key Vault firewall and networking: restrict public network access, allow only required IPs, use virtual network rules, and prefer private endpoints. Key Vault includes a built-in firewall for IP and VNet ACLs; tuning these controls reduces exposure to the public internet and blocks unauthorized traffic. NSGs apply to IaaS subnets/nics and don’t directly secure the public Key Vault endpoint. Azure Firewall can add perimeter control, but it is not necessary for remediating a specific Key Vault Defender alert; the most effective and immediate remediation is tightening the Key Vault firewall settings to limit external access pathways.

When modifying an existing Azure Sentinel playbook (Logic App) to send emails to a dynamic recipient, such as the resource owner, you must make the email destination configurable. This is achieved by adding a parameter in the Logic App.

You then modify the action (the “Send an email” step) to use this parameter as the recipient field instead of a static distribution list. This enables flexibility, allowing the playbook to adapt dynamically based on alert context or Sentinel data fields passed into it.

In Microsoft Sentinel documentation, the best practice for dynamic logic app responses is:

“Use parameters to pass entity information (such as Account, Host, or Owner) from Sentinel alerts into playbooks for dynamic action execution.”

Hence, the verified answer is D. Add a parameter and modify the action.

Microsoft Sentinel playbooks can be triggered by different types of events—alerts, incidents, or entities. Since the requirement specifies “incidents generated by rulequery1” and asks for automatic processing of those incidents, the correct approach is to use a playbook with an incident trigger.

According to Microsoft Sentinel automation documentation:

“When you want automation to start after an incident is created or updated, use the incident trigger. This allows you to automate workflows such as closing incidents, adding comments, or sending notifications.”

This trigger type works with automation rules that specify when and how to execute playbooks based on incident state or severity. Using a playbook with an incident trigger meets the need for post-incident automation (e.g., auto-closing incidents if they match certain conditions).

✅ Answer for Question 8: A. a playbook with an incident trigger

To monitor and detect higher-than-normal volumes of password resets, you need to gather password reset event data both from Azure Active Directory (cloud identities) and from on-premises Active Directory (domain accounts). Microsoft’s official Defender XDR and Sentinel integration guidance describes that:

Azure AD Password Protection enforces and monitors password policies in both cloud and hybrid environments. It can detect weak, commonly used, or compromised passwords and logs related password change/reset activities. Deploying Azure AD Password Protection extends password reset visibility to on-premises domain controllers through the Password Protection proxy and DC agent. This makes it the correct choice for implementing monitoring at the identity environment level.

In Microsoft Sentinel, to ingest and analyze password reset activities from on-premises servers (e.g., domain controllers), you must use the Windows Security Events via AMA connector. This connector collects Event ID 4723 (password change), 4724 (password reset), and related security logs directly from Windows Servers into the Sentinel Log Analytics workspace through the Azure Monitor Agent (AMA). Once the events are available in Sentinel, they can be correlated with other identity or behavioral analytics to detect abnormal reset volumes or potential compromise attempts.

The other options are not suitable:

Microsoft Defender for Identity focuses on identity compromise detection, not specifically on password reset volume monitoring.

Smart lockout protects against brute-force sign-in attempts but doesn’t generate detailed reset event telemetry.

Microsoft security rule and UEBA are higher-level analytic configurations, not data ingestion mechanisms.

Therefore, to meet the Sentinel requirements for monitoring password reset anomalies:

✅ Implement in the identity environment: Azure AD Password Protection

✅ Configure in Microsoft Sentinel: The Windows Security Events via AMA connector

For a near-real-time (NRT) analytics rule that detects sign-ins by a designated break-glass account, the most direct and performant pattern is to filter SigninLogs by joining to a Microsoft Sentinel watchlist that contains the protected account(s). Sentinel exposes watchlists to KQL through the helper function _GetWatchlist('<watchlist-name>'), which returns a table with standard columns (including SearchKey) plus any custom columns you imported. Using join kind=inner ensures the result set includes only those SigninLogs rows whose UserPrincipalName matches an entry in the watchlist—ideal for alerting on a high-value account without post-filtering.

The completed query is:

SigninLogs | join kind=inner (_GetWatchlist('breakglass_account')) on $left.UserPrincipalName == $right.SearchKey

This approach satisfies the requirement to implement an NRT rule for the break-glass account because:

NRT rules support KQL with joins and watchlists and are optimized for rapid evaluation over fresh data.

Using a watchlist lets SecOps adjust monitored accounts without editing the rule—minimizing administrative effort and aligning with least-privilege operations (no extra permissions beyond watchlist management).

The inner join pattern reduces noise by returning only matched events, which are then turned into alerts/incidents by the NRT rule.

Thus, select join and GetWatchlist, and join UserPrincipalName to the watchlist’s SearchKey.