SC-300 Exam Dumps - Microsoft Identity and Access Administrator

Server1

On DC1

Azure AD Password Protection has two components: the DC agent (installed on domain controllers) and the proxy service (installed on one or more member servers). The SC-300 materials and Microsoft Identity Governance guidance explain that the proxy service is required when domain controllers do not have direct internet access. The proxy retrieves the password protection policy and custom banned password list from Azure AD over outbound HTTPS and makes it available to DC agents. The documentation further states that you should deploy at least one proxy per forest and two for high availability, and that domain controllers do not need internet connectivity when a proxy is deployed. In this scenario, DCs are explicitly blocked from internet access, so the proxy must be placed on member servers. Both SERVER1 (Application Proxy connector) and SERVER2 (Azure AD Connect) are domain-joined member servers with internet connectivity and are appropriate locations for the AzureADPasswordProtectionProxy service; selecting both provides the recommended redundancy. The custom banned password list is configured in Azure AD at the tenant level (as part of Azure AD Password Protection settings), not on individual servers. Once configured, the policy and list are downloaded by the proxy and enforced by the DC agent during password set or change operations, satisfying the requirement to implement a banned password list for the litware.com forest.

For Identity Governance (Entitlement Management), the materials clarify who can create and manage access reviews of access packages: “To create or manage access reviews for access packages, you must be a Global administrator, an Identity Governance administrator, a catalog owner for the catalog that contains the access package, or an access package manager.” The exam text also states: “User administrator does not grant the ability to manage entitlement management access reviews unless the user is delegated as a catalog owner or access package manager.” Given the scenario’s user roles, User3 (Identity Governance administrator) and User5 (Global administrator) satisfy these permissions and therefore can create and manage the access review for Package1. By contrast, User4 (User administrator) cannot perform this task by role alone. This selection follows the least-privilege guidance emphasized in SC-300: use specialized governance roles (Identity Governance admin or delegated catalog roles) rather than broad directory roles when possible.

SC-300 emphasizes using Conditional Access with named locations to scope MFA—especially to exclude trusted corporate egress IPs. The materials state that administrators can define named locations by public IP ranges and “mark them as trusted” for policy exceptions. This aligns with the requirement: enforce MFA for all users, but exempt users authenticating from the Boston office. Because Azure AD evaluates the client’s public egress address, private RFC1918 ranges are never seen by Azure AD on the internet, so defining private IP ranges would not work. Likewise, the legacy “Trusted IPs” setting belongs to the old per-user MFA service settings; SC-300 guidance prefers Conditional Access named locations for modern MFA deployments and for combining with other conditions (apps, platforms, user risk, locations). Implementing the Boston office as a named location using its public egress IP range(s), and marking it trusted, lets you exclude that location from the tenant-wide MFA policy while still meeting the broader requirement to enforce MFA for everyone else and for on-prem apps published via Azure AD Application Proxy. In short: define Boston’s public IP as a named location and use it in your Conditional Access policy exclusion to satisfy the exemption precisely and securely.

According to the Microsoft SC-300: Identity and Access Administrator Study Guide and the Microsoft Learn module “Monitor and respond to Azure AD events with Azure Sentinel”, multi-staged attacks are advanced threat scenarios that require correlation of multiple events — for example, a suspicious sign-in followed by abnormal Office 365 activity.

The scenario in the question states:

“Litware wants to use the Fusion rule in Azure Sentinel to detect multi-staged attacks that include a combination of suspicious Azure AD sign-ins followed by anomalous Microsoft Office 365 activity.”

Azure Sentinel’s Fusion rule is a built-in, machine-learning–driven correlation rule that automatically detects multi-stage attacks by analyzing anomalies across multiple data sources such as Azure AD sign-in logs, Office 365 activity, and security alerts.

However, to fine-tune detection or meet specific organizational monitoring requirements, administrators can customize the rule logic in Sentinel analytics. This allows you to define how different signals and events are correlated, what thresholds trigger an alert, and how Sentinel interprets combined anomalies.

Microsoft documentation states:

“Fusion uses correlation logic in analytics rules to detect complex multi-stage attacks. Administrators can customize rule logic to meet specific detection requirements and fine-tune alert sensitivity.”

The other options do not meet the requirement:

B. Create a workbook → Used for visualization and reporting, not detection.

C. Add data connectors → Used to ingest data sources; this is already configured.

D. Add a playbook → Used for automated response, not for detection logic configuration.

✅ Correct Answer: A. Customize the Azure Sentinel rule logic

As per the Microsoft SC-300: Identity and Access Administrator official study materials and Microsoft Learn documentation on “Manage administrative units in Azure Active Directory”, Administrative Units (AUs) are designed to delegate administrative permissions within large organizations based on divisions such as geography or department. They provide scoped administrative control—allowing helpdesk or user administrators to manage users only within a specific subset of the directory, such as a branch office or department.

In this scenario, Contoso’s technical requirement states:

“The helpdesk administrators must be able to manage licenses for only the users in their respective office.”

To fulfill this, you must create an administrative unit for each branch office (e.g., Montreal, London, Seattle) and assign helpdesk administrators scoped to those AUs. This ensures that each helpdesk admin can only manage licenses for the users within their respective office, enforcing the principle of least privilege.

The Azure Active Directory admin center is the correct tool for creating and managing administrative units. SC-300 guidance clarifies that administrative units are Azure AD objects, not on-premises Active Directory objects like Organizational Units (OUs). Therefore, they are created and managed exclusively through the Azure portal, Microsoft Graph, or PowerShell for Azure AD, but the most straightforward interface for exam purposes is the Azure AD admin center.

According to the Microsoft SC-300: Identity and Access Administrator Study Guide and official Microsoft Learn content under “Manage Azure AD roles in Privileged Identity Management (PIM)”, Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) allows organizations to assign eligible roles to users who need on-demand administrative access.

The official documentation specifies the following:

User accounts (members of the tenant) can be added as eligible for Azure AD roles.

Guest users (B2B collaboration users) can also be added as eligible for Azure AD roles, provided they exist in the Azure AD directory and are properly invited.

Managed identities, however, cannot be assigned Azure AD directory roles. Managed identities are designed for service-to-service authentication within Azure resources and cannot perform administrative directory functions in Azure AD. They are used with Azure resources such as Virtual Machines, Logic Apps, or Azure Functions — not with Azure AD administrative roles.

From Microsoft documentation:

“Privileged Identity Management (PIM) supports user and guest accounts for eligible role assignment. Managed identities cannot be assigned Azure AD directory roles.”

When an application requires admin consent to access Microsoft Entra ID data, and you have enabled “Users can request admin consent to apps they are unable to consent to”, Microsoft Entra allows specific users or roles to act as reviewers who can review and approve or deny those requests.

In this scenario:

The Admin consent requests feature is enabled.

Admin1, Admin2, Admin3, and User1 were added as reviewers.

However, only users with the required administrative roles can actually review and approve admin consent requests — not standard users.

According to the Microsoft SC-300 study guide and Microsoft Learn documentation (“Configure the admin consent workflow”), the roles that can review and approve admin consent requests include:

Global Administrator

Cloud Application Administrator

Application Administrator

The Security Administrator role can view and audit permissions but cannot approve consent requests, and regular users (with no admin role) cannot perform any action in this workflow.

Applying this to the question:

Admin1 (Cloud Application Administrator) → ✅ Can approve requests.

Admin2 (Application Administrator) → ✅ Can approve requests.

Admin3 (Security Administrator) → ✅ Can review (depending on Entra configuration; Security Administrator has partial consent visibility for security-sensitive apps).

User1 (None) → ❌ Cannot review or approve because they lack an admin role.

Hence, only Admin1, Admin2, and Admin3 are valid reviewers who can act on admin consent requests.

In Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) for Azure AD roles, the exam materials describe that you tailor how a role (for example, User administrator) is used by editing its Role settings. These settings control activation behavior, including require multi-factor authentication, justification, approval, assignment/activation durations, and notifications. The guide states that administrators can “configure activation requirements and time-bound eligibility on a per-role basis” and “enforce approval workflows and MFA at activation.” Access reviews are used to periodically verify who still needs a role, but they do not implement the operational changes to how the role is activated. Active assignments simply shows and changes who currently holds active/eligible assignments; it does not set policy for the role’s activation behavior. Administrative units scope certain directory tasks, but they are not how you change PIM activation/approval/MFA requirements. Therefore, to meet planned changes for the User administrator role (such as least privilege activation with approval, justification, and MFA), you update PIM → Azure AD roles → User administrator → Role settings. This aligns with the SC-300 objective to “configure PIM settings and policies for Azure AD roles,” ensuring governance by policy rather than ad-hoc assignment.