SC-300 Exam Dumps - Microsoft Identity and Access Administrator

According to the Microsoft SC-300: Identity and Access Administrator Study Guide and Microsoft Learn modules “Implement and manage Azure AD roles” and “Implement Privileged Identity Management (PIM)”, there is a clear distinction between Azure AD built-in roles and Azure (resource-based) built-in roles.

Azure AD built-in roles govern directory-level access — such as managing users, groups, enterprise apps, or security settings in Azure Active Directory (Entra ID).The Privileged Role Administrator role allows the user to manage role assignments for directory roles in Azure AD, including activating roles through PIM.The Global Administrator also has this capability, but the Privileged Role Administrator is the least privilege role that meets the delegation requirement — aligning with the principle of least privilege stated in the scenario.As the documentation notes:

“Privileged Role Administrator manages role assignments in Azure AD, including the ability to activate and assign roles through Azure AD Privileged Identity Management.”

Azure built-in roles, on the other hand, are used to control access at the Azure resource level — for subscriptions, resource groups, and individual resources.The role responsible for managing these assignments is the User Access Administrator.This role can grant or revoke access to Azure resources by managing role assignments within Azure RBAC (Role-Based Access Control).The Microsoft documentation states:

“User Access Administrator allows management of user access to Azure resources. It can assign roles in Azure RBAC for resources, subscriptions, and management groups.”

Therefore:

✅ To manage Azure AD built-in role assignments → Privileged role administrator

✅ To manage Azure built-in role assignments → User access administrator

This approach satisfies the delegation requirement mentioned in the scenario by assigning the least-privileged roles necessary for each type of role management task.

In Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD), the per-user device cap is controlled in Devices > Device settings. The SC-300 materials describe that administrators can configure “Users may join devices to Azure AD” and the “Maximum number of devices per user”. The guide notes that this limit defaults to five and is used to “control how many devices a user can join or register in Azure AD”; when users reach the limit, “they cannot add additional devices until the limit is increased or an existing device is removed.” For scenarios like field or sales staff who use multiple devices, the study content recommends adjusting this value to meet business needs. Because A. Datum’s sales users hit the current cap and a requirement states “Increase the maximum number of devices that can be joined or registered to Azure AD to 10,” the fix is to change the tenant’s Device settings—not User settings, Access reviews, or Security defaults. This aligns with the exam objective to configure device settings for Azure AD join and registration and addresses the precise symptom reported by users.

Assigning built-in directory roles (like Device Administrators) to a group requires a role-assignable group. The SC-300 documentation explains: “You can assign Azure AD roles to a cloud security group by creating the group with the setting ‘Azure AD roles can be assigned to the group.’” It further emphasizes: “This attribute is immutable; you must decide at creation time. You cannot convert an existing group to be role-assignable later.” When a standard security group is not created as role-assignable, it will not appear in the picker when attempting to assign a directory role—exactly the behavior observed: “groups that aren’t role-assignable cannot be selected for Azure AD role assignments.” Therefore, the first step is to recreate IT_Group1 as a role-assignable security group (often called an “eligible for role assignment” group) and then assign the Device Administrators role to that group. Changing membership types (Dynamic User or Dynamic Device) or adding owners does not convert an existing group into a role-assignable one and thus would not resolve the issue.

The requirement is:

“Require admin approval for application access to organizational data.”

According to the Microsoft SC-300 exam guide and Microsoft documentation on “Configure consent settings for applications”, Azure AD provides User consent settings under Enterprise applications → Consent and permissions to control how applications can request permissions to access organizational data.

By default, users can consent to allow apps to access organizational data on their behalf, which can create security risks. To ensure tighter control, administrators can:

Disable user consent entirely, or

Require admin consent workflow so that when users try to grant an app access, it must first be approved by an administrator.

The SC-300 study materials explicitly describe:

“To require administrator approval before an app can access organizational data, configure the User consent settings to use the admin consent workflow.”

This aligns perfectly with the stated requirement — to ensure admin approval is required before apps gain access to organizational data.

Other options are incorrect:

Authentication methods manage MFA and SSPR, not app consent.

Access packages are part of Identity Governance for resource access, not app consent.

Application Proxy publishes on-premises apps, not related to app consent permissions.

In Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM), the SC-300 materials explain that role assignment type determines how a user obtains permissions. An eligible assignment means the user requests activation when needed; an active assignment grants continuous permissions. As the guide states, “Eligible assignments require the user to activate the role for just-in-time access, while active assignments grant standing access.” To allow users of the User administrator role to request the role when needed, you must set assignments to Eligible rather than active.

The same objective also calls for ensuring this capability is available “for up to one year.” In PIM role configuration, the duration of an eligibility is controlled by the Expire eligible assignments after policy. The documentation describes that administrators can “configure the maximum duration for eligible assignments by setting ‘Expire eligible assignments after’ to a specific period (for example, months up to one year).” Therefore, you must modify the “Expire eligible assignments after” setting to the required period.

No requirement mentions activation justification or ticket metadata; those are optional controls used to add context to activations. Consequently, the two actions that directly satisfy the stated technical requirement are: set all assignments to Eligible (C) and configure “Expire eligible assignments after” (D).

According to the Microsoft Entra External Identities module within the SC-300 curriculum, control over which external domains can be invited as guest users is managed under External collaboration settings in the Entra admin center.

Administrators can specify “Allow invitations only to the specified domains” and list approved domains. This ensures that guest invitations can only be sent to trusted business partners while blocking all others.

Cross-tenant access settings control authentication and access policies between trusted tenants, not invitation restrictions. Linked subscriptions and identity providers manage billing and authentication federation but do not control guest invitations.

Therefore, to restrict guest invitations to specific external domains, you must configure the External collaboration settings in Microsoft Entra ID.

In this scenario, all access review notifications are going to Megan Bowen, the fallback reviewer, instead of department managers. Creating a separate access review for each role does not meet the requirement because the issue lies in the reviewer selection, not the number of reviews.

Microsoft documentation clarifies:

“To have reviews sent to each user’s manager, the reviewer type must be set to ‘Manager’. The system uses the ‘manager’ attribute from Azure AD user properties.”

Thus, you don’t need separate reviews for each role; you need to configure the reviewer type to Manager or update user account manager attributes. Therefore, the proposed solution (creating separate reviews) does not meet the goal.

According to the Microsoft Identity and Access Administrator (SC-300) Exam Ref and the Azure AD Dynamic Membership Rules documentation, when you create a dynamic group in Azure Active Directory (now Entra ID), you define rules that automatically add or remove users based on their attributes.

The scenario requires a group named LWGroup1 that contains all Azure AD user accounts for Litware but excludes all guest accounts. In Azure AD, internal users created within the tenant are designated with the attribute user.userType = "Member", while external or guest accounts from partner organizations have user.userType = "Guest".

To ensure only internal (Litware) users are included, the membership rule must:

Ensure the user object exists — by checking (user.objectId -ne null) which confirms that the rule only applies to valid user objects.

Include only members, excluding guests — by filtering with (user.userType -eq "Member").

Hence, the dynamic rule that satisfies these conditions is:

(user.objectId -ne null) and (user.userType -eq "Member")

This rule guarantees that LWGroup1 dynamically includes all internal users from litware.com and excludes all external users or guest accounts (such as Fabrikam users).

This logic aligns precisely with the Microsoft Learn module “Manage groups in Azure Active Directory” and SC-300 study guide section “Implement and manage dynamic membership rules”, which states:

“Use user.userType to distinguish between internal members and external guests when configuring membership rules for dynamic groups.”

✅ Correct Answer:

(user.objectId -ne null) and (user.userType -eq "Member")