New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Microsoft SC-200 Exam - Topic 11 Question 39 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's SC-200 exam
Question #: 39
Topic #: 11
[All SC-200 Questions]

You have two Azure subscriptions that use Microsoft Defender for Cloud.

You need to ensure that specific Defender for Cloud security alerts are suppressed at the root management group level. The solution must minimize administrative effort.

What should you do in the Azure portal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

You can use alerts suppression rules to suppress false positives or other unwanted security alerts from Defender for Cloud.

Note: To create a rule directly in the Azure portal:

1. From Defender for Cloud's security alerts page:

Select the specific alert you don't want to see anymore, and from the details pane, select Take action.

Or, select the suppression rules link at the top of the page, and from the suppression rules page select Create new suppression rule:

2. In the new suppression rule pane, enter the details of your new rule.

Your rule can dismiss the alert on all resources so you don't get any alerts like this one in the future.

Your rule can dismiss the alert on specific criteria - when it relates to a specific IP address, process name, user account, Azure resource, or location.

3. Enter details of the rule.

4. Save the rule.


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Elza
4 months ago
Not sure if A is the best option, what about B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherell
4 months ago
Wait, can you really suppress alerts at the root level? Sounds tricky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
4 months ago
I thought modifying alert settings would work too, but A seems better.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nida
4 months ago
Totally agree, A makes the most sense here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beula
5 months ago
A is the way to go for policy assignments!
upvoted 0 times
...
Jarvis
5 months ago
I believe modifying the Workload protections settings could be relevant, but it doesn't sound like the most efficient way to handle alerts at the root management group level.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tula
5 months ago
Creating an alert rule in Azure Monitor seems like it could work, but I feel like it might not minimize administrative effort as much as the other options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alverta
5 months ago
I remember practicing a similar question where we had to manage alerts, but I can't recall if modifying the alert settings in Defender for Cloud was the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenny
5 months ago
I think we might need to create an Azure Policy assignment to suppress those alerts, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephanie
5 months ago
The reflector host and victim port don't seem directly relevant to the core traceback process. I'll focus on the IP source and connection chain for this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tricia
5 months ago
Okay, the key seems to be that the company is targeting EU customers, even though it's based in Hong Kong. I think that's the main reason they need to comply with GDPR.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dahlia
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused on the difference between part properties and constraint properties in SysML. I'll need to review that before I can confidently answer this question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elinore
5 months ago
From what I've studied, PendingDeletion makes sense for a 409 response. But I'm hesitant about the Disabled state. It feels like there could be more to it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesusa
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got this. I just need to apply the 25% reducing balance rate to the original cost over the 2 years of ownership, then compare the sale proceeds to the final tax written down value. Should be able to figure out the balancing adjustment from there.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel