Pass Your Microsoft AZ-140 Exam Easy!

Microsoft AZ-140 Exam Questions & Answers, Accurate & Verified By IT Experts

Instant Download, Free Fast Updates, 99.6% Pass Rate

AZ-140 Premium Bundle

$79.99

Microsoft AZ-140 Premium Bundle

AZ-140 Premium File: 372 Questions & Answers

Last Update: Oct 02, 2026

AZ-140 Training Course: 79 Video Lectures

AZ-140 PDF Study Guide: 430 Pages

AZ-140 Bundle gives you unlimited access to "AZ-140" files. However, this does not replace the need for a .vce exam simulator. To download VCE exam simulator click here
Microsoft AZ-140 Premium Bundle
Microsoft AZ-140 Premium Bundle

AZ-140 Premium File: 372 Questions & Answers

Last Update: Oct 02, 2026

AZ-140 Training Course: 79 Video Lectures

AZ-140 PDF Study Guide: 430 Pages

$79.99

AZ-140 Bundle gives you unlimited access to "AZ-140" files. However, this does not replace the need for a .vce exam simulator. To download your .vce exam simulator click here

Microsoft AZ-140 Practice Test 32

Question 310

After implementing Azure Monitor patch-failure alert, reviewers must ensure the environment can notify the fleet team after a scheduled maintenance ring fails to install a required security update. Which evidence is most relevant?

  1. Monitoring records an update-failure condition with the affected session-host identities
  2. Compliance inventory shows affected session-host IDs and missing updates
  3. New version reports the intended OS build and passes regression validation
  4. Rollback deployment can select the retained previous version and pass sign-in checks

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This is the direct functional outcome for Azure Monitor patch-failure alert: monitoring records an update-failure condition with the affected session-host identities. Patch results must be observable and actionable. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That evidence concerns Guest patch compliance report, used to identify hosts that missed a scheduled Windows cumulative update without incorrectly treating all hosts as current. It does not establish whether Azure Monitor patch-failure alert satisfies the current requirement to notify the fleet team after a scheduled maintenance ring fails to install a required security update.

C:

That evidence concerns Image refresh after security cumulative update, used to create a new approved gallery version containing current Windows security updates. It does not establish whether Azure Monitor patch-failure alert satisfies the current requirement to notify the fleet team after a scheduled maintenance ring fails to install a required security update.

D:

That evidence concerns Image recovery gallery version retention, used to retain the last known good image version in protected storage for rollback if the newest build fails. It does not establish whether Azure Monitor patch-failure alert satisfies the current requirement to notify the fleet team after a scheduled maintenance ring fails to install a required security update.

Question 311

A platform engineering group is evaluating the best supported way to avoid repeated user consent prompts in a managed enterprise desktop connection flow. Which option addresses that need?

  1. Hostpool enablerdsaadauth setting
  2. Supported Windows App client version for SSO
  3. Entra SSO consent-prompt suppression
  4. SSO sign-in logs for AVD and Cloud Login

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Consent prompt configuration is a distinct SSO deployment step. This addresses the stated need to avoid repeated user consent prompts in a managed enterprise desktop connection flow without substituting a different control.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This RDP property turns on supported Entra authentication. This is relevant when the task is to enable the RDP property needed for Entra-based single sign-on on eligible session hosts; it does not directly meet the requirement to avoid repeated user consent prompts in a managed enterprise desktop connection flow.

B:

Client support is a prerequisite for new token-based SSO. This is relevant when the task is to restore single sign-on when a legacy client lacks a supported Entra remote authentication feature; it does not directly meet the requirement to avoid repeated user consent prompts in a managed enterprise desktop connection flow.

D:

Separate app logs reveal broker versus session authentication failures. This is relevant when the task is to determine which of the two Entra authentication stages rejected a connection; it does not directly meet the requirement to avoid repeated user consent prompts in a managed enterprise desktop connection flow.

Question 312

An enterprise remote desktop change ticket requires the team to support session hosts and users from two approved AD domains where cross-domain Kerberos needs a trust. What should the change include?

  1. Domain controller reachability for AD hosts
  2. Domain service trust decision
  3. Active Directory DNS SRV record resolution
  4. Microsoft Entra hybrid joined hosts

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Cross-domain authentication needs an appropriate trust relationship. This addresses the stated need to support session hosts and users from two approved AD domains where cross-domain Kerberos needs a trust without substituting a different control.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Domain connectivity is required for traditional AD-backed sign-in. This is relevant when the task is to prevent Windows login failures when domain-joined session hosts cannot reach a required private controller; it does not directly meet the requirement to support session hosts and users from two approved AD domains where cross-domain Kerberos needs a trust.

C:

Domain joins depend on AD DNS discovery. This is relevant when the task is to find the root cause of Windows domain join failures after an incorrect VM DNS configuration; it does not directly meet the requirement to support session hosts and users from two approved AD domains where cross-domain Kerberos needs a trust.

D:

Hybrid join preserves both device identities. This is relevant when the task is to retain local AD DS join while registering devices in Microsoft Entra for hybrid policies; it does not directly meet the requirement to support session hosts and users from two approved AD domains where cross-domain Kerberos needs a trust.

Question 313

A remote desktop change record says Microsoft Defender Antivirus real-time protection now enables the team to prevent known malware from executing on session-host Windows guest VMs during user sessions. Which result verifies this?

  1. Collection shows authenticated test host logon and policy events in the destination
  2. Vulnerability findings list affected image/host software and severity
  3. Protection state is enabled and a safe antivirus test is blocked or detected
  4. Effective exclusion list matches only specifically documented approved paths and processes

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This is the direct functional outcome for Microsoft Defender Antivirus real-time protection: protection state is enabled and a safe antivirus test is blocked or detected. Real-time Antivirus scans active file and process access. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns Windows security audit log collection, used to forward guest OS audit events to the organization's security monitoring platform. It does not establish whether Microsoft Defender Antivirus real-time protection satisfies the current requirement to prevent known malware from executing on session-host Windows guest VMs during user sessions.

B:

That evidence concerns Defender for Cloud vulnerability recommendation, used to locate session hosts with critically exposed software packages before a patching wave. It does not establish whether Microsoft Defender Antivirus real-time protection satisfies the current requirement to prevent known malware from executing on session-host Windows guest VMs during user sessions.

D:

That evidence concerns Defender exclusion change review, used to prevent an unjustified broad antivirus exclusion from weakening FSLogix and host protection. It does not establish whether Microsoft Defender Antivirus real-time protection satisfies the current requirement to prevent known malware from executing on session-host Windows guest VMs during user sessions.

Question 314

The runbook says Least-privilege admin subnet isolation was enabled to prevent regular end-user sessions from initiating management connections to desktop control servers. Which reported behavior proves that step worked?

  1. Approved hosts resolve and use private file endpoint while public requests fail
  2. Tested user subnet flows are denied and approved admin subnet flows are permitted
  3. Effective routes point to the inspection next hop for targeted prefixes
  4. Firewall logs show allowed service FQDN traffic and denied unapproved destinations

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct functional outcome for Least-privilege admin subnet isolation: tested user subnet flows are denied and approved admin subnet flows are permitted. Segmentation limits lateral movement between user and management networks. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns Private endpoint for sensitive profile storage, used to keep SMB traffic within private address space while leaving public storage access disabled. It does not establish whether Least-privilege admin subnet isolation satisfies the current requirement to prevent regular end-user sessions from initiating management connections to desktop control servers.

C:

That evidence concerns User-defined route to inspection firewall, used to steer sensitive session-host subnet egress through a mandated central firewall rather than direct internet routing. It does not establish whether Least-privilege admin subnet isolation satisfies the current requirement to prevent regular end-user sessions from initiating management connections to desktop control servers.

D:

That evidence concerns Azure Firewall outbound allow rule, used to let AVD session hosts reach required service endpoints through a controlled egress firewall policy. It does not establish whether Least-privilege admin subnet isolation satisfies the current requirement to prevent regular end-user sessions from initiating management connections to desktop control servers.

Question 315

Following approval of Host registration token lifecycle to register newly provisioned session hosts to the intended AVD host pool using a time-scoped registration token, which finding is the most relevant functional validation?

  1. Boot loader components initialize successfully and agent health reports expected status
  2. Extension status reports successful domain join and the computer object exists in the target OU
  3. VM power state is healthy AND AVD host registration/health are valid
  4. New hosts appear registered to the correct pool and the token is valid only for its approved period

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This is the direct functional outcome for Host registration token lifecycle: new hosts appear registered to the correct pool and the token is valid only for its approved period. Registration tokens authorize AVD agent association with a pool. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns AVD Agent Boot Loader installation, used to ensure the session host can initialize and maintain the AVD agent during guest startup. It does not establish whether Host registration token lifecycle satisfies the current requirement to register newly provisioned session hosts to the intended AVD host pool using a time-scoped registration token.

B:

That evidence concerns Azure VM extension deployment for directory join, used to automate a Windows VM's supported domain join as part of its infrastructure deployment. It does not establish whether Host registration token lifecycle satisfies the current requirement to register newly provisioned session hosts to the intended AVD host pool using a time-scoped registration token.

C:

That evidence concerns Session-host VM resource health verification, used to distinguish a running but unregistered guest from a complete usable AVD session host. It does not establish whether Host registration token lifecycle satisfies the current requirement to register newly provisioned session hosts to the intended AVD host pool using a time-scoped registration token.

Question 316

An Azure Virtual Desktop deployment is being redesigned to pack new sessions onto already busy hosts up to an approved session limit to keep other VMs idle. Which approach should be prioritized?

  1. Depth-first pooled load balancing
  2. Personal host direct assignment
  3. Pooled host pool for shared multi-session desktops
  4. Breadth-first pooled load balancing

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Depth-first increases density to enable cost-efficient shutdown. This addresses the stated need to pack new sessions onto already busy hosts up to an approved session limit to keep other VMs idle without substituting a different control.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Direct assignment is administrator-managed mapping to a personal desktop. This is relevant when the task is to map a designated desktop VM to one named staff member instead of using an automatic allocation; it does not directly meet the requirement to pack new sessions onto already busy hosts up to an approved session limit to keep other VMs idle.

C:

Pooled pools share hosting capacity across users. This is relevant when the task is to let many employees consume pooled Windows sessions from a shared collection of session hosts; it does not directly meet the requirement to pack new sessions onto already busy hosts up to an approved session limit to keep other VMs idle.

D:

Breadth-first balances session placement among hosts. This is relevant when the task is to spread incoming sessions across the least-loaded eligible hosts to favor capacity distribution; it does not directly meet the requirement to pack new sessions onto already busy hosts up to an approved session limit to keep other VMs idle.

Question 317

A support analyst validates User group-scoped Conditional Access assignment following the change to apply a new authentication rule only to a pilot group of AVD workers. Which measured result is expected?

  1. Emergency access identity remains capable of an independently audited recovery sign-in
  2. Pilot sign-ins are evaluated under the rule while excluded groups are unaffected
  3. Report-only sign-in results list what the policy would have done without enforcing the deny
  4. Cloud Login app sign-in logs show the intended session-host policy was evaluated

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct functional outcome for User group-scoped Conditional Access assignment: pilot sign-ins are evaluated under the rule while excluded groups are unaffected. User assignment determines policy population. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns Conditional Access exclusion for emergency access accounts, used to preserve a documented break-glass path when a broad Conditional Access policy breaks routine access. It does not establish whether User group-scoped Conditional Access assignment satisfies the current requirement to apply a new authentication rule only to a pilot group of AVD workers.

C:

That evidence concerns CA report-only deployment phase, used to measure the effect of a proposed user access rule without first blocking production employees. It does not establish whether User group-scoped Conditional Access assignment satisfies the current requirement to apply a new authentication rule only to a pilot group of AVD workers.

D:

That evidence concerns Windows Cloud Login Conditional Access rule, used to govern the Windows session-host SSO authentication stage rather than just the initial resource feed. It does not establish whether User group-scoped Conditional Access assignment satisfies the current requirement to apply a new authentication rule only to a pilot group of AVD workers.

Question 318

A peer reviewer inspects FSLogix VHDX lock examination after it was introduced to resolve a conflict when a stale session or open handle prevents a user's profile disk from mounting on a second host. Which result should be documented?

  1. The stale handle is released and a controlled re-login mounts the intended disk
  2. An assigned user sees and launches the app while a nonentitled peer cannot see it
  3. ACL review shows least-privilege per-user folders and cross-user access fails
  4. Recovered disk attaches and the user's documented settings are restored

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This is the direct functional outcome for FSLogix VHDX lock examination: the stale handle is released and a controlled re-login mounts the intended disk. Container attachment requires an available disk handle. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That evidence concerns FSLogix Rule Editor application masking, used to show a licensed application only to entitled users on the same pooled Windows image. It does not establish whether FSLogix VHDX lock examination satisfies the current requirement to resolve a conflict when a stale session or open handle prevents a user's profile disk from mounting on a second host.

C:

That evidence concerns FSLogix profile folder ACL audit, used to discover a share where users can read other employees' VHDX containers due to overly broad NTFS permissions. It does not establish whether FSLogix VHDX lock examination satisfies the current requirement to resolve a conflict when a stale session or open handle prevents a user's profile disk from mounting on a second host.

D:

That evidence concerns Profile container corruption recovery choice, used to replace a confirmed damaged VHDX using a valid recovery point rather than delete a user's only profile copy. It does not establish whether FSLogix VHDX lock examination satisfies the current requirement to resolve a conflict when a stale session or open handle prevents a user's profile disk from mounting on a second host.

Question 319

A peer reviewer inspects Azure CLI desktopvirtualization extension after it was introduced to set a pooled host pool's load-balancing properties from a shell automation job. Which result should be documented?

  1. The created host pool shows the selected name, type and load-balancing properties
  2. An Azure CLI readback reports the requested algorithm and session limit
  3. Bicep build and deployment generate the approved ARM resource graph
  4. Activity Log shows the failed operation and its authorization or policy result

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct functional outcome for Azure CLI desktopvirtualization extension: an Azure CLI readback reports the requested algorithm and session limit. Azure CLI can modify desktop virtualization resources. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns Azure portal host pool wizard, used to deploy a straightforward pooled host pool with initial settings through the graphical Azure management interface. It does not establish whether Azure CLI desktopvirtualization extension satisfies the current requirement to set a pooled host pool's load-balancing properties from a shell automation job.

C:

That evidence concerns Bicep module deployment, used to manage reusable AVD host pool resource definitions with typed declarative modules. It does not establish whether Azure CLI desktopvirtualization extension satisfies the current requirement to set a pooled host pool's load-balancing properties from a shell automation job.

D:

That evidence concerns Azure deployment activity log inspection, used to determine which principal or policy rejected a resource deployment during an approved change window. It does not establish whether Azure CLI desktopvirtualization extension satisfies the current requirement to set a pooled host pool's load-balancing properties from a shell automation job.

Question 320

A support analyst validates Session-host memory pressure investigation following the change to distinguish a login slowdown caused by guest paging from one caused by the profile SMB share. Which measured result is expected?

  1. Azure Monitor alert fires after the defined sustained CPU breach is measured
  2. Memory and paging counters spike while external SMB latency stays normal
  3. Workbook visualizes the expected connection latency trends for selected users and hosts
  4. Insights configuration checks identify hosts not sending required telemetry to the workspace

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct functional outcome for Session-host memory pressure investigation: memory and paging counters spike while external SMB latency stays normal. Guest memory metrics help isolate VM resource exhaustion. The observed behavior supports the specified acceptance requirement.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That evidence concerns Session-host CPU utilization alert, used to notify desktop support when a pooled VM stays CPU-saturated during an assigned work shift. It does not establish whether Session-host memory pressure investigation satisfies the current requirement to distinguish a login slowdown caused by guest paging from one caused by the profile SMB share.

C:

That evidence concerns AVD Insights connection performance view, used to compare network RTT and session reliability across desktop host pools and regions. It does not establish whether Session-host memory pressure investigation satisfies the current requirement to distinguish a login slowdown caused by guest paging from one caused by the profile SMB share.

D:

That evidence concerns AVD Insights data health checks, used to diagnose a blank workbook caused by missing agent data rather than nonexistent user sessions. It does not establish whether Session-host memory pressure investigation satisfies the current requirement to distinguish a login slowdown caused by guest paging from one caused by the profile SMB share.


Configuring and Operating Microsoft Azure Virtual Desktop (AZ-140) Practice Tests

Purchase Individually

AZ-140 Premium File

Premium File
AZ-140 Premium File
372 Q&A
$76.99$69.99

AZ-140 Training Video Course

Training Course
AZ-140 Training Video Course
79 Lectures
$27.49$24.99

AZ-140 Study Guide

Study Guide
AZ-140 Study Guide
430 PDF Pages
$27.49$24.99

Site Search:

 

VISA, MasterCard, AmericanExpress, UnionPay

SPECIAL OFFER: GET 10% OFF

ExamCollection Premium

ExamCollection Premium Files

Pass your Exam with ExamCollection's PREMIUM files!

  • ExamCollection Certified Safe Files
  • Guaranteed to have ACTUAL Exam Questions
  • Up-to-Date Exam Study Material - Verified by Experts
  • Instant Downloads
Enter Your Email Address to Receive Your 10% Off Discount Code
A Confirmation Link will be sent to this email address to verify your login
We value your privacy. We will not rent or sell your email address

SPECIAL OFFER: GET 10% OFF

Use Discount Code:

MIN10OFF

A confirmation link was sent to your e-mail.
Please check your mailbox for a message from support@examcollection.com and follow the directions.

Next

Download Free Demo of VCE Exam Simulator

Experience Avanset VCE Exam Simulator for yourself.

Simply submit your e-mail address below to get started with our interactive software demo of your free trial.

Free Demo Limits: In the demo version you will be able to access only first 5 questions from exam.