B.   

No

Explanation:
This question tests troubleshooting WAF-related HTTP 403 Forbidden errors. The JSON log snippet shows a triggered WAF rule (rule ID 920300). The solution proposes an exclusion based on a specific IP in the request headers, which is a misdiagnosis of the actual cause shown in the log.

Correct Option:

B. No.
The solution does not meet the goal. The WAF log indicates rule 920300 was triggered, which is part of the OWASP Core Rule Set (CRS) and typically blocks requests due to missing a User-Agent or Host header, or because the request contains an IP address in the Host header field. The log's details field ("Missing/Empty Host Header") explicitly states the cause. An exclusion for an IP address in a request header would not resolve this specific rule violation.

Incorrect Option:

A. Yes.
This is incorrect. Creating an exclusion for the IP address 137.135.10.24 is not the appropriate fix. The error is caused by the Host header being missing or containing an IP address instead of a hostname. The correct fix would be to ensure the client request includes a valid Host header with the application gateway's domain name, or to create a WAF exclusion for the Host header for the specific rule ID 920300 if using an IP in the Host header is a legitimate requirement.

Reference:
Microsoft Learn - Web Application Firewall (WAF) exclusion lists. The documentation explains that exclusions must be targeted at the correct part of the request (e.g., request header name) and matched to the specific rule ID. Rule 920300 is documented as "Request Missing/Empty Host Header."

B.   

From each virtual machine, associate the network interface to ASG1

Explanation:
This question tests the implementation of Application Security Groups (ASGs). ASGs are logical groupings of virtual machine NICs that allow NSG rules to target applications rather than specific IPs. For an NSG rule targeting an ASG to be effective, the NICs of the relevant VMs must be associated with that ASG.

Correct Option:

B. From each virtual machine, associate the network interface to ASG1.
This is the direct and necessary action. ASGs function by being attached to the network interfaces (NICs) of virtual machines. Since Rule2 in NSG1 is already configured to allow SFTP traffic to ASG1, traffic will only be permitted to VMs whose NICs are members of ASG1. This approach centralizes management; updating the ASG membership automatically applies the NSG rule without modifying the rule itself.

Incorrect Option:

A. From NSG1, modify the priority of Rule2.
Changing the rule's priority affects its evaluation order relative to other rules but does nothing to link the VMs to the ASG. The rule already targets ASG1, but if no VM NICs are associated with it, the rule has no effect.

C. From Subnet1, create a subnet delegation.
Subnet delegation is used to grant specific Azure services (like Azure NetApp Files or Azure Dedicated HSM) permission to create service-specific resources in the subnet. It has no relation to NSG rules or ASG membership.

D. From ASG1, modify the role assignments.
Role assignments in Azure control access management (RBAC) for creating, modifying, or deleting the ASG resource itself. They do not control which NICs are members of the ASG or how traffic is filtered.

Reference:
Microsoft Learn - Application security groups. The documentation states: "You can define your application's structure by grouping VMs and defining network security policies based on those groups. You can reuse your security policy at scale without manual maintenance of explicit IP addresses... An application security group is associated with a network interface."

Statement 1: Internet traffic from NVA1 is routed to the on-premises network.
Analysis: Internet traffic matches the 0.0.0.0/0 route. This route is learned from on-premises via ExpressRoute. In Azure, ExpressRoute routes have a lower Administrative Distance (AD = 20) than the default Azure Internet service route (AD = 100 for "Internet" in system routes). Therefore, the more specific AD 20 route via ExpressRoute will be preferred over the native Azure Internet egress.

Correct Option:
Yes. Because the on-premises router advertises 0.0.0.0/0, this becomes the active default route for all subnets in VNet1 via ExpressRoute (due to its lower AD). Any traffic destined for the public internet from NVA1 will be routed to the on-premises network.

Statement 2: Traffic from VM1 is routed to the on-premises network through NVA1.
Analysis: First, check routing from VM1's subnet (192.168.1.0/24). According to RT1, traffic destined for 192.168.1.0/24 has a next hop of Virtual Appliance (NVA1). However, traffic to the on-premises network (10.0.0.0/16) or the internet (0.0.0.0/0) does NOT match the 192.168.1.0/24 prefix. These routes are learned via ExpressRoute (BGP) and will appear in the effective route table for VM1's NIC as "BGP" next hop type, pointing directly to the ExpressRoute gateway, not to NVA1. The custom route in RT1 only applies to traffic destined for its own subnet, forcing it through the NVA for inspection (hairpin), not for on-premises traffic.

Correct Option:
No. Traffic from VM1 to the on-premises network (10.0.0.0/16) uses the BGP route learned via ExpressRoute, which has a next hop of the VPN/ExpressRoute gateway, not NVA1. The custom route in the table only affects traffic destined for the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet itself.

Statement 3: Traffic from VM1 is routed to VM2 through NVA1.
Analysis: VM1 is in subnet 192.168.1.0/24. VM2 is in subnet 192.168.2.0/24. According to route table RT1, traffic destined for 192.168.2.0/24 has a next hop of Virtual Appliance (NVA1 at 192.168.0.4). Therefore, traffic from VM1 to VM2 will be forced through NVA1.

Correct Option:
Yes. The user-defined route (UDR) for the 192.168.2.0/24 prefix overrides the system route that would normally allow direct VNet communication. It directs that traffic to the NVA, creating a "forced tunneling" or inspection scenario for east-west traffic.

A.   

Modify the conditions of Rule1.

Explanation:
This question tests the configuration of WAF custom rate limit rules in Azure Front Door. A single rate limit rule can include multiple matching conditions to identify traffic from different sources. The goal is to apply the same limit to traffic originating from three distinct public IPs (one per office), not to create separate rules.

Correct Option:

A. Modify the conditions of Rule1.
This is the correct and most efficient approach. A WAF custom rule's match conditions can include a logical OR group. You can edit Rule1's match condition to include all three public IP addresses (from Montreal, Seattle, and Paris) in a single list. The rate limit of 100 requests will then be applied collectively to traffic matching any of those IPs.

Incorrect Option:

B. Create two additional associations.
Associations link a WAF policy to a Front Door endpoint or domain. The policy (Policy1) is already associated with FD1. Creating more associations would not change which source IPs the rule evaluates; it would just reapply the same policy to the same resources.

C. Modify the rule type of Rule1.
The rule type is correctly set as a "Rate limiting rule." Changing it to a different type (like "Match rule") would remove the rate-limiting functionality entirely, breaking the requirement.

D. Modify the rate limit threshold of Rule1.
Changing the threshold (e.g., from 100 to 300) would adjust the limit's value but would not expand the scope of the rule to include the IP addresses from the Seattle and Paris offices. The rule would still only apply to the Montreal IP.

Reference:
Microsoft Learn - Rate limiting rule with Azure Web Application Firewall on Azure Front Door. The documentation shows that a single rate limit rule's match condition can specify multiple IP addresses, which are evaluated with an OR logic.

Explanation:
This question tests the configuration of mutual TLS (mTLS) authentication on an Azure Application Gateway. The process requires the gateway to present its own TLS certificate to clients and also to validate client certificates against a trusted root. The steps involve uploading the trusted root certificate, configuring SSL settings, linking them to listeners, and finally, creating the client authentication policy rule.

Correct Option:

Based on standard mTLS configuration flow for Application Gateway v2 (WAF_v2 SKU), the correct sequence is:
From AppGw1, upload the root certificate to AppGw1. The gateway must trust the CA that issued the client certificates (contoso.com's internal CA). This is done by uploading the CA's root or intermediate certificate to the gateway's Trusted Root Certificate store.

From AppGw1, create an SSL profile. An SSL profile is a v2 SKU resource that holds TLS/SSL configuration, including the reference to the uploaded trusted root certificate for client authentication.

From AppGw1, add the HTTP listener and associate the listener to the SSL profile. You create a new (or modify the existing) HTTP listener. To enable mTLS, you associate the SSL profile (configured in step 2) with this listener.

From AppGw1, create a mutual authentication rule. Finally, you create a mutual authentication rule (also known as an SSL policy rule for client authentication) that enforces the requirement for a client certificate and references the trusted root certificate. This rule is then associated with the listener.

Incorrect/Out-of-Sequence Actions:
From AppGw1, create a routing rule. This is typically done before or independently of configuring mTLS. A routing rule links a listener to a backend pool. While necessary for overall functionality, it is not a core sequential step specific to enabling mutual authentication.

From the on-premises CA, export the client certificate to AppGw1. The gateway does not need the client certificates themselves; it needs the root CA certificate to validate them. Exporting individual client certificates is incorrect and non-scalable.

Reference:
Microsoft Learn - Configure mutual authentication with Application Gateway v2. The documented process outlines: 1) Upload trusted client CA certificates, 2) Configure SSL profile, 3) Configure listener with the SSL profile, 4) Configure mutual authentication policy.

A.   

Create a private endpoint for webapp1.

D.   

Create a CNAME record that maps wwwprivatemntoso.com to webapp1.contoso.onmicrosoft.com.

Explanation:
This question tests integrating an App Service with a private network using Private Endpoint and Private DNS. The goal is to make the web app accessible from VMs in a locked-down VNet via a custom private domain (www.private.contoso.com). This requires a private endpoint for network connectivity and a DNS record to resolve the custom name to the private endpoint's address.

Correct Option:

A. Create a private endpoint for webapp1.
This is the core networking requirement. A private endpoint creates a private IP address for the App Service within Vnet1. This allows the VMs, which cannot communicate outside the VNet, to reach the App Service via this internal IP, as all traffic stays within the Microsoft backbone.

C. Create a CNAME record that maps www.private.contoso.com to webapp1.privatelink.azurewebsites.net.
This is the correct DNS configuration. After creating the private endpoint, Azure automatically creates an A record in the linked private.contoso.com zone pointing to the private IP. However, to use the friendly name www.private.contoso.com, you must create a CNAME record that aliases it to the Azure-managed privatelink FQDN (webapp1.privatelink.azurewebsites.net), which will then resolve via the linked zone's A record.

Incorrect Option:

B. Create a service endpoint for webapp1.
Service Endpoints extend VNet identity to Azure services over the Microsoft backbone but do not provide private IP addresses. The VMs "cannot communicate outside the virtual network," which means they likely have no outbound internet access, making Service Endpoints ineffective for this connectivity requirement.

D. Create a CNAME record that maps www.private.contoso.com to webapp1.contoso.onmicrosoft.com.
This is incorrect. The contoso.onmicrosoft.com domain is an Azure AD tenant domain, not related to the App Service's public or private DNS. It would not resolve to the private endpoint's IP address.

E. Register an enterprise application in Azure AD for webapp1.
This is related to app identity and authentication (like OAuth), not to private network connectivity or DNS resolution for accessing the app's endpoint.

F. Create a CNAME record that maps www.private.contoso.com to webapp1.private.contoso.com.
This would create a DNS loop, as www.private.contoso.com and webapp1.private.contoso.com are both within the same zone. The correct target is the privatelink subdomain.

Reference:
Microsoft Learn - Use private endpoints for Azure App Service. The documentation details that creating a private endpoint automatically integrates with Azure Private DNS zones and that you can configure custom DNS for the private endpoint FQDN.

B.   

rewrites

B.   

a listener and a routing rule

A.   

Create a health probe.

A.   

internal load balancers