Microsoft SC-200 - Microsoft Security Operations Analyst

To remediate active attacks automatically once alerts or incidents are detected, Microsoft Sentinel uses playbooks , which are workflows built on Azure Logic Apps . These playbooks can execute remediation actions—such as isolating a machine, blocking an account, or triggering other security control chang es—without manual intervention. Microsoft’s documentation clearly states that “playbooks in Microsoft Sentinel are based on workflows built in Azure Logic Apps” and that they can “automate and orchestrate your threat response by using playbooks … run a pla ybook on-demand or automatically in response to specific alerts or incidents.”

When an analytics rule in Sentinel triggers an alert or incident, you can attach an automation rule which in turn invokes a playbook (i.e. a Logic Apps workflow) to perform the remediation steps. The automation rule defines the trigger conditions and calls the playbook action as part of its response actions.

Let us evaluate other options:

Azure Automation runbooks (Option A) are powerful for scripting in Azure (e.g., PowerShell o r Python) and can perform remediation tasks, but they are not the native mechanism within Sentinel for orchestrated, alert-driven response workflows.

Azure Functions (Option C) are serverless compute for custom code, but you would have to build and integra te orchestration logic manually; they are not the out-of-box SOAR component in Sentinel.

Azure Sentinel livestreams (Option D) is not a recognized remediation automation component—it is irrelevant in this context.

Therefore, the correct solution to remedia te active attacks (triggering automated actions in response to alerts/incidents with minimal manual effort) is to use Azure Logic Apps (via Sentinel playbooks) as the orchestration engine. Logic Apps are the documented foundation of Sentinel’s automation r esponse capabilities.

 Internal threat: Modify the access policy settings for the key vault.

 External threat: Modify the Key Vault firewall s ettings.

For internal threats involving a potential compromise of Fabrikam’s own Azure AD applications, the most direct and least disruptive remediation is to modify the Key Vault access policies (or RBAC assignments, if RBAC for Key Vault data-plane is in use) to immediately remove or reduce the compromised service principal’s permissions (Get/List/Decrypt/Sign/Wrap). Microsoft guidance for Key Vault access emphasizes least privilege and promptly revoking credentials or app permissions when compromise i s suspected. Access policies (or data-plane RBAC) govern which identities can access secrets, keys, and certificates; adjusting these stops further data-plane actions by the compromised app. “Resource locks” protect against deletion or configuration change s at the management plane, but they do not remove a compromised identity’s ability to read or use vault objects, so they are not an appropriate first response for this scenario.

For external threats , Microsoft recommends hardening Key Vault firewall and networking : restrict public network access, allow only required IPs, use virtual network rules, and prefer private endpoints. Key Vault includes a built-in firewall for IP and VNet ACLs; tuning these controls reduces exposure to the public internet and blo cks unauthorized traffic. NSGs apply to IaaS subnets/nics and don’t directly secure the public Key Vault endpoint. Azure Firewall can add perimeter control, but it is not necessary for remediating a specific Key Vault Defender alert; the most effective and immediate remediation is tightening the Key Vault firewall settings to limit external access pathways.