Microsoft AZ-204 Developing Solutions for Microsoft Azure Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 2 Q16-30

Visit here for our full Microsoft AZ-204 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 16:

You are designing an Azure Function App that will process customer orders submitted from multiple regions. The system must ensure that orders are not lost if the function fails temporarily and must scale automatically during peak load periods. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Process orders directly in the function without any intermediary storage.
B) Use Azure Storage Queues to buffer orders and configure retry policies in the function.
C) Store orders in a temporary file on the function host and process manually.
D) Use a timer-triggered function to periodically retrieve orders from the source.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Designing scalable, reliable, and fault-tolerant cloud systems is a central requirement in AZ-204. Option B, using Azure Storage Queues to buffer orders and configuring retry policies in the function, is the correct choice. Queues decouple the producers of messages (customer order submissions) from the consumers (function processing), which allows the system to absorb bursts of traffic without losing data. Retry policies in the function ensure that transient failures, such as temporary connectivity issues or downstream service outages, do not result in lost orders. This pattern supports elasticity, enabling the system to scale automatically in response to increased message load.

Option A, processing orders directly in the function without intermediary storage, introduces significant risks. If the function experiences a failure, orders may be lost entirely. Direct processing does not allow for decoupling or scalability during peak periods, violating cloud best practices for fault-tolerant design. While simpler to implement initially, this approach cannot meet enterprise-grade reliability requirements.

Option C, storing orders temporarily in a file on the function host, is operationally complex and insecure. Local storage is ephemeral, meaning that any function restart, crash, or scale-out event can result in data loss. Manual intervention is required to ensure processing, increasing operational overhead and risk. This approach does not scale effectively in high-volume environments and is prone to errors.

Option D, using a timer-triggered function to periodically retrieve orders from the source, introduces latency and inefficiency. While the function may eventually process all orders, it is not event-driven and cannot respond immediately to order submissions. Scaling dynamically in response to bursts of traffic is also difficult because the processing frequency is fixed.

Using Azure Storage Queues with retry policies (Option B) is the industry-standard approach for reliable, scalable, and fault-tolerant processing of high-volume messages. It ensures decoupling, supports automatic retries, improves operational monitoring, and aligns fully with the principles emphasised in AZ-204.

Question 17:

You are developing a REST API hosted in Azure App Service that must restrict access to only users from a specific organisation while providing detailed auditing of API usage. Which solution should you implement?

A) Use shared API keys embedded in client applications.
B) Configure Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) authentication with role-based access control (RBAC).
C) Store user credentials in appsettings.json and validate them manually in the API.
D) Allow anonymous access and implement custom authorisation logic in code.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Securing APIs with enterprise-grade authentication and authorisation is a key skill in AZ-204. Option B, implementing Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) authentication with role-based access control (RBAC), is the correct approach. Azure AD provides centralised identity management and allows the API to authenticate only users from the specified organisation. RBAC enables fine-grained access control, ensuring that users can only access the resources for which they have permissions. Additionally, Azure AD supports auditing and logging, providing detailed visibility into API usage for compliance and monitoring purposes.

Option A, using shared API keys embedded in client applications, is insecure and difficult to manage. API keys are prone to exposure, especially if embedded in client-side code. They do not provide user-specific auditing or fine-grained access control and cannot enforce organisational restrictions effectively.

Option C, storing credentials in appsettings.json and manually validating them in code, is also insecure. Configuration files can be exposed in source control, and manual credential management increases the risk of errors and data breaches. It also complicates auditing and is not scalable for enterprise applications.

Option D, allowing anonymous access and implementing custom authorisation logic, is unreliable and error-prone. Application-level logic for access control is difficult to maintain, test, and audit. It does not provide centralised identity management or integrate with enterprise authentication systems.

Using Azure AD with RBAC (Option B) provides secure, centralised authentication, fine-grained authorisation, and enterprise-grade auditing, fully meeting the requirements for restricting access and tracking usage in the API. This aligns with AZ-204 objectives for implementing secure cloud solutions.

Question 18:

You are implementing an Azure Function App that processes telemetry data from IoT devices. The application must handle large volumes of incoming data, ensure no messages are lost during temporary failures, and scale automatically based on load. Which architecture should you implement?

A) Direct ingestion into the function without buffering.
B) Use Azure Event Hubs as a buffer and implement retry policies in the function.
C) Poll IoT devices periodically using a timer-triggered function.
D) Store telemetry data in local temporary files and process manually.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Handling high-volume IoT telemetry data requires careful consideration of reliability, scalability, and fault tolerance. Option B, using Azure Event Hubs as a buffer with retry policies, is the optimal solution. Event Hubs provides a highly scalable and durable ingestion platform capable of handling millions of events per second. By decoupling ingestion from processing, Event Hubs allows the function to process data at its own pace without risk of message loss. Retry policies in the function ensure that transient failures, such as downstream system outages, do not result in lost messages. This architecture supports automatic scaling, allowing the function to process bursts of telemetry data efficiently.

Option A, direct ingestion into the function without buffering, is fragile. If the function experiences a temporary failure, incoming telemetry messages may be lost. This design does not allow for elasticity or decoupling, and the system cannot respond efficiently to bursts of high-volume data.

Option C, polling IoT devices periodically, introduces latency and is inefficient for real-time data processing. Polling cannot handle bursts effectively, risks missing events, and increases operational complexity due to repeated device connections.

Option D, storing telemetry data in local temporary files, is operationally complex and non-scalable. Local storage is ephemeral, prone to data loss during function restarts or crashes, and requires manual intervention to ensure processing. It is not suitable for high-throughput IoT environments.

Using Event Hubs with retry policies (Option B) ensures durable, scalable, and reliable processing of IoT telemetry, aligning with best practices for event-driven architectures emphasised in AZ-204.

Question 19:

You are designing a Logic App workflow to process customer feedback submitted via multiple channels, including email, web forms, and social media. The workflow must scale automatically and guarantee that feedback is not lost if downstream services fail. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Process feedback synchronously in the Logic App with no persistence.
B) Use asynchronous queues for each channel with retry policies.
C) Store feedback in local temporary files for manual processing.
D) Trigger the Logic App manually whenever feedback is submitted.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

When integrating multiple sources of customer feedback, decoupling ingestion from processing is critical for scalability, reliability, and fault tolerance. Option B, using asynchronous queues with retry policies, is the correct solution. By placing feedback from each channel into a dedicated queue, messages are persisted until successfully processed. Retry policies ensure automatic reprocessing of failed messages, eliminating the risk of data loss during temporary downstream failures. This approach allows the workflow to scale dynamically, processing feedback efficiently even under high volume, and supports operational monitoring, alerting, and auditing.

Option A, synchronous processing with no persistence, is highly unreliable. If downstream services fail, messages are lost, and feedback may never be processed. Synchronous workflows tightly couple the Logic App to downstream availability, increasing the risk of delays or failures during high load periods.

Option C, storing feedback in local files for manual processing, introduces operational overhead and risk. Manual intervention is required, reducing efficiency and increasing the possibility of human error. Local storage also does not provide automated retries or scaling, making it unsuitable for enterprise-grade feedback processing.

Option D, manual triggering of the Logic App, is impractical for real-time or high-volume scenarios. Manual processes increase latency, operational costs, and risk of missed feedback messages.

Using asynchronous queues with retry policies (Option B) ensures reliable, scalable, and fault-tolerant processing of customer feedback, aligning with best practices and the integration patterns emphasised in AZ-204 for event-driven, high-availability workflows.

Question 20:

You are developing a multi-tenant Azure Function App that processes uploaded files from multiple customers. Each customer’s data must remain isolated to prevent accidental access by other tenants. How should you design the solution?

A) Use a single Function App and implement custom logic to segregate customer data.
B) Deploy separate Function Apps per customer with independent storage and configuration.
C) Store all customer files in a shared container and rely on naming conventions for segregation.
D) Process all files in a single environment with no isolation, relying solely on application-level checks.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Ensuring tenant isolation in multi-tenant cloud applications is a critical requirement for security and compliance. Option B, deploying separate Function Apps per customer with independent storage and configuration, is the correct approach. Each Function App operates in its own execution environment, with isolated storage accounts, configurations, and access controls. This prevents accidental exposure of one customer’s data to another, simplifies access management, and aligns with enterprise security best practices. Isolated Function Apps also allow for independent scaling and monitoring, reducing the risk that high load from one tenant affects others.

Option A, using a single Function App with custom logic for segregation, is risky. Maintaining strict data separation through code is error-prone and difficult to audit. Mistakes in logic could lead to unauthorised data access, violating regulatory or compliance requirements.

Option C, storing all files in a shared container and relying on naming conventions, is insecure. Naming conventions do not enforce strict access controls, and any misconfiguration can result in data leakage. It also complicates monitoring and auditing.

Option D, processing all files in a single environment without isolation, is unacceptable for multi-tenant systems. This approach increases the likelihood of data exposure and does not meet security or compliance standards.

Deploying separate Function Apps per customer (Option B) provides true isolation, simplifies access management, and reduces operational risk. It ensures secure, compliant, and scalable multi-tenant processing in cloud-native environments, fully meeting AZ-204 objectives for secure and robust serverless solutions.

Question 21:

You are developing an Azure Function App to process event data from multiple IoT devices. The system must ensure that events are processed reliably, even if the function experiences temporary failures, and scale automatically based on event volume. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Directly process events in the function without using any intermediary storage.
B) Use Azure Event Hubs to buffer events and configure retry policies in the function.
C) Store events in local temporary files on the function host and process manually.
D) Poll IoT devices periodically using a timer-triggered function.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Ensuring reliable and scalable processing of IoT events is a core requirement for cloud-native solutions and AZ-204 objectives. Option B, using Azure Event Hubs to buffer events and configuring retry policies in the function, is the correct solution. Event Hubs serves as a highly scalable ingestion platform capable of handling millions of events per second from numerous devices, decoupling event producers from consumers. This decoupling is critical because it allows the function to process events asynchronously at its own pace while maintaining durability, ensuring that events are not lost even if the function temporarily fails. Retry policies provide automatic reprocessing of events, enhancing resilience in case of transient failures, such as downstream service outages or temporary connectivity issues. This approach aligns with best practices for event-driven, serverless architectures and supports dynamic scaling based on message volume, allowing the system to handle bursts efficiently without loss of data or degradation of performance.

Option A, directly processing events in the function without intermediary storage, introduces significant risk. Any temporary failure in the function or downstream system could result in lost events, as there is no buffering or retry mechanism. This approach tightly couples event ingestion to processing, violating key principles of resilient cloud architecture and making scaling difficult. Under high-volume conditions, this design may cause performance bottlenecks and lead to inconsistent processing outcomes.

Option C, storing events in local temporary files on the function host for manual processing, is operationally fragile and non-scalable. Local storage is ephemeral, meaning that any crash, restart, or scale-out operation could result in loss of data. Additionally, manual intervention introduces delays and operational overhead, making it unsuitable for real-time or high-throughput IoT scenarios. This approach is inefficient, error-prone, and cannot reliably support automated retries or monitoring, which are essential for enterprise-grade systems.

Option D, polling IoT devices periodically using a timer-triggered function, is inherently inefficient for real-time event processing. Polling introduces latency, increases resource consumption, and can result in missed events if devices produce data at a higher rate than the polling interval. This approach does not scale well under variable loads and does not leverage the built-in event-driven capabilities of Azure Functions or Event Hubs.

Using Event Hubs with retry policies (Option B) ensures that events are reliably ingested, buffered, and processed, even under high load or temporary failures. This architecture provides durability, scalability, and resilience, fully meeting the requirements of AZ-204 for designing robust event-driven solutions and serverless architectures.

Question 22:

You are developing a Logic App workflow that processes customer support tickets from multiple sources, including email, web forms, and chat applications. The workflow must guarantee that tickets are not lost if downstream services are temporarily unavailable. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Process tickets synchronously in the Logic App without persistence.
B) Use asynchronous queues with retry policies to manage ticket delivery.
C) Store tickets in local temporary files for manual processing.
D) Trigger the Logic App manually whenever a ticket is submitted.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

For workflows that integrate multiple sources of input, decoupling and reliable message handling are critical for scalability and fault tolerance. Option B, using asynchronous queues with retry policies to manage ticket delivery, is the correct approach. By placing tickets into queues, the Logic App ensures that each message persists until successfully processed, providing durability and resilience. Retry policies automatically handle transient failures in downstream systems, such as CRM platforms or notification services, ensuring no ticket is lost. Queues also enable load balancing, allowing the Logic App to scale efficiently based on incoming ticket volume, and support operational monitoring, alerting, and audit logging. This design is aligned with best practices for enterprise integration and event-driven architectures, which are emphasised in AZ-204.

Option A, processing tickets synchronously without persistence, is highly unreliable. If a downstream service fails, tickets are immediately lost, violating enterprise requirements for guaranteed delivery. Synchronous processing tightly couples ticket submission to downstream availability, introducing latency and operational risk during service outages or high load periods.

Option C, storing tickets in local temporary files for manual processing, introduces operational overhead and reduces reliability. Manual processing is error-prone and does not scale to handle high-volume ticket submissions. Local storage is ephemeral, making it unsuitable for workflows requiring automated retries or durability guarantees.

Option D, triggering the Logic App manually whenever a ticket is submitted, is impractical for high-volume or real-time workflows. Manual triggering increases operational overhead, introduces delays, and is not suitable for automated, scalable ticket processing.

Asynchronous queues with retry policies (Option B) provide the necessary durability, fault tolerance, and scalability required for processing customer support tickets from multiple sources. This architecture ensures reliable delivery and processing of messages while minimising operational complexity, fully aligning with AZ-204 best practices for Logic App design.

Question 23:

You are designing an Azure Function App to process sensitive financial transactions submitted from multiple clients. Each client must have isolated processing environments to prevent accidental access to another client’s data. How should you design the solution?

A) Use a single Function App and implement custom logic to segregate client data.
B) Deploy separate Function Apps per client with independent storage and configuration.
C) Store all client data in a shared container and rely on naming conventions for segregation.
D) Process all transactions in a single environment with no isolation, using only application-level checks.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Ensuring tenant isolation and security in multi-client environments is critical, particularly when handling sensitive financial transactions. Option B, deploying separate Function Apps per client with independent storage and configuration, is the correct approach. Each Function App operates in a dedicated execution environment, with isolated storage accounts, configuration settings, and access policies. This prevents accidental access or data leakage between clients, simplifies monitoring and auditing, and allows independent scaling based on each client’s transaction volume. This architecture aligns with cloud security best practices and compliance standards, which are essential objectives of AZ-204 for secure, multi-tenant applications.

Option A, using a single Function App with custom logic to segregate client data, introduces significant operational and security risks. Maintaining strict data segregation through code is error-prone and difficult to audit. Any misconfiguration could expose one client’s data to another, violating regulatory compliance and security requirements.

Option C, storing all client data in a shared container and relying on naming conventions for segregation, is inherently insecure. Naming conventions do not enforce access control, and mistakes in naming or access policies could result in unauthorised access. This approach also complicates monitoring, auditing, and scaling.

Option D, processing all transactions in a single environment without isolation and relying solely on application-level checks, is unacceptable for sensitive financial data. It introduces a high risk of data leakage and fails to meet compliance and security requirements.

Deploying separate Function Apps per client (Option B) ensures robust isolation, secure processing, independent scaling, and operational manageability. This design satisfies multi-tenant security requirements and aligns with the AZ-204 emphasis on secure, scalable serverless solutions for sensitive data.

Question 24:

You are developing a REST API hosted in Azure App Service that must allow access only to authenticated users from your organisation and provide detailed auditing of API usage. Which solution should you implement?

A) Use API keys embedded in client applications.
B) Implement Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) authentication with role-based access control (RBAC).
C) Store user credentials in appsettings.json and validate them manually.
D) Allow anonymous access and implement custom authorisation in code.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Securing APIs is a fundamental requirement for enterprise applications and a key AZ-204 objective. Option B, implementing Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) authentication with role-based access control (RBAC), is the correct solution. Azure AD provides centralised identity management, enabling authentication for users in the organisation while restricting access to unauthorised users. RBAC allows fine-grained permissions at the API level, ensuring that only authorised users can access specific resources. This approach also supports auditing and logging, providing visibility into API usage for compliance and operational monitoring.

Option A, using API keys embedded in client applications, is insecure. API keys are easily exposed and cannot enforce user-specific access or organisational restrictions. This approach also lacks auditing, rotation, and revocation capabilities.

Option C, storing credentials in appsettings.json and manually validating them, is insecure and non-scalable. Configuration files are often included in source control, and manual credential management increases the risk of errors and breaches. Auditing is also difficult with this approach.

Option D, allowing anonymous access and implementing custom authorisation in code, is error-prone and unreliable. Application-level authorisation is difficult to maintain, test, and audit, and it does not provide enterprise-grade identity management.

Implementing Azure AD authentication with RBAC (Option B) ensures secure, centralised access control, detailed auditing, and compliance with organisational policies, fully meeting the requirements for securing enterprise APIs and aligning with AZ-204 best practices.

Question 25:

You are designing an Azure Function App that processes high volumes of messages from multiple Service Bus queues. The function must scale automatically and process messages from different queues independently. Which approach should you implement?

A) Use a single Function App with a multi-queue trigger processing messages sequentially.
B) Deploy separate Function Apps per queue with individual triggers.
C) Combine all messages into a single queue to simplify processing.
D) Poll each queue periodically using a timer-triggered function.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Efficiently processing messages from multiple queues in a scalable, reliable manner is a critical skill tested in AZ-204. Option B, deploying separate Function Apps per queue with individual triggers, is the correct approach. Each Function App independently processes messages from a specific queue, allowing the platform to scale each function based on load. This design provides isolation between queues, ensuring that high-volume processing in one queue does not impact others. It also simplifies monitoring, troubleshooting, and configuration management, while supporting elasticity and fault tolerance in distributed cloud architectures.

Option A, using a single Function App with a multi-queue trigger processing messages sequentially, introduces latency and contention. Sequential processing reduces throughput and creates a single point of failure. Scaling is less granular because the runtime cannot allocate resources independently per queue.

Option C, combining all messages into a single queue, reduces isolation and increases operational risk. High volume in one queue may delay messages from other sources, and debugging and monitoring become more complex.

Option D, polling each queue with a timer-triggered function, is inefficient and introduces delays. Polling consumes additional resources, cannot respond in real-time, and does not scale automatically with load, making it unsuitable for high-throughput event-driven scenarios.

Deploying separate Function Apps per queue (Option B) ensures independent, scalable, and reliable message processing, aligning with best practices for serverless, event-driven architectures and fully meeting AZ-204 objectives.

Question 26:

You are developing an Azure Function App to process orders from multiple e-commerce platforms. The system must ensure that orders are not lost during temporary function failures and must scale automatically to handle peak order volumes. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Directly process orders in the function without any intermediary storage.
B) Use Azure Storage Queues to buffer orders and configure retry policies in the function.
C) Store orders in local temporary files and process manually.
D) Use a timer-triggered function to periodically retrieve orders from the source.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Ensuring reliable, scalable, and fault-tolerant processing of high-volume orders is a fundamental cloud architecture requirement, and it is specifically relevant to AZ-204 objectives. Option B, using Azure Storage Queues to buffer orders and configuring retry policies in the function, is the correct approach because it decouples the producers of the orders from the consumers, allowing the system to handle bursts of traffic without losing data. The queues act as durable storage, retaining messages until successfully processed. Retry policies automatically handle transient failures, such as temporary service outages or network interruptions, preventing loss of orders. This approach ensures that the system can scale automatically during peak periods by enabling the function to process queued messages based on real-time demand.

Option A, processing orders directly in the function without intermediary storage, is risky. If the function experiences a temporary failure, any unprocessed orders may be lost. This approach tightly couples message ingestion and processing, limiting scalability and resilience. Under high-volume conditions, the function may become a bottleneck, resulting in delays or incomplete order processing.

Option C, storing orders in local temporary files and processing manually, is operationally fragile. Local storage is ephemeral, meaning that any crash, restart, or scaling operation could lead to data loss. Manual processing increases operational overhead, is error-prone, and does not provide automated retry mechanisms. This design is not scalable or suitable for enterprise-grade cloud applications.

Option D, using a timer-triggered function to periodically retrieve orders, introduces latency and inefficiency. While this approach may eventually process all orders, it is not event-driven and cannot respond immediately to order submissions. Additionally, scaling dynamically is difficult because the processing frequency is fixed, and bursts of traffic may overwhelm the function.

By using Azure Storage Queues with retry policies (Option B), the system ensures durability, fault tolerance, and automatic scalability. This architecture follows best practices for event-driven, serverless designs and fully aligns with the AZ-204 exam objectives.

Question 27:

You are developing an Azure Function App that will process high volumes of telemetry data from IoT devices. The application must guarantee that no data is lost during temporary failures and must scale automatically. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Process telemetry data directly in the function without any intermediary system.
B) Use Azure Event Hubs as a buffer and implement retry policies in the function.
C) Poll IoT devices periodically using a timer-triggered function.
D) Store telemetry data in local temporary files for manual processing.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

High-volume IoT telemetry processing requires designs that ensure durability, reliability, and automatic scalability. Option B, using Azure Event Hubs as a buffer and implementing retry policies in the function, is the correct approach. Event Hubs provides a highly scalable, durable platform for ingesting millions of messages per second from multiple IoT devices. By decoupling the producers (IoT devices) from the consumers (function processing), Event Hubs allows the function to process telemetry data at its own pace without losing any messages. Retry policies automatically handle transient failures, ensuring data integrity even during network disruptions or downstream system unavailability. This design also supports auto-scaling of the function, enabling it to handle bursts in telemetry data efficiently without compromising reliability.

Option A, processing telemetry data directly in the function without intermediary systems, introduces significant risk. Any temporary failure in the function or downstream service could result in message loss. This design tightly couples ingestion with processing, reducing fault tolerance and scalability. High-volume bursts could overwhelm the function, leading to latency or dropped messages.

Option C, polling IoT devices using a timer-triggered function, is inefficient for real-time telemetry processing. Polling introduces latency, increases operational complexity, and risks missing events if devices generate data faster than the polling interval. It also does not scale efficiently in response to variable message loads.

Option D, storing telemetry data locally for manual processing, is operationally complex and non-scalable. Local storage is ephemeral and prone to data loss during crashes or restarts. Manual processing is error-prone, does not support automated retries, and cannot handle high-throughput scenarios effectively.

Using Event Hubs with retry policies (Option B) ensures that telemetry data is processed reliably, supports real-time scalability, and follows best practices for serverless, event-driven architectures. This approach fully aligns with AZ-204 objectives for IoT and event-processing solutions.

Question 28:

You are developing a Logic App workflow to process customer feedback from multiple channels, including email, web forms, and social media. The workflow must ensure that feedback is not lost if downstream services are temporarily unavailable and must scale automatically. Which design approach should you implement?

A) Process feedback synchronously in the Logic App without persistence.
B) Use asynchronous queues for each channel with retry policies.
C) Store feedback in local temporary files for manual processing.
D) Trigger the Logic App manually whenever feedback is submitted.

Answer:
B

Explanation:

When designing workflows that integrate multiple channels, decoupling ingestion from processing is critical to achieve scalability and reliability. Option B, using asynchronous queues with retry policies for each channel, is the correct solution. Each channel has its own queue, ensuring messages persist until successfully processed. Retry policies allow automatic reprocessing of failed messages, eliminating the risk of data loss during temporary downstream failures. This architecture enables automatic scaling, as the Logic App can process messages from multiple queues concurrently without interference, and supports monitoring, alerting, and auditing.

Option A, synchronous processing without persistence, is unreliable. If a downstream service is temporarily unavailable, messages are lost, and the system cannot guarantee delivery. Synchronous workflows tightly couple processing to the availability of downstream services, reducing resilience and scalability.

Option C, storing feedback in local temporary files for manual processing, introduces operational overhead and increases the likelihood of errors. Manual intervention is required, limiting scalability and operational efficiency. Local storage is ephemeral and cannot guarantee automated retries, making it unsuitable for enterprise-grade workflows.

Option D, manual triggering of the Logic App upon feedback submission, is impractical for high-volume or real-time scenarios. It increases operational overhead, delays processing, and is not scalable.

Using asynchronous queues with retry policies (Option B) ensures reliable, scalable, and fault-tolerant processing of customer feedback. This architecture fully aligns with AZ-204 objectives for designing robust, multi-channel integration workflows.

Question 29:

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Securing APIs with enterprise-grade authentication and authorisation is a core AZ-204 skill. Option B, implementing Azure AD authentication with role-based access control (RBAC), is the correct solution. Azure AD provides centralised identity management for users within the organisation, enforcing authentication and access restrictions. RBAC allows fine-grained permissions, ensuring that users can access only authorised resources. Azure AD also provides auditing and logging capabilities, enabling detailed tracking of API usage for compliance and monitoring purposes. This approach aligns with industry best practices for securing APIs in cloud environments.

Option A, using API keys embedded in client applications, is insecure and non-scalable. API keys are easily exposed, cannot enforce user-specific access, and do not provide auditing, token expiration, or revocation mechanisms.

Option C, storing credentials in appsettings.json and validating them manually, is insecure. Configuration files are often included in source control, and manual management increases the risk of human error and breaches. Auditing and fine-grained access control are also difficult to implement with this approach.

Option D, allowing anonymous access and implementing custom authorisation in code, is error-prone and unreliable. Custom authorisation logic is difficult to maintain, audit, and scale, and it does not provide centralised identity management or integration with enterprise authentication systems.

Using Azure AD with RBAC (Option B) ensures secure, centralised authentication, fine-grained access control, and detailed auditing. This solution meets all enterprise requirements and aligns fully with AZ-204 best practices.

Question 30:

You are designing a multi-tenant Azure Function App that processes uploaded files from multiple customers. Each customer’s data must remain isolated to prevent accidental access by other tenants. Which approach should you implement?

Answer:
B

Explanation:

Multi-tenant applications handling sensitive customer data must enforce strict isolation to prevent data leakage. Option B, deploying separate Function Apps per customer with independent storage and configuration, is the correct approach. Each Function App operates in its own execution environment, with isolated storage accounts, configuration, and access policies. This design prevents accidental access between tenants, simplifies access management, monitoring, and auditing, and supports independent scaling based on each customer’s load. It adheres to cloud security best practices and compliance requirements, which are critical considerations in AZ-204 for multi-tenant serverless applications.

Option A, using a single Function App with custom segregation logic, is error-prone and difficult to maintain. Mistakes in segregation logic could expose one customer’s data to another, creating serious security and compliance risks.

Option C, storing all files in a shared container with naming conventions, is insecure. Naming conventions do not enforce strict access controls, and any misconfiguration could result in unauthorised access. Monitoring and auditing are also more complex.

Option D, processing all files in a single environment without isolation, is unacceptable for sensitive multi-tenant data. It increases the risk of data leakage and does not comply with security or regulatory standards.

Deploying separate Function Apps per customer (Option B) ensures true isolation, secure processing, independent scalability, and operational manageability. This design satisfies the requirements of multi-tenant, secure serverless applications and aligns fully with AZ-204 best practices.

The Importance of Tenant Isolation in Multi-Tenant Applications

Multi-tenant applications are designed to serve multiple customers (tenants) using shared infrastructure. While this model provides operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness, it introduces critical security and privacy challenges. When handling sensitive customer data, maintaining strict isolation between tenants is non-negotiable. Data from one customer should never be accessible, intentionally or accidentally, to another customer. Any breach can result in severe regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and loss of customer trust.

Ensuring isolation is especially crucial in serverless architectures, such as Azure Function Apps, where resources are inherently dynamic, shared, and abstracted from physical hardware. Without proper design, multi-tenant serverless applications may inadvertently expose customer data due to misconfigurations, logical errors, or shared storage. The chosen architecture must provide both operational efficiency and robust security, supporting compliance with standards such as GDPR, HIPAA, or ISO 27001.

Advantages of Deploying Separate Function Apps Per Customer

Option B, deploying separate Function Apps per customer, addresses isolation and security concerns comprehensively. Each Function App is a fully independent execution environment, running in a sandboxed container with dedicated memory, compute resources, and storage accounts. This separation ensures that code, configurations, and runtime environments cannot interfere across tenants, significantly reducing the risk of cross-tenant data exposure.

Independent storage accounts for each tenant further enhance security. By maintaining distinct storage containers or blobs for every customer, organisations can enforce access controls at the storage level. Access keys, identity-based authorisation, and role-based access controls (RBAC) can be customised per tenant. This means even if one tenant’s credentials are compromised, other tenants remain unaffected, mitigating the impact of a potential breach.

Operationally, separate Function Apps simplify monitoring, logging, and auditing. Administrators can track usage, performance, and security events per tenant without mixing data from multiple customers. This isolation facilitates regulatory reporting, anomaly detection, and incident response, all critical in highly regulated industries.

Another significant advantage is independent scalability. Each Function App can scale according to the workload of its corresponding tenant. Customers with high traffic can have their functions scaled up automatically without affecting the performance of other tenants. This granular scaling ensures optimal resource utilisation and predictable performance across the multi-tenant application.

Risks of Using a Single Function App with Custom Segregation Logic

Option A proposes using a single Function App with internal logic to segregate customer data. While this might seem cost-effective, it introduces numerous operational and security risks. Custom segregation logic is inherently complex and prone to errors. A simple programming mistake—such as misrouting a data file or incorrect tenant mapping—could expose one customer’s data to another.

Maintaining such logic over time becomes increasingly difficult as new features are added, scaling requirements change, or tenant-specific customisations are introduced. Each change carries the risk of inadvertently breaking segregation, creating subtle security gaps that are difficult to detect. Audit trails are harder to maintain, and regulatory compliance becomes more complex because all data resides in a shared environment.

Moreover, scaling a single Function App to accommodate multiple tenants can create resource contention. Heavy load from one tenant could impact the performance experienced by others, leading to inconsistent response times and customer dissatisfaction. Recovery from failures or debugging issues is also complicated because logs and metrics are shared across all tenants.

Limitations of Shared Storage With Naming Conventions

Option C suggests storing all tenant files in a shared container with naming conventions to segregate data. This approach is fundamentally insecure. Naming conventions are not enforceable security boundaries; they rely entirely on developers and operational processes to prevent access violations. A misnamed file or a human error in configuration could result in unauthorised access, potentially exposing sensitive data.

Shared storage also complicates monitoring, auditing, and compliance reporting. Detecting which customer accessed a specific file, tracking anomalies, or proving regulatory compliance becomes challenging. Storage-level access policies cannot be applied per tenant if all files share a single container, making the solution vulnerable to accidental or malicious breaches. This method may appear simple, but it fails to meet enterprise-grade security requirements.

Consequences of No Isolation and Reliance on Application-Level Checks

Option D, processing all files in a single environment with no isolation, relying solely on application-level checks, is the least secure approach. Without physical or logical separation, any failure in the application’s access control logic could expose all customer data to unauthorised users. In high-security environments, relying solely on software checks without environment-level isolation is considered unacceptable.

This approach also increases operational complexity. Any monitoring or debugging efforts require filtering through a mix of data from multiple tenants, making incident response slower and more error-prone. Regulatory compliance cannot be reliably demonstrated because all tenants share the same environment, and proving that data was never cross-accessed becomes almost impossible. In essence, this method introduces systemic risk to both security and business continuity.

Microsoft AZ-204 Developing Solutions for Microsoft Azure Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 2 Q16-30

Related posts: