In contrast, blocking all attachments by default (option b) can lead to significant productivity losses, as users would need to constantly request access to attachments, which can be cumbersome and inefficient. Quarantining all emails with attachments (option c) introduces delays and may frustrate users, as they would have to wait for manual reviews, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Lastly, only scanning attachments from external senders (option d) creates a security gap, as internal emails can also pose risks if compromised accounts are used to send malicious content. By utilizing the “Dynamic Delivery” feature, organizations can strike a balance between security and usability, ensuring that legitimate communications are not hindered while still providing robust protection against potential threats. This method aligns with best practices for email security, emphasizing the importance of user experience alongside effective threat mitigation strategies.

Moreover, implementing mobile device management (MDM) policies is crucial for maintaining security and compliance. These policies can enforce security measures such as encryption, password requirements, and remote wipe capabilities, which are essential for protecting sensitive corporate data, especially on mobile devices that may be more susceptible to loss or theft. In contrast, the other options present significant drawbacks. For instance, deploying the application only on Windows devices and using VDI for macOS users limits accessibility and may lead to performance issues. Ignoring mobile device management entirely exposes the organization to security risks. A single deployment package that does not consider the specific needs of each operating system can result in compatibility issues and user frustration. Lastly, focusing solely on mobile devices neglects the substantial number of employees who rely on desktop access, which could hinder productivity. Thus, a well-rounded deployment strategy that incorporates tailored application packaging and robust security policies is essential for successful application deployment across a heterogeneous device landscape. This approach not only enhances user experience but also aligns with best practices for security and compliance in enterprise environments.

Furthermore, mandating that devices must be marked as compliant to access corporate resources is a critical aspect of maintaining organizational security. This ensures that only devices meeting the established security criteria can connect to the network, thereby reducing the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access. The other options present various shortcomings. For instance, a password requirement of only 6 characters is insufficient for robust security, and disabling encryption exposes sensitive data to potential threats. Similarly, allowing devices without encryption and not enforcing compliance checks significantly weakens the security posture of the organization. Lastly, while a password length of 10 characters is a good practice, not checking for compliance status before granting access undermines the entire purpose of the compliance policy, as it could allow non-compliant devices to access sensitive resources. In summary, the most effective configuration is one that combines a reasonable password complexity requirement, mandatory encryption, and strict compliance checks to ensure that all devices accessing corporate resources adhere to the organization’s security standards. This holistic approach not only protects sensitive information but also fosters a culture of security awareness within the organization.

User-driven mode allows end-users to personalize their devices while still adhering to corporate policies, making it essential for remote work scenarios. Pre-provisioning is another critical aspect, enabling IT to prepare devices before they reach the end-user, ensuring that applications and settings are applied without requiring user intervention. In contrast, the other options present components that, while relevant to device management, do not directly pertain to the specific configuration of Windows Autopilot deployment profiles. Device enrollment and application packaging are part of broader device management strategies but do not encapsulate the unique features of Autopilot. Group policies and compliance settings are essential for ongoing management but are not specific to the initial deployment process facilitated by Autopilot. Therefore, understanding the nuances of deployment profiles, user-driven mode, and pre-provisioning is crucial for successfully implementing Windows Autopilot in a remote work environment.

In contrast, traditional software distribution methods that rely on manual installation can lead to inconsistencies and security vulnerabilities, as they depend heavily on user compliance for updates and security measures. This approach lacks the centralized control and oversight that MAM solutions provide, making it less effective in a corporate environment where security is paramount. Furthermore, deploying a cloud-based application platform without security features or monitoring capabilities poses significant risks. Such an approach leaves organizations vulnerable to data breaches and compliance issues, as it relies entirely on user discretion for managing applications and security settings. Lastly, adopting a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy without any management tools is inherently risky. While BYOD can enhance flexibility and employee satisfaction, it requires robust management solutions to ensure that applications are secure and compliant with organizational policies. Without these tools, organizations expose themselves to potential security threats and compliance violations. In summary, a comprehensive MAM solution not only facilitates secure application deployment but also provides the necessary monitoring and compliance capabilities that are essential for maintaining security in a corporate environment. This strategic approach aligns with best practices in application management and mobile device security, ensuring that organizations can effectively manage their applications while safeguarding sensitive data.

The correct configuration involves allowing data sharing exclusively between managed applications while blocking any sharing with unmanaged applications. This approach ensures that sensitive corporate data remains within the controlled environment of managed applications, thereby reducing the risk of data breaches or unauthorized access. Option b, which allows data sharing between all applications, undermines the purpose of the APP, as it could lead to sensitive data being shared with potentially insecure unmanaged applications. Option c, which restricts all data sharing, would hinder user productivity and collaboration, as employees would be unable to share necessary information even within managed applications. Lastly, option d, which allows sharing between unmanaged applications, poses a significant security risk, as it could lead to corporate data being exposed to untrusted environments. In summary, the most effective configuration aligns with the principles of data protection by ensuring that sensitive information is only shared within a secure, managed context, thus maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of corporate data while allowing users to perform their tasks efficiently.

While increasing the frequency of employee training sessions (option b) is beneficial for raising awareness about data protection policies, it does not directly address the systemic issue of access management. Similarly, conducting a comprehensive review of all existing access permissions (option c) is a reactive measure that may help identify vulnerabilities but does not provide a long-term solution to prevent future occurrences. Establishing a stricter password policy (option d) is also important for securing accounts, but it does not resolve the fundamental issue of ensuring that only current employees have access to sensitive resources. In summary, the most effective way to enhance the company’s protection policies and prevent similar incidents is to implement a robust IAM system. This system will ensure that access rights are managed efficiently and securely, thereby reducing the risk of unauthorized access due to oversight in user account management.

While implementing strict access controls and permissions is essential for minimizing the risk of unauthorized access, it does not provide the necessary visibility into user behavior that is crucial for detecting insider threats. Similarly, regular employee training on data security policies is important for fostering a culture of security awareness, but it does not directly contribute to real-time detection of insider risks. Establishing a whistleblower program can encourage reporting of suspicious activities, but it relies on employees coming forward, which may not always happen. Continuous monitoring and behavioral analytics enable organizations to proactively identify and respond to potential threats before they escalate into significant incidents. This proactive approach aligns with best practices outlined in frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring and risk assessment in information security management. By focusing on user behavior and activity patterns, organizations can enhance their ability to mitigate insider threats effectively, ensuring a more robust security posture.

When the “Scan URLs in real-time” feature is enabled, every time a user clicks on a link, the URL is checked against a database of known threats and is scanned for any malicious content. This proactive approach ensures that even if a URL becomes harmful after the email was sent, users are still protected at the moment of access. In contrast, disabling the “Scan URLs in real-time” feature or allowing users to access links without warnings significantly increases the risk of falling victim to phishing attacks. The option to “Do not rewrite URLs” would prevent Safe Links from functioning effectively, as users would be directed to the original URL without any scanning or protection. Thus, the optimal configuration for enhancing protection against phishing sites involves enabling the “Rewrite URLs” option and ensuring that the “Scan URLs in real-time” feature is turned on. This combination maximizes the effectiveness of Safe Links by ensuring that all URLs are scanned before users can access them, thereby reducing the likelihood of successful phishing attempts.

When an employee’s role changes, the IT department can easily update their permissions by changing their role rather than modifying individual permissions for each user. This not only enhances security by ensuring that users have only the access necessary for their job functions but also streamlines the administrative process, reducing the potential for errors that can occur when managing individual permissions. In contrast, creating individual permissions for each user account (option b) can lead to a complex and unmanageable system, especially in larger organizations. This method increases the risk of human error and can result in users having excessive permissions that they do not need. Using a single account for multiple users (option c) is a significant security risk, as it makes it difficult to track user activity and can lead to accountability issues. Allowing users to manage their own permissions without oversight (option d) undermines the security framework of the organization, as it can lead to unauthorized access and potential data breaches. Overall, RBAC not only enhances security and compliance with regulations but also improves operational efficiency by providing a clear structure for user management. This method is widely recognized as a best practice in user management and is essential for organizations looking to maintain a secure and efficient IT environment.

The second option, increasing the threshold for anomaly detection, may reduce false positives but at the cost of potentially missing genuine threats. This approach can lead to a dangerous situation where the system becomes less responsive to actual security incidents. The third option, reducing the dataset size, compromises the model’s ability to learn effectively, as a smaller dataset may not capture the full range of normal and anomalous behaviors. Lastly, limiting the AI’s analysis to specific types of traffic can create blind spots, as it ignores other data that could provide critical insights into security threats. Thus, the most effective approach is to enhance the AI’s learning capabilities through advanced algorithms that can adapt to the complexities of network traffic, thereby improving both detection accuracy and reducing false positives. This nuanced understanding of AI’s role in security emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and adaptation in threat detection systems.

For instance, the Sales department may require access to customer relationship management (CRM) tools and sales data, while the IT department needs access to system configurations and user management tools. By creating role groups that reflect these needs, the organization can effectively manage user permissions while minimizing the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches. In contrast, granting all users administrative privileges undermines security by allowing access to sensitive areas of the system that are not relevant to their roles. Similarly, creating a single role with broad permissions or assigning permissions on an individual basis can lead to confusion, increased administrative overhead, and potential security vulnerabilities. Therefore, the structured approach of predefined role groups not only aligns with the principle of least privilege but also enhances overall user management efficiency and security within the Microsoft 365 environment.

By applying these policies to the respective SharePoint sites and Exchange mailboxes, the administrator can ensure that the data is retained for the appropriate duration and disposed of when no longer needed. This method not only enhances compliance but also minimizes the risk of data breaches or legal issues arising from improper data handling. On the other hand, establishing a single retention policy that applies universally (option b) may not address the specific needs of each department, potentially leading to non-compliance with regulations that require different retention periods. Relying on the default retention policy (option c) is also inadequate, as it may not align with the organization’s specific compliance requirements. Lastly, while implementing retention labels (option d) can be beneficial, it places the onus on users to apply them correctly, which can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in compliance. Therefore, the most effective strategy is to create tailored retention policies that reflect the diverse needs of each department, ensuring that the organization remains compliant with all relevant regulations while effectively managing its data.

Initially, there are 100 devices. Out of these, 15 devices are not encrypted, which means that 100 – 15 = 85 devices are encrypted. Additionally, 10 devices are running an outdated operating system version, which means that 100 – 10 = 90 devices are running the required version. However, we need to consider the overlap between these two groups. The worst-case scenario is that the 10 outdated devices are among the 15 unencrypted devices. In this case, the number of devices that are both unencrypted and outdated would be 10, leaving us with: – Encrypted and up-to-date devices = Total devices – (Unencrypted devices + Outdated devices – Overlap) – Encrypted and up-to-date devices = 100 – (15 + 10 – 10) = 100 – 15 = 85 devices. Now, to find the percentage of compliant devices, we use the formula: \[ \text{Percentage of compliant devices} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of compliant devices}}{\text{Total number of devices}} \right) \times 100 \] Substituting the values we have: \[ \text{Percentage of compliant devices} = \left( \frac{85}{100} \right) \times 100 = 85\% \] Thus, the percentage of devices that are compliant with both the encryption and operating system requirements is 85%. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding how MDM policies can impact device compliance and the necessity of regular audits to ensure that all devices adhere to security protocols. It also highlights the need for organizations to have clear visibility into their device inventory and compliance status, as well as the potential complexities involved in calculating compliance when multiple criteria are in play.

In contrast, conducting annual training sessions without ongoing assessments fails to reinforce compliance knowledge among employees, as it does not account for the dynamic nature of regulations or the need for continuous education. Relying solely on external audits can create a false sense of security, as these audits typically occur infrequently and may not capture all compliance issues. Furthermore, implementing a static compliance policy that does not adapt to changing regulations or business practices can lead to significant vulnerabilities, as organizations may find themselves out of alignment with current laws. By focusing on continuous monitoring, the compliance officer can ensure that the organization not only meets current regulatory requirements but is also prepared for future changes. This proactive approach fosters a culture of compliance within the organization, encouraging employees to remain vigilant and informed about their responsibilities. Ultimately, this strategy enhances the organization’s ability to mitigate risks and maintain a strong compliance framework.

Furthermore, requiring BitLocker encryption is vital for protecting sensitive data on devices, as it ensures that data is encrypted at rest, thereby mitigating the risk of unauthorized access in case of device theft or loss. The inclusion of a password policy that mandates a minimum length of 8 characters is also a critical aspect of security, as it helps to prevent unauthorized access through weak passwords. In contrast, the second option allows any version of Windows, which could include outdated and vulnerable systems, thus increasing the risk of security breaches. The password policy of at least 6 characters is insufficient for robust security. The third option, while enforcing a password policy of at least 10 characters, does not specify a minimum operating system version, which could lead to compliance gaps. Lastly, the fourth option is the least secure, as it permits outdated operating systems, lacks encryption requirements, and has a very weak password policy. Overall, the first option provides a comprehensive and enforceable compliance policy that addresses key security concerns, ensuring that only compliant devices can access corporate resources. This approach not only protects sensitive information but also aligns with best practices in device management and security compliance.

The automatic application of these settings is crucial for maintaining security standards across the organization. It eliminates the need for manual intervention by users, which can lead to inconsistencies and potential security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the profile will continue to enforce these settings even if the devices are offline at the time of deployment; once the devices connect to the Intune service, they will receive the latest configurations. In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about how Intune operates. For instance, the notion that profiles only apply to devices currently online overlooks the asynchronous nature of Intune’s management capabilities. Additionally, the idea that users must manually install profiles contradicts the core functionality of Intune, which is to automate device management. Lastly, the assertion that profiles apply universally across the organization disregards the targeted nature of configuration profiles, which are specifically designed to cater to the needs of distinct user groups, thereby preventing conflicts with other profiles that may be tailored for different teams or departments.

The Compliance Score is calculated based on the completion of specific actions and the effectiveness of existing controls, allowing the compliance officer to identify gaps in compliance and prioritize remediation efforts. This feature not only helps in assessing compliance but also provides actionable insights and recommendations to improve the organization’s overall compliance standing. In contrast, while information governance policies are essential for managing data retention and classification, they do not directly assess compliance posture. Insider risk management tools focus on identifying and mitigating risks posed by employees, which is a different aspect of compliance. Communication compliance features are aimed at ensuring that communications within the organization adhere to regulatory standards, but they do not provide a holistic view of the organization’s compliance status. Thus, the Compliance Score stands out as the most beneficial feature for the compliance officer, as it directly addresses the need to assess compliance posture and identify potential risks associated with data handling practices across different jurisdictions. By leveraging this feature, the officer can ensure that the organization is not only compliant with current regulations but also prepared for future regulatory changes.

In contrast, a manual review process lacks the efficiency and immediacy required for effective compliance monitoring. Periodic checks by department heads may lead to delayed responses to violations, increasing the risk of regulatory penalties. Similarly, a basic alert system that only notifies users after violations occur fails to provide the necessary oversight to prevent breaches from happening in the first place. Lastly, while user training programs are essential for fostering a culture of compliance, they cannot replace the need for robust technological solutions that actively monitor and enforce data access policies. Therefore, the most effective strategy involves leveraging technology to create a comprehensive and responsive compliance framework that aligns with regulatory requirements and organizational goals.

While allowing employees to use personal devices with antivirus software may seem like a reasonable compromise, it does not address the broader security concerns, such as data encryption and access control. Training sessions on data security are beneficial but do not provide a technical solution to the problem of unsecured devices accessing corporate data. Lastly, completely disabling access from personal devices may hinder productivity and employee satisfaction, as many employees prefer to use their devices for work. In summary, the most effective strategy is to implement an MDM solution, which aligns with security best practices by providing a controlled environment for accessing corporate data, thereby reducing the risk of data breaches and ensuring compliance with regulations such as GDPR or HIPAA, which mandate the protection of sensitive information. This approach not only secures the data but also allows for flexibility in how employees access corporate resources, balancing security with usability.

When the DLP policy is correctly configured, it will automatically trigger the encryption process for any email that contains these identified patterns. This proactive measure ensures that sensitive data is protected during transmission, thereby reducing the risk of data breaches and ensuring compliance with internal policies and external regulations. The second option suggests that the policy would only flag emails without taking action, which contradicts the purpose of DLP policies that are designed to enforce data protection measures automatically. The third option implies that all emails would be encrypted indiscriminately, which is inefficient and could lead to operational issues, as not all emails contain sensitive information. Lastly, the fourth option indicates a failure in recognizing the credit card format, which would undermine the effectiveness of the DLP policy. Thus, the correct outcome of the DLP policy configuration is that it will successfully encrypt emails containing credit card numbers before they are sent, ensuring compliance with the company’s data protection standards. This highlights the importance of correctly setting up DLP policies to safeguard sensitive information while maintaining operational efficiency.

By allowing data sharing exclusively between managed applications, the organization can maintain a secure perimeter around its sensitive information. This approach also encourages users to utilize managed applications for corporate tasks, thereby enhancing compliance with security protocols. On the other hand, allowing unrestricted data sharing (as suggested in option b) would expose sensitive data to unmanaged applications, significantly increasing the risk of data leakage. Option c, which restricts data sharing only for specific applications, could lead to confusion and inconsistency in data handling practices, potentially undermining the overall security posture. Lastly, option d, which requires all applications to be managed before any data sharing can occur, may hinder user productivity by limiting access to necessary tools and applications that are not managed, thus creating friction in the workflow. In summary, the most effective configuration is one that maintains a clear boundary between managed and unmanaged applications, ensuring that sensitive data is only shared within a secure environment while still allowing users to perform their tasks efficiently. This approach aligns with best practices for mobile application management and data protection, ensuring compliance with organizational security policies.

Regularly reviewing and adjusting permissions is also crucial, as job functions may evolve over time, necessitating changes in access rights. This proactive approach helps maintain security and compliance with regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which emphasize the importance of protecting sensitive information through appropriate access controls. In contrast, granting all users administrative access (option b) undermines the principle of least privilege, as it exposes the system to significant risks. Similarly, providing unrestricted access to all resources (option c) can lead to data leaks and misuse of sensitive information. Lastly, allowing users to request additional permissions without a formal review process (option d) can result in excessive privileges being granted, further compromising security. Therefore, the best strategy is to assign users only the permissions necessary for their specific roles while maintaining a system of regular reviews and adjustments.

When an employee attempts to delete an email that is still within the 7-year retention period, the system will prevent the deletion from occurring. This is because the retention policy explicitly states that emails must be retained for a minimum of 7 years, and any attempt to delete such an email would violate this policy. Furthermore, the retention policy also ensures that any data marked for deletion must undergo a review process by the compliance team, but this applies primarily to data that is outside the retention period or data that has been flagged for deletion due to other compliance reasons. In this case, since the email is still within the retention period, it cannot be deleted at all, thus bypassing the need for any review process. This mechanism not only helps in maintaining compliance but also protects the organization from potential data loss that could arise from premature deletions. Understanding the implications of retention policies is essential for managing data governance effectively in a Microsoft 365 environment.

On the other hand, manually adding users to a group and regularly reviewing the membership list can be cumbersome and prone to human error. It may lead to unauthorized access if the reviews are not conducted frequently enough. Creating a static group and assigning permissions directly without considering user attributes lacks flexibility and can result in outdated access rights as organizational roles change. Lastly, implementing a guest access policy that allows any user to request membership in the group poses significant security risks, as it could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data. Therefore, the most effective approach is to leverage dynamic group membership rules, which not only streamline user management but also enhance security by ensuring that access is granted based on current user attributes. This method aligns with best practices in identity and access management, ensuring that organizations can maintain a secure and compliant environment while efficiently managing user access.

Data protection regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), emphasize the importance of safeguarding personal data. These regulations require organizations to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect data integrity and confidentiality. By focusing on user access patterns, the security team can quickly detect anomalies that may signify a security threat, enabling them to respond proactively. While the frequency of software updates (option b) is important for maintaining security, it does not directly address the immediate risks associated with unauthorized access. The total number of users registered (option c) provides insight into application usage but does not reflect the security posture. Lastly, the average time taken to resolve user support tickets (option d) is more related to customer service efficiency than to security risk management. Therefore, monitoring user access patterns is the most critical risk indicator in this scenario, as it directly correlates with the organization’s ability to protect sensitive data and comply with relevant regulations.

Moreover, user education is a critical component of any DLP strategy. By applying a user notification template, the company can inform users about the risks associated with sharing sensitive information, thereby fostering a culture of security awareness. This aligns with best practices in data protection, as educating employees can significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental data breaches. The inclusion of exceptions for emails sent to specific internal addresses is also vital. In many organizations, certain internal communications may need to occur without hindrance, especially if they involve secure domains that have additional layers of protection. This flexibility allows the company to maintain operational efficiency while still adhering to compliance requirements. In contrast, the other options present significant drawbacks. Blocking all emails containing credit card numbers without exceptions could disrupt business operations and lead to frustration among employees. Logging incidents without notifying users fails to address the educational aspect of DLP, leaving employees unaware of potential risks. Lastly, relying solely on keyword matching is less effective than regular expressions, as it may lead to false positives or negatives, undermining the policy’s effectiveness. Overall, the chosen configuration not only meets the company’s objectives but also aligns with industry regulations regarding data protection and user awareness, making it the most comprehensive and effective solution.

Moreover, enforcing compliance checks on device security settings is essential. This involves ensuring that devices meet specific security criteria, such as having up-to-date operating systems, enabled encryption, and secure configurations. By integrating these compliance checks into the MDM policy, the administrator can proactively manage security risks and ensure that all devices adhere to the company’s security standards. The other options present significant drawbacks. Enabling remote wipe capabilities without application restrictions does not address the need for controlled app usage, potentially leaving the organization vulnerable to data breaches. Implementing a simple PIN for device access compromises security, as it may not provide adequate protection against unauthorized access. Lastly, allowing all applications by default undermines the purpose of the MDM solution, as it could lead to the installation of malicious software and non-compliant applications, ultimately jeopardizing the organization’s security posture. Thus, a comprehensive approach that includes application control and compliance enforcement is essential for effective MDM policy implementation.

The first option accurately reflects the capabilities of Conditional Access, highlighting its ability to enforce MFA based on user risk levels and device compliance. This is crucial for organizations that need to balance security with user experience, especially in a mobile workforce scenario. In contrast, the second option incorrectly states that Conditional Access policies only restrict access based on user roles, ignoring the critical factors of device compliance and user location. This misunderstanding could lead to significant security vulnerabilities, as it would not account for the risks associated with accessing resources from potentially insecure devices or locations. The third option misrepresents the scope of Conditional Access by suggesting it applies only to external users. In reality, Conditional Access is designed to protect both internal and external access, ensuring that all users, regardless of their location, are subject to the same security policies. Lastly, the fourth option diminishes the functionality of Conditional Access by claiming it is limited to enforcing password complexity. This is a significant misconception, as Conditional Access encompasses a wide range of security measures beyond just password policies, including MFA, session controls, and risk-based access decisions. Overall, understanding the nuanced capabilities of Conditional Access is essential for IT administrators to effectively secure their Azure AD environments while complying with regulatory standards and maintaining user productivity.

Let: – \( A \) be the set of users accessing SharePoint, – \( B \) be the set of users accessing OneDrive, – \( C \) be the set of users accessing Teams. From the problem, we have: – \( |A| = 60\% \) – \( |B| = 45\% \) – \( |C| = 75\% \) – \( |A \cap B| = 30\% \) (users accessing both SharePoint and OneDrive) – \( |A \cap C| = 40\% \) (users accessing both SharePoint and Teams) – \( |B \cap C| = 25\% \) (users accessing both OneDrive and Teams) – \( |A \cap B \cap C| = 10\% \) (users accessing all three applications) Using the inclusion-exclusion formula, the total percentage of users accessing at least one application is given by: \[ |A \cup B \cup C| = |A| + |B| + |C| – |A \cap B| – |A \cap C| – |B \cap C| + |A \cap B \cap C| \] Substituting the values: \[ |A \cup B \cup C| = 60\% + 45\% + 75\% – 30\% – 40\% – 25\% + 10\% \] Calculating this step-by-step: 1. Sum of individual sets: \( 60\% + 45\% + 75\% = 180\% \) 2. Sum of pairwise intersections: \( 30\% + 40\% + 25\% = 95\% \) 3. Adding the intersection of all three: \( 180\% – 95\% + 10\% = 95\% \) Thus, the total percentage of users accessing at least one application is: \[ |A \cup B \cup C| = 180\% – 95\% + 10\% = 85\% \] This calculation illustrates the importance of understanding user engagement across multiple platforms within Microsoft 365. By accurately reporting this data, the company can make informed decisions about resource allocation, training needs, and potential security measures to enhance user productivity and safeguard sensitive information.