AZ-104 Implement and Manage Virtual Networking Practice Question
An administrator added an NSG rule named Allow-Admin-HTTPS with priority 250 to permit inbound TCP 443 from a single public IP. The NSG also contains a Deny-All-Inbound rule with priority 200. The administrator still cannot connect to the VM over HTTPS from the allowed IP. What should be changed to resolve the issue?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates assume higher priority numbers mean higher precedence, but in Azure NSGs, lower priority numbers are evaluated first, so a deny rule with a lower number will block traffic before a higher-numbered allow rule can permit it.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Change the allow rule priority to a number lower than 200.
The Deny-All-Inbound rule with priority 200 is evaluated before the Allow-Admin-HTTPS rule with priority 250 because NSG rules are processed in order of ascending priority (lower numbers are evaluated first). Since the deny rule matches all inbound traffic, it blocks the HTTPS connection before the allow rule can be evaluated. To resolve this, the allow rule must have a priority lower than 200 (e.g., 150) so it is evaluated first and permits the traffic from the specified public IP.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Change the allow rule priority to a number lower than 200.
Why this is correct
NSG rules are evaluated in ascending priority order, so the lower number is processed first. Because Deny-All-Inbound at 200 is taking effect before the allow rule at 250, the connection is blocked. Moving the allow rule to a priority such as 150 ensures the specific HTTPS exception is matched before the broad deny rule.
- ✗
Change the deny rule priority to 65000 so it is evaluated first.
Why it's wrong here
NSG rules are processed in ascending numeric order, so a smaller priority value is always evaluated first. Moving the deny rule to 65000 (a larger number) actually makes it one of the last rules evaluated, after the allow rule at 250—meaning HTTPS would be permitted, not denied. The suggestion incorrectly assumes higher priority numbers are evaluated first, so it does not accomplish the intended block-everything-except-admin-HTTPS behavior.
When this WOULD be correct
This option would be correct if the question stated that the deny rule was blocking traffic that should be allowed, and the goal was to ensure the deny rule is evaluated last (e.g., to allow all other traffic by default). For example, if the question said: 'An NSG has an allow rule for RDP and a deny-all rule with priority 100. The administrator wants to ensure that the deny-all rule is evaluated last. What should be done?'
- ✗
Convert the allow rule to an outbound rule instead of inbound.
Why it's wrong here
Inbound traffic to the VM's HTTPS port is governed exclusively by the NSG's inbound rule list. Converting the allow rule to an outbound rule does not affect how the inbound deny rule at priority 200 is applied, so the HTTPS packet is still dropped before any outbound rule is ever evaluated. The allow rule must remain an inbound rule and simply be assigned a lower priority number than the deny rule.
When this WOULD be correct
In a scenario where a VM needs to initiate HTTPS connections to an external server, and outbound traffic is being blocked by a default deny outbound rule, adding an outbound allow rule with appropriate priority would resolve the issue.
- ✗
Replace the NSG with a route table so HTTPS can pass through the subnet.
Why it's wrong here
Route tables (user-defined routes) control the next-hop path for traffic leaving or traversing a subnet; they are not firewalls and contain no allow/deny actions. Replacing the NSG with a route table would remove all stateful filtering, but the real problem is the rule evaluation order inside the existing NSG. Even if a route table directed HTTPS traffic toward the VM, the inbound deny rule at priority 200 would still drop the packets before they reach the application.
When this WOULD be correct
A question where a VM in a subnet cannot reach the internet or another network due to missing or incorrect routes (e.g., no default route to the internet), and the solution is to add a route table with a proper next hop.
Option-by-option analysis
Why each answer is right or wrong
Understanding why wrong answers are wrong — and when they would be correct — is what separates a 750 score from a 900. The AZ-104 exam frequently reuses these exact scenarios with slightly different constraints.
✓Change the allow rule priority to a number lower than 200.Correct answer▾
Why this is correct
NSG rules are evaluated in ascending priority order, so the lower number is processed first. Because Deny-All-Inbound at 200 is taking effect before the allow rule at 250, the connection is blocked. Moving the allow rule to a priority such as 150 ensures the specific HTTPS exception is matched before the broad deny rule.
✗Change the deny rule priority to 65000 so it is evaluated first.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
In Azure, NSG rules are evaluated in priority order, with lower numbers evaluated first. A deny rule with priority 200 is evaluated before an allow rule with priority 250, so changing the deny rule priority to 65000 (a higher number) would cause it to be evaluated later, but the allow rule still has a higher priority number (250) than the deny rule (200), so the deny rule would still be evaluated first. The correct fix is to lower the allow rule priority below 200.
★ When this WOULD be the correct answer
This option would be correct if the question stated that the deny rule was blocking traffic that should be allowed, and the goal was to ensure the deny rule is evaluated last (e.g., to allow all other traffic by default). For example, if the question said: 'An NSG has an allow rule for RDP and a deny-all rule with priority 100. The administrator wants to ensure that the deny-all rule is evaluated last. What should be done?'
Why candidates choose this
Candidates may think that increasing the deny rule's priority number (making it lower priority) will allow the allow rule to take effect, but they overlook that the allow rule's priority (250) is already higher than the deny rule's (200), so the deny rule is still evaluated first. They might also confuse priority numbers with precedence, thinking higher numbers are evaluated first.
✗Convert the allow rule to an outbound rule instead of inbound.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
The issue is that the Deny-All-Inbound rule with priority 200 is evaluated before the Allow-Admin-HTTPS rule with priority 250, blocking the traffic. Changing the allow rule to outbound would not affect inbound HTTPS traffic, which is the problem.
★ When this WOULD be the correct answer
In a scenario where a VM needs to initiate HTTPS connections to an external server, and outbound traffic is being blocked by a default deny outbound rule, adding an outbound allow rule with appropriate priority would resolve the issue.
Why candidates choose this
Candidates may confuse inbound and outbound traffic directions, thinking that allowing outbound HTTPS would permit the connection, or they might misremember that NSG rules are stateful and assume outbound rules affect inbound traffic.
✗Replace the NSG with a route table so HTTPS can pass through the subnet.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
Route tables control traffic routing between subnets and on-premises networks, not traffic filtering. They cannot permit or deny specific ports like HTTPS; NSGs are required for that.
★ When this WOULD be the correct answer
A question where a VM in a subnet cannot reach the internet or another network due to missing or incorrect routes (e.g., no default route to the internet), and the solution is to add a route table with a proper next hop.
Why candidates choose this
Candidates may confuse routing (route tables) with filtering (NSGs), thinking that a route table can allow traffic by directing it, rather than understanding that NSGs are the firewall for port-based access control.
Analysis generated from the official AZ-104blueprint and verified against question context. The “when correct” sections are what AI assistants cite when candidates ask “what’s the difference between these options?”
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Azure AD Connect and Hybrid Identity
Key term
NSG rule
An NSG rule is a set of security rules in Microsoft Azure that controls whether network traffic is allowed or denied to and from Azure resources.
Key term
TCP
TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is a core internet protocol that ensures data is sent reliably and in order between devices over a network.
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every AZ-104 question from scratch — 1,049 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This AZ-104 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Microsoft certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the AZ-104 exam.