Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. >
  3. Azure
  4. >
  5. AZ-305
  6. >
  7. This article

Azure AZ-305 Drill: Azure Monitor Logs for Hybrid VM Security Alerts - The Enterprise Solution

Jeff Taakey
Author
Jeff Taakey
21+ Year Enterprise Architect | Multi-Cloud Architect & Strategist.
Jeff's Architecture Insights
Go beyond static exam dumps. Jeff’s Insights is engineered to cultivate the mindset of a Production-Ready Architect. We move past ‘correct answers’ to dissect the strategic trade-offs and multi-cloud patterns required to balance reliability, security, and TCO in mission-critical environments.

While preparing for the Azure AZ-305 exam, many candidates grapple with designing effective security alerting strategies for hybrid workloads. In the enterprise world, selecting the right telemetry sources for Windows and Linux VMs can be the difference between rapid threat detection and operational blind spots. Let’s drill into a simulated scenario focused on Azure Monitor and governance best practices.

The Scenario
#

Fabrikam, a global manufacturing company, recently migrated several legacy applications to Azure. Their environment includes a mixture of Windows Server 2016 and Linux virtual machines running in Azure subscriptions under strict governance policies aligned to the Microsoft Cloud Adoption Framework (CAF). As part of their security operations enhancement, Fabrikam’s security team needs to implement alerting on security-related events emitted by these VMs leveraging Azure Monitor logs.

Their architecture must meet compliance for data residency and integrate with existing Azure Active Directory, requiring centralized monitoring of both operating system-level and Azure platform logs. The hybrid nature of the workload means security alerts must cover both Windows and Linux event sources distinctly, following operational excellence principles.

Key Requirements
#

Design an Azure Monitor alert strategy that queries the appropriate log tables to detect security-related events for:

  • Windows Server 2016 VMs
  • Linux-based VMs

Ensure the alerts use native Azure Monitor logs with alignment to enterprise governance and security best practices.

The Options
#

  • A) Windows: Event; Linux: Event
  • B) Windows: SystemLogs; Linux: SystemLogs
  • C) Windows: Event; Linux: SystemLogs
  • D) Windows: SystemLogs; Linux: Event
  • E) Windows: Azure Activity Logs; Linux: Azure Activity Logs

Correct Answer
#

C) Windows: Event; Linux: SystemLogs


The Architect’s Analysis
#

Correct Answer
#

Option C: Windows → Event Logs, Linux → SystemLogs (Syslog)

Step-by-Step Winning Logic
#

From a Well-Architected Framework perspective:

  • Reliability: Querying the native OS event tables offers reliable, consistent telemetry for VM health and security alerts.
  • Security: Windows VMs surface security and audit events in the Event log table. Linux VMs correlate to Syslog data stored in SystemLogs, capturing audit and kernel-related events.
  • Operational Excellence: Using Azure Monitor’s built-in tables avoids the complexity of custom log ingestion or external agents, simplifying alert rules creation and maintenance.
  • Governance: Utilizing OS-level logs ensures compliance with monitoring policies as defined within the Microsoft Cloud Adoption Framework, supporting enterprise-wide governance.

The Traps (Distractor Analysis)
#

  • Option A (Windows: Event; Linux: Event): Linux does not emit logs into the Event table; this is a Windows-specific table, so Linux alerting would fail.
  • Option B (Windows: SystemLogs; Linux: SystemLogs): Windows uses the Event log table primarily for security events, not SystemLogs.
  • Option D (Windows: SystemLogs; Linux: Event): Inverted - neither aligns with actual data sources.
  • Option E (Windows & Linux: Azure Activity Logs): Azure Activity Logs reflect Azure resource-level changes (e.g., VM creation, deletion), not OS-level security events.

The Architect Blueprint
#

Mermaid Diagram illustrating the alert architecture targeting Windows and Linux VMs using Azure Monitor log queries.

graph LR subgraph "Azure Subscription" A["Windows VM"] --> B["Azure Monitor Event Logs <br>(Event)"] C["Linux VM"] --> D["Azure Monitor Syslog Tables (SystemLogs)"] B --> E["Security Alert Rule"] D --> E E --> F["Azure Security Operations Center"] end style A fill:#0078D4,stroke:#333,color:#fff style C fill:#2C6BED,stroke:#333,color:#fff style E fill:#5C2D91,stroke:#333,color:#fff style F fill:#E81123,stroke:#333,color:#fff

Diagram Note: Both Windows and Linux VMs feed their respective native OS logs into Azure Monitor tables that then trigger centralized security alerts routed to the SOC team.

The Decision Matrix
#

Option Est. Complexity Est. Monthly Cost Pros Cons
A Low Low Correct Windows logs used Incorrect for Linux, alerting will miss logs
B Low Low Consistent approach Windows security events missed due to log choice
C Medium Medium Best fit for OS-level alerts and governance Slightly more complex due to different tables
D Medium Medium None Both sources mismatched, alerts unreliable
E Low Low Easy to set up Only Azure infrastructure events, no OS security logs

Real-World Practitioner Insight
#

Exam Rule
#

“For the exam, always pick native OS log tables — Event for Windows and Syslog (SystemLogs) for Linux when designing VM security monitoring.”

Real World
#

“In enterprise hybrid cloud environments, ensuring alert rules leverage the correct telemetry source enables compliance, operational readiness, and faster security incident response. Common mistakes include confusing Azure Activity Logs for OS logs, leading to gaps in threat detection.”

Weekly Azure AZ-305 Drills: Architect Solutions

Design identity, governance, and monitoring solutions. Master Azure infrastructure and data storage.