CISM Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

= The primary objective of performing a post-incident review is to identify the root cause of the incident, which is the underlying factor or condition that enabled or facilitated the occurrence of the incident. Identifying the root cause helps to understand the nature and origin of the incident, and to prevent or mitigate similar incidents in the future. A post-incident review also aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the incident response process, identify lessons learned and best practices, and recommend improvements for the incident management policies, procedures, controls, and tools. However, these are secondary objectives that depend on the identification of the root cause as the first step.

Re-evaluating the impact of incidents is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is already done during the incident response process. The impact of incidents is the extent and severity of the damage or harm caused by the incident to the organization’s assets, operations, reputation, or stakeholders. Re-evaluating the impact of incidents may be part of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal.

Identifying vulnerabilities is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is also done during the incident response process. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses or flaws in the system or network that can be exploited by attackers to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information or resources. Identifying vulnerabilities may be part of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal.

Identifying control improvements is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is a result of the root cause analysis. Controls are measures or mechanisms that are implemented to protect the system or network from threats, reduce risks, or ensure compliance with policies and standards. Identifying control improvements is an important outcome of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal. References =

ISACA CISM: PRIMARY goal of a post-incident review should be to?

CISM Exam Overview - Vinsys

CISM Review Manual, Chapter 4, page 176

CISM Exam Content Outline | CISM Certification | ISACA, Domain 4, Task 4.3

The primary reason to assign a risk owner in an organization is to ensure accountability for the risk and its treatment. A risk owner is a person or entity that has the authority and responsibility to manage a specific risk and to implement the appropriate risk response actions. By assigning a risk owner, the organization can ensure that the risk is monitored, reported, and controlled in accordance with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance.

The incident response team can best leverage the results of a business impact analysis (BIA) by assigning restoration priority during incidents. A BIA is a process that identifies and evaluates the criticality and dependency of the organization’s business functions, processes, and resources, and the potential impacts and consequences of their disruption or loss. The BIA results provide the basis for determining the recovery objectives, strategies, and plans for the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery. By using the BIA results, the incident response team can prioritize the restoration of the most critical and time-sensitive business functions, processes, and resources, and allocate the appropriate resources, personnel, and time to minimize the impact and duration of the incident.

Determining total cost of ownership (TCO) (B) is not a relevant way to leverage the results of a BIA, as it is not directly related to incident response. TCO is a financial metric that estimates the total direct and indirect costs of owning and operating an asset or a system over its lifecycle. TCO may be useful for evaluating the cost-effectiveness and return on investment of different security solutions or alternatives, but it does not help the incident response team to respond to or recover from an incident.

Evaluating vendors critical to business recovery © is also not a relevant way to leverage the results of a BIA, as it is not a primary responsibility of the incident response team. Evaluating vendors critical to business recovery is a part of the vendor management process, which involves selecting, contracting, monitoring, and reviewing the vendors that provide essential products or services to support the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery. Evaluating vendors critical to business recovery may be done before or after an incident, but not during an incident, as it does not contribute to the incident response or restoration activities.

Calculating residual risk after the incident recovery phase (D) is also not a relevant way to leverage the results of a BIA, as it is not a timely or effective use of the BIA results. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of risk treatment or mitigation measures. Calculating residual risk after the incident recovery phase may be done as a part of the incident review or improvement process, but not during the incident response or restoration phase, as it does not help the incident response team to resolve or contain the incident.

References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 4: Information Security Incident Management, Section: Incident Response Plan, Subsection: Business Impact Analysis, page 182-1831

According to the Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) Study Manual, "The primary objective of information security governance is to provide a framework for managing and controlling information security practices and technologies at an enterprise level. Its goal is to manage and reduce risk through a process of identification, assessment, and management of those risks."

While demonstrating senior management commitment, compliance with industry best practices, and ensuring user compliance with policies are all important aspects of information security governance, they are not the primary objective. The primary objective is to manage and reduce risk by establishing a framework for managing and controlling information security practices and technologies at an enterprise level.

The service desk is often the first point of contact for users. If trained properly, they can quickly recognize signs of an incident and escalate it, triggering the incident response process promptly.

This early detection and escalation are essential for minimizing damage and response time.

“Training frontline support staff ensures timely detection and escalation of incidents, which is critical for effective containment.”

— CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 4: Incident Management, Section: Roles and Responsibilities*

The primary objective of a business impact analysis (BIA) is to determine recovery priorities. The BIA is used to identify and analyze the potential effects of an incident on the organization, including the financial impact, operational impact, and reputational impact. The BIA also helps to identify critical resources and processes, determine recovery objectives and strategies, and develop recovery plans. Reference: Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) Study Manual, Chapter 4, Business Impact Analysis.

The strongest justification for granting an exception to the security policy that disables access to USB storage devices on laptops and desktops is that the benefit is greater than the potential risk. A security policy is a document that defines the goals, objec-tives, principles, roles, responsibilities, and requirements for protecting information and systems in an organization. A security policy should be based on a risk assessment that identifies and evaluates the threats and vulnerabilities that affect the organiza-tion’s assets, as well as the potential impact and likelihood of incidents. A security pol-icy should also be aligned with the organization’s business objectives and risk appe-tite1. However, there may be situations where a security policy cannot be fully enforced or complied with due to technical, operational, or business reasons. In such cases, an exception to the policy may be requested and granted by an authorized person or body, such as a security manager or a policy committee. An exception to a security policy should be justified by a clear and compelling reason that outweighs the risk of non-compliance. An exception to a security policy should also be documented, approved, monitored, reviewed, and revoked as necessary2. The strongest justification for grant-ing an exception to the security policy that disables access to USB storage devices on laptops and desktops is that the benefit is greater than the potential risk. USB storage devices are portable devices that can store large amounts of data and can be easily connected to laptops and desktops via USB ports. They can provide several benefits for users and organizations, such as:

•Enhancing data mobility and accessibility

•Improving data backup and recovery

•Supporting data sharing and collaboration

•Enabling data encryption and authentication

However, USB storage devices also pose significant security risks for users and organi-zations, such as:

•Introducing malware or viruses to laptops and desktops

•Exposing sensitive data to unauthorized access or disclosure

•Losing or stealing data due to device loss or theft

•Violating security policies or regulations

Therefore, an exception to the security policy that disables access to USB storage de-vices on laptops and desktops should only be granted if the benefit of using them is greater than the potential risk of compromising them. For example, if a user needs to transfer a large amount of data from one laptop to another in a remote location where there is no network connection available, and the data is encrypted and protected by a strong password on the USB device, then the benefit of using the USB device may be greater than the risk of losing or exposing it. The other options are not the strongest justifications for granting an exception to the security policy that disables access to USB storage devices on laptops and desktops. Enabling USB storage devices based on user roles is not a justification, but rather a possible way of implementing a more gran-ular or flexible security policy that allows different levels of access for different types of users3. Users accepting the risk of noncompliance is not a justification, but rather a requirement for requesting an exception to a security policy that acknowledges their responsibility and accountability for any consequences of noncompliance4. Accessing being restricted to read-only is not a justification, but rather a possible control that can reduce the risk of introducing malware or viruses from USB devices to laptops and desktops5. References: 1: Information Security Policy - NIST 2: Policy Exception Man-agement - ISACA 3: Deploy and manage Removable Storage Access Control using In-tune - Microsoft Learn 4: Policy Exception Request Form - University of California 5: Re-movable Media Policy Writing Tips - CurrentWare

Assigning a risk owner is the best way to ensure a risk response plan will be developed and executed in a timely manner, because a risk owner is responsible for monitoring, controlling, and reporting on the risk, as well as implementing the appropriate risk response actions. A risk owner should have the authority, accountability, and resources to manage the risk effectively. Establishing risk metrics, training on risk management procedures, and reporting on documented deficiencies are all important aspects of risk management, but they do not guarantee that a risk response plan will be executed promptly and properly. Risk metrics help to measure and communicate the risk level and performance, but they do not assign any responsibility or action. Training on risk management procedures helps to increase the awareness and competence of the staff involved in risk management, but it does not ensure that they will follow the procedures or have the authority to do so. Reporting on documented deficiencies helps to identify and communicate the gaps and weaknesses in the risk management process, but it does not provide any solutions or corrective actions. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, ISACA, 2021, pages 125-126, 136-137.

 Performing a risk assessment is the best approach to determine how to protect newly acquired data assets prior to integration, as it will help to identify the threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, and likelihoods of the data assets, and to prioritize the appropriate risk treatment options. Including security requirements in the contract is a good practice, but it may not be sufficient to address the specific risks of the data assets. Assessing security controls and reviewing data architecture are also important steps, but they should be done after performing a risk assessment, as they will depend on the risk level and the risk app

The best approach to determine how to protect newly acquired data assets prior to integration is to perform a risk assessment. A risk assessment will identify the various threats and vulnerabilities associated with the data assets and help the organization develop an appropriate security strategy. This risk assessment should include an assessment of the security controls in place to protect the data, a review of the data architecture, and a review of any contractual requirements related to security.

 Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that measure the level of risk exposure and the likelihood of occurrence of potential adverse events that can affect the organization’s objectives and performance. KRIs are used to monitor changes in the risk environment and to provide early warning signals for potential issues that may require management attention or intervention. KRIs are also used to communicate the risk status and trends to the relevant stakeholders and to support risk-based decision making12.

The primary reason to monitor KRIs related to information security is to alert on unacceptable risk. Unacceptable risk is the level of risk that exceeds the organization’s risk appetite, tolerance, or threshold, and that poses a significant threat to the organization’s assets, operations, reputation, or compliance. Unacceptable risk can result from internal or external factors, such as cyberattacks, data breaches, system failures, human errors, fraud, natural disasters, or regulatory changes. Unacceptable risk can have severe consequences for the organization, such as financial losses, legal liabilities, operational disruptions, customer dissatisfaction, or reputational damage12.

By monitoring KRIs related to information security, the organization can identify and assess the sources, causes, and impacts of unacceptable risk, and take timely and appropriate actions to mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept the risk. Monitoring KRIs can also help the organization to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing information security controls, policies, and procedures, and to identify and implement any necessary improvements or enhancements. Monitoring KRIs can also help the organization to align its information security strategy and objectives with its business strategy and objectives, and to ensure compliance with the relevant laws, regulations, standards, and best practices12.

While monitoring KRIs related to information security can also serve other purposes, such as identifying residual risk, reassessing risk appetite, or benchmarking control performance, these are not the primary reason for monitoring KRIs. Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after applying the risk treatment options, and it should be within the organization’s risk appetite, tolerance, or threshold. Reassessing risk appetite is the process of reviewing and adjusting the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to take in pursuit of its objectives, and it should be done periodically or when there are significant changes in the internal or external environment. Benchmarking control performance is the process of comparing the organization’s information security controls with those of other organizations or industry standards, and it should be done to identify and adopt the best practices or to demonstrate compliance12. References = Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management, The Power of KRIs in Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) - Metricstream, What Is a Key Risk Indicator? With Characteristics and Tips, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, Key risk indicator - Wikipedia