CRISC Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

 The best recommendation to the control owner when an existing control has deteriorated over time is to discuss risk mitigation options with the risk owner. This is because the risk owner is the person or entity who has the authority and accountability to make decisions and take actions regarding the risk, including the selection and implementation of the risk response strategies. The control owner is the person or entity who is responsible for the design, operation, and maintenance of the control, but not for the overall risk management. By discussing risk mitigation options with the risk owner, the control owner can communicate the current status and performance of the control, and collaborate on finding the most appropriate and effective solution to address the risk and the control deterioration. The other options are not the best recommendation to the control owner, because they do not involve the risk owner, who is the key stakeholder in the risk management process, as explained below:

A. Implement compensating controls to reduce residual risk is not the best recommendation, because it may not be feasible, efficient, or sufficient to address the risk and the control deterioration. Compensating controls are additional or alternative controls that are implemented to mitigate the risk when the primary control is not available, adequate, or effective. However, implementing compensating controls without discussing with the risk owner may result in wasting resources, duplicating efforts, or conflicting objectives, and may not align with the risk appetite or strategy of the organization.

B. Escalate the issue to senior management is not the best recommendation, because it may not be necessary, timely, or appropriate to involve senior management in the risk and control deterioration issue. Senior management is the highest level of authority and oversight in the organization, and may not have the detailed or operational knowledge or involvement in the risk and control management. Escalating the issue to senior management without discussing with the risk owner may create confusion, delay, or misunderstanding, and may not result in the optimal risk mitigation solution.

D. Certify the control after documenting the concern is not the best recommendation, because it may not be accurate, honest, or compliant to certify the control when it has deteriorated over time. Certifying the control is the process of attesting that the control is designed and operating effectively and efficiently, and meets the established criteria and standards. Certifying the control after documenting the concern may not reflect the true status and performance of the control, and may not comply with the internal or external audit or regulatory requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 115. Roles and Responsibilities in Risk Management, Risk Owner vs. Control Owner: What’s the Difference?, Control Deterioration: How to Avoid It and What to Do About It

The primary concern when IT decides to develop an in-house replacement application for a critical business application is that the business process owner is not an active participant. The business process owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for the business process that is supported by the application, and who understands the business requirements, objectives, and expectations of the application. The business process owner should be involved in all stages of the application development lifecycle, from planning, analysis, design, testing, implementation, to maintenance, to ensure that the application meets the business needs and delivers value. Without the active participation of the business process owner, the application development project may face risks such as scope creep, miscommunication, user dissatisfaction, poor quality, or failure.

Aconsistent approach to reporting risk impact and likelihoodis essential for integrating IT risk into the broader enterprise risk management (ERM) framework. It allows for proper aggregation and alignment, ensuring IT risks are understood in context with overall enterprise risk.

===========

A new risk scenario without controls means that there is a potential threat or event that could adversely affect the organization’s objectives, and there are no existing measures to prevent or reduce the impact or likelihood of the risk. Therefore, the most appropriate action is to include the new risk scenario in the current risk assessment, so that the risk practitioner can analyze therisk, evaluate its severity and priority, and recommend suitable controls to mitigate the risk. By including the new risk scenario in the current riskassessment, the risk practitioner can ensure that the risk register is updated and reflects the current risk profile of the organization. The other options are not appropriate because they either ignore the new risk scenario, delay the risk assessment process, or remove valuable information from the risk register. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1, page 95.

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the first course of action when a risk practitioner discovers several key documents detailing the design of a product currently in development have been posted on the Internet is to invoke the established incident response plan, which is a set of policies, procedures, and resources that enable the organization to respond to and recover from an incident that affects the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of its IT assets and processes. Invoking the incident response plan helps to:

Contain and isolate the incident and prevent further damage or loss

Identify and analyze the source, cause, and impact of the incident

Eradicate and eliminate the incident and restore normal operations

Communicate and coordinate the incident response activities and roles with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business owner, the risk owner, the senior management, and the external parties

Learn and improve from the incident and update the incident response plan and the risk register

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: IT Risk Monitoring, pp. 219-2201

Ineffective control implementation can result in increased risk exposure, reduced compliance, and diminished performance for the organization. Therefore, the most relevant information for stakeholders is the impact of ineffective control implementation on the business objectives, processes, and outcomes. The impact on business can include financial losses, reputational damage, operational inefficiencies, customer dissatisfaction, and legal liabilities. The other options are not as relevant as the impact on business, because they do not directly link the control effectiveness to the business value. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 128.

 The ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is the best metric to determine if the change management program is performing as expected, because it reflects the quality and stability of the changes that are implemented in the production environment. A high ratio of emergency fixes to total changes indicates that the change management program is not effective, as it means that many changes are causing problems or failures that require urgent correction. A low ratio of emergency fixes to total changes indicates that the change management program is effective, as it means that most changes are well-planned, tested, and approved, and do not cause significant disruptions or defects. The ratio of emergency fixes to total changes can also help identify the root causes of the problems, the gaps in the change management process, and the areas for improvement. For example, if the ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is high, it may indicate that the change management program has issues with the following aspects: - Change request and approval: The change management program may not have a clear and consistent process for requesting, reviewing, and approving changes, or the process may not be followed by all stakeholders. - Change impact analysis: The change management program may not have acomprehensive and systematic method for assessing the potential impact of the changes on thebusiness processes, the IT systems, the users, and the customers. - Change testing and validation: The change management program may not have adequate testing and validation procedures to ensure that the changes meet the requirements and specifications, and do not introduce errors or vulnerabilities. - Change communication and training: The change management program may not have effective communication and training strategies to inform and educate the affected parties about the changes and their implications. - Change implementation and monitoring: The change management program may not have proper implementation and monitoring plans or tools to ensure that the changes are executed smoothly and successfully, and that any issues or incidents are detected and resolved promptly. Therefore, the ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is the best metric to determine if the change management program is performing as expected, as it can provide valuable feedback and insights for the change management program and its improvement. References = How to Measure Change Management Effectiveness: Metrics, Tools & Processes1, Metrics for Measuring Change Management2, Driving Value with Change Management Metrics3, Must-Know Organizational Change Management Metrics

Key risk indicators are designed to provide early warnings about increasing risk exposure, enabling timely risk mitigation efforts. This supports proactive risk management, as outlined in theRisk Monitoring and Reportingdomain of CRISC.

The most important element to update when an organization’s risk appetite changes is the key risk indicators (KRIs). KRIs are metrics that provide an early warning of increasing risk exposure in various areas of the organization. They help to monitor the level of risk and to trigger risk responses when the risk exceeds the risk appetite. The risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk reportingmethodology, key performance indicators (KPIs), and risk taxonomy are other elements that may be updated, but they are not as important as the KRIs. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 12; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 215.

Integrity is the property of data that ensures its accuracy, completeness, and consistency2. If concurrent update transactions to an account are not processed properly, the integrity of the data may be compromised, as it may lead to concurrency problems such as lost update, unrepeatable read, or phantom read3. These problems can cause the data to be incorrect, incomplete, or inconsistent, which may affect the reliability and validity of the data. Therefore, option D is the correct answer, as it reflects the impact of improper concurrent update transactions on the data integrity. The other options are not correct, as they do not directly relate to the effect of concurrent update transactions on the data. Option A, confidentiality, is the property of data that ensures its protection from unauthorized access or disclosure2. Concurrent update transactions do not necessarily affect the confidentiality of the data, as they do not involve exposing the data to unauthorized parties. Option B, accountability, is the property of data that ensures its traceability and auditability2. Concurrent update transactions do not necessarily affect the accountability of the data, as they do not involve losing the records or logs of the data transactions. Option C, availability, is the property of data that ensures its accessibility and usability2. Concurrent update transactions do not necessarily affect the availability of the data, as they do not involve preventing the access or use of the data.

 Risk appetite is the broad-based amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite reflects the level of risk that the organization is prepared to take to achieve its strategic goals, and provides guidance and boundaries for the risk management activities and decisions. To define the risk management strategy, which is the plan and approach for managing the risks that may affect the achievement of the organization’s objectives, the factor that must be set by the board of directors is the risk appetite. The board of directors is the highest governing body of the organization, and has the ultimate responsibility and authority for setting the direction and oversight of the organization. By setting the risk appetite, the board of directors can communicate its expectations and preferences for the risk exposure and performance of the organization, and ensure alignment with the business objectives and strategies. References = 3

A maturity model is a framework that describes the stages or levels of development and improvement of a certain domain, such as a process, a function, or an organization. A maturitymodel can help to evaluate the current state, identify the strengths and weaknesses, set the goals and objectives, and measure the performance and improvement over time. The primary benefit of using a maturity model is that it helps to evaluate the evolution of process improvements, meaning that it can help to track the progress andchanges of the processes, as well as to identify the best practices and standards. A maturity model can also help to compare the processes with the industry benchmarks and competitors, as well as to align the processes with the business strategy and vision. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2.1, p. 118-119

 A source code review is the process of examining and analyzing the source code of an application to identify any vulnerabilities, errors, or flaws that may compromise the security, functionality, or performance of the application. A source code review is the most effective way to identify an application backdoor prior to implementation, as it can detect any hidden or unauthorized code that may allow unauthorized access, bypass security controls, or execute malicious commands. A source code review can also help to improvethe quality and reliability of the application, and ensure compliance with the coding standards and best practices. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 181.

The business owner should own the risk if the ERP and payroll system fail to operate as expected, because the business owner is ultimately responsible for the business processes and objectives that depend on the systems. The other options are not the risk owners, because:

Option B: The ERP administrator is responsible for the technical aspects of the ERP system, but not the payroll system or the business outcomes.

Option C: The project steering committee is responsible for overseeing the project of replacing the ERP system, but not the ongoing operation and maintenance of the systems or the business risks.

Option D: The IT project manager is responsible for managing the project of replacing the ERP system, but not the payroll system or the business risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 90.

To reduce risk impact, the best course of action is to implement corrective measures, which are actions taken to eliminate or minimize the negative effects of a risk event after it has occurred12.

Corrective measures can include restoring normal operations, repairing or replacing damaged assets, recovering lost data, compensating affected stakeholders, and implementing lessons learned12.

Corrective measures can reduce risk impact by minimizing the duration, severity, and scope of the consequences of a risk event, as well as preventing recurrence or escalation of similar risks in the future12.

The other options are not the best course of action to reduce risk impact, but rather different types of risk responses that may have different objectives and effects. For example:

Creating an IT security policy is an example of a preventive measure, which is an action taken to avoid or reduce the likelihood of a risk event before it occurs12. A preventive measure can reduce risk exposure, but not risk impact.

Implementing detective controls is an example of a monitoring measure, which is an action taken to identify and measure the occurrence or status of a risk event during or after it occurs12. A monitoring measure can provide timely information and feedback, but not reduce risk impact.

Leveraging existing technology is an example of a mitigation measure, which is an action taken to reduce the likelihood or impact of a risk event before it occurs12. A mitigation measure can reduce risk exposure, but not necessarily risk impact. References =

1: Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems, NIST Special Publication 800-30, July 2002

2: Project Risk Management Handbook, California Department of Transportation, June 2011

A critical patch is a software update that fixes a security vulnerability or a bug that may affect the performance, functionality, or reliability of a system or a network. A critical patch implementation is a process that applies the software update to the system or network in a timely and effective manner. The failure of a critical patch implementation is a situation where the software update is not applied or not applied correctly, which may expose the system or networkto various threats, such as data theft, data corruption, data leakage, or denial of service. The failure of a critical patch implementation would be reflected in an organization’s risk profile by increasing the residual risk. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk response, which means the risk that is not avoided, transferred, or mitigated by the existing controls or measures. The failure of a critical patch implementation would increase the residual risk, as it would reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the existing controls or measures that are supposed to address the security vulnerability or the bug. The failure of a critical patch implementation would also increase the likelihood or impact of the potential threats, as well as the exposure or consequences of the system or network. The other options are not the correct changes that would be reflected in an organization’s risk profile after the failure of a critical patch implementation, although they may be affected or related. Risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is not willing to accept. Risk tolerance may be decreased by the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the organization may become more cautious or conservative in accepting the risk, but it is not a direct or immediate change in the risk profile. Inherent risk is the risk that exists in the absence of any controls or measures, which means the risk that is inherent to the system or network or the environment. Inherent risk may be increased by the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the system or network may become more vulnerable or susceptible to the threats, but it is not a change in the risk profile, as the risk profile considers the existing controls or measures. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite may be decreasedby the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the organization may become less willing orable to accept the risk, but it is not a change in the risk profile, as the risk profile reflects the actual or current risk level, not the desired or expected risk level. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 32-331; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 972; What is a Critical Patch? - Definition from Techopedia3; What is Residual Risk? - Definition from Techopedia4

Risk appetite is defined as "the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, before action is deemed necessary to reduce the risk."1 It represents a balance between the potential benefits of innovation and the threats that change inevitably brings. Risk appetite reflects the organization’s risk attitude and its willingness to accept risk in specific scenarios, with a governance model in place for risk oversight. Risk appetite helps to guide the organization’s approach to risk and risk management, and to align its risk decisions with its business objectives and context. The other options are not the best descriptions of risk appetite, as they are either too vague (the effective management of risk and internal control environments), too narrow (acceptable variation between risk thresholds and business objectives), or confusing (the acceptable variation relative to the achievement of objectives). References = Risk Appetite vs. Risk Tolerance: What is the Difference?

Conducting a proof of concept in a non-production environment ensures that any potential issues or vulnerabilities in the AI technology do not affect live systems or data. This approach allows for thorough testing and evaluation without risking operational disruptions or data breaches.

Developing a risk response plan is the best action to address the risk scenarios with high impact and low likelihood of occurrence, because it helps to define and implement the appropriate actions to reduce or eliminate the risk, or to prepare for and recover from the potential consequences. A risk response plan is a document that outlines the strategies and tactics for managing the identified risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risk. A risk response plan also assigns the roles and responsibilities for the risk owners and stakeholders, and sets the timelines and budgets for the risk response activities. A risk scenario with high impact and low likelihood of occurrence is a rare but severe event that may cause significant disruption or damage to the organization or its objectives, such as a natural disaster, a cyberattack, or a pandemic. Therefore, developing a risk response plan is the best action to address these scenarios, as it helps to minimize the exposure and impact of the risk, and to enhance the resilience and recovery of the organization. Assembling an incident response team, creating a disaster recovery plan (DRP), and initiating a business impact analysis (BIA) are all important actions to perform as part of the risk response plan, but they are not the best action, as they do not cover the whole spectrum of risk response strategies and activities. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2, page 103

The HR manager is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility to collect, process, and protect the personal data of the employees in the organization. The HR managerhelps to manage the employee personal data, because they help to establish and enforce the data policies and standards for the employees, and to comply with the legal and regulatory requirements, such as the GDPR. The HR manager also helps to monitor and report on the data performance and compliance for the employees, and to identify and address any issues or gaps in the data management activities. The other options are not the best person to manage the employee personal data, although they may be involved in the process. System administrator, data privacy manager, and compliance manager are all examples of roles or functions that can help to support or implement the data management activities, but they do not necessarily have the authority or responsibility to collect, process, or protect the employee personal data

 The analysis of logs and system events will best help validate whether suspicious network activity is malicious, because they provide detailed and timely information about the source, destination, content, and context of the network traffic. Logs and system events can be collected from various sources, such as firewalls, routers, switches, servers, applications, and endpoints, and can be correlated and analyzed using tools such as security information and event management (SIEM) systems. By analyzing logs and system events, an organization can identify anomalies, patterns, trends, and indicators of compromise (IOCs) that may signal malicious network activity, such as unauthorized access, data exfiltration, malware infection, denial-of-service attack, or lateral movement. Logs and system events can also help determine the scope, impact, and root cause of the malicious network activity, and support the incident response and remediation process. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 221

The greatest concern of maintaining independent departmental risk registers that are not automatically aggregated is that management may be unable to accurately evaluate the risk profile. The risk profile is the overall view of the risks that the organization faces and their impact on the organization’s objectives. It helps management to prioritize and allocate resources for risk management and to align the risk appetite and strategy. If the departmental risk registers are not aggregated, management may not have a complete and consistent picture of the risks across the organization. They may miss some important risks, overestimate or underestimate some risks, or have conflicting or redundant risk information. This may lead to poor risk management decisions and outcomes. The other options are also concerns, but they are not ascritical as the inability to evaluate the risk profile. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.2: IT Risk Analysis, page 63.

 A compensating control is a temporary or alternative control that is implemented when the primary control for mitigating a risk is not feasible or available. A compensating control should provide a similar level of protection and assurance as the primary control, and should be aligned with the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. The risk practitioner’s best course of action when a compensating control needs to be applied is to obtain the risk owner’s approval. The risk owner is the person who has the authority and accountability for managing a specific risk, and who is responsible for ensuring that the risk is within the acceptable level. The risk practitioner should consult with the risk owner to explain the situation, proposethe compensating control, and seek their approval before implementing it. This way, the risk practitioner can ensure that the compensating control is appropriate, effective, and acceptable for the risk owner, and that the risk owner is aware of and agrees with the change in the risk treatment. The other options are not the best course of action, as they do not involve the risk owner’s approval or input. Recording the risk as accepted in the risk register implies that the risk is not treated or reduced, which may not be the case with a compensating control. Informing senior management may be a good practice, but it does not ensure that the risk owner is involved or agrees with the compensating control. Updating the risk response plan may be a necessary step after implementing the compensating control, but it does not require the risk owner’s approval or consultation. References = 5 Key Risk Mitigation Strategies (With Examples), Risk Management 101: Process, Examples, Strategies

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, controls are the policies, procedures, practices, and organizational structures that are designed and implemented to manage risk. The most important factor when defining controls is to align them with the business objectives, as this helps to ensure that the controls support the achievement of the organization’s strategy, goals, and values. Aligning controls with business objectives also helps to optimize the benefits and costs of controls, and to prioritize and allocate resources for control implementation and maintenance. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 202.

 The business owner is the person who is responsible for approval when a change in an application system is ready for release to production. The business owner is the person who has the authority and accountability for the business process or function that is supported by the application system. The business owner should approve the change to ensure that it meets the business requirements, objectives, and expectations, and that it does not introduce any adverse impacts or risks to the business operations. The information security officer, the IT risk manager, and the chief risk officer (CRO) are not responsible for the approval of the change, although they may provide input, feedback, or oversight. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1, page 3-32.

The risk manager’s best course of action when discovering significant vulnerabilities in a commercial off-the-shelf software product is to review the risk of implementing versus postponing with stakeholders. This means that the risk manager should assess the potential impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities being exploited, as well as the benefits and costs of using the software product. The risk manager should also consult with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business owners, the IT department, the security team, and the vendor, to understand their perspectives, expectations, and requirements. Based on this analysis, the risk manager should decide whether to proceed with the implementation, delay it until the next release,or look for alternative solutions. The risk manager should also document and communicate the decision and the rationale behind it, and monitor the situation for any changes or new developments.

The other options are not the best course of action, because:

Running vulnerability testing tools to independently verify the vulnerabilities is a useful step to confirm the existence and severity of the vulnerabilities, but it is not sufficient to address the risk. The risk manager still needs to evaluate the trade-offs between implementing and postponing the software product, and involve the stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Reviewing the software license to determine the vendor’s responsibility regarding vulnerabilities is an important step to understand the contractual obligations and liabilities of the vendor, but it is not enough to mitigate the risk. The risk manager still needs to consider the impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities, and the benefits and costs of the software product, and consult with the stakeholders to decide the best course of action.

Requiring the vendor to correct significant vulnerabilities prior to installation is an unrealistic and impractical option, as the vendor has already stated that the vulnerabilities will not be corrected until the next release. The risk manager cannot force the vendor to change their schedule or priorities, and may risk damaging the relationship with the vendor. The risk manager should instead work with the vendor to understand the nature and scope of the vulnerabilities, and the expected timeline and features of the next release, and use this information to inform the risk assessment and decision-making process.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk taxonomy is the system of classification and categorization of risks based on common characteristics and attributes. Risk taxonomy is necessary to enable an IT risk register to be consolidated with the rest of the organization’s risk register, because it helps to ensure consistency, comparability, and alignment of the risks across the organization. Risk taxonomy also helps to facilitate the communication, reporting, and aggregation of the risks. The other options are not the correct answers, because they are not essential for consolidating the risk registers. Risk response is the action taken to address the risk, which may vary depending on the risk level and strategy. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept, which may differ across the organization’s units and functions. Risk ranking is the process of prioritizing the risks based on their impact and likelihood, which may change over time and context. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2, page 69.

 The best way to assess the effectiveness of an access management process is to reconcile a list of accounts belonging to terminated employees. This will ensure that the access rights of the employees who have left the organization are revoked in a timely and accurate manner, and that there are no orphaned or unauthorized accounts that could pose a security risk. Comparing the actual process with the documented process, reviewing access logs for user activity, and reviewing for compliance with acceptable use policy are also useful methods, but they are not as direct and conclusive as reconciling a list of accounts belonging to terminated employees. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 217.

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, stakeholders are the individuals or groups that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the IT system and its risks. Stakeholders include the system owners, users, operators, developers, managers, auditors, regulators, and customers. It is most important to ensure that agreement is obtained from stakeholders when testing the security of an IT system, as this helps to define the scope, objectives, and expectations of the test, and to obtain the necessary authorization, support, and resources for the test. Agreement from stakeholders also helps to avoid any conflicts, disruptions, or misunderstandings that may arise during or after the test, and to ensure the validity and acceptance of the test results and recommendations. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 198, 224.

Determining if organizational risk is tolerable requires understanding the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives1. Understanding the organization’s risk appetite can help to:

Define and communicate the risk tolerance, which is the acceptable or unacceptable level of risk for each risk category or scenario2.

Guide and align the risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment processes, and ensure that the risks are consistent and proportional to the risk appetite3.

Measure and monitor the risk performance and outcome, and ensure that the residual risk (the risk that remains after the risk responses) is within the risk appetite, or take corrective actions if needed4.

The other options are not the best ways to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, because:

Mapping residual risk with cost of controls is a useful but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it provides a quantitative analysis of the trade-off between the risk level and the risk response cost5. However, mapping residual risk with cost of controls does not consider the qualitative aspects of the risk, such as the impact on the organization’s strategy, culture, or reputation.

Comparing against regulatory requirements is a necessary but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it ensures that the organization complies with the applicable laws, rules, or standards that govern its activities and operations6. However, comparing against regulatory requirements does not guarantee that the organization meets its own objectives and expectations, which may be higher or lower than the regulatory requirements.

Comparing industry risk appetite with the organization’s risk appetite is a helpful but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it provides a reference or a standard for benchmarking the organization’s risk level and performance with its peers or competitors7. However, comparing industry risk appetite with the organization’s risk appetitedoes not ensure that the organization addresses its specific or unique risks, which may differ from the industry risks.

References =

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Tolerance - CIO Wiki

Risk Management Process - CIO Wiki

Risk Monitoring - CIO Wiki

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

Regulatory Compliance - CIO Wiki

Benchmarking - CIO Wiki

Risk and Information Systems Control documents and learning resources by ISACA

When establishing leading indicators for the information security incident response process, it is most important to consider the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the service levelagreement (SLA). A leading indicator is a metric that can predict or influence the future performance or outcome of a process or activity. A leading indicator for the information security incident response process should measure how well the process is achieving its objectives, such as minimizing the impact of incidents, restoring normal operations as quickly as possible, and preventing recurrence of incidents. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is a leading indicator that reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of the information security incident response process. It shows how well the process is meeting the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders, such as the business units, customers, and regulators. It also shows how well the process is managing the resources, such as time, budget, and personnel, that are allocated for incident response. A high percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is performing well and delivering value to the organization. A low percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is facing challenges and needs improvement. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA can also help identify the root causes of incidents, the gaps in the process, and the areas for improvement. For example, if the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is low, it may indicate that the process has issues with the following aspects: - Incident detection and reporting: The process may not have adequate tools, techniques, or procedures to detect and report incidents in a timely and accurate manner. - Incident prioritization and classification: The process may not have clear and consistent criteria to prioritize and classify incidents based on their severity, impact, and urgency. - Incident analysis and investigation: The process may not have sufficient skills, knowledge, or evidence to analyze and investigate the incidents and determine their root causes, scope, and consequences. - Incident containment and eradication: The process may not have effective methods or measures to contain and eradicate the incidents and prevent them from spreading or escalating. - Incidentrecovery and restoration: The process may not have reliable backup and recovery plans or systems to restore the normal operations and functionality of the affected systems or services. - Incident communication and escalation: The process may not have proper communication and escalation channels or protocols to inform and involve the relevant stakeholders, such as the management, the users, the vendors, or the authorities. - Incident documentation and closure:The process may not have adequate documentation and closure procedures to record and report the incidents and their resolution. - Incident review and improvement: The process may not have regular review and improvement activities to evaluate and enhance the process and its performance. Therefore, the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is the most important leading indicator for the information security incident response process, as it can provide valuable insights and feedback for the process and its improvement. References = Information Security Incident Response | Process Street1, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response2, 7 Incident Response Metrics and How to Use Them3

The next step is toidentify risk response optionsto address the noncompliance and mitigate its impact. This may include corrective actions, implementing controls, or negotiating terms to reduce exposure.

The number of IT policy exceptions granted serves as a direct measure of how well IT policies align with organizational needs and practices. A high number of exceptions may indicate that policies are too restrictive or not practical, suggesting a need for review or modification.

A risk response action plan is a document that specifies the actions to be taken to address the identified risks, the resources required, the timelines, the owners, and the expected outcomes. The risk response action plan should be aligned with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance, and should be approved by the relevant stakeholders. The best way to ensure the implementation of an effective risk response action plan is to assign clear roles and responsibilities to the individuals or groups who will execute the actions, monitor the progress, and report the results. This will help to avoid confusion, ambiguity, duplication, or omission of tasks, and will ensure accountability and ownership of the risk responses. The other options are not as directly related to the implementation of the risk response action plan, although they may be involved in some aspects of it. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.1, pp. 121-122.

Reviewing configuration settings is the best way for an organization to ensure that servers are compliant to security policy, because it helps to check and verify that the servers are configured and maintained according to the established security standards and guidelines, and that any deviations or violations are identified and corrected. A configuration setting is a parameter or option that defines the behavior or functionality of a server, such as a system, an application, or aservice. A security policy is a document that outlines the security objectives, principles, and rules that the organization and its employees must follow, and the consequences of non-compliance. Reviewing configuration settings is the best way, as it helps to ensure that the servers are secure and compliant, and that any security risks or issues are detected and resolved. Reviewing change logs, server access logs, and anti-malware compliance are all possible ways to ensure that servers are compliant to security policy, but they are not the best way, as they do not provide a comprehensive and consistent view of the configuration settings and their compliance status. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 200

The organizational role that should be accountable for ensuring information assets are appropriately classified is the information asset owner, as they have the authority and responsibility to define the classification, retention, and disposal requirements for the information assets they own, and to manage the risk and controls related to the information assets. The other options are not the correct roles, as they have different roles and responsibilities related to the protection, governance, or maintenance of the information assets, respectively, rather than the classification of the information assets. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 154.

The primary reason an organization should include background checks on roles with elevated access to production as part of its hiring process is to reduce internal threats. Internal threats are the risks that originate from within the organization, such as employees, contractors, or partners. Roles with elevated access to production have the privilege and ability to access, modify, or delete sensitive or critical data and systems. If these roles are assigned to individuals who have malicious intent, criminal records, or conflicts of interest, they may pose a significant threat to the organization’s security, integrity, and availability. By conducting background checks, the organization can verify the identity, credentials, and history of the candidates, and prevent or minimize the possibility of hiring untrustworthy or unsuitable individuals. The other options are not as important as reducing internal threats, as they are related to the outcomes, impacts, or requirements of the roles with elevated access to production, not the reasons for conducting background checks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

The risk owner is the person who should be accountable for any related losses to the organization, because they are the person who has the authority and responsibility to manage the risk and its associated controls.The risk owner is also the person who accepts the risk and its residual level, and who monitors and reports on the risk status and performance. The IT risk manager, the server administrator, and the risk practitioner are all involved in the riskmanagement process, but they are not the person who should be accountable for the risk and its outcomes, as they do not have the ultimate decision-making power and accountability for therisk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1, page 79

The best way to ensure the effective decision-making of an IT risk management committee is to enroll key stakeholders as members. Key stakeholders are the individuals or groups who have an interest or influence in the IT risk management process, such as business owners, senior management, IT managers, auditors, regulators, customers, and suppliers. By involving key stakeholders in the IT risk management committee, the committee can benefit from their diverse perspectives, expertise, and experience, and ensure that the IT risk management decisions are aligned with the business objectives, priorities, and expectations. Key stakeholders can also provide valuable input, feedback, and support for the IT risk management activities, and help communicate and implement the IT risk management decisions across the organization. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

Cyber risk insurance is a type of insurance policy that provides coverage against losses and damages caused by cyber incidents such as data breaches, hacking, and other cyber attacks. When an organization decides to purchase cyber risk insurance, it transfers the risk of financial loss due to a cyber incident to the insurance company. In the scenario described in the question, the organization allowed its cyber risk insurance to lapse while seeking a new insurance provider. This means that the organization is currently not covered by any cyber risk insurance policy and is therefore exposed to financial losses due to cyber incidents. The risk practitioner should report to management that the risk has been accepted. Accepting risk means that the organization is aware of the potential consequences of the risk and has decided not to take any action to mitigate, transfer, or avoid it. The other options are not correct because they do not reflect the current situation of the organization. The organization has not transferred the risk to another party, as it has no cyber risk insurance policy in place. The organization has not mitigated the risk, as it has not implemented anycontrols or measures to reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk. The organization has not avoided the risk, as it has not eliminated the source or cause of the risk or changed its activities to prevent the risk from occurring. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 32-331; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 752

Encrypting the data would MOST effectively reduce the risk associated with inadvertent disclosure of database records from a public cloud service provider (CSP), because it is a control that protects the confidentiality and integrity of the data by transforming it into an unreadable and unmodifiable form, using a secret key or algorithm. Encrypting the data can prevent or minimize the unauthorized or accidental access, modification, or leakage of the data, especially when the data is stored, transmitted, or processed in a public cloud environment, which may have less security and control than a private or on-premise environment. The other options are not as effective as encrypting the data, because:

Option B: Including a nondisclosure clause in the CSP contract is a legal measure that can deter or penalize the CSP from disclosing the data to any third party, but it does not reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosure of the data, which may occur due to human error, system failure, or malicious attack, and it does not protect the data from unauthorized or accidental access, modification, or leakage.

Option C: Assessing the data classification scheme is a process that can help to identify and categorize the data according to its sensitivity, value, and criticality, and to determine the appropriate level of protection and handling for the data, but it does not reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosure of the data, which may affect any type or class of data, and it does not provide the specific or effective control to protect the data from unauthorized or accidental access, modification, or leakage.

Option D: Reviewing CSP access privileges is a procedure that can help to monitor and verify the access rights and permissions of the CSP to the data, and to ensure that they are aligned with the business needs and expectations, but it does not reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosure of the data, which may occur even with the legitimate or authorized access of the CSP, and it does not protect the data from unauthorized or accidental access, modification, or leakage by otherparties. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 211.

The best way to ensure that information system controls are effective is to test them periodically. Testing controls periodically helps to verify that the controls are operating as intended, and that they are aligned with the enterprise’s objectives, policies, and standards. Testing controls periodically also helps to identify any gaps, weaknesses, or deficiencies in the controls, and to implement corrective actions or improvements. Responding promptly to control exceptions, implementing compensating controls, and automating manual controls are good practices, but they are not the best way to ensure control effectiveness. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.2, page 1071

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 641.

An IT risk register is a document that records and tracks the identified IT risks, their likelihood, impact, and mitigation strategies. It is a living document that needs to be updated regularly to reflect the current risk profile of the organization. One of the situations that would require updates to the IT risk register is the discovery of an ineffectively designed key IT control, as this would increase the likelihood or impact of the related IT risk. Management review of key risk indicators (KRIs), changes to the team responsible for maintaining the register, and completion of the latest internal audit are not reasons to update the IT risk register, as they do not affect the identified IT risks or their mitigation strategies. References = [CRISC Review Manual (DigitalVersion)], page 97; CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, question 198.

Whose risk tolerance matters most when making a risk decision depends on the context and the perspective of the decision-maker. However, in general, the business process owner of the exposed assets is the most important stakeholder to consider, as they are accountable for the risks and the outcomes of the risk decisions. The business process owner has the authority, responsibility, and knowledge to manage the risks that affect their business objectives, performance, and reputation. The business process owner also has the best understanding of the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization, and how to align the risk decisions with the organizational strategy and context. The other options are not the most important stakeholders to consider, although they may have some influence or interest in the risk decisions. Customers who would be affected by a breach are external stakeholders who may have different risk preferences and expectations than the organization, and who may not be fully aware of the risk exposure or mitigation options. Auditors, regulators, and standards organizations are alsoexternal stakeholders who may impose some requirements or constraints on the risk decisions, but who may not have the same level of involvement or impact as the business process owner. The information security manager is an internal stakeholder who may provide some technical expertise or guidance on the risk decisions, but who may not have the same level of authority or accountability as the business process owner. References = Risk Appetite vs. Risk Tolerance: What is the Difference?; Principles of risk decision-making; Risk Tolerance - Overview, Factors, and Types of Tolerance; Five Factors to Consider When Establishing Risk Tolerance; Risk Tolerance - Overview, Factors, and Types of Tolerance

The management’s primary consideration when approving risk response action plans should be the changes in residual risk after implementing the plans. Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the implementation of risk responses1. It indicates the degree of exposure or uncertainty that the organization still faces, and the potential impact or consequences of the risk events. The management should evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the risk responses, and decide whether the residual risk is acceptable or not2. The management should also compare the residual risk with the risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives3. The management should ensure that the residual risk is aligned with the risk appetite, and that the risk responses are consistent and proportional to the risk level4.

The other options are not the primary consideration when approving risk response action plans, because:

Ability of the action plans to address multiple risk scenarios is a desirable but not essential criterion for approving risk response action plans. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe how a risk event could occur and what the consequences could be5. They can help to understand and communicate the nature and impact of the risks, and to design and evaluate the risk responses6. However, not all risk scenarios are equally likely or relevant, and some risk scenarios may be too complex or improbable to address. Therefore, the ability of the action plansto address multiple risk scenarios is not the primary consideration, but rather a secondary or supplementary one.

Ease of implementing the risk treatment solution is a practical but not critical criterion for approving risk response action plans. Risk treatment is the process of selecting and applying appropriate measures to modify the risk7. It can involve different strategies, such as avoid, reduce, transfer, or accept the risk8. The ease of implementing the risk treatment solution depends on various factors, such as the availability of resources, the feasibility of the solution, or the cooperation of the stakeholders. However, the ease of implementation is not the primary consideration, but rather a supporting or facilitating one.

Prioritization for implementing the action plans is a useful but not vital criterion for approving risk response action plans. Prioritization is the process of ranking the action plans according to their importance, urgency, or impact. It can help to allocate the resources, schedule the activities, and monitor the progress of the action plans. However, prioritization is not the primary consideration, but rather a subsequent or follow-up one.

References =

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

What is Residual Risk? - Definition from Techopedia

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite: What It Is and Why It Matters - Gartner

Risk Scenarios Toolkit - ISACA

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack - ISACA

Risk Treatment - CIO Wiki

Risk Treatment Plan - CIO Wiki

[Prioritization - CIO Wiki]

Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual, such as name, address, email, phone number, etc. Processing personal data involves collecting, storing, using, disclosing, or deleting it. Processing personal data poses various risks to the privacy and security of the data subjects,such as unauthorized access, disclosure, modification, or loss. Therefore, processing personal data requires appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard the data and to comply with the relevant laws and regulations. One of the most effective practices to safeguard the processing of personal data is to use tokenization. Tokenization is a technique that replaces sensitive data elements with non-sensitive equivalents, called tokens, that have no meaning or value outside of a specific system or context. Tokenization reduces the risk of exposing personal data to unauthorized parties, as the tokens cannot be reversed or linked back to the original data without the proper key or algorithm. Tokenization also helps to minimize the amount of personal data that is stored or transmitted, and to limit the scope of compliance requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.2, p. 196-197

The strongest evidence to support a risk response decision is a memo indicating risk acceptance. A memo is a formal and written document that can clearly communicate the rationale, criteria, and approval of the risk acceptance decision. Verbal majority acceptance of risk by committee, list of compensating controls, and IT audit follow-up responses are weaker evidence, as they may not be documented, verified, or aligned with the risk response decision. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 11; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 144.