CRISC Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

Brainstorming sessions with key stakeholders are the best way to facilitate the development of relevant risk scenarios, as they can generate diverse and creative ideas, perspectives, and insights about the potential risks and their impact on the organization’s objectives and operations. Brainstorming sessions can also foster collaboration, communication, and engagement among the stakeholders, and help to identify and prioritize the most significant and realistic risk scenarios. Brainstorming sessions can be guided by an industry-recognized risk framework, such as ISACA’s Risk IT, and supported by qualitative or quantitative risk assessment methodologies, but they are not sufficient by themselves to develop relevant risk scenarios.

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

 According to the CRISC Review Manual, a list of unencrypted databases which contain sensitive data would be the most important information for assessing the risk impact, because it would help to determine the extent and severity of the potential data breach or loss. The risk impact is the effect or consequence of the risk occurrence on the business objectives and operations. A list of unencrypted databases which contain sensitive data would indicate the scope and magnitude of the risk exposure and the potential damage to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. The other options are not the most important information for assessing the risk impact, as they are less relevant or less specific than a list of unencrypted databases which contain sensitive data. The number of users who can access sensitive data would indicate the level of access control and the likelihood of unauthorized access, but it would not indicate thetype and value of the data. The reason some databases have not been encrypted would indicate the cause and rationale of the risk, but it would not indicate the effect or consequence of the risk. The cost required to enforce encryption would indicate the feasibility and affordability of the risk response, but it would not indicate the potential loss or harm of the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2, page 78.

The primary reason to perform ongoing risk assessments is that the risk environment is subject to change. The risk environment is the external and internal factors that influence the level and nature of the risks that the organization faces1. These factors include economic, political, social, technological, legal,and environmental aspects, as well as the organization’s objectives, strategies, culture, and resources2. The risk environment is dynamic and unpredictable, and may change due to various events, trends, ordevelopments that create new or modify existing risks3. Therefore, it is important to perform ongoing risk assessments to identify, analyze, and evaluate the changes in the risk environment, and to adjust the risk response and management accordingly. Ongoing risk assessments help to ensure that the organization’s risk profile is up to date and reflects the current reality, and that the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance are aligned with the changing risk environment4. The other options are not the primary reason to perform ongoing risk assessments, as they are either less comprehensive or less relevant than the changing risk environment. Emerging risk must be continuously reported to management. This option is a consequence or outcome of performing ongoing risk assessments, not a reason for doing so. Emerging risk is a new or evolving risk that has the potential to affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance5. Ongoing risk assessments can help to identify and monitor emerging risks, and to report them to management for decision making and action. However, this is not the main reason for performing ongoing risk assessments, as it does not cover the existing or modified risks that may also change due to the risk environment. Newsystem vulnerabilities emerge at frequent intervals. This option is a specific or narrow example of a changing risk environment, not a general or broad reason for performing ongoing risk assessments. System vulnerabilities are weaknesses or flaws in the design, implementation, or operation of information systems that can be exploited by threats to cause harm or loss6. Ongoing risk assessments can help to discover and assess new system vulnerabilities that may emerge due to technological changes, cyberattacks, or human errors. However, this is not the primary reason for performing ongoing risk assessments, as it does not encompass the other types or sources of risks that may also change due to the risk environment. The information security budget must be justified. This option is a secondary or incidental benefit of performing ongoing risk assessments, not a primary or essential reason for doing so. The information security budget is the amount of money that the organization allocates for implementing and maintaining information security measures and controls7. Ongoing risk assessments can help tojustify the information security budget by demonstrating the value and effectiveness of the security measures and controls in reducing the risks, and by identifying the gaps or needs for additional or improved security measures and controls. However, this is not the main reason for performing ongoing risk assessments, as it does not address the purpose or objective of risk assessment, which is to identify, analyze, and evaluate the risks and their impact on the organization. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, Page 47.

IT capacity is the ability of an IT system or network to handle the current and future workload and performance demands. IT capacity can be affected by various factors, such as the numberand type of users, applications, devices, data, transactions, etc. IT capacity management is the process of planning, monitoring, and optimizing the IT resources to ensure that they meet the business needs and objectives. IT capacity management can help prevent issues such as system slowdowns, outages, errors, or failures, and improve the efficiency, reliability, and security of the IT system or network. One of the IT key risk indicators (KRIs) that provides managementwith the best feedback on IT capacity is the trends in IT resource usage. IT resource usage is the measure of how much of the IT resources, such as CPU, memory, disk, bandwidth, etc., are being consumed by the IT system or network. Trends in IT resource usage can help monitor and analyze the changes in the IT capacity over time, and identify the patterns, peaks, and bottlenecks in the IT resource consumption. Trends in IT resource usage can also help forecast the future IT capacity requirements, and plan for the appropriate IT resource allocation, optimization, or expansion. Trends in IT resource usage can provide management with valuable information on the current and potential IT capacity risks, and support the decision making and risk response for IT capacity management. References = Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management, p. 3-4.

Senior management’s role in the RACI model when tasked with reviewing monthly status reports provided by risk owners is accountable, as it means that they have the ultimate authority and responsibility to approve or reject the risk management decisions and actions, and to oversee the risk management performance and outcomes. The other options are not the correct roles, as they imply different levels or types of involvement or participation in the risk management process, such as being informed, responsible, or consulted, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

Administrative controls complement technical controls to enhance the overall effectiveness of risk mitigation. While technical controls implement the specific security mechanisms, administrative controls such as policies, procedures, and training ensure consistent and correct use of these technical controls, increasing their effectiveness in mitigating risk. This layered approach ensures that control measures are reinforced and integrated within the enterprise’s risk management strategy.

Thepercentage of critical systemsrecovered within the definedRTOdirectly reflects the organization’s ability to meet its recovery goals. It is a leading measure of the DR program's success.

For closed risks, documented proof that controls are in place and working (e.g., logs, test results) is vital. ISACA’s CRISC Manual emphasizes that evidence is required to validate control effectiveness and support audit requirements

There is no definitive answer to this question, as different factors may be more or less important depending on the context and the nature of the risk. However, based on some web search results, one possible factor that could be considered essential for managing risk in a highly dynamic environment is D. Implementing detection and response measures.

Detection and response measures are the practices and procedures that enable an organization to identify and mitigate any potential or actual cybersecurity events that could compromise its network, systems, data, or assets. Detection and response measures can help an organization to reduce the impact and duration of a cyberattack, as well as to learn from the incident and improve its security posture and resilience. Detection and response measures can also help an organization to comply with regulatory and legal requirements, as well as to maintain its reputation and trust among its stakeholders.

Some examples of detection and response measures include:

•Using threat intelligence, user behavior analytics, and attacker behavior analytics to monitor and analyze the network activity and identify any anomalies or signs of compromise 12

•Implementing security continuous monitoring, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and antivirus and antimalware software to detect and block malicious traffic and malware 3

•Establishing incident response plans, teams, and tools to contain, eradicate, and recover from a cyberattack, as well as to communicate and coordinate with internal and external parties 45

•Conducting regular audits, assessments, and tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the detection and response measures and to identify any gaps or weaknesses 6

Therefore, implementing detection and response measures could be seen as an essential factor for managing risk in a highly dynamic environment, as it can help an organization to protect its critical assets and functions, and to respond quickly and effectively to any emerging or evolving threats.

Mean time between failures (MTBF) is a key performance indicator (KPI) that measures the average time that a system or component operates without interruption or failure. MTBF is a common metric for reliability and availability of IT services. A higher MTBF indicates a lower frequency of failures and a higher ability to deliver uninterrupted IT services. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, MTBF is one of the KPIs for IT service delivery1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, MTBF is the correct answer to this question2.

Mean time to recover (MTTR), planned downtime, and unplanned downtime are not the best KPIs to measure the ability to deliver uninterrupted IT services. MTTR measures the average time that it takes to restore a system or component to normal operation after a failure. Planned downtime measures the scheduled time that a system or component is not available for use due to maintenance or upgrades. Unplanned downtime measures the unscheduled time that a system or component is not available for use due to failures or incidents. These KPIs are useful for measuring the impact and duration of service interruptions, but they do not directly reflect the ability to prevent or avoid service interruptions.

The best representation of the desired risk posture for an organization is when the residual risk is lower than the risk tolerance. Residual risk is the remaining risk after the implementation of risk responses or controls. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of risk that the organization is willing to take or bear. Thedesired risk posture is when the organization has reduced the residual risk to a level that is equal to or lower than the risk tolerance, which means that the organization has achieved its risk objectives and is comfortable with the remaining risk exposure. The other options are not the best representation of the desired risk posture, as they indicate that the organization has not effectively managed its risk. Inherent risk is lower than risk tolerance means that the organization has not identified or assessed its risk properly, as inherent risk is the risk before any controls or responses are applied. Operational risk is higher than risk tolerance means that the organization has not implemented or monitored its risk responses or controls adequately, as operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes,people, and systems. Accepted risk is higher than risk tolerance means that the organization has not aligned its risk appetite and risk tolerance, as accepted risk is the risk that the organization chooses to retain or take without any further action. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 2-23.

 The most essential content to include in an IT risk awareness program is how to comply with the organization’s IT risk and information security policies. This will help to ensure that the staff members are aware of their roles and responsibilities, and that they follow the best practices andstandards to protect the organization’s information assets and systems. Compliance with the IT risk and information security policies also helps to reduce the likelihood and impact of IT-related incidents and breaches, and to align the IT activities with the organization’s objectives and strategies. Populating risk register entries, prioritizing IT-related actions, and defining the IT risk framework are important aspects of IT risk management, but they are not the most essential content to include in an IT risk awareness program. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1.2, page 2291

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 646.

A root cause analysis is a systematic process of identifying the underlying factors that caused the noncompliant conditions during the review of a control procedure. A root cause analysis can help to prevent the recurrence of the noncompliance, improve the effectiveness of the control procedure, and enhance the risk management process. A root cause analysis can be performed using various tools and techniques, such as the 5 whys, fishbone diagram, Pareto chart, or fault tree analysis. The other options are not as appropriate as a root cause analysis, because they do not address the source of the problem, but rather the symptoms or consequences of the noncompliance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, page 130.

The best way to facilitate the identification of appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a risk management program is to evaluate KPIs in accordance with risk appetite. KPIs are metrics that measure the performance and effectiveness of the risk management program, and help monitor and report on the achievement of the risk objectives and outcomes. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives. Evaluating KPIs in accordance with risk appetite helps to identify the appropriate KPIs, because it helps to align the KPIs with the organization’s mission, vision, values, and strategy, and to ensure that the KPIs reflect the organization’s risk tolerance and threshold. Evaluating KPIs in accordance with risk appetite also helps to communicate and coordinate the KPIs with the organization’s stakeholders, such as the board, management, and business units, and to facilitate the risk decision-making and reporting processes. The other options are not as effective as evaluating KPIs in accordance with risk appetite, although they may be part of or derived from the KPI identification process. Reviewing control objectives, aligning with industry best practices, and consulting risk owners are all activities that can help to define or refine the KPIs, but they are not the best way to facilitate the identification of appropriate KPIs. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1, page 4-38.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, the primary purpose of periodically reviewing an organization’s risk profile is to enable risk-based decision making, because it helps to ensure thatthe risk information is current, relevant, and accurate. The risk profile is a snapshot of the organization’s risk exposure at a given point in time, based on the risk identification, analysis, and evaluation processes. Periodically reviewing the risk profile allows the organization tomonitor the changes in the risk environment, the effectiveness of the risk responses, and the impact of the risk events. This enables the organization to make informed decisions about the risk management strategies and priorities. The other options are not the primary purpose of periodically reviewing the risk profile, as they are related to other aspects of the risk management process. Aligning business objectives with risk appetite is the purpose of establishing the risk context, which defines the scope and boundaries of the risk management activities. Designing and implementing risk response action plans is the purpose of the risk response process, which involves selecting and executing the appropriate risk responses. Updating risk responses in the risk register is the outcome of the risk monitoring and reporting process, which involves tracking the risk performance and communicating the risk information to the stakeholders. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4, page 86.

The CRISC risk assessment process follows a sequence:

Identify assets →

Identify threats →

Identify vulnerabilities →

Evaluate existing controls →

Assess likelihood and impact.

Per ISACA CRISC guidance:

“After identifying threats, the next step is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing controls to determine residual risk.”

Implementing new controls (Option C) happens after risk evaluation and treatment planning.

Hence, D. Evaluate the controls currently in place is correct.

CRISC Reference: Domain 2 – IT Risk Assessment, Topic: Risk Identification and Control Evaluation Steps.

The primary goal of conducting a business impact analysis (BIA) as part of an overall continuity planning process is to identify critical business processes and the degree of reliance on support services. A BIA is a process of assessing the potential impact and consequences of a disruption or interruption of the business activities, operations, or functions. A continuity planning processis a process of developing, implementing, and maintaining a plan to ensure the continuity and recovery of the business activities, operations, or functions in the event of a disruption or interruption. The primary goal of conducting a BIA is to identify critical business processes and the degree of reliance on support services, which are the business processes that are essential for the survival and success of the business, and the support services that are required to enable or facilitate the critical business processes, such as IT systems, human resources, facilities, or suppliers. Identifying critical business processes and the degree of reliance on support services helps to determine the priorities and requirements for the continuity and recovery of the business activities, operations, or functions, and to select and implement the appropriate continuity andrecovery strategies and solutions. Obtaining the support of executive management, mapping the business processes to supporting IT and other corporate resources, and documenting the disaster recovery process are not the primary goals of conducting a BIA, as they are either the benefits or the outputs of the BIA process, and they do not address the primary need of assessing the impact and consequences of the business disruption or interruption. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 50.

Risk and control self-assessments (RCSAs) are designed to helpbusiness units evaluate their own risks and controls, leading to a deeperunderstanding of inherent and residual riskand more accurate risk profiles.

The primary risk management responsibility of the second line of defense is to monitor the risk responses. The second line of defense is the function that oversees and supports the risk management activities of the first line of defense, which is the function that owns and manages the risks. The second line of defense includes the risk management, compliance, and quality assurance functions, among others. The second line of defense is responsible for monitoring the risk responses, which are the actions taken to address the risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risks. The second line of defense monitors the risk responses to ensure that they are implemented effectively and efficiently, that they achieve the desired outcomes, and that they are aligned with the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. The second line of defense also provides guidance, advice, and feedback to the first line of defense on the risk responses, and reports the results and issues to the senior management and the board. Applying risk treatments, providing assurance of control effectiveness, and implementing internal controls are not the primary risk management responsibilities of the second line of defense, as they are either the responsibilities of the first line of defense or the third line ofdefense, which is the function that provides independent assurance of the risk management activities, such as the internal audit function. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

The status of identified risk scenarios, because it helps to monitor and track the current level and direction of the IT risks, and to determine whether the risk responses and controls are adequate and effective. An IT riskregister is a document that records and tracks the key IT risks that an organization faces, along with their likelihood, impact, and response strategies. An IT risk scenario is a hypothetical situation or event that describes the source, cause, consequence, and impact of an IT risk. The status of identified risk scenarios is the most important factor, as it reflects the actual and potential outcomes of the IT risks, and the performance and progress of the risk management process. The costs associated with mitigation options, the cost-benefit analysis of each risk response, and the timeframes for risk response actions are all possible factors to review when evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of the IT risk register, but they are not the most important factor, as they do not directly measure and report the status of the IT risk scenarios.

The business process owner should be the risk owner for the risk exposure due to weak technical controls in a newly implemented HR system, because they are responsible for the performance and outcomes of the HR business process, and they understand the business requirements, expectations, and impact of the HR system. The business process owner can also evaluate the trade-offs between the potential benefits and costs of the HR system, and the potential risks and consequences of a failure or breach of the system. The business process owner can also communicate and justify their risk acceptance or mitigation decision to the senior management and other stakeholders, and ensure that the risk is monitored and reviewed regularly. The other options are less appropriate to be the risk owner for this risk exposure. The chief risk officer is responsible for overseeing the enterprise-wide risk management framework and process, which includesensuring the identification, assessment, and reporting of risks. However, they are not the owner of the HR system or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. The project manager is responsible for managing the implementation of the HR system, which includes ensuring the delivery of the system within the scope, time, and budget constraints. However, they are not the owner of the HR system or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. The chief information officeris responsible for managing the IT function and resources, which includes providing the technical support and security for the HR system. However, they are not the owner of the HRsystem or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. References = Getting risk ownership right 1

The best metric to demonstrate that servers are configured securely is the total number of servers meeting the baseline for hardening. Hardening is the process of applying security configurations and settings to servers to reduce their attack surface and vulnerability. A baseline is a standard or benchmark that defines the minimum level of security required for servers. By measuring the number of servers that meet the baseline, the organization can assess the effectiveness of its hardening efforts and identify any gaps or deviations. The other metrics, such as exceeding availability thresholds, experiencing hardware failures, or exceeding current patching standards, are not directly related to the security configuration of servers, but rather to their performance, reliability, or maintenance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, page 2-25.

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 maturity model is most useful to an organization when it provides a reference for progress, meaning that it helps the organization to assess its current state, identify its strengths and weaknesses, set its goals and objectives, and measure itsperformance and improvement over time. A maturity model can also help the organization to compare itself with best practices and standards, but benchmarking against other organizations is not its primary purpose. A maturity model can also help the organization to manage its risks, but defining a qualitative measure of risk or providingrisk metrics is not its main function. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2.1, p. 118-119

 AI in Heuristic Security Systems:

Heuristic security systems use artificial intelligence (AI) to identify and respond to potential threats by learning from data patterns and behaviors.

 Risk of Misclassification:

During the baselining process, AI systems establish what is considered normal behavior. If malicious activity is present during this period, it may be incorrectly classified as normal.

This misclassification can lead to undetected security breaches, as the system will not recognize these activities as threats in the future.

 Impact of Misclassification:

Misclassified malicious activities can lead to significant security risks, allowing attackers to operate undetected within the system.

It undermines the effectiveness of the heuristic system, reducing its ability to protect the organization from real threats.

 Comparing Other Risks:

Less Reliance on Human Intervention:This is a general concern but does not directly impact the accuracy of threat detection.

Difficulty in Risk Assessments:While a challenge, it is not the greatest risk compared to misclassification of malicious activity.

Outdated Patterns:While a concern, the primary risk lies in initial misclassification during baselining.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses the challenges of AI in security systems, particularly the risk of misclassification during the learning phase (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 4: Information Technology and Security, Section 4.7.4 Artificial Intelligence) .

Using the risk management process will best ensure that controls adequately support business goals and objectives, as it involves identifying, assessing, responding, and monitoring the risks that may affect the achievement of the business goals and objectives, and designing and implementing controls to mitigate those risks. Enforcing strict disciplinary procedures in case of noncompliance, reviewing results of the annual company external audit, and adopting internationally accepted controls are also good practices, but they are not the best, as they do not necessarily align the controls with the business goals and objectives. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 146.

Effective risk reporting to the board of directors requires communication that aligns with the organization's strategic goals and business value. By correlating risk information to corporate objectives, the board can better understand the implications of risks on the organization's performance and make informed decisions. This approach ensures that risk discussions are relevant and meaningful at the executive level.​

The greatest concern for a risk practitioner when reviewing the findings of a security awareness program assessment is that the program uses non-customized training modules. Non-customizedtraining modules are generic and may not address the specific security needs, issues, and challenges of the organization. They may also fail to engage and motivate the employees to follow the security policies and procedures, and to enhance their security knowledge and skills. The program not decreasing threat counts, not considering business impact, or being significantly revised are other possible findings, but they are not as concerning as the program using non-customized training modules. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 7; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 202.

An IT license audit is a process that verifies the compliance of the IT software and hardware assets with the licensing agreements and regulations. An IT license audit can reveal the existence of unlicensed copies of software, which can expose the enterprise to legal, financial, and reputational risks. The best course of action in such a situation is to report the issue to management so that appropriate action can be taken. Management can then decide on the most suitable risk response strategy, such as procuring the necessary licenses, uninstalling the unlicensed software, or negotiating with the software vendor. Reporting the issue to managementcan also help to prevent further violations, identify the root causes, and implement corrective and preventive measures. The other options are not the best course of action, as they may not address the issue effectively, efficiently, or ethically. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.1, pp. 156-157.

Prioritizing risk responses helps to balance the costs and benefits of managing IT risk by ensuring that the most significant risks are addressed first and that the resources allocated to risk management are used efficiently and effectively. Evaluating risk based on frequency and probability is a part of risk analysis, not risk response. Considering risk factors that can be quantified is also a part of risk analysis, and it does not necessarily capture all the relevant aspects of risk. Managing the risk by using controls is a possible risk response, but it does not guarantee that the costs and benefits of risk management are balanced, as some controls may be too expensive or ineffective for the level of risk they mitigate. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk Response, page 145.

Least privilege is the best way to reduce the likelihood of an individual performing a potentially harmful action as the result of unnecessary entitlement, because it limits the access and permissions of the individual to the minimum level that is required to perform their role or function, and prevents the individual from accessing or modifying the resources or data that are not relevant or authorized. An entitlement is a right or privilege that grants an individual the ability to access or use a resource or data, such as a file, a system, or an application. An unnecessary entitlement is an entitlement that is not needed or justified for the individual’s role or function, and may pose a risk of unauthorized or inappropriate access or use of the resource or data. A potentially harmful action is an action that may cause harm or damage to the organization or its objectives, such as a data breach, a fraud, or a sabotage. Least privilege is thebest way, as it helps to minimize the exposure and impact of the unnecessary entitlement, and to reduce the likelihood and severity of the potentially harmful action. Application monitoring, separation of duty, and nonrepudiation are all possible ways to reduce the likelihoodof an individual performing a potentially harmful action as the result of unnecessary entitlement, but they are not the best way, as they do not directly address the unnecessary entitlement, and may not prevent the potentially harmful action. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 200

 Process owners are the best suited to help a risk practitioner understand the impact of IT-related events on business objectives, as they have the responsibility and authority over the design, execution, and performance of business processes. Process owners are also accountable for the risks and controls associated with their processes, and they can provide valuable input and feedback on the likelihood and impact of IT-related events on the process outcomes and objectives.

The other options are not the best suited to help a risk practitioner understand the impact of IT-related events on business objectives. IT management is responsible for the delivery and support of IT services and solutions, but they may not have the full visibility or understanding of the business objectives and processes. Internal audit is responsible for providing independent and objective assurance and consulting services on the effectiveness and efficiency of governance, risk management, and control processes, but they may not have the direct involvement or influence on the business objectives and processes. Senior management is responsible for settingthe strategic direction and objectives of the organization, but they maynot have the detailed knowledge or experience of the business processes and their risks and controls. References = IT Risk Manager: Skills and Roles & Responsibilities, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Managing information technology risk | Business Queensland

 The first step when conducting a business impact analysis (BIA) is identifying critical information assets. A BIA is a process of analyzing the potential impacts of disruptive events on the business processes,functions, and resources. A BIA identifies the criticality, dependencies, recovery priorities, and recovery objectives of the business processes, and quantifies the financial and non-financial impacts of disruption. Information assets are the data, information, and knowledge that are essential for the operation and performance of the business processes. Identifying critical information assets is the first step of the BIA, as it helps to determine which information assets are vital for the continuity and recovery of the business processes, and whichinformation assets are most vulnerable or exposed to the disruptive events. Identifying critical information assets also helps to scope and focus the BIA on the most important and relevant information assets, and to avoid unnecessary or redundant analysis. Identifying events impacting continuity of operations, creating a data classification scheme, and analyzing previous risk assessment results are not the first steps of the BIA, as they are either the inputs or the outputs of the BIA, and they depend on the identification of critical information assets. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 130.

The risk practitioner’s first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls should be A. Determine whether the impact is outside the risk appetite1

According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite reflects the organization’s risk culture, strategy, and values2

When an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, it means that the controls are not providing the expected level of protection or assurance for the information assets or processes. This may result in increased exposure or vulnerability to threats, or reduced ability to achieve objectives. Therefore, the risk practitioner should first determine whether the impact of the ineffective controls is outside the risk appetite, as this would indicate the need for urgent action or escalation3

The other options are not the first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, because:

•B. Requesting a formal acceptance of risk from senior management may be appropriate if the impact of the ineffective controls is within the risk appetite, and the organization decides to accept the risk as it is. However, this should not be the first course of action, as it may not address the root cause of the ineffective controls, or the potential consequences or opportunities for improvement4

•C. Reporting the ineffective control for inclusion in the next audit report may be part of the risk communication and reporting process, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may delay the resolution or mitigation of the issue, or the implementation of corrective actions. Moreover, the next audit report may not be timely or relevant for the decision-makers or stakeholders who need to be informed of the ineffective controls5

•D. Deploying a compensating control to address the identified deficiencies may be a possible risk response option, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may require further analysis, evaluation, and approval. Moreover, deploying a compensating control may not be the most effective or efficient solution, as it may introduce additional complexity, cost, or risk.

1: CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID: 100003 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 28 3: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 223 4: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 224 5: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 225 : CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 226

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (aligned to ISACA CRISC guidance)

CRISC and business continuity guidance stress that BCP development starts from understanding and prioritizing critical business services and processes derived from the business impact analysis (BIA). Prioritization allows the organization to define recovery time objectives (RTOs), recovery point objectives (RPOs), and sequence of restoration, ensuring limited resources are first focused on the processes that protect life, safety, regulatory obligations, revenue, and reputational value. Identifying alternate locations and DR sites, and designing communication plans, are essential elements of continuity and disaster recovery planning, but they are built around the set of prioritized services. Without a clear hierarchy of what must be restored first and to what level, the BCP will be unfocused and may fail to meet business expectations during a disruption.

It is most important that security controls for a new system be documented in the system requirements. The system requirements define the functional and non-functional specifications of the system, including the security controls that are needed to protect the system and its data. Documenting the security controls in the system requirements can help ensure that they are designed, developed, tested, and implemented as part of the system development life cycle. Testing requirements, the implementation plan, and the security policy are other documents that may include security controls, but they are not as important as the system requirements. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 5; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 212.

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that provide information on the level of exposure to a given risk. Key control indicators (KCIs) are metrics that measure the performance or effectiveness of a control in mitigating a risk. KCIs provide input for KRIs, because they help to assess the residual risk after applying the control. For example, if the KRI is the number of security incidents, and the KCI is the percentage of incidents detected by the intrusion prevention system (IPS), then the KCI provides input for the KRI by showing how well the IPS is reducing the risk of security breaches. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when a risk practitioner finds the IT department’s recovery time objective (RTO) for a key system does not align with the enterprise’s business continuity plan (BCP) is to consult with the IT department to update the RTO. The RTO is the maximum acceptable time that an application, computer, network, or system can be down after an unexpected disaster, failure, or comparable event takes place. The RTO should be aligned with the BCP, which is a set of policies, procedures, and resources that enable the organization to continue or resume its critical business functions in the event of a disruption. Consulting with the IT department to update the RTO helps to:

Ensure that the RTO reflects the current business requirements and expectations for the availability and recovery of the key system

Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of achieving the RTO with the existing IT resources and capabilities

Identify and implement the necessary changes or improvements in the IT infrastructure, processes, and controls to meet the RTO

Test and validate the RTO and the IT recovery procedures and verify their compatibility and consistency with the BCP

Communicate and coordinate the RTO and the IT recovery plan with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business owner, the risk owner, and the senior management

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 174-1751

 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.

 The best course of action for the risk practitioner who has identified that the agreed RTO with a SaaS provider is longer than the business expectation is to document the gap in the risk register and report to senior management. The risk register is the document that records the details of all identified risks, including their sources, causes, impacts, likelihood, and responses. The risk register should be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the risk environment or the risk status. Reporting to senior management is also important, because senior management is the highest level of authority and responsibility in the organization, and they are responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization. Senior management should also oversee the risk management process, and ensure that the risks are aligned with the organization’s goals and values. By documenting the gap in the risk register and reporting to senior management, the risk practitioner can communicate the issue clearly and effectively, and seek guidance and support for resolving the problem. Collaborating with the risk owner, including a right to audit clause, or advising the risk owner to accept the risk are not the best courses of action, because they may not be feasible, effective, or desirable in some situations, or they may require senior management approval or involvement. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 4-13.

A risk mitigation 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 owner is the person who has the authority and accountability to manage the risk and its response. The risk practitioner is the person who supports the risk owner in the risk management process. The best course of action for the risk practitioner when the manager of a risk mitigation action plan is replaced and a new control is implemented is to communicate the decision to the risk owner for approval. This will ensure that the risk owner is aware of the change, agrees with the new control, and approves the modification of the action plan. The other options are not the best course of action, as they may not involve the risk owner, who is ultimately responsible for the risk and its response. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.1, pp. 95-96.

CRISC and privacy frameworks such as ISO/IEC 27701 and GDPR emphasize data minimization as the first step in managing privacy risk:

“Personal data collection must be limited to what is necessary for the specified purpose.”

If data is never collected, there’s no need for storage, encryption, or training around it — thus reducing exposure and risk at the source.

Other options, while useful, come after minimizing collection:

A and D address residual risk.

B (normalization) affects data structure, not privacy risk reduction.

Hence, C. Minimize the collection of data is correct.

CRISC Reference: Domain 3 – Risk Response and Mitigation, Topic: Privacy Risk Controls.

The first step in risk assessment is asset identification, which is the process of identifying and documenting the assets that are relevant and valuable to the organization, such as people, information, systems, processes, or infrastructure1. Asset identification can help to:

Establish the scope and boundaries of the risk assessment, and ensure that all the assets within the scope are considered and covered2.

Determine the criticality and priority of the assets, and assign them appropriate values or ratings based on their importance and contribution to the organization’s objectives3.

Identify the potential threats and vulnerabilities that may affect the assets, and assess their likelihood and impact on the assets4.

The other options are not the first step in risk assessment, because:

Review risk governance is not the first step, but rather a prerequisite or a foundation for risk assessment. Risk governance is the system of principles, policies, roles, and responsibilities that guide and oversee the risk management activities and initiatives of the organization5. Reviewing risk governance can help to ensure that the risk assessment is aligned with the organization’sriskstrategy, culture, and appetite, and that the risk assessment process is consistent, effective, and efficient6.

Identify risk factors is not the first step, but rather a subsequent or a parallel step to asset identification. Risk factors are the elements or conditions that influence or contribute to the occurrence or outcome of a risk event7. Identifying risk factors can help to understand the causes and sources of the risks, and to analyze and evaluate the risks based on their probability and severity.

Inherent risk identification is not the first step, but rather a later or a dependent step on asset identification and risk factor identification. Inherent risk is the level of risk that exists before the implementation of risk responses. Identifying inherent risk can help to measure the exposure or uncertainty of the assets, and to determine the need and extent of the risk responses.

References =

Risk Governance - CIO Wiki

Risk Governance Framework - CIO Wiki

Asset Identification - CIO Wiki

Asset Identification and Valuation - ISACA

Asset Criticality - CIO Wiki

Threat and Vulnerability Assessment - CIO Wiki

Risk Factor - CIO Wiki

[Risk Factor Analysis - CIO Wiki]

[Inherent Risk - CIO Wiki]

[Inherent Risk Assessment - CIO Wiki]

[Risk Assessment - CIO Wiki]

A risk response is the action or plan that is taken to address a specific risk that has been identified, analyzed, and evaluated. It can be one of the following types: mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept.

The highest priority when developing a risk response is to ensure that it aligns with the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its goals. The risk appetite is usually expressed as a range or a threshold, and it is aligned with the organization’s strategy and culture.

Aligning the risk response with the organization’s risk appetite ensures that the risk response is consistent, appropriate, and proportional to the level and nature of the risk, and that it supports the organization’s objectives and values. It also helps to optimize the balance between risk and return, and to create and protect value for the organization and its stakeholders.

The other options are not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because they do not address the fundamental question of whether the risk response is suitable and acceptable for the organization.

The risk response addresses the risk with a holistic view means that the risk response considers the interrelationships and dependencies among the risk sources, events, impacts, and responses, and the potential secondary and residual effects of the risk response. This is important to ensure that the risk response is comprehensive and effective, and that it does not create new or unintended risks, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite.

The risk response is based on a cost-benefit analysis means that the risk response compares the expected costs and benefits of implementing the risk response, and selects the risk response that provides the most favorable net outcome. This is important to ensure that the risk response is efficient and economical, and that it maximizes the return on investment, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite.

The risk response is accounted for in the budget means that the risk response is included in the financial plan and allocation of resources for the organization or the project. This is important toensure that the risk response is feasible and realistic, and that it has the necessary funding and support, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 29-30, 34-35, 38-39, 44-45, 50-51, 54-55

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 147

 Emerging risk is a risk that is new or evolving, and has the potential to significantly affect the enterprise’s objectives, performance, or reputation. Emerging risk can arise from changes in the internal or external environment, such as technological innovations, regulatory developments, or social trends. The best way to support communication of emerging risk is to include it on the next enterprise risk committee agenda. The enterprise risk committee is a group of senior executives who oversee the enterprise-wide risk management program, and provide guidance and direction to the risk owners and practitioners. By including the emerging risk on the agenda, the risk practitioner can ensure that the enterprise risk committee is aware of the risk, its causes, impacts, and likelihood, and can decide on the appropriate risk response strategy and actions. The other options are not the best way to support communication of emerging risk, as they involve different aspects of the risk management process:

Update residual risk levels to reflect the expected risk impact means that the risk practitioner adjusts the risk levels after considering the existing or planned risk responses. This may not befeasible or accurate for emerging risk, as the risk responses may not be defined or implemented yet, or may not be effective for the new or evolving risk.

Adjust inherent risk levels upward means that the risk practitioner increases the risk levels before considering any risk responses. This may not reflect the true nature or magnitude of the emerging risk, as the inherent risk levels are based on the assumptions and estimates of the risk practitioner, and may not account for the uncertainties or complexities of the emerging risk.

Include it in the risk register for ongoing monitoring means that the risk practitioner records and tracks the emerging risk, its causes, impacts, likelihood, responses, and owners. This is an important step in the risk management process, but it does not necessarily support communication ofthe emerging risk, as the risk register may not be accessible or visible to all the relevant stakeholders, or may not be updated or reviewed frequently enough to capture the changes in the emerging risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2.2, pp. 21-22.

The primary reason for periodically monitoring key risk indicators (KRIs) is to detect changes in the risk profile of the enterprise. KRIs are metrics that provide information on the level of exposure to a specific risk or a group of risks. By monitoring KRIs, the enterprise can identifyany deviations from the expected risk level, and take appropriate actions to adjust the risk response or the risk appetite. Monitoring KRIs also helps to validate the effectiveness of risk mitigation controls and the accuracy of risk assessments. Rectifying errors in results of KRIs, reducing costs of risk mitigation controls, and continually improving risk assessments are possible benefits of monitoring KRIs, but they are not the primary reason. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.2, page 175.

The risk practitioner’s primary role during the change is to manage the third-party risk, as this involves identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated with outsourcing the business operations for the emerging technology. The risk practitioner should ensure that the third-party provider has the necessary capabilities, security, and compliance to deliver the expected outcomes and meet the contractual obligations. The risk practitioner should also monitor the performance and service levels of the third-party provider and report any issues or incidents. Developing risk scenarios, managing the threat landscape, and updating risk appetite are all important activities for the risk practitioner, but they are not the primary role during the change. Developing risk scenarios is a technique for identifying and analyzing potential risk events and their impacts. Managing the threat landscape is a process of identifying and responding to the external and internal threats that may affect the organization. Updating risk appetite is a decision that reflects the organization’s willingness to accept or avoid risk in pursuit of its objectives. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Identification, page 48.

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.

===========