IIBA-CCA Exam Dumps - IIBA Cybersecurity Analysis Questions and Answers

Designing an audit log report requires clarity onwho is allowed to do what, which actions are considered security-relevant, and what evidence must be captured to demonstrate accountability.Access Control Requirementsare the essential business analysis deliverable because they define roles, permissions, segregation of duties, privileged functions, approval workflows, and the conditions under which access is granted or denied. From these requirements, the logging design can specify exactly which events must be recorded, such as authentication attempts, authorization decisions, privilege elevation, administrative changes, access to sensitive records, data exports, configuration changes, and failed access attempts. They also help determine how logs should attribute actions to unique identities, including service accounts and delegated administration, which is critical for auditability and non-repudiation.

Access control requirements also drive necessary log fields and report structure: user or role, timestamp, source, target object, action, outcome, and reason codes for denials or policy exceptions. Without these requirements, an audit log report can become either too sparse to support investigations and compliance, or too noisy to be operationally useful.

A risk log can influence priorities, but it does not define the authoritative set of access events and entitlements that must be auditable. A future state process can provide context, yet it is not as precise as access rules for determining what to log. An internal audit report may highlight gaps, but it is not the primary design input compared to formal access control requirements.

In NIST-style risk assessment,overall likelihoodis not a single guess; it is derived by considering two related likelihood components. First isthe likelihood that a threat event will be initiated. This reflects how probable it is that a threat actor or source will attempt the attack or that a threat event will occur, considering factors such as adversary capability, intent, targeting, opportunity, and environmental conditions. Second isthe likelihood that an initiated event will succeed, meaning the attempt results in the adverse outcome. This depends heavily on the organization’s existing protections and conditions, including control strength, system exposure, vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, detection and response capability, and user behavior.

Option A matches this structure: analysts evaluate bothattack initiation likelihoodandinitiated attack success likelihoodto reach an overall view of likelihood. A high initiation likelihood with low success likelihood might occur when an organization is frequently targeted but has strong defenses. Conversely, low initiation likelihood with high success likelihood might apply to niche systems that are rarely targeted but poorly protected.

The other options are incomplete or misplaced. Risk impact is a separate dimension from likelihood, and mitigation strategy is an output of risk treatment, not an input to likelihood. Site traffic and commerce volume can influence exposure but do not define likelihood by themselves. Past experience and trends are useful evidence, but they support estimating the two likelihood components rather than replacing them.

ARecovery Point Objectivedefines the acceptable amount of data loss measured in time. It answers the question: “After an outage or disruptive event,how far back in time can we restore data and still meet business needs?” If the RPO is 4 hours, the organization is stating it can tolerate losing up to 4 hours of data changes, meaning backups, replication, journaling, or snapshots must be frequent enough to restore to a point no older than 4 hours before the incident. That is exactly what option A describes: the specific point in time prior to the outage to which data must be recovered.

RPO is often paired withRecovery Time Objectivebut they are not the same. RTO focuses onhow quicklyservice must be restored, while RPO focuses onhow much datathe organization can afford to lose. Options B, C, and D all describe time-to-restore concepts, which align with RTO or related recovery targets rather than RPO.

In operational resilience and disaster recovery planning, RPO drives technical design choices: backup frequency, replication methods, storage and retention strategies, and validation testing. Lower RPO values generally require more robust and often more expensive solutions, such as near-real-time replication and strong change capture controls. RPO also influences incident response and recovery procedures to ensure restoration steps reliably meet the agreed data-loss tolerance.

Top of Form

Anattack vectoris the route or method used to compromise an environment, and it is typically described as the way athreat actorexploits avulnerabilityto gain unauthorized access, execute code, steal data, or disrupt services. To define an attack vector correctly, cybersecurity documents emphasize that you must identify both parts of that relationship:who or what is attackingandwhat weakness is being exploited. The “attacker” component represents the threat source or threat actor, including their capability and intent (for example, cybercriminals using phishing, insiders abusing access, or automated botnets scanning the internet). The “vulnerability” component is the specific weakness or exposure that enables success, such as a missing patch, weak authentication, misconfiguration, excessive permissions, insecure coding flaw, or lack of user awareness.

Without identifying the attacker, you cannot properly characterize the likely techniques, scale, and motivation driving the vector. Without identifying the vulnerability, you cannot define the practical entry point and control gaps that make the vector feasible. Together, attacker plus vulnerability allows defenders to map realistic scenarios, prioritize controls, and select mitigations that reduce likelihood and impact. Those mitigations may include patching, configuration hardening, strong authentication, least privilege, network segmentation, user training, and monitoring. The other options list technology elements that can be involved in an incident, but they do not capture the essential definition of an attack vector as an exploitation path driven by a threat actor leveraging a weakness

In a data warehouse, information from multiple operational sources is consolidated, transformed, and related through keys, joins, and business rules. When a Business Analyst defines processes and procedures that describehow data sets interrelate, they are primarily controlling the risk created bydata aggregation. Aggregation risk arises when combining multiple datasets produces a new, richer dataset that can change the meaning, sensitivity, or trustworthiness of the information. If relationships and transformation rules are poorly defined or inconsistently applied, the warehouse can generate misleading analytics, incorrect roll-ups, duplicated records, or invalid correlations—directly harminginformation integritybecause decisions are made on inaccurate or improperly combined data.

Well-defined interrelation procedures specify authoritative sources, master data rules, key management, referential integrity expectations, transformation and reconciliation steps, and data lineage. These controls help ensure the warehouse preserves correctness when data is integrated across systems with different formats, definitions, and update cycles. They also support governance by enabling validation checks (for example, balancing totals to source systems, exception handling, and data-quality thresholds) and by making it clear which dataset should be trusted for specific attributes.

Unauthorized access and confidentiality are important warehouse risks, but they are addressed mainly through access controls and encryption. Cross-site scripting is a web application vulnerability and is not the core issue in describing dataset relationships. Therefore, the correct answer isData Aggregation.

In cybersecurity risk terminology, aneventis an observable occurrence that can affect systems, services, or data. An event may be benign, harmful, intentional, or accidental. When a vulnerability is exploitedaccidentally—for example, a user unintentionally triggers a software flaw, a misconfiguration causes unintended exposure, or a system process mishandles input and causes data corruption—the occurrence is best categorized as anevent. Cybersecurity documentation often distinguishes between thepossibilityof harm and theactual occurrenceof a harmful condition. Athreatis the potential for an unwanted incident, such as an actor or circumstance that could exploit a vulnerability. A threat does not require that exploitation actually happens; it describes risk potential. Anagentis the entity that acts (such as a person, malware, or process) and may be malicious or non-malicious, but “agent” is not the term for the occurrence itself. Aresponserefers to the actions taken after detection, such as containment, eradication, recovery, and lessons learned; it is part of incident handling, not the accidental exploitation.

Therefore, the term that represents the actual accidental exploitation occurrence isevent, because it captures the real-world happening that may trigger alerts, investigations, and potentially incident response activities if impact is significant.

Integritymeans information and systems remain accurate, complete, and protected from unauthorized or improper modification. ThePrinciple of Least Privilegeis a direct integrity protection control because it limits who can change data and what changes they are allowed to make. Under least privilege, users, applications, and service accounts receive only the minimum permissions needed to perform approved tasks, and nothing more. This reduces the chance that an attacker using a compromised account can alter records, manipulate transactions, or change configurations, and it also reduces accidental changes by well-meaning users who do not need write or administrative rights.

Least privilege is commonly enforced through role-based access control, separation of duties, restricted administrative roles, just-in-time elevation for privileged tasks, and periodic access reviews to remove excess permissions. These practices are emphasized in cybersecurity frameworks because integrity failures often occur when excessive access allows unauthorized edits to sensitive data, logs, security settings, or application code.

The other options relate to security but are less directly tied to integrity as the primary objective.Biometric verificationis an authentication method that helps confirm identity; it supports access control broadly, but it does not by itself limit modification capability once access is granted.Anti-malicious code detectionhelps prevent malware that could corrupt data, but it is primarily a detection/prevention tool rather than the foundational control for authorized modification.Backups and redundancyprimarily support availability and recovery after corruption, not the prevention of unauthorized changes.

An organization’s risk management strategy is a governance-level artifact that sets direction for how risk is managed across the enterprise. A core requirement in cybersecurity governance frameworks is clear accountability, including executive ownership for risk decisions that affect the whole organization. Assigning an executive responsible for risk management establishes authority to set risk appetite and tolerance, coordinate risk activities across business units, resolve conflicts between competing priorities, and ensure risk decisions are made consistently rather than in isolated silos. This executive role also supports oversight of risk reporting to senior leadership, ensures resources are allocated to address material risks, and drives integration between cybersecurity, privacy, compliance, and operational resilience programs. Without an accountable executive function, risk management often becomes fragmented, with inconsistent scoring, uneven control implementation, and unclear decision rights for accepting or treating risk.

Option A can be part of a strategy, but the question asks what should be addressed, and the most critical foundational element is enterprise accountability and governance. Option B is too granular for a strategy; selecting controls for each IT asset belongs in security architecture, control baselines, and system-level risk assessments. Option C is typically handled in incident response and breach management plans and procedures, which are operational documents derived from strategy but not the strategy itself. Therefore, the best answer is the assignment of an executive responsible for risk management across the organization.

blob:https://chatgpt.com/af9ae31e-1548-4f92-9dac-5758ab0a9a66

Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) are continuity and resilience targets that define how quickly a system must be restored and how much data loss is acceptable after an interruption. These objectives are derived primarily fromsystem criticality, meaning how essential the system is to business operations, safety, revenue, legal obligations, and customer commitments. Highly critical systems support mission-essential functions or time-sensitive services, so they require shorter RTOs (restore fast) and smaller RPOs (lose little or no data). Less critical systems can tolerate longer outages and larger data gaps, allowing longer RTOs and RPOs.

Cybersecurity and business continuity documents tie RTO/RPO determination to business impact analysis results. The BIA identifies maximum tolerable downtime, operational dependencies, and the consequences of service disruption and data unavailability. From there, organizations set RTO/RPO targets that align with risk appetite and required service levels. Those targets then drive technical and operational controls such as backup frequency, replication methods, high availability architecture, failover design, disaster recovery procedures, monitoring, and routine recovery testing.

Sensitivity focuses on confidentiality needs and may influence encryption and access controls, but it does not directly define acceptable downtime or data loss. Vulnerability describes weakness exposure and is used for threat/risk management, not recovery objectives. Cost is a constraint when selecting recovery solutions, but RTO/RPO are defined by business need and system importance first—then solutions are chosen to meet those targets within budget.

Non-repudiation is a security property that providesverifiable evidenceof an action or communication so that the parties involved cannot credibly deny their participation later. In web security, it most commonly means being able to provewho sent a message or performed a transactionand, in many cases, that the message was received and recorded. This is why option D is correct: it captures the idea of giving the receiver proof of the sender’s identity and giving the sender evidence that the message or transaction was delivered or accepted.

Cybersecurity guidance typically associates non-repudiation withdigital signatures, strong identity binding, and protected audit evidence. A digital signature uses asymmetric cryptography so that only the holder of a private key can sign, while anyone with the public key can verify the signature. When combined with trusted certificates, accurate time sources, and protected logs, this creates strong accountability. Non-repudiation also depends on maintaining the integrity of supporting evidence, such as tamper-resistant audit logs, secure log retention, and controlled access to signing keys.

It is different from confidentiality (encryption of traffic), and different from integrity alone (preventing unauthorized modification). It is also different from authorization and auditing, which support accountability but do not, by themselves, provide cryptographic-grade proof that a specific entity performed a specific action. Non-repudiation is especially important for high-trust transactions such as approvals, payments, and legally binding communications.