ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps - PECB ISO 27001 Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Fraud (Correct Answer):

The audit team leader knowingly falsified the audit report to downplay nonconformities.

Fraud involves intentional deception or misrepresentation of information, making this a fraudulent act.

A. Ordinary negligence (Incorrect):

Ordinary negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care, but this case involved intentional misconduct.

B. Gross negligence (Incorrect):

Gross negligence is extreme carelessness but does not involve deliberate misrepresentation.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 4 (Principles of Auditing: Integrity and Objectivity)

The three audit findings that would prompt you to raise a nonconformity report are:

•The organisation is treating information security risks in the order in which they are identified

•The organisation’s risk assessment criteria have not been reviewed and approved by top management

•The organisation’s information security risk assessment process is based solely on an assessment of the impact of each risk

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.2, the organisation must establish and maintain an information security risk management process that is consistent with the organisation’s context and aligned with its overall risk management approach1. This process must include the following steps:

•Establishing the risk assessment criteria, which must be approved by top management and reflect the organisation’s risk appetite and objectives2

•Identifying the information security risks, which must consider the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, and likelihoods3

•Analysing the information security risks, which must determine the levels of risk and compare them with the risk criteria4

•Evaluating the information security risks, which must prioritise the risks and decide whether they need treatment or not5

Therefore, the audit findings B, E, and F indicate that the organisation is not following the required steps of the information security risk management process, and thus are nonconformities with the standard.

The other audit findings are not necessarily nonconformities, as they may be acceptable depending on the organisation’s context and justification. For example:

•Audit finding A may be acceptable if the organisation has identified and treated the additional information security risks that are relevant to its scope and objectives, and has documented the rationale for doing so6

•Audit finding C may be acceptable if the organisation has assigned clear roles and responsibilities for the information security risk management process, and has ensured that the risk owners have the authority and competence to manage the risks7

•Audit finding D may be acceptable if the organisation has defined and communicated the meaning and implications of the emoji-based risk classification, and has ensured that it is consistent with the risk criteria and the risk treatment process8

•Audit finding G may be acceptable if the organisation has justified the use of discrete values for the probability of the information security risks, and has ensured that they are realistic and consistent with the risk criteria and the risk analysis method9

•Audit finding H may be acceptable if the organisation has established and maintained different systems for assessing operational and strategic information security risks, and has ensured that they are integrated and aligned with the overall risk management approach and the ISMS objectives10

1. An auditor using a copy of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 to check that its requirements are met:

Termed: Reviewing audit criteria.

Justification: The auditor is comparing the auditee's information security management system (ISMS) against the established criteria outlined in the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard. This activity falls under the use of audit criteria to determine conformity or nonconformity.

2. An auditor's note that the auditee is not adhering to its clear desk policy:

Termed: Identifying an audit finding.

Justification: The auditor has observed a deviation from the auditee's established policy on clear desks. This observation is documented as a potential nonconformity, which requires further investigation and evaluation.

3. An auditor making a decision regarding the auditee's conformity or otherwise to criteria:

Termed: Determining an audit conclusion.

Justification: Based on the collected audit evidence and evaluation against the established criteria, the auditor forms an opinion about the overall compliance of the auditee's ISMS. This opinion is the audit conclusion and is a key element of the audit report.

4. An auditor examining verifiable records relevant to the audit process:

Termed: Collecting audit evidence.

Justification: The auditor is gathering objective and verifiable information to support their findings and conclusions. This information comes from various sources, including documents, records, interviews, and observations.

The correct answer is Corrective controls, because the organization is responding to an incident that has already occurred and is taking actions to remove the malware and restore normal operations. Corrective controls are designed to limit damage, eradicate the cause of an incident, and return systems to an acceptable operational state after a security event has been detected.

In this scenario, the malware infection has already bypassed existing security measures, meaning preventive controls failed to stop the incident. The focus now is not on detection, as the infection is already known, but on remediation and recovery. Activities such as malware removal, system restoration from backups, reinstallation of compromised systems, and application of patches are classic examples of corrective controls.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 addresses this through clause 10.2 on nonconformity and corrective action, which requires organizations to take action to control and correct incidents and deal with their consequences. Additionally, ISO/IEC 27002:2022 includes controls related to incident response and recovery that support corrective actions after an event.

Option B is incorrect because detective controls, such as monitoring and logging, are intended to identify incidents, not resolve them. Option C is incorrect because preventive controls aim to stop incidents from occurring in the first place, such as antivirus software or access controls. Since the malware has already caused harm, corrective controls are the most appropriate response.

According to ISO/IEC 27001 standards, if the auditee decides to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions for a nonconformity, this decision should be justified and documented. Documenting such decisions is essential for maintaining the integrity of the ISMS and for demonstrating that the decision was made based on informed judgment.

Audit planning for certification audits is defined by ISO 19011:2018, clause 6.3 (Preparing audit activities) and ISO/IEC 27006.

Key audit planning documents include:

Audit plan (mandatory, prepared by team leader)

Checklists (supporting tool for consistency and coverage of requirements)

List of external providers (required to check compliance with ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A.5.19 – supplier relationships and A.5.20 – supplier agreements)

Sample plans (used when sampling evidence across sites, processes, or records is needed, especially in Stage 2 audits)

However, the following are not required:

B. Career history of the IT manager – Personnel competence may be verified during interviews and evidence review, but an auditor does not need career histories as part of audit planning. ISO 19011 only requires access to competence records if needed but not CVs.

F. Organisation’s financial statement – Financial performance is not part of ISMS audit planning unless it relates to identified risks or contractual obligations. ISO/IEC 27001 focuses on information security risks, not financial audit compliance.

ISO 19011:2018 (clause 6.3.2) clearly defines the required planning inputs as:

Audit objectives, scope, and criteria

Audit team roles and responsibilities

Allocation of resources

Information about the auditee’s ISMS (e.g., documented scope, processes, external provider relationships, relevant legal/regulatory requirements)

There is no mention of personnel CVs or financial statements being required.

Final Correct Answer: B and F

The role of the audit team leader does not include setting up an ethics committee. The primary responsibilities of the audit team leader include planning the audit, directing the activities of the audit team, ensuring compliance with the auditing standards, managing conflicts that arise during the audit, and presenting audit conclusions.

A. Advise the Shipping Manager that his request will be included in the audit report. This is true because the audit report should document all the relevant information and evidence related to the audit, including any requests or objections raised by the auditee. The audit report should also provide the rationale for the audit conclusions and recommendations12.

B. Advise management that the new information provided will be discussed when the auditors have more time. This is true because the auditors should not make hasty decisions based on incomplete or unverified information. The auditors should review and evaluate the new information in a systematic and objective manner, and determine whether it affects the audit findings, nonconformities, or conclusions12.

F. Thank the Shipping Manager for his honesty but advise that withdrawing the nonconformity is not the right way to proceed. This is true because the auditors should acknowledge and appreciate the cooperation and transparency of the auditee, but also maintain their professional integrity and independence. The auditors should not withdraw a nonconformity unless they are satisfied that it was raised in error or that it has been effectively corrected and verified12.

References :=

ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

The IRT’s finding that FTP transmits authentication credentials in clear text represents a vulnerability in information security terms. A vulnerability is defined as a weakness in an asset, system, or control that can be exploited by a threat. In this scenario, FTP itself is not a threat, nor is it the risk; rather, it is the technical weakness that enabled the attackers to succeed.

The attackers (hackers) are the threat, and the potential loss of proprietary information is the impact. The risk arises from the combination of the threat exploiting the vulnerability and causing harm. However, the question specifically asks what the IRT’s finding about FTP represents, and that finding is the identification of a weakness in the system design. The use of clear-text authentication is a well-known security weakness, making it easier for attackers to capture credentials through network traffic interception.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 risk assessment logic requires organizations to distinguish clearly between threats, vulnerabilities, and risks during incident analysis. The IRT did exactly this by identifying that the protocol itself lacked encryption, which is a vulnerability. This is further supported by the corrective action taken: replacing FTP with SSH. SSH provides encrypted communication, which directly addresses the vulnerability by removing the weakness that allowed credential exposure.

Therefore, the IRT’s findings correctly identify FTP as a vulnerability, making option A the correct answer.

The scenario described is a classic example of a phishing attack, which is a type of social engineering threat where attackers masquerade as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. The goal is to trick individuals into providing sensitive information. This represents an unauthorized action type of threat because it involves an attacker attempting to gain unauthorized access to personal information. References: = This understanding of phishing as a threat is consistent with the principles of information security management systems and is supported by resources that describe phishing attacks and their prevention