Isaca CRISC Dumps

The percentage of servers receiving automatic patches is the best key control indicator (KCI) to monitor the effectiveness of patch management, because it measures how well the patch management process is ensuring that the servers are updated with the latest security patches and fixes. A high percentage of servers receiving automatic patches indicates that the patch management process is effective and efficient, and that the servers are protected from known vulnerabilities and threats. The other options are not the best KCIs, because they do not directly measure the effectiveness of patch management. The percentage of legacy servers out of support, the number of unpatched vulnerabilities, and the number of intrusion attempts are examples of risk indicators or consequence indicators that measure the exposure or impact of the lack of patch management, but not the performance or outcome of the patch management process. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers

A key performance indicator (KPI) is a metric that reflects how well an organization is achieving its goals and objectives. A KPI should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. For an IT department that has organized training sessions to improve user awareness of organizational information security policies, the best KPI to reflect the effectiveness of the training is the percentage of staff members who complete the training with a passing score. This KPI measures the level of knowledge and understanding of the security policies among the staff members, as well as the quality and impact of the training sessions. It also indicates whether the training sessions have met the predefined criteria and standards for success. A high percentage of staff members who complete the training with a passing score implies that the training sessions have been effective in improving user awareness of organizational information security policies. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, p. 117-118

The first course of action for a risk practitioner when discovering a deficiency in a critical system that cannot be patched is to conduct a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that could affect the achievement of the objectives of the system or the organization. A risk assessment helps to determine the level and nature of the risk exposure, and to prioritize and respond to the risks. Conducting a risk assessment is the first course of action, as it helps to understand the source, cause, and impact of the deficiency, and to estimate the likelihood and consequences of the risk events that could exploit the deficiency. Conducting a risk assessment also helps to identify and evaluate the existing or potential controls or mitigations that could address the deficiency, and to recommend the appropriate risk treatment options. Reporting the issue to internal audit, submitting a request to change management, and reviewing the business impact assessment are not the first courses of action, as they are either the outputs or the inputs of the risk assessment process, and they do not address the primary need of assessing the risk situation and status. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 49.

 A role-based user access model is a type of technology control that assigns access rights and permissions to users based on their roles and responsibilities within the organization. A role-based user access model can reduce the likelihood of fraudulent payments committed internally, because it can help to:

Enforce the principle of least privilege, which means that users only have the minimum level of access required to perform their duties

Implement segregation of duties, which means that users cannot perform conflicting or incompatible functions, such as initiating and approving payments

Prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to sensitive data or systems, such as payment information or applications

Detect and deter fraud attempts by creating audit trails and logs of user activities and transactions

Simplify and streamline the management and maintenance of user access rights and permissions, such as adding, modifying, or deleting users or roles12

The other options are not as important as a role-based user access model for reducing the likelihood of fraudulent payments committed internally. Automated access revocation is a technology control that automatically revokes or suspends user access rights and permissions when certain conditions are met, such as termination of employment, change of role, or expiration of password. Automated access revocation can help to prevent fraud by former or inactive users, but it does not address the risk of fraud by current or active users3. Daily transaction reconciliation is a technology control that compares and verifies the transactions recorded in different systems or sources, such as bank statements and accounting records. Daily transaction reconciliation can help to detect fraud by identifying discrepancies or anomalies in the transactions, but it does not prevent fraud from occurring in the first place4. Rule-based data analytics is a technology control that applies predefined rules or criteria to analyze data and identify patterns, trends, or outliers. Rule-based data analytics can help to monitor fraud by generating alerts or reports of suspicious or unusual transactions, but it does not prevent fraud from happening or being attempted5. References =

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) - ISACA

Role-Based Access Control: What It Is and How It Works

Automated Access Revocation - ISACA

Reconciliation - ISACA

Rule-Based Data Analytics - ISACA

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

 The best course of action for a newly hired risk practitioner who finds that the risk register has not been updated in the past year is to identify changes in risk factors and initiate risk reviews. This would help the risk practitioner to update the risk register with the current and relevant information on the risks facing the enterprise, such as their sources, drivers, indicators, likelihood, impact, and responses. It would also help the risk practitioner to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing controls, and to identify any new or emerging risks that need to be addressed. Identifying changes in risk factors and initiating risk reviews would enable the risk practitioner to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the risk register, and to provide valuable input for the risk management process. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1, page 2271

 According to the CRISC Review Manual, the greatest risk associated with the misclassification of data is unauthorized access, because it can result in the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. Data classification is the process of assigning categories to data based on its sensitivity and value to the organization. Data classification helps to determine the appropriate level of protection and handling for the data. If the data is misclassified, it may not receive the adequate level of security controls, and it may be accessed by unauthorized or inappropriate users. The other options are not the greatest risks associated with the misclassification of data, as they are less likely or less severe than unauthorized access. Inadequate resource allocation is the risk of not allocating sufficient resources to protect the data, which may affect its availability and performance. Data disruption is the risk of losing or corrupting the data, which may affect its integrity and availability. Inadequate retention schedules is the risk of not retaining the data for the required period of time, which may affect its compliance and usability. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1, page 161.

The most important factor to communicate to senior management during the initial implementation of a risk management program is the desired risk level, which is the level of risk that the organization aims to achieve in order to fulfill its objectives and strategy1. The desired risk level can help to:

Define and communicate the risk appetite and tolerance, which are the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives2.

Guide and align the risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment processes, and ensure that the risks are consistent and proportional to the desired risk level3.

Measure and monitor the risk performance and outcome, and ensure that the actual risk level is within the desired risk level, or take corrective actions if needed4.

The other factors are not the most important to communicate to senior management, because:

Regulatory compliance is a necessary but not sufficient factor to communicate to senior management, as it ensures that the risk management program complies with the applicable laws, rules, or standards that govern the organization’s activities and operations5. However, regulatory compliance does not guarantee that the risk management program is relevant and useful for the organization’s specific objectives and strategy.

Risk ownership is a desirable but not essential factor to communicate to senior management, as it assigns the roles and responsibilities for managing the risks and implementing the risk responses to the appropriate individuals or entities within the organization. However, risk ownership does not ensure that the risk management program is effective and efficient in achieving the desired risk level.

Best practices are a useful but not critical factor to communicate to senior management, as they provide the guidelines and standards for designing and implementing the risk management program, based on the experience and knowledge of the industry or the profession. However, best practices do not ensure that the risk management program is suitable and feasible for the organization’s specific context and capabilities.

References =

Desired Risk Level - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite and Tolerance - CIO Wiki

Risk Management Process - CIO Wiki

Risk Monitoring - CIO Wiki

Regulatory Compliance - CIO Wiki

[Risk Ownership - CIO Wiki]

[Best Practice - CIO Wiki]

[Risk Management - CIO Wiki]

The most important factor when developing risk scenarios is obtaining input from key stakeholders. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could affect the enterprise’s objectives, processes, or resources. Obtaining input from key stakeholders, such as business owners, process owners, subject matter experts, or external parties, helps to ensure that the risk scenarios are realistic, relevant, and comprehensive. It also helps to identify the sources, drivers, indicators, likelihood, impact, and responses of the risk scenarios, and to align them with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. Obtaining input from key stakeholders also fosters a collaborative and participatory approach to risk management, and enhances the risk awareness and ownership among the stakeholders. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.3, page 621

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information about the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, such as the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, status, owner, response, etc.

When developing a new risk register, a risk practitioner should focus on risk identification. This is the process of finding, recognizing, and describing the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, using various techniques, such as brainstorming, interviews, checklists, surveys, etc.

Risk identification helps to create a comprehensive and accurate list of the risks that need to be managed, and to provide the basis for the subsequent risk analysis and evaluation, risk response planning, and risk monitoring and control.

The other options are not the risk management activities that a risk practitioner should focus on when developing a new risk register. They are either subsequent or parallel to risk identification.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 29

Information Technology & Security, page 23

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 21

The risk associated with an asset after controls are applied can be expressed as a function of the likelihood and impact, as it helps to measure and quantify the residual risk level and exposure. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or risk treatments. Residual risk can be calculated by multiplying the likelihood and impact of a risk event, where likelihood is the probability or frequency of the risk event occurring, and impact is the consequence or severity of the risk event on the asset or objective. Residual risk can be expressed as:

ResidualRisk=Likelihood×Impact

Expressing the risk associated with an asset after controls are applied as a function of the likelihood and impact helps to provide the following benefits:

It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to risk assessment and reporting, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of measuring and communicating risk levels and exposure across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

It supports the alignment of risk management and control activities with the organizational strategy and objectives, and helps to evaluate the achievement of the desired outcomes.

It helps to identify and prioritize the areas for improvement and enhancement of the risk management and control processes, and guide the development and implementation of corrective or preventive actions.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the risk management and control processes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best ways to express the risk associated with an asset after controls are applied. A function of the cost and effectiveness of controls is a measure of the inputs or outputs of the risk management and control processes, but it does not indicate the risk level or exposure. The likelihood of a given threat is a component of the risk calculation, but it does not reflect the impact or consequence of the threat. The magnitude of an impact is a component of the risk calculation, but it does not reflect the likelihood or probability of the risk event. References = Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Residual Risk: Definition, Formula & Management - Video & Lesson …

 A cost-benefit analysis is a tool that compares the costs and benefits of different alternatives, such as updating software or continuing to use end-of-life software. A cost-benefit analysis can provide the most helpful information to justify investing in updated software, as it can show the potential savings, benefits, and risks of each option, and help the decision-makers choose the best course of action. A cost-benefit analysis can also include qualitative factors, such as security, compliance, performance, and customer satisfaction, that may be affected by the software update. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 231. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 8. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 231. CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question231.

Occurrences of specific events are the most likely to cause a key risk indicator (KRI) to exceed thresholds, as they represent the actual or potential realization of the risk. A KRI is a metric that measures the level of risk exposure and the effectiveness of risk response strategies, and it has predefined thresholds that indicate the acceptable or unacceptable risk status. When a specific event occurs that affects the risk, such as a security breach, a system failure, or a compliance violation, the KRI value may change and exceed the thresholds, triggering an alert or an action. A performance measurement, the risk tolerance level, and risk scenarios are not the most likely to cause a KRI to exceed thresholds, as they do not reflect the actual or potential occurrence of the risk, but rather the expected or desired outcome, limit, or simulation of the risk. References = [CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version)], page 121; CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, question 217.

The best course of action for the risk practitioner upon learning that the number of failed back-up attempts continually exceeds the current risk threshold is to inquire about the status of any planned corrective actions. This would help the risk practitioner to understand the root causes of the problem, the progress of the remediation efforts, and the expected timeline for resolution. It would also help the risk practitioner to provide guidance and support to the responsible parties, and to escalate the issue if necessary. Inquiring about the status of any planned corrective actions would demonstrate the risk practitioner’s proactive and collaborative approach to risk management, and ensure that the risk exposure is reduced to an acceptable level as soon as possible. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3, page 2371

Validating the risk scenarios is the most important time to involve business stakeholders, as they can provide feedback on the relevance, completeness, and accuracy of the scenarios. They can also help to ensure that the scenarios are aligned with the business objectives, context, and risk appetite. By involving business stakeholders in the validation process, the risk practitioner can increase the credibility and acceptance of the risk scenarios.

Updating the risk register, documenting the risk scenarios, and identifying risk mitigation controls are all important steps in the risk scenario development process, but they are not the most important time to involve business stakeholders. These steps can be performed by the risk practitioner with input from other sources, such as subject matter experts, historical data, industry standards, etc. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, page 47-481

The business process owner should own the risk of customer data leakage caused by the service provider, as they have the responsibility and authority over the design, execution, and performance of the business process. The business process owner is also accountable for the risks and controls associated with their process, and they can provide valuable input and feedback on the likelihood and impact of customer data leakage on the process outcomes and objectives.

The other options are not the best choices for owning the risk of customer data leakage caused by the service provider. The service provider is responsible for delivering and supporting the billing function and ensuring the security and privacy of the customer data, but they may not have the full visibility or understanding of the business process and objectives. The vendor risk manager is responsible for managing and monitoring the vendor relationship and performance, but they may not have the direct involvement or influence on the business process and its risks and controls. The legal counsel is responsible for providing legal advice and guidance on the contractual and regulatory obligations and implications of the outsourcing arrangement, but they may not have the detailed knowledge or experience of the business process and its risks and controls. References = Guide to Vendor Risk Assessment | Smartsheet, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Data Ownership: Considerations for Risk Management - ISACA

The best indicator to senior management that IT processes are improving is the changes in the position in the maturity model. A maturity model is a framework that defines the levels of capability and performance of a process, such as IT processes, based on the criteria such as governance, management, control, measurement, and improvement. A maturity model can help to assess the current state and the desired state of the IT processes, and to identify the gaps, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. A maturity model can also help to communicate the progress and the value of the IT processes to the senior management, and to support the strategic alignment and integration of the IT processes with the business objectives. Changes in the position in the maturity model indicate that the IT processes are improving, as they show that the IT processes are moving from a lower level to a higher level of maturity, and that they are achieving higher standards of quality, efficiency, and effectiveness. Changes in the number of intrusions detected, changes in the number of security exceptions, and changes to the structure of the risk register are not as good as changes in the position in the maturity model, as they do not provide a comprehensive and consistent measure of the IT processes improvement, and they may not reflect the actual impact and performance of the IT processes. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, activity logging and monitoring is the best way to manage the risk associated with malicious activities performed by database administrators (DBAs), because it enables the detection and prevention of unauthorized or inappropriate actions on the database. Activity logging and monitoring involves capturing and reviewing the activities of the DBAs, such as the commands executed, the data accessed or modified, the privileges used, and the time and duration of the sessions. Activity logging and monitoring can also provide an audit trail for accountability and forensic purposes. The other options are not the best ways to manage the risk, because they do not directly address the malicious activities of the DBAs. Periodic access review is a control that verifies the appropriateness of the access rights granted to the DBAs, but it does not monitor their actual activities. Two-factor authentication is a control that enhances the security of the authentication process, but it does not prevent the DBAs from performing malicious activities once they are authenticated. Awareness training and background checks are controls that aim to reduce the likelihood of the DBAs engaging in malicious activities, but they do not guarantee their compliance or behavior. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3, page 166.

Multi-factor authentication is the most effective way to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to the system, as it requires the users to provide more than one piece of evidence to prove their identity, such as a password, a token, a biometric feature, etc. This reduces the likelihood of compromising the credentials and ensures that only authorized users can perform maintenance on the system.

Single sign-on is a convenience feature that allows users to access multiple systems with one set of credentials, but it does not address the risk of sharing credentials among multiple users.

Audit trail review is a detective control that can help identify and investigate unauthorized access to the system, but it does not prevent or mitigate the risk of credential compromise.

Data encryption at rest is a security measure that protects the data stored on the system from unauthorized access, but it does not prevent or mitigate the risk of credential compromise. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, page 107-108.

 A risk register is a tool used to identify, assess, and prioritize risks in an organization. It typically includes a detailed description of each identified risk, an assessment of its likelihood and potential impact, and a plan for managing or mitigating the risk1. A risk register is usually created at the beginning of a project or a process, and is updated regularly throughout the risk management life cycle2.

The main reason for creating and maintaining a risk register is to account for identified key risk factors. This means that the risk register helps to:

Document and track all the relevant risks that may affect the project or the organization, and their sources, causes, and consequences

Provide a comprehensive and consistent view of the risk profile and exposure of the project or the organization

Support the decision-making and prioritization of the risk responses and controls, based on the risk appetite and tolerance of the project or the organization

Communicate and report the risk information and status to the stakeholders and regulators, and ensure transparency and accountability

Enable the continuous improvement and learning from the risk management process and outcomes3

References = What is a risk register and why is it important?, Purpose of a risk register: Here’s what a risk register is used for, Risk Register: A Project Manager’s Guide with Examples [2024], Risk Register - Wikipedia

 A vulnerability is a weakness or gap in a system, application, or network that can be exploited by a threat to cause harm or gain unauthorized access1. A vulnerability can be caused by various factors, such as design flaws, coding errors, configuration errors, or outdated software2.

Among the four options given, only option C (a standard procedure for applying software patches two weeks after release) represents a vulnerability. This is because software patches are updates or fixes that address security weaknesses or bugs in software applications or systems3. By applying software patches two weeks after release, the organization is exposing itself to the risk of being attacked or compromised by malicious actors who may exploit the known vulnerabilities in the software before they are patched. This risk is especially high if the software is internet-facing or critical to the organization’s operations4.

References = What is a Vulnerability?, Vulnerability Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, Vulnerability Patching: A Resource Guide - Rezilion, Why is Software Vulnerability Patching Crucial for Your Software and …

 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 setting the strategic direction and objectives of the organization, but they may not 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 most important element of an organization’s risk register to update following the commissioning of a new financial reporting system is the risk rating of affected financial processes. A risk rating is a measure of the level and nature of the risk exposure, based on the impact and likelihood of the risk events. A risk rating can help to prioritize and respond to the risks, and to monitor and report the risk status. A new financial reporting system may introduce new or different risks, or change the existing risks, that could affect the financial processes of the organization, such as data quality, accuracy, timeliness, compliance, or security. Therefore, the risk rating of affected financial processes should be updated to reflect the current risk situation and to ensure that the risk register is accurate and complete. Key risk indicators (KRIs), the owner of the financial reporting process, and the list of relevant financial controls are not as important as the risk rating of affected financial processes, as they are not directly affected by the commissioning of a new financial reporting system, and they do not measure the risk exposure and impact of the financial processes. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 48.

Periodically reviewing big data strategies is the best option to minimize the risk of inaccurate data, because it allows the organization to assess the quality, validity, and reliability of the data sources and the analytics methods. It also enables the organization to identify and address any gaps, errors, or inconsistencies in the data and the results. By reviewing the big data strategies, the organization can ensure that the data analytics are aligned with the business objectives and the risk appetite.

Establishing an intellectual property agreement is not relevant to the risk of inaccurate data, as it is a legal measure to protect the ownership and use of the data, not its quality or accuracy.

Evaluating each of the data sources for vulnerabilities is a good practice, but it is not sufficient to minimize the risk of inaccurate data, as it only focuses on the security aspect of the data, not the validity or reliability of the data itself.

Benchmarking to industry best practice is a useful way to compare the performance and results of the data analytics, but it does not directly address the risk of inaccurate data, as it assumes that the data and the methods are already valid and reliable. References = Risk IT Framework, 2nd Edition, ISACA, 2019, page 62-63.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) will best support management reporting on risk, as they help to measure and monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management and control processes. KPIs are metrics or measures that provide information on the current or potential performance of a specific activity, process, or objective. KPIs can be classified into two types: leading and lagging. Leading KPIs are predictive indicators that provide early warning signals or trends of future performance. Lagging KPIs are outcome indicators that reflect the actual or historical performance.

KPIs help to support management reporting on risk by providing the following benefits:

They enable a data-driven and evidence-based approach to risk management and reporting, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

They facilitate a consistent and standardized way of measuring and communicating risk performance across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

They support the alignment of risk management and control activities with the organizational strategy and objectives, and help to evaluate the achievement of the desired outcomes.

They help to identify and prioritize the areas for improvement and enhancement of the risk management and control processes, and guide the development and implementation of corrective or preventive actions.

They provide feedback and learning opportunities for the risk management and control processes, and help to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best choices to support management reporting on risk. Control self-assessment (CSA) is a process that involves the participation and involvement of the staff and managers in assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the internal controls within their areas of responsibility, but it does not provide a comprehensive or objective view of the risk performance. Risk policy requirements are the documents that define the principles, rules, and guidelines for the risk management and control processes, but they do not provide actual or potential information on the risk performance. A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the information and status of the identified risks and their responses, but it does not measure or monitor the risk performance. References = Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Risk Management - Resolver, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Risk Reporting - Open Risk Manual

The issue of greatest concern when evaluating existing controls during a risk assessment is the presence of successive assessments with the same recurring vulnerabilities. This indicates that the controls are ineffective or inadequate in addressing the identified risks, and that the risk management process is not functioning properly. Recurring vulnerabilities expose the enterprise to potential losses, breaches, or incidents that could harm its objectives, reputation, or compliance. Therefore, it is essential to identify the root causes of the recurring vulnerabilities, implement corrective actions, and monitor the effectiveness of the controls on a regular basis. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, page 183.

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information about the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, such as the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, status, owner, response, etc.

When updating the risk register after a risk assessment, the most important information to include is the likelihood and impact of the risk scenario. This means that the risk register should reflect the current or updated estimates of the probability and consequence of the risk scenario, based on the risk analysis and evaluation methods and criteria.

The likelihood and impact of the risk scenario helps to determine the risk level and priority, select the most appropriate risk response, allocate the resources and budget for risk management, and monitor and report the risk performance and outcomes.

The other options are not the most important information to include when updating the risk register after a risk assessment. They are either secondary or not essential for risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 29

Information Technology & Security, page 23

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 21

 The best person to own the unmitigated risk of the technology is the IT system owner. The IT system owner is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility for the acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation of the IT system. The IT system owner is also responsible for ensuring that the IT system meets the business requirements, security standards, and compliance obligations of the enterprise. The IT system owner should own the unmitigated risk of the technology, as they are in the best position to understand the nature and impact of the risk, and to implement the appropriate risk responses to reduce the risk exposure to an acceptable level. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, page 251234

The most important factor to have in place to ensure the effectiveness of risk and security metrics reporting is an organizational reporting process. An organizational reporting process is a set of procedures that defines the roles, responsibilities, frequency, format, and distribution of the risk and security metrics reports. An organizational reporting process helps to ensure that the risk and security metrics are relevant, accurate, consistent, and timely, and that they provide useful information for decision making and performance improvement. An organizational reporting process also helps to align the risk and security metrics reporting with the enterprise’s objectives, strategies, and policies, and to communicate the risk and security status and issues to the appropriate stakeholders. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 2421

The best course of action when a risk practitioner identifies a database application that has been developed and implemented by the business independently of IT is to include the application in IT risk assessments. IT risk assessments are the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the IT-related risks that could affect the achievement of the enterprise’s objectives. By including the application in IT risk assessments, the risk practitioner can identify the potential threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts associated with the application, and recommend the appropriate controls and mitigation strategies to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Escalating the concern to senior management, documenting the reasons for the exception, and proposing that the application be transferred to IT are not the best courses of action, as they do not address the risk exposure and impact of the application, and may not be feasible or desirable for the business. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 47.

IT risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe how IT-related risks can affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or assets1. IT risk scenarios help to make IT risk more concrete and tangible, and to enable proper risk analysis and assessment2. IT risk scenarios are developed after IT risks are identified, and are used as inputs for risk analysis, where the frequency and impact of the scenarios are estimated3.

The most important factor to the successful development of IT risk scenarios is threat and vulnerability analysis. Threat and vulnerability analysis is the process of identifying and evaluating the potential sources and causes of IT risks, such as malicious actors, natural disasters, human errors, or technical failures4. Threat and vulnerability analysis can help to:

Define the scope and boundaries of the IT risk scenarios, and ensure that they are relevant and realistic

Identify the critical assets, processes, or functions that are exposed or affected by the IT risks, and assess their value and importance to the organization

Determine the likelihood and methods of the threat events, and the existing or potential weaknesses or gaps in the IT control environment

Estimate the potential consequences and impacts of the IT risks, such as financial losses, operational disruptions, reputational damages, or compliance violations5

References = IT Scenario Analysis in Enterprise Risk Management - ISACA, IT Risk Scenarios - Morland-Austin, Threat and Vulnerability Analysis - Wikipedia, Threat and Vulnerability Analysis - ISACA

The first step to reduce the likelihood of infection from the attack is to identify systems that are vulnerable to being exploited by the attack. This would help the organization to assess the scope and severity of the risk, and to prioritize the systems that need immediate protection. Identifying systems that are vulnerable to being exploited by the attack would also help the organization to apply the appropriate patches, updates, or configurations to prevent or mitigate the attack, and to isolate or disconnect the systems that are already infected or compromised. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2, page 60123

 A cloud access security broker (CASB) solution is the best way to enforce access control for an organization that uses multiple cloud technologies, as it provides a centralized and consistent platform to manage and monitor the access to various cloud services and applications. A CASB solution can help to implement and enforce the enterprise’s access policies and standards, as well as to detect and prevent unauthorized or malicious access attempts. Senior management support of cloud adoption strategies, creation of a cloud access risk management policy, and expansion of security information and event management (SIEM) to cloud services are not the best ways to enforce access control for an organization that uses multiple cloud technologies, as they do not provide the technical capabilities or tools to manage and monitor the access to various cloud services and applications. References = CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, question 210; CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, question 210.

The primary benefit of conducting continuous monitoring of access controls is the ability to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure. Continuous monitoring of access controls is a process that involves collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance and effectiveness of the access controls on a regular basis. Continuous monitoring of access controls helps to detect and prevent any unauthorized or inappropriate access to information assets, and to ensure that the access controls are aligned with the enterprise’s security policies and standards. Continuous monitoring of access controls also helps to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure, such as data leakage, data theft, data tampering, or data breach. By identifying these activities, the enterprise can take timely and appropriate actions to mitigate the risk and protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, page 1411

Risk mitigation is a proactive business strategy to identify, assess, and mitigate potential threats or uncertainties that could harm an organization’s objectives, assets, or operations1. It entails specific action plans to reduce the likelihood or impact of these identified risks2.

There are several recognized ways to mitigate risk, such as accepting, avoiding, hedging, transferring, or reducing the risk3. Among the options given, only C is an example of risk reduction, which involves implementing controls or safeguards to minimize the negative effects of the risk3. Change and configuration management processes are methods to ensure that changes to the IT systems or infrastructure are properly authorized, documented, tested, and implemented, and that the configuration of the IT assets is consistent and accurate. These processes can help prevent or detect errors, defects, or vulnerabilities that could compromise the IT performance, security, or availability.

The other options are not examples of risk mitigation, but rather risk avoidance (A), risk transfer (B), or risk acceptance (D). Risk avoidance means eliminating the risk entirely by not engaging in the activity that causes the risk3. Not providing capability for employees to work remotely could avoid the risk of data breaches or network issues, but it could also limit the productivity and flexibility of the workforce. Risk transfer means shifting the responsibility or burden of the risk to another party, such as a vendor or an insurer3. Outsourcing the IT activities and infrastructure could transfer the risk of IT failures or incidents to the service provider, but it could also introduce new risks such as vendor dependency or loss of control. Risk acceptance means acknowledging the risk and its consequences without taking any action to address it3. Taking out insurance coverage for IT-related incidents could provide some financial compensation in case of a loss, but it does not reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk itself. References =

5 Key Risk Mitigation Strategies (With Examples) | Indeed.com

10 Risk Mitigation techniques you need to know - Stakeholdermap.com

Risk Mitigation Strategies: Types & Examples (+ Free Template)

[Change and Configuration Management - ISACA]

Role-based access controls (RBAC) are a type of preventive control that limit the access and actions of users based on their roles and responsibilities within the organization. RBAC can help to address the risk of malicious outsiders modifying application data by restricting their access to the data and the functions they can perform on it. RBAC can also enforce the principle of least privilege, which means that users only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks. RBAC can be implemented through policies, procedures, and technical mechanisms such as access control lists, encryption, and authentication. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.1, p. 178-179

 The primary role of a data custodian in the risk management process is to ensure that data is protected according to the classification. A data custodian is a person or entity that has the responsibility for implementing and maintaining the security controls for the data, such as access rights, encryption, backup, or disposal. A data custodian acts as an agent of the data owner, who is the person or entity that has the authority and accountability for the data. A data custodian should ensure that data is protected according to the classification, which is the process of assigning a level of sensitivity and criticality to the data, based on the impact of its loss, disclosure, or modification. Data classification helps to determine the appropriate security controls and risk responses for the data, and to comply with the relevant laws, regulations, or contractual obligations. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1, page 1271

The most important topic to cover in a risk awareness training program for all staff is the policy compliance requirements and exceptions process. This topic would help the staff to understand the enterprise’s risk policies, standards, and procedures, and how they apply to their roles and responsibilities. It would also help the staff to know the process for requesting, approving, and documenting any exceptions to the policies, and the consequences of non-compliance. This topic would enhance the staff’s risk awareness and responsibility, and foster a culture of compliance and accountability within the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1, page 2491

The primary focus of an IT risk awareness program is to cultivate long-term behavioral change. An IT risk awareness program is a program that educates and informs the stakeholders, such as the employees, managers, customers, or partners, about the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. An IT risk awareness program helps to increase the knowledge and understanding of the IT risks and the IT risk management objectives, strategies, and processes, and to promote the participation and collaboration of the stakeholders in the IT risk management activities. The primary focus of an IT risk awareness program is to cultivate long-term behavioral change, which is the change in the attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions of the stakeholders regarding the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. Cultivating long-term behavioral change helps to create and sustain a risk-aware culture, which is a culture that recognizes, respects, and supports the IT risk management activities, and that encourages the stakeholders to take responsibility and ownership of the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. Cultivating long-term behavioral change also helps to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT risk management activities, and to align the IT risk management activities with the business goals and values. Ensuring compliance with the organization’s internal policies, communicating IT risk policy to the participants, and demonstrating regulatory compliance are not the primary focus of an IT risk awareness program, as they are either the benefits or the objectives of the IT risk awareness program, and they do not address the primary need of changing the behavior of the stakeholders. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

Automated data indicating that risk has been reduced provides the most tenable evidence that a business process control is effective, because it shows the actual impact and outcome of the control on the risk level. A demonstration that the control is operating as designed, a successful walk-through of the associated risk assessment, and a management attestation that the control is operating effectively are not the most tenable evidence, because they are based on subjective judgments, assumptions, or expectations, not on objective facts or results. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

The organization’s process owner should own the risk of exposing the payroll data due to a control weakness at the third party, because the process owner is the person who is responsible for the business process that generates, uses, or transfers the payroll data. The process owner should also ensure that the third party complies with the contractual obligations and service level agreements that define the expected performance and security standards of the payroll data processing. The other options are not the correct answers, because they are not the primary owners of the risk, although they may also be involved in the risk management process. The third party’s IT operations manager, the third party’s chief risk officer (CRO), and the organization’s risk practitioner are examples of secondary owners or stakeholders of the risk, who may provide support, guidance, or oversight to the risk owner, but they are not accountable for the risk or the risk response strategy. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

 According to the CRISC Review Manual, formal approval of the account by the user’s manager is the best evidence that a user account has been properly authorized, because it ensures that the user’s role and access rights are consistent with the business needs and the principle of least privilege. The user’s manager is responsible for verifying the user’s identity, job function, and access requirements, and for approving or rejecting the account request. The other options are not the best evidence of proper authorization, because they do not involve the user’s manager’s approval. An email from the user accepting the account is a confirmation of the account creation, but it does not indicate that the account was authorized by the user’s manager. Notification from human resources that the account is active is an administrative process that does not verify the user’s access rights and role. User privileges matching the request form is a verification of the account configuration, but it does not ensure that the request form was approved by the user’s manager. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2, page 163.

The best indicator that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment is when risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance or outcomes relative to the achievement of objectives. Risk events and losses are the negative consequences of risk that have occurred or are expected to occur. When risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance, it means that the existing controls are not sufficient or effective to prevent or mitigate the risk, and that the organization is exposed to unacceptable levels of risk that could impair its ability to achieve its objectives. Therefore, additional or improved controls are needed to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Management decreasing organizational risk appetite, the risk register and portfolio not including all risk scenarios, and emerging risk scenarios being identified are not as clear and direct indicators that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment, as they do not necessarily reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the risk management process. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 41.

 The risk treatment response that should be reflected in the risk register when an IT department decides to keep the data center in-house instead of outsourcing it to an overseas location is risk avoidance. Risk avoidance is a risk response strategy that involves eliminating the source of the risk, or changing the plan or scope of the activity, to avoid the risk altogether. Risk avoidance can help to reduce the risk exposure and impact to zero, by removing the possibility of the risk occurrence. In this case, the IT department avoids the risk of outsourcing the data center to an overseas location, which could involve various threats, vulnerabilities, and uncertainties, such as data security, legal compliance, service quality, communication, or cultural issues. By keeping the data center in-house, the IT department maintains the control and ownership of the data center, and eliminates the potential risk associated with the outsourcing. Risk mitigation, risk acceptance, and risk transfer are not the correct risk treatment responses, as they do not reflect the actual decision and action taken by the IT department, and they do not eliminate the risk source or occurrence. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 51.

A retention policy is a set of rules and guidelines that define how long and under what conditions the information should be kept or disposed of by the organization, based on its value, sensitivity, and legal or regulatory requirements.

When information is no longer required to support business objectives, the first thing that should be done is to assess the information against the retention policy. This means that the information should be reviewed and evaluated to determine if it should be retained or deleted, and for how long and by whom.

Assessing the information against the retention policy helps to ensure that the information is managed and disposed of in a consistent and compliant manner, that the information is protected from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction, and that the information is available for future reference or audit purposes if needed.

The other options are not the first things that should be done when information is no longer required to support business objectives. They are either secondary or not essential for information management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 28

Information Technology & Security, page 22

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 20

Residual risk is the risk that remains after applying risk responses, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer, or acceptance. It represents the level of exposure that the organisation is willing to tolerate or assume. Residual risk should be aligned with the organisation’s risk appetite and risk tolerance, which are determined by senior management. Therefore, the best way to obtain senior management support for investment in a control implementation would be to articulate the reduction in residual risk that the control would achieve. This would demonstrate how the control would help the organisation meet its risk objectives and reduce the likelihood or impact of adverse events. References = ISACA CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2, page 25.

The most comprehensive input to the risk assessment process specific to the effects of system downtime is the business impact analysis (BIA). The BIA is a process of analyzing the potential impacts of disruptive events on the business processes, functions, and resources. The BIA identifies the criticality, dependencies, recovery priorities, and recovery objectives of the business processes, and quantifies the financial and non-financial impacts of system downtime. The BIA provides valuable information for the risk assessment process, as it helps to evaluate the likelihood and impact of the risks, and to determine the appropriate risk responses. Business continuity plan (BCP) testing results, recovery time objective (RTO), and recovery point objective (RPO) are not as comprehensive as the BIA, as they are derived from the BIA and focus on specific aspects of the business continuity and recovery strategies. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 130.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics that reflect how well an organization is achieving its goals and objectives. KPIs should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. The most important characteristic of a KPI is its relevance, meaning that it should be aligned with the organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and values. A relevant KPI should also be meaningful and useful for the intended audience, such as the management, the staff, or the stakeholders. A relevant KPI should provide insight into the performance and progress of the organization, as well as enable decision making and improvement actions. A KPI that is not relevant may be misleading, inaccurate, or irrelevant, and may not reflect the true state of the organization or its goals. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, p. 116-117

Enterprise risk management (ERM) is a holistic and strategic approach to managing the risks that an organization faces across its various functions, processes, and activities. ERM aims to align the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance with its objectives and vision, and to optimize the value and performance of the organization1.

IT risk management is a subset of ERM that focuses on identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks related to the use of information technology (IT) in the organization. IT risk management aims to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT resources and information, and to support the IT governance and strategy of the organization2.

The greatest benefit when ERM provides oversight of IT risk management is aligning IT with short-term and long-term goals of the organization, because it can help to:

Integrate IT risk management with the overall business strategy and risk management, and ensure that IT risks are considered and addressed at the enterprise level

Align IT risk appetite and tolerance with the business risk appetite and tolerance, and ensure that IT risks are balanced with the expected benefits and opportunities

Enhance IT risk awareness and communication among the stakeholders, and ensure that IT risks are reported and escalated appropriately

Optimize IT risk response and control, and ensure that IT risks are managed efficiently and effectively

Demonstrate IT risk value and impact, and ensure that IT risks are measured and monitored against the business objectives and performance34

The other options are not the greatest benefit when ERM provides oversight of IT risk management, but rather some of the outcomes or consequences of it. Ensuring the IT budget and resources focus on risk management is a benefit that can help to allocate and prioritize the IT resources and funds according to the IT risk level and the business needs. Ensuring senior management’s primary focus is on the impact of identified risk is a benefit that can help to increase the senior management’s involvement and accountability in IT risk management, and to support the IT risk decision making and reporting. Prioritizing internal departments that provide service to customers is a benefit that can help to improve the quality and efficiency of the IT service delivery and customer satisfaction. References =

Enterprise Risk Management - ISACA

IT Risk Management - ISACA

Aligning IT risks with Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

Five Benefits of Enterprise Risk Management : Articles : Resources …

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

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 its performance 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 providing risk metrics is not its main function. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2.1, p. 118-119

A comparison of current risk levels with established tolerance is the most useful information for senior management when determining an appropriate risk response, as it shows the gap between the actual risk exposure and the desired risk exposure of the enterprise. This gap indicates the need and urgency for risk response actions, and helps senior management to prioritize and allocate resources for risk mitigation. A comparison of current risk levels with established tolerance also reflects the effectiveness of the existing risk management process and controls, and enables senior management to monitor and adjust the risk strategy and objectives accordingly. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 234. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 234. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 234.

The legal and regulatory risk associated with business conducted over the Internet is driven by the laws and regulations of each individual country. Legal and regulatory risk is the risk of non-compliance or violation of the applicable laws and regulations that govern the business activities, operations, or transactions. Business conducted over the Internet involves the use of the global network of interconnected computers and devices to exchange information, goods, or services across the geographic boundaries. Business conducted over the Internet may expose the enterprise to various legal and regulatory risks, such as data protection, privacy, security, intellectual property, consumer protection, taxation, or jurisdiction issues. The legal and regulatory risk associated with business conducted over the Internet is driven by the laws and regulations of each individual country, as each country may have different or conflicting laws and regulations that apply to the business conducted over the Internet, and that may change or vary over time. The laws and regulations of each individual country may also impose different or additional obligations, requirements, or restrictions on the enterprise, and may subject the enterprise to different or multiple enforcement actions, penalties, or disputes. The jurisdiction in which an organization has its principal headquarters, international law and a uniform set of regulations, and international standard-setting bodies are not the drivers of the legal and regulatory risk associated with business conducted over the Internet, as they do not reflect the diversity and complexity of the legal and regulatory landscape that the enterprise may face when conducting business over the Internet. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 217.

The primary reason to have risk owners assigned to entries in the risk register is to ensure that risk is treated appropriately, as risk owners are responsible for implementing the risk response strategies and monitoring the risk status and outcomes. Risk owners are also accountable for the risk and its impact on the enterprise’s objectives and operations. Having risk owners assigned to entries in the risk register helps to clarify the roles and responsibilities, improve the communication and coordination, and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management process. Mitigating actions are prioritized, risk entries are regularly updated, and risk exposure is minimized are not the primary reasons to have risk owners assigned to entries in the risk register, but rather the results or benefits of having risk owners assigned to entries in the risk register. References = CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, question 206; CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, question 206.

Reviewing historical risk events is most useful for the risk assessment process within the risk management life cycle. Risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that may affect the project or the organization1. Reviewing historical risk events can help to:

Identify the sources, causes, and consequences of past risks and learn from the successes and failures of previous projects or organizations

Analyze the likelihood and impact of potential risks based on historical data and trends, and use statistical methods or models to estimate the probability and severity of risk scenarios

Evaluate the level of risk exposure and compare it with the risk appetite and tolerance of the project or the organization, and prioritize the risks that need further attention or action

Use historical risk events as inputs or examples for risk identification and analysis techniques, such as brainstorming, checklists, interviews, surveys, SWOT analysis, root cause analysis, or Monte Carlo simulation2

References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk Assessment Process3

According to the CRISC Review Manual, the most important reason for implementing change control procedures is to ensure that only approved changes are implemented, because it helps to prevent or minimize the risk of unauthorized or unintended changes that may affect the stability, security, or performance of the IT systems and processes. Change control procedures are the steps and activities that are followed to manage the initiation, review, approval, implementation, and verification of changes. Change control procedures also help to ensure that the changes are aligned with the business requirements and objectives, and that the changes are documented and communicated to the stakeholders. The other options are not the most important reason for implementing change control procedures, as they are related to other benefits or outcomes of the change control process. Timely evaluation of change events is the reason for implementing change management, which is the process of identifying, analyzing, and responding to the changes that may affect the IT systems and processes. An audit trail is the outcome of implementing change control procedures, as it provides a record of the changes and their impacts. Logging emergency changes is the exception of implementing change control procedures, as it allows for bypassing the normal approval process in case of urgent or critical changes. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 177.

The most likely justification for risk acceptance of an exception to a security control is when the business benefits exceed the loss exposure. Risk acceptance is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging and tolerating the risk, without taking any action to reduce or transfer the risk. An exception to a security control is a deviation or non-compliance from the established security policy or standard, due to a valid business reason or circumstance. Risk acceptance of an exception to a security control may be justified when the business benefits exceed the loss exposure, which means that the value or advantage of the exception outweighs the potential cost or harm of the risk. For example, an exception to a security control may enable faster or easier access to the system or data, which may improve the productivity, efficiency, or satisfaction of the users or customers, and generate more revenue or profit for the business. The business benefits of the exception may exceed the loss exposure of the risk, which may be low or negligible, or may be mitigated by other controls or factors. Therefore, risk acceptance of an exception to a security control may be a reasonable and rational decision, based on the cost-benefit analysis of the exception and the risk. Automation cannot be applied to the control, the end-user license agreement has expired, and the control is difficult to enforce in practice are not the most likely justifications for risk acceptance of an exception to a security control, as they are either irrelevant or insufficient reasons, and they do not consider the business benefits or the loss exposure of the exception and the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 50.

Data usage exceeding individual consent presents the greatest risk to the organization’s reputation, as it violates the privacy and trust of the customers and exposes the organization to legal and regulatory liabilities. Customers have the right to know and control how their personal data is collected, processed, and shared by the organization, and they expect the organization to respect their preferences and comply with the applicable laws and standards. If the organization uses the data for purposes beyond the scope of the consent, or without obtaining the consent in the first place, it may damage its reputation and lose its customers’ loyalty and confidence. Third-party software used for data analytics, revenue generated from data analytics, and use of a data analytics system are not inherently risky to the organization’s reputation, as long as they are transparent, secure, and ethical. References = Most Asked CRISC Exam Questions and Answers - The Knowledge Academy; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 203.

The percentage of unpatched IT assets is a KPI that measures the effectiveness of the IT asset management process in ensuring that the IT assets are updated with the latest security patches and are protected from vulnerabilities. This KPI reflects the compliance of the IT assets with the enterprise’s security policy and standards, and the ability of the IT asset management process to identify and remediate any gaps or risks in the IT asset inventory. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 5. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 4. Most Asked CRISC Exam Questions and Answers, Question 10. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 4.

The first step to ensure continuity of operations when performing a risk assessment of a new service to support a new business process is to identify the conditions that may cause disruptions to the service or the process. This is because identifying the potential sources, causes, and scenarios of disruptions helps to determine the impact and likelihood of the risks, and to select the appropriate risk responses and recovery strategies. The other options are not the first steps, although they may also be part of the risk assessment process. Reviewing incident response procedures, evaluating the probability of risk events, and defining metrics for restoring availability are examples of subsequent steps that depend on the identification of the conditions that may cause disruptions. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

According to the GDPR, personal data shall be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes1. This means that a business unit can only use personal information for a different purpose if it has obtained the consent of the data subject, or if it has a clear legal basis or obligation to do so2. Therefore, informed consent should be the first consideration when a business unit wants to use personal information for a purpose other than for which it was originally collected.

References = GDPR Article 5 (1) (b) and Article 6 (4)1, ICO Principle (b): Purpose limitation2

The likelihood rating in the risk register is a measure of how probable it is that a risk event will occur, given the current conditions and controls. The risk practitioner should change the likelihood rating if there is a significant change in the effectiveness of the controls that are implemented to prevent or reduce the risk. For example, if a control becomes obsolete, ineffective, or bypassed, the likelihood rating should increase, as the risk event becomes more likely to happen. Conversely, if a control becomes more efficient, reliable, or robust, the likelihood rating should decrease, as the risk event becomes less likely to happen. The other options are not likely to cause a change in the likelihood rating, as they are not directly related to the probability of the risk event. Risk appetite is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Control cost is the amount of resources that are required to implement and maintain a control. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation that an organization is willing to allow for a risk to deviate from its desired level or expected outcome. These factors may influence the risk response or the risk acceptance, but not the likelihood rating. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: Risk Register, p. 25-26.

The best way to help an enterprise define and communicate its risk appetite is to use a risk register, which is a document that records and summarizes the key information and data about the identified risks and the risk responses1. A risk register can help to:

Define the risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives2. The risk register can include the risk appetite statement, which is a clear and concise expression of the enterprise’s risk preferences and boundaries3.

Communicate the risk appetite, which is the process of sharing and informing the risk appetite to the relevant stakeholders, such as the board, the management, the employees, or the customers4. The risk register can be used as a communication tool, which can provide a consistent and transparent view of the enterprise’s risk profile and performance5.

The other options are not the best ways to help an enterprise define and communicate its risk appetite, because:

Gap analysis is a technique that compares the current state and the desired state of a process, system, or organization, and identifies the gaps or differences between them6. Gap analysis can help to assess the alignment or misalignment of the enterprise’s risk appetite with its risk level, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

Risk assessment is a process that estimates the probability and impact of the risks, and prioritizes the risks based on their significance and urgency. Risk assessment can help to identify and analyze the risks that may affect the enterprise’s objectives, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

Heat map is a graphical representation that uses colors to indicate the level or intensity of a variable, such as risk. Heat map can help to visualize and compare the risks based on their probability and impact, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

References =

Risk Register - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite Statement - CIO Wiki

Risk Communication - CIO Wiki

Risk Reporting - CIO Wiki

Gap Analysis - CIO Wiki

[Risk Assessment - CIO Wiki]

[Heat Map - CIO Wiki]

[Risk and Information Systems Control documents and learning resources by ISACA]

 The risk practitioner’s best recommendation is to consider providing additional system resources to this job, as this would help to reduce the likelihood and impact of the risk of delaying financial reporting. Providing additional system resources, such as memory, CPU, disk space, or bandwidth, can improve the performance and efficiency of the application and the scheduled job. This can also help to avoid potential errors, failures, or interruptions that could affect the quality and timeliness of the financial data and reporting.

The other options are not the best recommendations for this situation. Implementing database activity and capacity monitoring is a good practice to identify and analyze the root causes of performance issues, but it does not directly address the risk of delaying financial reporting. Ensuring the business is aware of the risk is an important step to communicate and escalate the risk, but it does not provide a solution or mitigation strategy. Ensuring the enterprise has a process to detect such situations is a preventive measure to avoid or minimize the occurrence of the risk, but it does not eliminate or reduce the risk. References = Practical Recommendations for Better Enterprise Risk Management - ISACA, HR Risk Management: A Practitioner’s Guide - AIHR, Isaca CRISC today updated questions - Verified by Isaca Experts

A treatment plan status is a report that shows the current status and progress of the risk mitigation actions and activities that are implemented to reduce the risk exposure of the organization. A treatment plan status would provide the most useful information to a risk owner when reviewing the progress of risk mitigation, as it can help to monitor and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the risk controls, and to identify and address any issues or gaps that may arise during the implementation. A treatment plan status can also provide feedback and information to the risk owners and stakeholders, and enable them to adjust the risk strategy and response actions accordingly. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 257. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 257. ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 257. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

The best evidence of an effective risk treatment plan is that the risk tolerance threshold is above the asset residual risk, because this means that the risk treatment plan has reduced the risk to a level that is acceptable to the enterprise. The risk tolerance threshold is the maximum amount of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept for a given asset or process. The asset residual risk is the remaining risk after applying the risk treatment plan. The risk treatment plan is effective if the asset residual risk is lower than or equal to the risk tolerance threshold. The other options are not the best evidence, although they may also be indicators of an effective risk treatment plan. The inherent risk being below the asset residual risk, the remediation cost being below the asset business value, and the remediation being completed within the asset recovery time objective (RTO) are examples of desirable or expected outcomes of the risk treatment plan, but they do not directly measure the effectiveness of the risk treatment plan. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

A key control indicator (KCI) is a metric that provides information on the extent to which a given control is meeting its intended objectives in terms of loss prevention, reduction, etc. A KCI should have an explicit relationship to both the specific control and the specific risk against which the control has been implemented. For risk related to IT infrastructure failure, a possible control is to have a recovery plan that can restore the critical IT services and minimize the impact of the failure. A KCI that can measure the effectiveness of this control is the number of successful recovery plan tests, which indicates how well the recovery plan can be executed in a real scenario. The higher the number of successful tests, the lower the risk of IT infrastructure failure. Therefore, this is the best KCI among the given options. References =

Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management

Key Control Indicator (KCI) - CIO Wiki

Infrastructure Issues: Understanding and Mitigating Risks

The best indicator of the risk appetite and tolerance level for the risk associated with business interruption caused by IT system failures is the recovery time objective (RTO). The RTO is the maximum acceptable time or duration that a business process or an IT system can be disrupted or interrupted before it causes unacceptable impact or harm to the business. The RTO reflects the risk appetite and tolerance level for the business interruption risk, as it indicates how much disruption or interruption the business can tolerate or accept, and how quickly the business needs to resume or recover the business process or the IT system. The RTO also helps to determine the priorities and requirements for the business continuity and recovery planning, and to select and implement the appropriate continuity and recovery strategies and solutions. Mean time to recover (MTTR), IT system criticality classification, and incident management service level agreement (SLA) are not the best indicators of the risk appetite and tolerance level for the business interruption risk, as they are either the measures or the outcomes of the business continuity and recovery performance, and they do not directly indicate how much disruption or interruption the business can tolerate or accept. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 50

The control owner is the person who is accountable for ensuring that a control is designed, implemented, and operated effectively to mitigate risk. The control owner is also responsible for monitoring the performance of the control and reporting any issues or deficiencies. The risk manager is the person who oversees the risk management process and ensures that risks are identified, assessed, and treated appropriately. The control operator is the person who executes the control activities on a day-to-day basis. The risk treatment owner is the person who is accountable for implementing the risk response strategy and ensuring that the residual risk is within the acceptable level. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, p. 181.

Maturity models are tools that help organizations assess and improve their risk management processes and capabilities. They provide a set of criteria or standards that define different levels of maturity, from ad-hoc to innovative. The primary objective of using maturity models in risk management is to enable strategic alignment, which means ensuring that the risk management activities and objectives are consistent with and support the organization’s mission, vision, values, and goals. By using maturity models, organizations can identify their current level of risk management maturity, compare it with their desired level, and plan and implement actions to close the gap. This way, they can align their risk management practices with their strategic direction and priorities, and enhance their performance and value creation. References = How to Use a Maturity Model in Risk Management — RiskOptics - Reciprocity, Using a Maturity Model to Assess Your Risk Management Program, How to Use a Risk Maturity Model to Level Up · Riskonnect

The best type of indicators to measure the effectiveness of an organization’s firewall rule set are key control indicators (KCIs). A firewall is a device or software that filters the network traffic based on a set of rules or policies. A firewall rule set is the configuration of the firewall that defines the criteria for allowing or blocking the traffic. A key control indicator is a metric that measures the performance and effectiveness of a control in achieving its objectives and mitigating the risks. A key control indicator can help to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the firewall rule set, and to identify any gaps, weaknesses, or issues that need to be addressed. Key risk indicators (KRIs), key management indicators (KMIs), and key performance indicators (KPIs) are not as suitable as key control indicators, as they measure different aspects of the risk management process, such as the level and nature of the risk exposure, the alignment and integration of the risk management activities, and the achievement of the risk management goals and targets. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 220.

 Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk is the best recommendation to senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated, as it helps to balance the costs and benefits of the risk management and control processes, and to align them with the organizational strategy and objectives. A risk and control assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks and controls associated with a specific activity, process, or objective. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could cause harm or loss to the organization or its stakeholders. A risk scenario can only be partially mitigated when the existing or proposed controls are not sufficient or effective to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. A risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. A residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or risk treatments.

Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk helps to provide the following benefits:

It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to risk management and reporting, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of measuring and communicating risk levels and exposure across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

It supports the development and implementation of effective and efficient risk response and mitigation strategies and actions that are aligned with the business risk appetite and objectives.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the risk management and control processes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best recommendations to senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated. Implementing a key performance indicator (KPI) to monitor the existing control performance is a useful method to measure and monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, but it does not address the residual risk or the risk appetite. Accepting the residual risk in its entirety and obtaining executive management approval is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk, and it may not comply with the legal or regulatory obligations or requirements. Separating the risk into multiple components and avoiding the risk components that cannot be mitigated is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may not be feasible or practical, and it may create new or additional risks or challenges. References = Risk and Control Self-Assessment (RCSA) - Management Study Guide, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Risk Mitigation: What It Is and How to Implement It (Free Templates …

According to the CRISC Review Manual, performing the assessment as it would normally be done is the best approach when a risk practitioner has been asked by a business unit manager for special consideration during a risk assessment of a system, because it ensures that the risk practitioner maintains their objectivity, integrity, and professionalism. The risk practitioner should not compromise the quality or accuracy of the risk assessment, regardless of any external pressure or influence. The risk practitioner should follow the established risk assessment methodology and standards, and report the risk results and recommendations based on the facts and evidence. The other options are not the best approaches, because they may affect the credibility or reliability of the risk assessment. Conducting an abbreviated version of the assessment may result in incomplete or insufficient risk information, which may lead to poor risk decisions or actions. Reporting the business unit manager for a possible ethics violation may escalate the situation or create a conflict of interest, which may hinder the risk assessment process or outcome. Recommending an internal auditor perform the review may transfer the responsibility or accountability of the risk practitioner, which may undermine their role or authority. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 74.

 The number of projects going live without a security review is the best key control indicator (KCI) to indicate whether security requirements are identified and managed throughout a project life cycle, because it measures the compliance and effectiveness of the security review process. A security review is a process that ensures that the security requirements are defined, implemented, tested, and verified for each project, and that any security risks or issues are identified and resolved before the project is deployed. The number of projects going live without a security review should be minimized or eliminated, as it indicates a failure or weakness of the security review process. The other options are not the best KCIs, because they do not directly measure the identification and management of security requirements. The number of employees completing project-specific security training, the number of security projects started in core departments, and the number of security-related status reports submitted by project managers are examples of input or output indicators that measure the activities or results of the project, but not the security requirements. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

A denial-of-service (DoS) attack is a type of cyberattack that aims to disrupt or disable the normal functioning of a system or network by overwhelming it with excessive traffic or requests.

The chief technology officer (CTO) has decided to accept the risk associated with the potential loss from a DoS attack. This means that the CTO has determined that the cost or effort of implementing or maintaining controls to prevent or reduce the impact of a DoS attack is not justified by the expected benefits or savings, and that the organization is willing to bear the consequences of a DoS attack if it occurs.

The best course of action for the risk practitioner in this situation is to identify key risk indicators (KRIs) for ongoing monitoring. This means that the risk practitioner should define and measure the metrics that provide information about the level of exposure to the DoS attack risk, such as the frequency, duration, or severity of the attacks, the availability, performance, or security of the systems or networks, the customer satisfaction, reputation, or revenue of the organization, etc.

Identifying KRIs for ongoing monitoring helps to track and evaluate the actual results and outcomes of the risk acceptance decision, compare them with the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization, identify any deviations or breaches that may require attention or action, and report them to the appropriate parties for decision making or improvement actions.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 15

Information Technology & Security, page 9

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 7

Data inconsistency is the greatest concern associated with redundant data in an organization’s inventory system, as it can lead to inaccurate, unreliable, and conflicting information that can affect the decision-making and performance of the organization. Redundant data can occur when the same data is stored in multiple locations or formats, or when data is not updated or synchronized properly. Data inconsistency can cause errors, confusion, and inefficiency in the inventory management process, and can also increase the risk of fraud, theft, or loss of inventory. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 238. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 238. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 238.

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 plans to 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]

Conducting root cause analyses for risk events is the first recommendation that a risk practitioner should make when an increasing trend of risk events and subsequent losses has been identified, as this helps to identify the underlying causes and sources of the risk events, and to determine the appropriate actions to address them. Root cause analysis is a systematic process of collecting and analyzing data, finding the root causes, and implementing solutions to prevent recurrence or reduce the impact of the risk events. Educating personnel on risk mitigation strategies, integrating the risk event and incident management processes, and implementing controls to prevent future risk events are not the first recommendations, but rather the possible outcomes or actions of conducting root cause analyses for risk events. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question208; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 208.

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 maturity of organizational risk management refers to the degree to which risk management is embedded and integrated into the organization’s culture, processes, and decision-making1. A higher level of maturity implies that the organization has a clear and consistent understanding of its risk appetite and tolerance, and that it can effectively identify, assess, respond, monitor, and communicate risks2.

The best way to address the issue of participants focusing on the financial cost to mitigate risk rather than choosing the most appropriate response is to raise the maturity of organizational risk management. This can help to:

Ensure that risk management is aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives and values, and that risk responses are based on the potential impact and likelihood of risks, not just on the cost of mitigation

Foster a risk-aware culture that encourages proactive and collaborative risk management, and that recognizes and rewards good risk management practices

Provide adequate training and guidance for risk management roles and responsibilities, and ensure that risk management skills and competencies are developed and maintained

Implement a robust and consistent risk management framework, methodology, and tools that support the risk management process and enable continuous improvement and learning

Enhance the quality and reliability of risk information and reporting, and ensure that risk management performance and outcomes are measured and evaluated3

References = Risk Maturity Model - Wikipedia, Risk Maturity Model - ISACA, Risk Maturity Model - IRM

Executive management should be primarily responsible for establishing an organization’s IT risk culture, as they have the authority and accountability to define and communicate the vision, mission, values, and objectives of the organization, and to set the tone and direction for the IT risk management and control processes. Executive management is the highest level of management in an organization, and it consists of the board of directors, the chief executive officer (CEO), and other senior executives. Executive management is responsible for the strategic planning and decision making of the organization, and for ensuring the alignment of the organizational strategy and objectives with the stakeholder expectations and requirements.

Executive management should be primarily responsible for establishing an organization’s IT risk culture by providing the following benefits:

It demonstrates the leadership and commitment of the executive management to the IT risk management and control processes, and to the achievement of the organizational strategy and objectives.

It influences and motivates the behavior and attitude of the staff and managers towards IT risk management and control, and fosters a culture of risk awareness, ownership, and accountability across the organization.

It defines and communicates the IT risk appetite and tolerance of the organization, and guides and supports the development and implementation of the IT risk policies, standards, and procedures.

It allocates and monitors the resources and performance of the IT risk management and control processes, and ensures the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT risk governance and oversight.

The other options are not the primary choices for establishing an organization’s IT risk culture. Business process owner is the person who has the responsibility and authority over the design, execution, and performance of a specific business process, and they are accountable for the risks and controls associated with their process, but they do not have the overall or strategic responsibility for the IT risk culture. Risk management is the function or department that is responsible for managing and monitoring the IT risk management and control processes, and for providing advice and guidance to the executive management and the business units, but they do not have the ultimate or final responsibility for the IT risk culture. IT management is the function or department that is responsible for managing and maintaining the IT operations and security, and for supporting the IT risk management and control processes, but they do not have the highest or broadest responsibility for the IT risk culture. References = Risk Culture - Open Risk Manual, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, The 6 key elements to creating and maintaining a good risk culture

Managing cyber risk according to the organization’s risk management framework is the best recommendation to help ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile, as it helps to integrate and align the cybersecurity risk management (CSRM) and the enterprise risk management (ERM) processes. A risk management framework is a set of principles, policies, and practices that guide and support the risk management activities within an organization. A risk management framework helps to establish a consistent, comprehensive, and coordinated approach to risk management across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

Managing cyber risk according to the organization’s risk management framework helps to ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile by providing the following benefits:

It enables a holistic and comprehensive view of the cyber risk landscape and its interdependencies with the business processes and functions.

It facilitates the communication and collaboration among the business and IT stakeholders and enhances their understanding and awareness of the cyber risk exposure and control environment.

It supports the development and implementation of effective and efficient cyber risk response and mitigation strategies and actions that are aligned with the business risk appetite and objectives.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the cyber risk management and control processes and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best recommendations to help ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile. Defining cyber roles and responsibilities across the organization is a good practice to clarify and assign the duties and accountabilities for the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not directly address the cyber risk assessment and integration with the enterprise-level risk profile. Conducting cyber risk awareness training tailored specifically for senior management is a useful method to educate and engage the senior management in the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not provide a systematic or consistent way to assess and reflect the cyber risk in the enterprise-level risk profile. Implementing a cyber risk program based on industry best practices is a possible action to improve and enhance the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not ensure the alignment or integration with the organization’s risk management framework or the enterprise-level risk profile. References = Integrating Cybersecurity and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) - NIST, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Identifying and Estimating Cybersecurity Risk for Enterprise Risk …

User accounts provisioning is the process of creating, managing, and modifying user accounts within a system or an application, based on the user’s roles, responsibilities, and requirements. User accounts provisioning is an essential part of identity and access management (IAM), which aims to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system or the application, and the information or resources that it handles or supports1.

The best key performance indicator (KPI) for monitoring adherence to an organization’s user accounts provisioning practices is the percentage of accounts without documented approval, because it can help to measure how well the organization follows the policies, standards, and procedures for user accounts provisioning, and how effectively the organization controls and audits the user accounts provisioning activities. The percentage of accounts without documented approval can indicate:

The level of compliance and accountability of the user accounts provisioning process, and the extent to which the user accounts provisioning requests and actions are authorized and verified by the appropriate parties, such as managers, IT staff, or security officers

The level of risk and exposure of the user accounts provisioning process, and the likelihood and impact of unauthorized or inappropriate user accounts provisioning, such as granting excessive or unnecessary access privileges, creating duplicate or fraudulent accounts, or violating legal or regulatory requirements

The level of quality and efficiency of the user accounts provisioning process, and the ability and capacity of the organization to manage and maintain the user accounts provisioning records and documents, such as forms, logs, or reports23

The other options are not the best KPIs for monitoring adherence to an organization’s user accounts provisioning practices, but rather some of the factors or outcomes of it. User accounts with default passwords are user accounts that have not changed their passwords from the initial or default values that are assigned by the system or the application. User accounts with default passwords are a factor that can increase the risk of unauthorized or malicious access to the system or the application, as the default passwords may be easily guessed or compromised by attackers. Active accounts belonging to former personnel are user accounts that have not been deactivated or deleted after the users have left the organization. Active accounts belonging to former personnel are an outcome of ineffective or inefficient user accounts deprovisioning, which is the process of revoking or removing the user accounts and access privileges when they are no longer needed or valid. Accounts with dormant activity are user accounts that have not been used or accessed for a long period of time. Accounts with dormant activity are an outcome of poor or inconsistent user accounts management, which is the process of updating or modifying the user accounts and access privileges according to the changes or needs of the users or the organization4. References =

User Provisioning for SaaS Apps: Top 10 Best Practices | Resmo

Top Identity and Access Management Metrics

KPI-driven approach to Identity & Access Management - Elimity

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

 The control owner is the person who has the authority to approve an exception to a control. A control is a policy, procedure, or technical measure that is implemented to prevent or mitigate a risk. A control owner is responsible for the design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of the control, as well as for monitoring and reporting its performance and effectiveness. A control owner is also accountable for the approval of any changes or exceptions to the control, based on the risk assessment and business justification. An information security manager, a risk owner, and a risk manager are not the best choices, as they do not have the same level of authority, responsibility, and knowledge as the control owner in relation to the control. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 35.

Embedding risk management into processes that are aligned with business drivers is the most effective way to integrate risk and compliance management, as it ensures that the risk management objectives and activities are consistent and supportive of the enterprise’s strategic goals and values. It also enables the identification and management of risks and compliance requirements across the enterprise, and the optimization of risk and compliance resources and performance. Embedding risk management into compliance decision-making, designing corrective actions to improve risk response capabilities, and conducting regular self-assessments to verify compliance are not ways to integrate risk and compliance management, but rather components or outcomes of the risk and compliance management process. References = CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep; CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, question 202.

Service level agreements (SLA) are contracts that define the expected level of performance and quality of service that an IT service provider will deliver to its customers. SLA are the best indicators that an organization has implemented IT performance requirements, as they specify the measurable and verifiable criteria that the IT service provider must meet or exceed, such as availability, reliability, security, and responsiveness. SLA also establish the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, the methods of monitoring and reporting the service performance, and the consequences of non-compliance or breach of the agreement. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 232. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 232. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 232.

A key performance indicator (KPI) is a metric that measures the achievement of a specific goal or objective. A KPI should be relevant, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. For measuring the effectiveness of an antivirus program, a possible goal is to ensure that all IT assets are protected from malware infections. A KPI that can measure this goal is the percentage of IT assets with current malware definitions, which indicates how well the antivirus program can detect and prevent the latest malware threats. The higher the percentage, the more effective the antivirus program is. Therefore, this is the best KPI among the given options. References =

Cybersecurity KPIs to Track + Examples — RiskOptics - Reciprocity

Which of the following is the BEST key performance indicator (KPI) to …

Indicators - Program Evaluation - CDC

The most helpful activity for a risk practitioner when ensuring that mitigated risk remains within acceptable limits is to implement a process for ongoing monitoring of control effectiveness. This would enable the risk practitioner to track the performance of the controls, identify any deviations or gaps, and take corrective actions as needed. Ongoing monitoring of control effectiveness would also provide assurance that the risk responses are working as intended, and that the residual risk is aligned with the risk appetite and tolerance of the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, page 188.

Security awareness training is a process of educating and informing the users about the security policies, procedures, and best practices of the organization, and the potential threats and risks that may affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information and systems.

The best indicator of whether security awareness training is effective is user behavior after training. This means that the users demonstrate and apply the knowledge and skills that they have learned from the training, such as following the security rules and guidelines, reporting any security incidents or issues, avoiding any risky or malicious actions, etc.

User behavior after training helps to measure the actual impact and outcome of the training, compare them with the expected or desired objectives and standards, identify any gaps or issues that may affect the training effectiveness or efficiency, and take appropriate actions to address them.

The other options are not the best indicators of whether security awareness training is effective. They are either subjective or not essential for security awareness training.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 30

Information Technology & Security, page 24

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 22

Ongoing availability of data is the most important consideration when selecting key risk indicators (KRIs) to monitor risk trends over time, as it ensures that the KRIs can provide timely and reliable information on the current and future risk status and performance. KRIs are metrics that measure the level of risk exposure and the effectiveness of risk response strategies, and they should be aligned with the enterprise’s risk appetite and objectives. Ongoing availability of data means that the data sources and collection methods for the KRIs are consistent, accessible, and sustainable, and that the data quality and integrity are maintained and verified. Ability to aggregate data, ability to predict trends, and availability of automated reporting systems are not the most important considerations, as they do not affect the validity and usefulness of the KRIs, but rather the presentation and analysis of the KRI data. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question213; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 213.

The most important objective of establishing an enterprise risk management (ERM) function within an organization is to have a unified approach to risk management across the organization. An ERM function is a centralized and coordinated function that oversees and supports the risk management activities of the organization, such as risk identification, assessment, response, monitoring, and reporting. An ERM function helps to ensure that the risk management process is consistent, comprehensive, and integrated with the organization’s strategy, objectives, and culture. An ERM function also helps to align the risk management activities with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and to provide a holistic view of the organization’s risk profile and exposure. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1, page 131

A technical vulnerability is a weakness or flaw in the design or implementation of an information system or resource that can be exploited or compromised by a threat or source of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A technical vulnerability may be caused by various factors, such as human error, system failure, process inefficiency, resource limitation, etc.

A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the technical vulnerabilities that exist or may arise in the organization’s information systems or resources, and determining their severity and impact. A vulnerability assessment can help the organization to assess and prioritize the risks, and to design and implement appropriate controls or countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the risks.

The best response to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited is to conduct a vulnerability assessment, because it can help the organization to address the following questions:

What is the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how does it affect the functionality or security of the information system or resource?

How is the technical vulnerability being exploited or compromised, and by whom or what?

What are the potential consequences or impacts of the exploitation or compromise of the technical vulnerability for the organization and its stakeholders?

How can the technical vulnerability be detected and reported, and what are the available or feasible options or solutions to address or correct it?

Conducting a vulnerability assessment can help the organization to improve and optimize the information system or resource quality and performance, and to reduce or eliminate the technical vulnerability. It can also help the organization to align the information system or resource with the organization’s objectives and requirements, and to comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best responses to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of conducting a vulnerability assessment, which is to identify and evaluate the technical vulnerability, and to determine its severity and impact.

Assessing the vulnerability management process is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the process that is used to identify, analyze, evaluate, and communicate the technical vulnerabilities, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements. Assessing the vulnerability management process can help the organization to improve and optimize the process, and to reduce or eliminate the gaps or weaknesses in the process, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Conducting a control self-assessment is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls that are intended to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the information systems and resources, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the information systems activities or functions. Conducting a control self-assessment can help the organization to identify and document the control deficiencies, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Reassessing the inherent risk of the target is a process of reevaluating and recalculating the amount and type of risk that exists in the absence of any controls, and that is inherent to the nature or characteristics of the target, which is the information system or resource that is affected by the technical vulnerability. Reassessing the inherent risk of the target can help the organization to understand and document the risk exposure or level, and to align it with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 195

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), risk management strategies are primarily adopted to achieve acceptable residual risk levels, which are the remaining risk levels after implementing risk response actions. Residual risk levels should be aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance, which are the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives and the acceptable variation in outcomes related to specific performance measures linked to objectives. Risk management strategies are the approaches or methods used to address risks, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer, sharing, or acceptance. Risk management strategies should be based on a cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives available and the value of the assets at risk.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 166-1691

The primary input when designing IT controls should be internal and external risk reports. IT controls are specific activities performed by persons or systems to ensure that business objectives are met, and that the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and the overall management of the IT function are ensured1. Designing IT controls means creating and implementing the appropriate measures or actions to reduce the likelihood or impact of the IT risks that may affect the organization2. Internal and external risk reports are documents that provide information and analysis on the current and potential IT risks that the organization faces, as well as their sources, drivers, consequences, and responses3. Internal risk reports are generated by the organization itself, such as by the IT risk management function, the internal audit function, or the business units. External risk reports are obtained from external sources, such as regulators, industry associations, or third-party service providers. Internal and external risk reports are the primary input when designing IT controls, because they help to:

Identify and prioritize the IT risks that need to be addressed by the IT controls;

Evaluate the likelihood and impact of the IT risks, and compare them against the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance;

Determine the most suitable and effective IT control objectives and activities to mitigate the IT risks;

Align the IT control design and implementation with the organization’s objectives, strategies, and values;

Monitor and measure the performance and effectiveness of the IT controls in reducing the IT risks. The other options are not the primary input when designing IT controls, as they are either less relevant or less specific than internal and external risk reports. Benchmark of industry standards is a comparison of the organization’s IT control practices and performance with those of other organizations in the same industry or sector4. Benchmark of industry standards can help to improve the quality and consistency of the IT control design and implementation, as well as to identify the best practices and gaps. However, benchmark of industry standards is not the primary input when designing IT controls, as it does not address the specific IT risks that the organization faces, or the IT control objectives and activities that are appropriate and effective for the organization. Recommendations from IT risk experts are the suggestions or advice from the professionals or specialists who have the knowledge and experience in IT risk management and IT control design and implementation5. Recommendations from IT risk experts can help to enhance the IT control design and implementation, as well as to provide guidance and support to the organization. However, recommendations from IT risk experts are not the primary input when designing IT controls, as they are based on the opinions and perceptions of the experts, and may not reflect the actual or objective level and nature of the IT risks, or the IT control objectives and activities that are suitable and efficient for the organization. Outcome of control self-assessments is the result or conclusion of the evaluation and testing of the design and operation of the existing IT controls by the organization itself, such as by the IT control owners, the IT risk management function, or the business units6. Outcome of control self-assessments can help to improve the IT control design and implementation, as well as to detect and correct any issues or deficiencies. However, outcome of control self-assessments is not the primary input when designing IT controls, as it does not cover the new or emerging IT risks that the organization may face, or the IT control objectives and activities that are relevant and necessary for the organization. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, Page 189.

An organization’s account provisioning process is the process of creating, modifying, or deleting user accounts and access rights for the organization’s information systems and resources. It involves defining the access requirements, policies, and standards, and implementing and enforcing them across the organization.

The best evidence of the effectiveness of an organization’s account provisioning process is entitlement reviews, which are the periodic or regular reviews and validations of the user accounts and access rights that are granted or assigned to the users or entities that interact with the organization’s information systems and resources. Entitlement reviews can provide assurance and verification that the account provisioning process is accurate, consistent, and compliant, and that it meets the organization’s security and business objectives and requirements.

Entitlement reviews can be performed using various techniques, such as automated tools, reports, audits, surveys, etc. Entitlement reviews can also be integrated with the organization’s governance, risk management, and compliance functions, and aligned with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best evidence of the effectiveness of an organization’s account provisioning process, because they do not provide the same level of assurance and verification that the account provisioning process is accurate, consistent, and compliant, and that it meets the organization’s security and business objectives and requirements.

User provisioning is the process of creating, modifying, or deleting user accounts and access rights for a specific user or entity, based on their identity, role, or function in the organization. User provisioning is an important part of the account provisioning process, but it is not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because it does not indicate whether the user accounts and access rights are appropriate and authorized, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Role-based access controls are the controls that grant or restrict user accounts and access rights based on the predefined roles or functions that the users or entities perform or assume in the organization. Role-based access controls are an important part of the account provisioning process, but they are not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because they do not indicate whether the roles or functions are defined and assigned correctly and consistently, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Security log monitoring is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the security events or activities that are recorded or logged by the organization’s information systems and resources. Security log monitoring is an important part of the account provisioning process, but it is not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because it does not indicate whether the security events or activities are legitimate or authorized, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 173

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 The next step after determining that a key control does not meet design expectations is to document the finding in the risk register, because this helps to record and track the information about the identified risk, such as its description, likelihood, impact, response, and status. A key control is a control that addresses a significant risk or supports a critical business process or objective. A control design expectation is a criterion or requirement that defines how the control should operate or perform to achieve its objective. If a key control does not meet its design expectation, it means that there is a gap, weakness, or deficiency in the control that may compromise its effectiveness or efficiency, and increase the risk exposure or impact. By documenting the finding in the risk register, the risk practitioner can communicate and report the risk issue to the relevant stakeholders, such as the risk owner, the management, or the auditor, and initiate the appropriate risk response actions, such as modifying the design of the control, implementing a compensating control, or accepting the risk. The other options are not the best next steps after determining that a key control does not meet design expectations. Invoking the incident response plan is a reactive measure that is triggered when a risk event occurs or is imminent, and requires immediate action to contain, mitigate, or recover from the incident. However, in this case, the risk event has not occurred yet, and there may be time to prevent or reduce it by improving the control design. Re-evaluating key risk indicators is a monitoring activity that measures and evaluates the level and impact of risks, and provides timely signals that something may be going wrong or needs urgent attention. However, in this case, the risk practitioner has already identified the risk issue, and needs to document and address it, rather than re-evaluate it. Modifying the design of the control is a possible risk response action that may be taken to improve the control and reduce the risk, but it is not the next step after determining that the key control does not meet design expectations. The next step is to document the finding in the risk register, and then decide on the best risk response action, which may or may not be modifying the design of the control, depending on the cost-benefit analysis, the risk assessment, and the risk response strategy. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 13

Automation of control monitoring is the application of technology to allow continuous or high-frequency, automated monitoring of controls to validate the effectiveness of controls designed to mitigate risk1.

Automation of control monitoring can provide benefits such as increased test coverage, improved timeliness, reduced risk velocity, greater visibility, improved consistency, and the ability to identify trends23.

However, automation of control monitoring also involves costs such as the acquisition, implementation, maintenance, and updating of the technology, as well as the training and support of the staff who use it45.

Therefore, the primary consideration when assessing the automation of control monitoring is the cost-benefit analysis of automation, which compares the expected benefits and costs of automation and determines whether the benefits outweigh the costs or vice versa45.

The other options are not the primary consideration, but rather secondary or tertiary factors that may influence the decision to automate or not. For example, the impact due to failure of control and the frequency of failure of control are aspects of the risk assessment that may indicate the need for automation, but they do not provide the basis for evaluating the feasibility and desirability of automation45. Similarly, the contingency plan for residual risk is a component of the risk response that may include automation as a risk mitigation strategy, but it does not measure the effectiveness and efficiency of automation45. References =

2: A Practical Approach to Continuous Control Monitoring, ISACA Journal, Volume 2, 2015

3: Continuous Controls Monitoring: The Next Generation Of Controls Testing, Forbes Technology Council, June 2, 2022

1: Making Continuous Controls Monitoring Work for Everyone, ISACA Now Blog, June 13, 2022

4: Controls Automation - Monitoring vs. Operation - Part 3, Turnkey Consulting, July 29, 2021

5: What’s Continuous Control Monitoring and Why Is It Important?, MetricStream Blog, October 15, 2019

The recovery time objective (RTO) is a metric that defines the maximum acceptable time frame for restoring a system or service after a disruption. The RTO is determined by the business impact and requirements of the system or service, as well as the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. The calculation of the RTO is necessary to determine the priority of restoration, which means the order and urgency of recovering the systems or services based on their criticality and dependency. The priority of restoration helps to optimize the use of resources and minimize the downtime and losses during a disaster recovery. The other options are not the correct answers, as they are not the main purpose of calculating the RTO. The time required to restore files is a factor that affects the RTO, but it is not the outcome of the RTO calculation. The point of synchronization is the point in time to which the data must be restored to ensure consistency and accuracy. The point of synchronization is related to the recovery point objective (RPO), not the RTO. The annual loss expectancy (ALE) is a measure of the expected loss per year due to a specific risk or threat. The ALE is calculated by multiplying the single loss expectancy (SLE) by the annualized rate of occurrence (ARO). The ALE is not directly related to the RTO, although it may influence the RTO determination. References = Recovery Time Objective (RTO) - What Is It, Examples, Calculation; CRISC Review Manual, pages 197-1981; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 842

The risk of terminated employee accounts maintaining access is that the former employees or unauthorized parties may use the accounts to access or manipulate the organization’s information systems or resources, and cause harm or damage to the organization and its stakeholders, such as data loss, data breach, system failure, fraud, etc.

The first step to address the risk of terminated employee accounts maintaining access is to disable user access, which means to revoke or remove the permissions or privileges that allow the accounts to access or use the organization’s information systems or resources. Disabling user access can help the organization to address the risk by providing the following benefits:

It can prevent or stop the former employees or unauthorized parties from accessing or using the organization’s information systems or resources, and reduce or eliminate the potential harm or damage that they may cause for the organization and its stakeholders.

It can ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the organization’s information systems or resources, and protect them from unauthorized access or manipulation.

It can provide useful evidence and records for the verification and validation of the organization’s access control function, and for the compliance with the organization’s access control policies and standards.

The other options are not the first steps to address the risk of terminated employee accounts maintaining access, because they do not provide the same level of urgency and effectiveness that disabling user access provides, and they may not be sufficient or appropriate to address the risk.

Performing a risk assessment is a process of measuring and comparing the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizing them based on their significance and urgency. Performing a risk assessment can help the organization to understand and document the risk of terminated employee accounts maintaining access, but it is not the first step to address the risk, because it does not prevent or stop the former employees or unauthorized parties from accessing or using the organization’s information systems or resources, and it may not be timely or feasible to perform a risk assessment before disabling user access.

Developing an access control policy is a process of defining and describing the rules or guidelines that specify the expectations and requirements for the organization’s access control function, such as who can access what, when, how, and why. Developing an access control policy can help the organization to establish and communicate the boundaries and objectives for the organization’s access control function, but it is not the first step to address the risk, because it does not prevent or stop the former employees or unauthorized parties from accessing or using the organization’s information systems or resources, and it may not be relevant or applicable to the existing or emerging risk scenarios that may affect the organization’s access control function.

Performing a root cause analysis is a process of identifying and understanding the underlying or fundamental causes or factors that contribute to or result in a problem or incident that has occurred or may occur in the organization. Performing a root cause analysis can help the organization to address and correct the risk of terminated employee accounts maintaining access, and prevent or reduce its recurrence or impact, but it is not the first step to address the risk, because it does not prevent or stop the former employees or unauthorized parties from accessing or using the organization’s information systems or resources, and it may not be timely or feasible to perform a root cause analysis before disabling user access. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 207

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A disaster recovery test is a simulation of a disaster scenario that evaluates the effectiveness and readiness of the disaster recovery plan. The main purpose of a disaster recovery test is to ensure that the organization can resume its normal operations as quickly as possible after a disaster, with minimal or no data loss. Therefore, the most important objective of a disaster recovery test from a business perspective is to verify that all critical data can be recovered within the RTOs, which are the maximum acceptable time frames for restoring the data and systems after a disaster. If the RTOs are not met, the organization may face significant financial, operational, and reputational losses. The other options are not the most important objectives of a disaster recovery test, although they may be beneficial outcomes. Gaining assurance that the organization can recover from a disaster is a subjective and qualitative goal, while recovering data within RTOs is a measurable and quantitative goal. Discovering errors in the disaster recovery process is a valuable result of a disaster recovery test, but it is not the primary objective. The objective is to correct the errors and improve the process, not just to find them. Testing all business critical systems is a necessary step in a disaster recovery test, but it is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to ensure that the systems can be restored and function properly within the RTOs. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 197-1981; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 572

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the most important consideration when sharing risk management updates with executive management is ensuring relevance to organizational goals, as this helps to align risk management with business strategy and performance. The risk management updates should:

Highlight the key risks that may affect the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives

Demonstrate the value and benefits of risk management in supporting decision making and enhancing business resilience

Provide clear and concise information on the current risk profile, risk appetite, risk tolerance and risk exposure of the organization

Recommend appropriate risk response actions and resource allocation to address the identified risks

Communicate the roles and responsibilities of executive management in overseeing and governing risk management

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: IT Risk Reporting, pp. 221-2221

The most important outcome of reviewing the risk management process is assuring that the risk profile supports the IT objectives, because this ensures that the organization is managing its IT-related risks in alignment with its business goals and priorities. The risk profile is a summary of the key risks that the organization faces, their likelihood, impact, and response strategies. The IT objectives are the specific and measurable outcomes that the organization expects to achieve from its IT investments and activities. By reviewing the risk management process, the organization can evaluate whether the risk profile is accurate, complete, and up-to-date, and whether the risk responses are effective, efficient, and consistent with the IT objectives. The review can also identify any gaps, issues, or opportunities for improvement in the risk management process, and provide recommendations for enhancing the process and its outcomes. The review can also help to communicate and report the value and performance of the risk management process to the senior management, the board of directors, and other stakeholders. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 17

The best way to ensure that identified risk scenarios are addressed is to review the implementation of the risk response. The risk response is the action or plan that is taken to reduce, avoid, transfer, or accept the risk, depending on the chosen risk treatment option1. Reviewing the implementation of the risk response means checking whether the risk response actions are executed as planned, whether they are effective and efficient in mitigating the risk, and whether they are aligned with the organization’s objectives and risk appetite2. Reviewing the implementation of the risk response helps to monitor and control the risk, identify any gaps or issues, and make any necessary adjustments or improvements. The other options are not the best ways to ensure that identified risk scenarios are addressed, as they are either less comprehensive or less specific than reviewing the implementation of the risk response. Creating a separate risk register for key business units is a way of documenting and tracking the risks that affect different parts of the organization. However, this is not the same as addressing the risk scenarios, as it does not indicate how the risks are treated or resolved. Performing real-time monitoring of threats is a way of detecting and responding to any changes or events that may increase the likelihood or impact of the risks. However, this is not the same as addressing the risk scenarios, as it does not measure the effectiveness or efficiency of the risk response actions. Performing regular risk control self-assessments is a way of evaluating and testing the design and operation of the controls that are implemented to mitigate the risks. However, this is not the same as addressing the risk scenarios, as it does not cover the other aspects of the risk response, such as risk avoidance, transfer, or acceptance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.7, Page 59.

A risk-aware culture is a culture that recognizes, understands, and values the importance of risk management in achieving the organization’s objectives and goals. A risk-aware culture is also a culture that supports and encourages the identification, assessment, response, and monitoring of risks across the organization, as well as the sharing and learning of risk information and best practices. One of the activities that would best contribute to promoting an organization-wide risk-aware culture is communicating components of risk and their acceptable levels. This is a technique to inform and educate the stakeholders and decision makers about the nature and scope of the risks that the organization faces, as well as the criteria and standards that the organization uses to measure and manage the risks. Communicating components of risk and their acceptable levels can help to increase the awareness and understanding of the risks and their impact on the organization’s performance and value, as well as to align the expectations and behaviors of the stakeholders and decision makers with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. Communicating components of risk and their acceptable levels can also help to foster a transparent and collaborative environment for risk management, where the stakeholders and decision makers can openly discuss and address the risks and their implications, as well as to provide and receive feedback and support. The other options are not the best activities to promote an organization-wide risk-aware culture, although they may be relevant and useful. Performing a benchmark analysis and evaluating gaps is a technique to compare and improve the organization’s risk management process and performance with the industry standards or best practices, as well as to identify and close the gaps or weaknesses in the organization’s risk management capabilities or maturity. However, this technique does not necessarily promote a risk-aware culture, as it focuses on the process and performance of risk management, not the attitude and behavior of risk management. Conducting risk assessments and implementing controls is a technique to identify and analyze the risks that the organization faces, as well as to select and execute the appropriate actions to address the risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risks. However, this technique does not directly promote a risk-aware culture, as it focuses on the actions and outcomes of risk management, not the values and beliefs of risk management. Participating in peer reviews and implementing best practices is a technique to evaluate and enhance the quality and effectiveness of the organization’s risk management activities and deliverables, as well as to adopt and apply the proven and successful methods or solutions for risk management. However, this technique does not effectively promote a risk-aware culture, as it focuses on the improvement and optimization of risk management, not the communication and collaboration of risk management. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 982; The 6 key elements to creating and maintaining a good risk culture3; How to increase risk awareness - Project Management Institute4

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

Authentication is a control that verifies the identity of a user or a system that tries to access a computer system or network. Authentication can be based on something the user or system knows (such as a password or a PIN), something the user or system has (such as a token or a smart card), or something the user or system is (such as a fingerprint or a retina scan). Authentication is a crucial control for preventing unauthorized or malicious access to a system or network, as well as for ensuring the accountability and traceability of the actions performed by the user or system. If the authentication control is compromised, it means that the user or system can bypass or break the verification process and gain access to the system or network without being identified or authorized. This can expose the system or network to various threats, such as data theft, data corruption, data leakage, or denial of service. Therefore, the authentication control has most likely been compromised if a system administrator identifies unusual activity indicating an intruder within a firewall. A firewall is a device or a software that monitors and filters the incoming and outgoing network traffic based on predefined rules and policies. A firewall can help to protect the system or network from external or internal attacks by blocking or allowing the traffic based on the source, destination, protocol, or content. However, a firewall cannot prevent an intruder from accessing the system or network if the intruder has already authenticated or impersonated a legitimate user or system. The other options are not the most likely controls to be compromised if a system administrator identifies unusual activity indicating an intruder within a firewall, although they may be affected or related. Data validation is a control that checks the accuracy, completeness, and quality of the data that is entered, processed, or stored by a system or a network. Data validation can help to prevent or detect data errors, anomalies, or inconsistencies that may affect the performance, functionality, or reliability of the system or network. However, data validation does not prevent or detect unauthorized or malicious access to the system or network, as it only focuses on the data, not the user or system. Identification is a control that assigns a unique identifier to a user or a system that tries to access a computer system or network. Identification can be based on a username, an email address, a phone number, or a certificate. Identification is a necessary but not sufficient control for preventing unauthorized or malicious access to a system or network, as it only declares who or what the user or system is, but does not prove it. Identification needs to be combined with authentication to verify the identity of the user or system. Data integrity is a control that ensures that the data is accurate, consistent, and complete throughout its lifecycle. Data integrity can be achieved by implementing various controls, such as encryption, hashing, checksum, digital signature, or backup. Data integrity can help to protect the data from unauthorized or accidental modification, deletion, or corruption that may affect the value, meaning, or usability of the data. However, data integrity does not prevent or detect unauthorized or malicious access to the system or network, as it only protects the data, not the user or system. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 164-1651; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 952; What is Authentication? - Definition from Techopedia3; What is a Firewall? - Definition from Techopedia4

A risk taxonomy is a classification or categorization system that defines and organizes the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations. It includes the risk domains, categories, subcategories, elements, attributes, etc., and the relationships and dependencies among them. A risk taxonomy can help the organization to identify, analyze, evaluate, and communicate the risks, and to align them with the organization’s strategy and culture.

The most important consideration when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy is the business context, which is the set of internal and external factors and conditions that influence and shape the organization’s objectives, operations, and performance. It includes the organization’s vision, mission, values, goals, stakeholders, resources, capabilities, processes, systems, etc., as well as the market, industry, regulatory, social, environmental, etc., factors and conditions that affect the organization.

Considering the business context when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy ensures that the risk taxonomy is relevant, appropriate, and proportional to the organization’s needs and expectations, and that it supports the organization’s objectives and values. It also helps to ensure that the risk taxonomy is consistent and compatible with the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions, and that it reflects the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance.

The other options are not the most important considerations when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy, because they do not address the fundamental question of whether the risk taxonomy is suitable and acceptable for the organization.

Leading industry frameworks are the established or recognized models or standards that provide the principles, guidelines, and best practices for the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions. Leading industry frameworks can provide useful references and benchmarks when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy, but they are not the most important consideration, because they may not be specific or applicable to the organization’s business context, and they may not reflect the organization’s objectives and values.

Regulatory requirements are the rules or obligations that the organization must comply with, as imposed or enforced by the relevant authorities or regulators. Regulatory requirements can provide important inputs and constraints when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy, but they are not the most important consideration, because they may not be comprehensive or sufficient for the organization’s business context, and they may not support the organization’s objectives and values.

IT strategy is the plan or direction that the organization follows to achieve its IT objectives and to align its IT resources and capabilities with its business objectives and needs. IT strategy can provide important inputs and alignment when developing an organization’s risk taxonomy, but it is not the most important consideration, because it may not cover all the relevant or significant risks that may affect the organization’s business context, and it may not reflect the organization’s objectives and values. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 175

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

The risk owner is the person who has the authority and accountability to manage a specific risk and its associated controls. The risk owner is also responsible for ensuring that the risk is within the acceptable level and that the risk response is effective and efficient. In this case, the risk owner is also the owner of the business service that depends on the managed hosting service. Therefore, the risk owner should be notified of the new information about the flood risk first, as they have the most interest and influence on the risk and its impact on the business objectives. The risk owner can then decide on the appropriate actions to take, such as reviewing the contract terms, requesting additional controls, or changing the service provider. The other options are not the correct answers because they are not the primary stakeholders of the risk and its consequences. The data center manager is an employee of the managed hosting service provider, not the organization that procured the service. The data center manager may not have the authority or the incentive to address the flood risk or inform the organization. The site manager is also an employee of the managed hosting service provider, and their role is to conduct annual risk assessments under the contract. The site manager may not be aware of the new information or have the responsibility to communicate it to the organization. The CIO is the senior executive who oversees the IT strategy and operations of the organization. The CIO may have a general interest in the managed hosting service and its risks, but they are not the direct owner or manager of the specific risk or the business service that relies on the service. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 32-331; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 702

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when there is a gap between the acceptable downtime and the actual recovery time of an application is to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of alternatives available to reduce the gap. The cost-benefit analysis should compare the costs of implementing different risk response options, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer or acceptance, with the benefits of reducing the impact and likelihood of the risk. The cost-benefit analysis should also consider the alignment of the risk response options with the enterprise’s risk appetite, business objectives and strategy. The cost-benefit analysis should help the application owner and the risk owner to select the most appropriate risk response option that optimizes the value of the application and minimizes the residual risk.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 162-1631

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the right to audit the provider is the most important factor to help define the IT risk associated with outsourcing activity to a cloud-based service provider, as it enables the organization to verify the compliance and performance of the provider with the contractual obligations and service level agreements. The right to audit the provider helps to:

Assess the security, availability, confidentiality, integrity, and privacy of the data and processes hosted by the provider

Identify and evaluate the risks and controls related to the cloud-based services and the provider’s infrastructure

Monitor and measure the quality and effectiveness of the cloud-based services and the provider’s governance and management practices

Report and resolve any issues or incidents related to the cloud-based services and the provider’s operations

Ensure the alignment of the cloud-based services and the provider’s policies and standards with the organization’s objectives and requirements

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 176-1771

End user acceptance testing is a process that verifies that a system or service meets the requirements and expectations of the end users, who are the actual or potential customers or beneficiaries of the system or service. End user acceptance testing is the final stage of testing before the system or service is deployed or released to the production environment. The results of end user acceptance testing are the most important consideration for a risk practitioner when making a system implementation go-live recommendation, as they indicate the quality, functionality, usability, and reliability of the system or service from the end user perspective. The results of end user acceptance testing can help to identify and resolve any defects, errors, or issues that may affect the performance, satisfaction, or acceptance of the system or service by the end users. The results of end user acceptance testing can also help to evaluate the benefits, value, and risks of the system or service for the end users and the organization. The other options are not the most important consideration for a risk practitioner when making a system implementation go-live recommendation, although they may be relevant and useful. The completeness of system documentation is a factor that affects the maintainability, supportability, and auditability of the system or service, but it does not measure the end user experience or satisfaction. The variances between planned and actual cost is a measure of the efficiency and budget management of the system or service development or implementation, but it does not reflect the end user needs or expectations. The availability of in-house resources is a resource that supports the system or service delivery and operation, but it does not ensure the end user acceptance or approval. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 180-1811; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 87

A risk assessment of a production system is a process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating the risks that may affect the performance, quality, or safety of the production system, which is a system that transforms inputs into outputs using various resources, processes, and technologies12.

The most appropriate action for the risk manager to take after undertaking a risk assessment of a production system is to inform the process owner of the concerns and propose measures to reduce them, which is a process of communicating and consulting with the person who is responsible for the design, operation, and improvement of the production system, and suggesting possible risk responses that can prevent, mitigate, transfer, or accept the risks34.

This action is the most appropriate because it ensures the involvement and collaboration of the process owner, who has the authority and accountability to implement and monitor the risk responses, and who can provide feedback and input on the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures34.

This action is also the most appropriate because it supports the risk management process and objectives, which are to identify and address the risks that may affect the achievement of the organization’s goals and the delivery of value to the stakeholders34.

The other options are not the most appropriate actions, but rather possible alternatives or supplements that may have some limitations or drawbacks. For example:

Recommending a program that minimizes the concerns of the production system is an action that involves designing and planning a set of coordinated and interrelated activities and tasks that aim to reduce the likelihood or impact of the risks34. However, this action is not the most appropriate because it does not involve the process owner, who is the key stakeholder and decision maker for the production system, and who may have different views or preferences on the risk responses34.

Informing the development team of the concerns, and together formulating risk reduction measures is an action that involves communicating and consulting with the group of people who are responsible for creating, testing, and deploying the products or services that are produced by the production system, and jointly developing possible risk responses34. However, this action is not the most appropriate because it does not involve the process owner, who is the primary owner and user of the production system, and who may have different needs or expectations on the risk responses34.

Informing the IT manager of the concerns and proposing measures to reduce them is an action that involves communicating and consulting with the person who is responsible for managing and overseeing the IT resources, processes, and systems that support the production system, and suggesting possible risk responses34. However, this action is not the most appropriate because it does not involve the process owner, who is the main stakeholder and beneficiary of the production system, and who may have different requirements or constraints on the risk responses34. References =

1: Risk Assessment for the Production Process1

2: Risk Assessment for Industrial Equipment2

3: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

4: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

 The best method to identify unnecessary controls is reviewing system functionalities associated with business processes, because this can help to determine whether the controls are relevant, effective, and efficient for the current business needs and objectives. System functionalities are the capabilities and features of IT systems that support the execution and performance of business processes. Business processes are the set of interrelated activities that transform inputs into outputs to deliver value to customers or stakeholders. By reviewing system functionalities associated with business processes, an organization can assess whether the controls are aligned with the process requirements, expectations, and outcomes, and whether they add value or create waste. The review can also identify any gaps, overlaps, redundancies, or conflicts among the controls, and any changes or improvements that are needed to optimize the controls. The other options are less effective methods to identify unnecessary controls. Evaluating the impact of removing existing controls can help to measure the benefits and costs of the controls, but it does not address the root causes or sources of the unnecessary controls. Evaluating existing controls against audit requirements can help to ensure compliance and assurance, but it does not consider the business context or purpose of the controls. Monitoring existing key risk indicators (KRIs) can help to measure the level and impact of risks, but it does not evaluate the suitability or adequacy of the controls. References = Surveying Staff to Identify Unnecessary Internal Controls - Methodology and Results 

When using a third party to perform penetration testing, the most important control to minimize operational impact is to clearly define the project scope. This means specifying the objectives, boundaries, methods, and deliverables of the testing, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. A clear project scope helps to avoid misunderstandings, conflicts, and disruptions that could compromise the security, availability, or integrity of the systems under test. It also helps to ensure that the testing is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and compliance requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2, Page 137.

The level of risk in the IT risk profile is the aggregate measure of the likelihood and impact of IT-related risks that may affect the enterprise’s objectives and operations.

The risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its goals. It is usually expressed as a range or a threshold, and it is aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and culture.

If the level of risk in the IT risk profile has decreased and is now below management’s risk appetite, it means that the enterprise has more capacity and opportunity to take on additional risks that may offer higher rewards or benefits.

The best recommendation in this situation is to optimize the control environment, which is the set of policies, procedures, standards, and practices that provide the foundation for managing IT risks and controls. Optimizing the control environment means enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the controls, reducing the costs and complexity of compliance, and aligning the controls with the enterprise’s objectives and values.

Optimizing the control environment can help the enterprise to achieve the optimal balance between risk and return, and to leverage its risk management capabilities to create and protect value.

The other options are not the best recommendations, because they do not address the opportunity to improve the enterprise’s performance and resilience.

Realigning risk appetite to the current risk level may result in missing out on potential gains or advantages that could be obtained by taking more risks within the acceptable range.

Decreasing the number of related risk scenarios may reduce the scope and depth of risk analysis and reporting, and impair the enterprise’s ability to identify and respond to emerging or changing risks.

Reducing the risk management budget may compromise the quality and reliability of the risk management process and activities, and weaken the enterprise’s risk culture and governance. References =

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

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 145

A business continuity plan (BCP) is a document that describes the procedures and actions that an organization will take to ensure the continuity of its critical functions and operations in the event of a disruption or disaster12.

Testing a business continuity plan is a method of evaluating the effectiveness and readiness of the BCP, and identifying and addressing any gaps or weaknesses in the plan34.

The most cost-effective way to test a business continuity plan is to conduct a tabletop exercise, which is a type of simulation that involves gathering the key stakeholders and participants of the BCP, and discussing and reviewing the roles, responsibilities, and actions that they will take in response to a hypothetical scenario of a disruption or disaster56.

A tabletop exercise is the most cost-effective way because it requires minimal resources and time, and can be conducted in a regular meeting room or online platform56.

A tabletop exercise is also the most cost-effective way because it provides a high-level overview and assessment of the BCP, and can identify and address the major issues or challenges that may arise in the implementation of the plan56.

The other options are not the most cost-effective ways, but rather possible alternatives or supplements that may have different levels of complexity or cost. For example:

Conducting interviews with key stakeholders is a way of testing a business continuity plan that involves asking and answering questions about the BCP, and collecting feedback and suggestions from the people who are involved or affected by the plan78. However, this way is not the most cost-effective because it may not cover all the aspects or scenarios of the BCP, and may not facilitate the interaction or collaboration among the stakeholders78.

Conducting a disaster recovery exercise is a way of testing a business continuity plan that involves activating and executing the BCP in a realistic and controlled environment, and measuring the outcomes and impacts of the plan . However, this way is not the most cost-effective because it requires a lot of resources and time, and may disrupt or interfere with the normal operations of the organization .

Conducting a full functional exercise is a way of testing a business continuity plan that involves simulating and testing the BCP in a live and dynamic environment, and involving the external entities and stakeholders that are part of the plan . However, this way is not the most cost-effective because it requires the most resources and time, and may pose the highest risk or challenge to the organization . References =

1: Business Continuity Plan (BCP) Definition1

2: Business Continuity Planning - Ready.gov2

3: Testing, testing: how to test your business continuity plan4

4: Comprehensive Guide to Business Continuity Testing | Agility5

5: How to Conduct a Tabletop Exercise for Business Continuity3

6: Tabletop Exercises: A Guide to Success6

7: How to Conduct Testing of a Business Continuity Plan7

8: Business Continuity Plan Testing: Interviewing Techniques8

: Disaster Recovery Testing: A Step-by-Step Guide

: Disaster Recovery Testing Scenarios: A Guide to Success

: Functional Exercises: A Guide to Success

: Functional Exercise Toolkit

A primary benefit of engaging the risk owner during the risk assessment process is prioritization of risk action plans across departments, because this helps to ensure that the most critical and relevant risks are addressed first, and that the resources and efforts are allocated and coordinated efficiently and effectively. A risk owner is the person or group who is responsible for the day-to-day management and mitigation of a specific risk, and who has the authority and accountability to make risk-related decisions. A risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, or value. A risk action plan is the set of actions and tasks that are designed and implemented to reduce the likelihood and impact of a risk, or to exploit the opportunities that a risk may create. By engaging the risk owner during the risk assessment process, the organization can benefit from the following advantages:

The risk owner can provide valuable input and feedback on the risk identification, analysis, and evaluation, based on their knowledge, experience, and perspective of the risk and its context.

The risk owner can help to develop and implement the risk action plan, based on their understanding of the risk objectives, expectations, and outcomes, and their ability to influence and control the risk factors and sources.

The risk owner can help to prioritize the risk action plan, based on their assessment of the risk severity, urgency, and importance, and their consideration of the costs, benefits, and feasibility of the risk actions.

The risk owner can help to coordinate the risk action plan across departments, by communicating and collaborating with other risk owners, stakeholders, and resources, and by aligning and integrating the risk actions with the organization’s strategy, processes, and culture. References = Risk Owners — What Do They Do1

 Strong authentication is the most effective measure against external threats to an organization’s confidential information. Confidential information is any data or information that is sensitive, proprietary, or valuable to the organization, and that should not be disclosed to unauthorized parties1. External threats are malicious actors outside the organization who attempt to gain unauthorized access to the organization’s networks, systems, and data, using various methods such as malware, hacking, or social engineering2. Strong authentication is a method of verifying the identity and legitimacy of a user or device before granting access to the organization’s resources or data3. Strong authentication typically involves the use of multiple factors or methods of authentication, such as passwords, tokens, biometrics, or certificates4. Strong authentication can prevent or reduce the risk of external threats to the organization’s confidential information, by making it more difficult and costly for the attackers to compromise the credentials or devices of the authorized users, and by limiting the access to the data or resources that are relevant and necessary for the users’ roles and responsibilities5. The other options are not the most effective measures against external threats to the organization’s confidential information, as they are either less secure or less relevant than strong authentication. Single sign-on is a method of allowing a user to access multiple systems or applications with a single set of credentials, without having to log in separately for each system or application6. Single sign-on can improve the user experience and convenience, as well as reduce the administrative burden and cost of managing multiple accounts and passwords. However, single sign-on is not the most effective measure against external threats to the organization’s confidential information, as it can also increase the risk of credential compromise or misuse, and create a single point of failure or attack for the attackers to access multiple systems or data. Data integrity checking is a method of ensuring that the data or information is accurate, complete, and consistent, and that it has not been altered or corrupted by unauthorized parties or processes. Data integrity checking can involve the use of techniques such as checksums, hashes, digital signatures, or encryption. Data integrity checking can enhance the quality and reliability of the data or information, as well as detect and prevent any unauthorized or malicious changes or tampering. However, data integrity checking is not the most effective measure against external threats to the organization’s confidential information, as it does not prevent or reduce the risk of data theft or leakage, and it does not verify the identity or legitimacy of the users or devices accessing the data. Intrusion detection system is a system that monitors the network or system activities and events, and detects and alerts any suspicious or malicious behaviors or anomalies that may indicate an attempted or successful breach or attack. Intrusion detection system can help to identify and respond to external threats to the organization’s networks, systems, and data, by providing visibility and awareness of the network or system status and activities, and by enabling timely and appropriate actions or countermeasures. However, intrusion detection system is not the most effective measure against external threats to the organization’s confidential information, as it is a reactive or passive system that does not prevent or block the attacks, and it may generate false positives or negatives that can affect its accuracy and efficiency. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, Page 189.

A risk assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that may affect the enterprise’s objectives and operations. It involves determining the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizing them based on their significance and urgency.

A WiFi access point is a device that allows wireless devices to connect to a wired network using radio signals. It can provide convenience and flexibility for users, but it can also introduce security risks, such as unauthorized access, data leakage, malware infection, or denial of service attacks.

If departments have installed their own WiFi access points on the enterprise network, without proper authorization, configuration, or monitoring, it means that they have bypassed the network security policy and controls, and created potential vulnerabilities and exposures for the enterprise.

The most important information to include in a report to senior management is the potential business impact of this risk, which is the estimated loss or damage that the enterprise may suffer if the risk materializes. The potential business impact can be expressed in terms of financial, operational, reputational, or legal consequences, and it can help senior management to understand the severity and urgency of the risk, and to decide on the appropriate risk response and allocation of resources.

The other options are not the most important information to include in a report to senior management, because they do not convey the magnitude and significance of the risk, and they may not be relevant or actionable for senior management.

The network security policy is the set of rules and guidelines that define the security objectives, requirements, and responsibilities for the enterprise network. It is important to have a clear and comprehensive network security policy, and to ensure that it is communicated, enforced, and monitored across the enterprise, but it is not the most important information to include in a report to senior management, because it does not indicate the actual or potential impact of the risk, and it may not reflect the current or desired state of the network security.

The WiFi access point configuration is the set of parameters and settings that define the functionality, performance, and security of the WiFi access point. It is important to have a secure and consistent WiFi access point configuration, and to follow the best practices and standards for wireless network security, but it is not the most important information to include in a report to senior management, because it does not indicate the actual or potential impact of the risk, and it may not be relevant or understandable for senior management.

The planned remediation actions are the steps and measures that are intended to mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept the risk, and to restore the normal operation and security of the enterprise network. It is important to have a feasible and effective plan for remediation actions, and to implement and monitor them in a timely and efficient manner, but it is not the most important information to include in a report to senior management, because it does not indicate the actual or potential impact of the risk, and it may not be feasible or appropriate without senior management’s approval or support. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 146

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), periodically reviewing controls per the risk treatment plan would best help to ensure that identified risk is efficiently managed, as it involves verifying the effectiveness and efficiency of the implemented risk response actions and identifying any gaps or changes in the risk profile. Periodically reviewing controls per the risk treatment plan helps to:

Confirm that the controls are operating as intended and producing the desired outcomes

Detect any deviations, errors, or weaknesses in the controls and their performance

Evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of the controls in relation to the current risk environment and the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

Recommend and implement corrective actions or improvement measures to address any issues or deficiencies in the controls

Update the risk register and the risk treatment plan to reflect the current risk status and the residual risk levels

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: IT Risk Monitoring, pp. 215-2161

The control environment is the set of internal and external factors and conditions that influence and shape the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions. It includes the organization’s culture, values, ethics, structure, roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, etc.

Uncontrolled changes are changes or modifications to the control environment that are not planned, authorized, documented, or monitored, and that may have unintended or adverse consequences for the organization. Uncontrolled changes may be caused by various drivers or events, such as technological innovations, market trends, regulatory changes, customer preferences, competitor actions, environmental issues, etc.

The greatest concern when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment is an increase in the level of residual risk, which is the amount and type of risk that remains after the implementation and execution of the risk responses or controls. An increase in the level of residual risk means that the risk responses or controls are not effective or sufficient to mitigate or prevent the risks, and that the organization may face unacceptable or intolerable consequences if the risks materialize.

An increase in the level of residual risk is the greatest concern when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment, because it indicates that the organization’s risk profile and performance have deteriorated, and that the organization may not be able to achieve its objectives or protect its value. It also indicates that the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance have been violated, and that the organization may need to take corrective or compensating actions to restore the balance between risk and return.

The other options are not the greatest concerns when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment, because they do not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the organization.

A decrease in control layering effectiveness means a decrease in the extent or degree to which the organization uses multiple or overlapping controls to address the same or related risks, and to provide redundancy or backup in case of failure or compromise of one or more controls. A decrease in control layering effectiveness may indicate a weakness or gap in the organization’s control design or implementation, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the control layering is required or recommended by the organization’s policies or standards.

An increase in inherent risk means an increase in the amount and type of risk that exists in the absence of any risk responses or controls, and that is inherent to the nature or characteristics of the risk source, event, cause, or impact. An increase in inherent risk may indicate a change or variation in the organization’s risk exposure or level, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the inherent risk exceeds the organization’s risk appetite or tolerance.

An increase in control vulnerabilities means an increase in the number or severity of the weaknesses or flaws in the organization’s risk responses or controls that can be exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. An increase in control vulnerabilities may indicate a weakness or gap in the organization’s control design or implementation, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the control vulnerabilities are exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 174

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 A rule-based data loss prevention (DLP) tool is a software solution that identifies and helps prevent unsafe or inappropriate sharing, transfer, or use of sensitive data. It can help an organization monitor and protect sensitive information across on-premises systems, cloud-based locations, and endpoint devices. It can also help an organization comply with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A rule-based DLP tool works by comparing content to the organization’s DLP policy, which defines how the organization labels, shares, and protects data without exposing it to unauthorized users. The tool can then apply protective actions such as encryption, access restrictions, and alerts. As a result of implementing a rule-based DLP tool, the most likely change is the reduction of risk likelihood, which is the probability of a risk event occurring. By detecting and preventing data breaches, exfiltration, or unwanted destruction of sensitive data, a rule-based DLP tool can lower the chance of such incidents happening and thus decrease the risk likelihood. The other options are less likely to change as a result of implementing a rule-based DLP tool. Risk velocity is the speed at which a risk event impacts an organization, which depends on factors such as the nature of the threat, the response time, and the recovery process. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, which depends on factors such as the organization’s culture, strategy, and stakeholder expectations. Risk impact is the potential loss or damage that a risk event can cause to an organization, which depends on factors such as the severity of the incident, the extent of the exposure, and the resilience of the organization. While a rule-based DLP tool may have some influence on these factors, it is not the primary driver of change for them. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 13

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that provides information on the level of exposure to a given risk or the potential impact of a risk. KRIs are used to monitor changes in risk levels and alert management when a risk exceeds a predefined threshold or tolerance. KRIs can help provide early warning of a high-risk condition and enable timely response and mitigation actions. A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the identified risks, their likelihood, impact, and status. A risk assessment is a process that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates risks. A key performance indicator (KPI) is a metric that measures the achievement of a specific goal or objective. References = Risk IT Framework, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Manual, pages 44-452

An IT risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) is a process that helps organizations identify and evaluate operational risks and assess the effectiveness of their control measures12. It is a structured approach that involves identifying, assessing, mitigating, and monitoring risks across all levels of an organization12.

A report to senior management is a document that summarizes and communicates the results and findings of the RCSA, and provides recommendations and action plans for improving the risk management and control processes34.

The most important aspect of an IT risk and control self-assessment to include in a report to senior management is an increase in residual risk, which is the risk remaining after risk treatment, and represents the exposure or potential impact of the risk on the organization’s objectives56.

An increase in residual risk is the most important aspect because it indicates the level of risk that the organization is willing to accept or tolerate, and the gap between the current and desired risk profile56.

An increase in residual risk is also the most important aspect because it requires the attention and decision of the senior management, who are responsible for defining the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and criteria, and for ensuring that the residual risk is within the acceptable range56.

The other options are not the most important aspects, but rather possible components or outcomes of an IT risk and control self-assessment that may support or complement the report to senior management. For example:

Changes in control design are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve modifying or updating the control measures to address the changes in the risk environment or the organization’s objectives56. However, changes in control design are not the most important aspect because they do not measure or reflect the residual risk, which is the ultimate goal of the risk treatment56.

A decrease in the number of key controls is an outcome of an IT risk and control self-assessment that indicates the improvement or optimization of the control processes, and the reduction of the complexity or redundancy of the control measures56. However, a decrease in the number of key controls is not the most important aspect because it does not indicate or imply the residual risk, which may depend on other factors such as the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls56.

Changes in control ownership are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve assigning or reassigning the responsibility and accountability for the control processes to the appropriate individuals or groups within the organization56. However, changes in control ownership are not the most important aspect because they do not affect or determine the residual risk, which is independent of the control owners56. References =

1: Risk and control self-assessment - KPMG Global1

2: Control Self Assessments - PwC2

3: How-To Guide: Implementing Risk Control Self-Assessment Steps4

4: RISK MANAGEMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE - Smartsheet5

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

A consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is a comprehensive and integrated representation of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation12.

The most helpful material to provide a consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is the IT risk register, which is a document that records and tracks the IT-related risks, their sources, impacts, likelihoods, responses, owners, and statuses within the organization34.

The IT risk register is the most helpful material because it provides a complete and consistent overview of the IT risk landscape, and enables the identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring, and communication of IT risks across the organization34.

The IT risk register is also the most helpful material because it supports the project prioritization and resource allocation decisions, by highlighting the most significant and relevant IT risks, and by showing the alignment of the IT risk responses with the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and objectives34.

The other options are not the most helpful materials, but rather possible inputs or outputs of the IT risk register. For example:

A list of key risk indicators (KRIs) is a set of metrics that measure the occurrence or status of IT risks, and provide timely and relevant information and feedback to the organization56. However, a list of KRIs is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a snapshot or a trend of selected IT risks56.

Internal audit reports are documents that present the findings and recommendations of the internal audit function, which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the IT risk management and control processes within the organization78. However, internal audit reports are not the most helpful material because they do not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a periodic and independent assessment of specific IT risk areas78.

A list of approved projects is a document that records and tracks the IT projects that have been authorized and funded by the organization, and their objectives, scope, schedule, budget, and status . However, a list of approved projects is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a summary of the IT project portfolio . References =

1: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

2: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

3: IT Risk Register Template, ISACA, 2019

4: IT Risk Register Toolkit, ISACA, 2019

5: KPIs for Security Operations & Incident Response, SecurityScorecard Blog, June 7, 2021

6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response, DFLabs White Paper, 2018

7: IT Audit and Assurance Standards, ISACA, 2014

8: IT Audit and Assurance Guidelines, ISACA, 2014

: IT Project Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

: IT Project Management Best Practices, ISACA Journal, Volume 1, 2018

 The primary consideration when implementing controls for monitoring user activity logs is ensuring that the control is proportional to the risk, because this helps to optimize the balance between the benefits and costs of the control, and to avoid over- or under-controlling the risk. User activity logs are records of the actions or events performed by users on IT systems, networks, or resources, such as accessing, modifying, or transferring data or files. Monitoring user activity logs can help to detect and prevent potential threats, such as unauthorized access, data leakage, or malicious activity, and to support the investigation and remediation of incidents. However, monitoring user activity logs also involves certain costs and challenges, such as collecting, storing, analyzing, and reporting large amounts of log data, ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the log data, protecting the privacy and security of the log data, and complying with the relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, when implementing controls for monitoring user activity logs, the organization should consider the level and impact of the risk that the control is intended to address, and the value and effectiveness of the control in reducing the risk exposure and impact. The organization should also consider the costs and feasibility of implementing and maintaining the control, and the potential negative consequences or side effects of the control, such as performance degradation, user dissatisfaction, or legal liability. By ensuring that the control is proportional to the risk, the organization can achieve the optimal level of risk management, and avoid wasting resources or creating new risks. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 151

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), establishing an organizational code of conduct is an example of a directive control, which is a type of control that guides or steers the behavior of individuals or processes to achieve desired outcomes. A directive control aims to influence or encourage compliance with the organization’s policies, standards, procedures, and guidelines. A directive control can also communicate the organization’s values, ethics, and expectations to its stakeholders. A directive control can take various forms, such as:

Codes of conduct or ethics

Policies or manuals

Training or awareness programs

Job descriptions or roles and responsibilities

Performance appraisals or incentives

Supervision or oversight

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Scenarios, pp. 105-1061

According to the Risk and Information Systems Control documents, implementing record retention tools and techniques is the best solution in this scenario. Record retention involves managing the lifecycle of records, including their creation, usage, storage, and disposal. By implementing record retention policies, organizations can define how long emails and other data should be retained before being deleted. This helps in efficiently managing storage space and reducing unnecessary storage costs.

Establishing e-discovery and data loss prevention (DLP) (Option B) focuses more on legal and compliance aspects and may not directly address the issue of reducing storage costs. Sending notifications when near storage quota (Option C) is a reactive approach and may not prevent the exponential increase in storage costs. Implementing a bring your own device (BYOD) policy (Option D) is unrelated to the issue of email storage costs.

References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual

The risk associated with malicious functionality in outsourced application development is that the vendor may introduce unauthorized or harmful code into the enterprise’s system, which could compromise its security, integrity, or performance.

To mitigate this risk, the enterprise should perform an in-depth code review with an expert who can verify that the code meets the specifications, standards, and quality requirements, and that it does not contain any malicious or unwanted functionality.

A code review is a systematic examination of the source code of a software program, which can identify errors, vulnerabilities, inefficiencies, or deviations from best practices. A code review can also ensure that the code is consistent, readable, maintainable, and well-documented.

An expert is someone who has the knowledge, skills, and experience to perform the code review effectively and efficiently. An expert may be an internal or external resource, depending on the availability, cost, and independence of the reviewer.

A code review should be performed before the code is deployed to the production environment, and preferably at multiple stages of the development life cycle, such as design, testing, and integration.

A code review can also be complemented by other techniques, such as automated code analysis, testing, and scanning tools, which can detect common or known issues in the code. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, p. 143

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 143

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 includes ensuring 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 officer is 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 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. References = Getting risk ownership right 1

Applying risk appetite is the most important topic to cover in a training session to communicate risk assessment methodologies. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. It is a key element of the risk management framework and influences the risk assessment process. Applying risk appetite helps to ensure a consistent risk view within the organization by providing a common basis for evaluating and prioritizing risks, aligning risk responses with business goals, and communicating risk information to stakeholders. The other options are not the most important topics to cover in a training session to communicate risk assessment methodologies, although they may be relevant and useful. Applying risk factors is a technique to quantify or qualify the likelihood and impact of risks based on predefined criteria or scales. Referencing risk event data is a source of information to identify and analyze risks based on historical or current incidents. Understanding risk culture is a factor that affects the risk behavior and attitude of the organization and its people. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 40-411; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 612

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 any controls 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

An IT risk profile is a document that summarizes the IT-related risks that an organization faces, as well as the information and actions related to those risks, such as the risk description, assessment, response, status, and owner. An IT risk profile is a valuable tool for managing and communicating IT risks and their impact on the organization’s objectives and operations. The best description of the role of the IT risk profile in strategic IT-related decisions is that it helps assess the effects of IT decisions on risk exposure. This means that the IT risk profile can help to evaluate the potential consequences and implications of different IT choices or actions on the level and nature of the IT risks that the organization faces. The IT risk profile can also help to identify and address the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the IT risk management process and performance. The other options are not the best descriptions of the role of the IT risk profile in strategic IT-related decisions, although they may be related or beneficial. Comparing performance levels of IT assets to value delivered is a technique to measure and optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the IT resources and activities that support the organization’s goals and needs. However, this technique does not necessarily involve the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the output and outcome of the IT assets, not the input and impact of the IT risks. Facilitating the alignment of strategic IT objectives to business objectives is a technique to ensure that the IT strategy and plans are consistent and compatible with the organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and objectives. However, this technique does not depend on the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the direction and purpose of the IT objectives, not the probability and threat of the IT risks. Providing input to business managers when preparing a business case for new IT projects is a technique to support and justify the initiation and implementation of new IT initiatives that can create value or solve problems for the organization. However, this technique does not require the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the cost and benefit of the IT projects, not the risk and response of the IT risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 38-391; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 962; IT Risk Management Guide for 2022 | CIO Insight3; IT Risk Management Process, Frameworks & Templates4

 The most effective way to resolve the situation and define a comprehensive risk treatment plan would be to perform a root cause analysis. A root cause analysis is a method of identifying and addressing the underlying factors or causes that led to the occurrence of a problem or incident1. In this case, the problem or incident is the malware infection that affected the organization. By performing a root cause analysis, the organization can determine how and why the malware was able to infect the systems, what vulnerabilities or weaknesses were exploited, what controls or processes failed or were missing, and what actions or decisions contributed to the situation. A root cause analysis can help the organization to prevent or reduce the recurrence of similar incidents, as well as to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management process. A root cause analysis can also help the organization to define a comprehensive risk treatment plan, which is a set of actions or measures that are taken to modify the risk, such as reducing, avoiding, transferring, or accepting the risk2. Based on the findings and recommendations of the root cause analysis, the organization can select and implement the most appropriate risk treatment option for the malware risk, as well as for any other related or emerging risks. The risk treatment plan should also include the roles and responsibilities, resources, timelines, and performance indicators for the risk treatment actions3. The other options are not the most effective ways to resolve the situation and define a comprehensive risk treatment plan, as they are either less thorough or less relevant than a root cause analysis. A gap analysis is a method of comparing the current state and the desired state of a process, system, or organization, and identifying the gaps or differences between them4. A gap analysis can help the organization to identify the areas of improvement or enhancement, as well as the opportunities or challenges for achieving the desired state. However, a gap analysis is not the most effective way to resolve the situation and define a comprehensive risk treatment plan, as it does not address the causes or consequences of the malware infection, or the actions or measures to mitigate the risk. An impact assessment is a method of estimating the potential effects or consequences of a change, decision, or action on a process, system, or organization5. An impact assessment can help the organization to evaluate the benefits and costs, as well as the risks and opportunities, of a proposed or implemented change, decision, or action. However, an impact assessment is not the most effective way to resolve the situation and define a comprehensive risk treatment plan, as it does not investigate the origin or nature of the malware infection, or the solutions or alternatives to manage the risk. A vulnerability assessment is a method of identifying and analyzing the weaknesses or flaws in a process, system, or organization that can be exploited by threats to cause harm or loss6. A vulnerability assessment can help the organization to discover and prioritize the vulnerabilities, as well as to recommend and implement the controls or measures to reduce or eliminate them. However, a vulnerability assessment is not the most effective way to resolve the situation and define a comprehensive risk treatment plan, as it does not consider the root causes or impacts of the malware infection, or the risk treatment options or plans to address the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.8, Page 61.

A data loss prevention (DLP) control is a technology that tries to detect and stop sensitive data breaches, or data leakage incidents, in an organization. A DLP control is used to prevent sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, from being disclosed to an unauthorized person, whether it is deliberate or accidental1. The best way to help ensure the effectiveness of a DLP control that has been implemented to prevent the loss of credit card data is to test the transmission of credit card numbers. This is a technique to verify that the DLP control can successfully identify and block the credit card data when it is sent or received through various channels, such as email, messaging, or file transfers. Testing the transmission of credit card numbers can help to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the DLP control, as well as to identify and correct any false positives or false negatives. The other options are not the best ways to help ensure the effectiveness of a DLP control that has been implemented to prevent the loss of credit card data, although they may be helpful and complementary. Reviewing logs for unauthorized data transfers is a technique to monitor and analyze the DLP control activities and incidents, such as who, what, when, where, and how the data was transferred. However, reviewing logs is a reactive and passive approach, while testing the transmission is a proactive and active approach. Configuring the DLP control to block credit card numbers is a technique to set up the DLP control rules and policies, such as defining the data patterns, the detection methods, and the response actions. However, configuring the DLP control is a prerequisite and a preparation step, while testing the transmission is a validation and a verification step. Testing the DLP rule change control process is a technique to ensure that the DLP control rules and policies are updated and maintained in a controlled and coordinated manner, such as obtaining approval, documenting the changes, testing the changes, and communicating the changes. However, testing the DLP rule change control process is a quality and governance step, while testing the transmission is a performance and functionality step. References = What is Data Loss Prevention (DLP)? | Digital Guardian1; CRISC Review Manual, pages 164-1652; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 833

A security incident handling process is a set of procedures and activities that aim to identify, analyze, contain, eradicate, recover from, and learn from security incidents that affect the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information assets12.

The maturity of a security incident handling process is the degree to which the process is defined, managed, measured, controlled, and improved, and the extent to which it meets the organization’s objectives and expectations34.

The best key performance indicator (KPI) to measure the maturity of a security incident handling process is the number of recurring security incidents, which is the frequency or rate of security incidents that are repeated or reoccur after being resolved or closed56.

The number of recurring security incidents is the best KPI because it reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the security incident handling process, and the ability of the process to prevent or reduce the recurrence of security incidents through root cause analysis, corrective actions, and continuous improvement56.

The number of recurring security incidents is also the best KPI because it is directly related to the organization’s objectives and expectations, such as minimizing the impact and cost of security incidents, enhancing the security posture and resilience of the organization, and complying with the relevant standards and regulations56.

The other options are not the best KPIs, but rather possible metrics that may support or complement the measurement of the maturity of the security incident handling process. For example:

The number of security incidents escalated to senior management is a metric that indicates the severity or complexity of security incidents, and the involvement or awareness of the senior management in the security incident handling process56. However, this metric does not measure the effectiveness or efficiency of the process, or the ability of the process to prevent or reduce security incidents56.

The number of resolved security incidents is a metric that indicates the output or outcome of the security incident handling process, and the performance or productivity of the security incident handling team56. However, this metric does not measure the quality or sustainability of the resolution, or the ability of the process to prevent or reduce security incidents56.

The number of newly identified security incidents is a metric that indicates the input or demand of the security incident handling process, and the capability or capacity of the security incident detection and identification mechanisms56. However, this metric does not measure the effectiveness or efficiency of the process, or the ability of the process to prevent or reduce security incidents56. References =

1: Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, NIST Special Publication 800-61, Revision 2, August 2012

2: ISO/IEC 27035:2016 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security incident management

3: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Services, Version 1.3, November 2010

4: COBIT 2019 Framework: Introduction and Methodology, ISACA, 2018

5: KPIs for Security Operations & Incident Response, SecurityScorecard Blog, June 7, 2021

6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response, DFLabs White Paper, 2018

A risk dashboard is a graphical tool that displays the key indicators and metrics of the organization’s IT risk profile, such as the risk level, status, trend, performance, etc., using charts, graphs, tables, etc. A risk dashboard can help the organization to monitor and communicate the IT risk profile, and to support the decision making and planning for the IT risk management.

A risk dashboard is the most effective tool in identifying trends in the IT risk profile, because it provides a visual and intuitive representation of the changes and variations in the IT risk profile over time, and highlights the most significant and relevant IT risks that need to be addressed or monitored. A risk dashboard can also help to compare and contrast the IT risk profile with the organization’s IT objectives and risk appetite, and to identify the gaps or opportunities for improvement.

The other options are not the most effective tools in identifying trends in the IT risk profile, because they do not provide the same level of visibility and clarity that a risk dashboard provides, and they may not be updated or aligned with the organization’s IT objectives and risk appetite.

A risk self-assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the IT risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the IT activities or functions. A risk self-assessment can help the organization to understand and document the IT risk profile, and to align it with the organization’s IT strategy and culture, but it is not the most effective tool in identifying trends in the IT risk profile, because it may not reflect the current or accurate state and performance of the IT risk profile, and it may not cover all the relevant or emerging IT risks that may exist or arise.

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information and status of the identified IT risks and their responses. It includes the IT risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, priority, response, owner, action plan, status, etc. A risk register can help the organization to identify, analyze, evaluate, and communicate the IT risks and their responses, and to align them with the organization’s IT strategy and culture, but it is not the most effective tool in identifying trends in the IT risk profile, because it may not provide a visual and intuitive representation of the changes and variations in the IT risk profile over time, and it may not highlight the most significant and relevant IT risks that need to be addressed or monitored.

A risk map is a graphical tool that displays the results of the IT risk analysis in a matrix format, using colors and symbols to indicate the level and priority of the IT risks. A risk map can show the distribution and comparison of the IT risks based on various criteria, such as likelihood, impact, category, source, etc. A risk map can help the organization to assess and prioritize the IT risks, and to design and implement appropriate controls or countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the IT risks, but it is not the most effective tool in identifying trends in the IT risk profile, because it may not provide a visual and intuitive representation of the changes and variations in the IT risk profile over time, and it may not reflect the organization’s IT objectives and risk appetite. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 180

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

The most important requirement for monitoring key risk indicators (KRIs) using log analysis is providing accurate logs in a timely manner, because this ensures that the risk data is reliable, relevant, and up-to-date. Logs are records of events or activities that occur in IT systems, such as network traffic, user actions, system errors, or security incidents. Log analysis is the process of reviewing and interpreting logs to identify and assess risks, such as performance issues, operational failures, compliance violations, or cyberattacks. By providing accurate logs in a timely manner, an organization can monitor the current status and trends of its KRIs, which are metrics that measure the level and impact of risks. Accurate logs mean that the logs are complete, consistent, and free of errors or anomalies that may distort the risk data. Timely logs mean that the logs are available as soon as possible after the events or activities occur, and that they are updated frequently to reflect the latest changes. Providing accurate logs in a timely manner can help an organization to detect and respond to risks promptly, and to support risk-based decision making and reporting. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 22

The risk practitioner’s primary focus when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk should be the level of residual risk, because this indicates the amount and type of risk that remains after applying the controls, and whether it is acceptable or not. Residual risk is the risk that is left over after the risk response actions have been taken, such as implementing or improving controls. Controls are the measures or actions that are designed and performed to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of a risk event, or to exploit the opportunities that a risk event may create. The adequacy of controls to mitigate risk depends on how well they address the root causes or sources of the risk, and how effectively and efficiently they reduce the risk exposure and value. The level of residual risk reflects the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it shows the gap between the inherent risk and the actual risk, and whether it is within the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. The risk practitioner should focus on the level of residual risk when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk, as it helps to evaluate and compare the benefits and costs of the controls, and to decide on the best risk response strategy, such as accepting, avoiding, transferring, or further reducing the risk. The other options are less important or relevant to focus on when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk. Sensitivity analysis is a technique that measures how the risk value changes when one or more input variables are changed, such as the probability, impact, or control effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis can help to identify and prioritize the most influential or critical variables that affect the risk value, and to test the robustness or reliability of the risk assessment. However, sensitivity analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Cost-benefit analysis is a technique that compares the expected benefits and costs of a control or a risk response action, and determines whether it is worthwhile or not. Cost-benefit analysis can help to justify and optimize the investment or resource allocation for the control or the risk response action, and to ensure that it is aligned with the organization’s objectives and value. However, cost-benefit analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite can help to define and communicate the organization’s risk preferences and boundaries, and to guide the risk decision-making and behavior. However, risk appetite does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the actual risk performance. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 131

Conducting phishing exercises would best help minimize the risk associated with social engineering threats, because they can help to raise awareness and educate employees about the common techniques and tactics used by social engineers, such as sending deceptive emails or text messages that ask for sensitive information or direct users to malicious websites. Phishing exercises are simulated attacks that test the employees’ ability to recognize and respond to social engineering attempts, and provide feedback and guidance on how to improve their security behavior. By conducting phishing exercises, the organization can measure and improve the employees’ level of security awareness and resilience, and reduce the likelihood and impact of falling victim to social engineering attacks. The other options are less effective ways to minimize the risk associated with social engineering threats. Enforcing employees’ sanctions can help to deter and punish employees who violate the security policies or procedures, but it may not prevent or reduce the occurrence of social engineering attacks, as they may target employees who are unaware, careless, or coerced by the attackers. Enforcing segregation of duties can help to prevent or limit the damage caused by social engineering attacks, by restricting the access and authority of employees to perform certain tasks or functions, but it may not address the root cause or source of the attacks, which is the human factor. Reviewing the organization’s risk appetite can help to define and communicate the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, but it may not directly affect or influence the employees’ behavior or attitude toward social engineering threats, which may depend on their individual or situational factors. References = How to Prevent and Mitigate Social Engineering Attacks 1

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the security management function is responsible for ensuring that effective cybersecurity controls are established and maintained. The security management function should:

Define the cybersecurity strategy and objectives aligned with the enterprise’s risk appetite and business goals

Establish and maintain the cybersecurity policies, standards, procedures and guidelines

Implement and monitor the cybersecurity controls and processes

Coordinate and communicate with other stakeholders, such as risk owners, IT management, enterprise risk function, internal and external auditors, regulators and third parties

Report on the cybersecurity performance and risk posture to senior management and the board

Continuously improve the cybersecurity capabilities and maturity

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: IT Risk Management Roles and Responsibilities, pp. 29-301

IT risk scenarios are hypothetical situations or occurrences that illustrate the potential impact of IT-related threats or opportunities on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation12.

Business risk scenarios are hypothetical situations or occurrences that illustrate the potential impact of business-related threats or opportunities on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation34.

The best way for the risk practitioner to address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT-related risk scenarios is to describe IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk, which is a technique that involves translating and communicating the IT risk scenarios into the language and context of the business risk scenarios, and highlighting the linkages and dependencies between them56.

Describing IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk is the best way because it helps the business executives to understand and appreciate the relevance and importance of IT risk scenarios, and how they affect the achievement of the organization’s goals and the delivery of value to the stakeholders56.

Describing IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk is also the best way because it helps the business executives to accept and fulfill their roles and responsibilities as the owners of IT risk scenarios, and to collaborate and coordinate with the IT team and other stakeholders in the risk management process56.

The other options are not the best ways, but rather possible alternatives or supplements that may support or enhance the description of IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk. For example:

Recommending the formation of an executive risk council to oversee IT risk is a way that involves establishing and empowering a group of senior leaders from different business units and functions to provide the strategic direction, guidance, and oversight for the IT risk management process78. However, this way is not the best way because it does not directly address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT risk scenarios, and it may not be feasible or effective without a clear and common understanding of IT risk scenarios among the council members78.

Providing an estimate of IT system downtime if IT risk materializes is a way that involves quantifying and communicating the potential loss or disruption of the IT systems or services that support the organization’s operations, if the IT risk scenarios occur9 . However, this way is not the best way because it does not fully capture or convey the impact of IT risk scenarios on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation, and it may not be relevant or meaningful for some IT risk scenarios that are not related to IT system downtime9 .

Educating business executives on IT risk concepts is a way that involves providing and delivering the knowledge and skills on the principles, frameworks, and techniques of IT risk management, and the roles and responsibilities of the IT risk owners and stakeholders . However, this way is not the best way because it does not specifically address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT risk scenarios, and it may not be sufficient or effective without a practical and contextual application of IT risk concepts to the organization’s situation and goals . References =

1: IT Scenario Analysis in Enterprise Risk Management - ISACA2

2: New Toolkit and Course From ISACA Help Practitioners Develop Risk Scenarios - ISACA1

3: Business Risk - Investopedia3

4: Business Risk: Definition, Types, Examples & How to Manage4

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

7: Executive Risk Council - ISACA5

8: Executive Risk Council: A Guide to Success6

9: IT System Downtime - ISACA7

: IT System Downtime: Causes, Costs, and How to Prevent It8

: IT Risk Education - ISACA9

: IT Risk Education: A Guide to Success

The risk associated with an asset before controls are applied is also known as the inherent risk. It is the level of risk that exists in the absence of any mitigating actions or measures. To express the inherent risk, one needs to consider two factors: the likelihood and the impact of a potential threat. The likelihood is the probability or frequency of a threat occurring, while the impact is the magnitude or severity of the consequences if the threat materializes. The inherent risk can be calculated by multiplying the likelihood and the impact, or by using a risk matrix that assigns a risk rating based on the combination of these two factors. The other options are not correct ways of expressing the inherent risk, as they do not account for both the likelihood and the impact of a threat. The magnitude of an impact is only one component of the risk, and it does not reflect how likely the threat is to happen. The function of the cost and effectiveness of control is related to the residual risk, which is the risk that remains after controls are applied. The likelihood of a given threat is also only one component of the risk, and it does not indicate how severe the impact would be if the threat occurs. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, Page 47.

The best way for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response is to assess risk against business objectives. This means comparing the level and nature of the risks with the goals and strategies of the organization, and determining which risks pose the most significant threat or opportunity to the achievement of those objectives. By assessing risk against business objectives, the risk practitioner can help management identify the most critical and relevant risks, and prioritize the risk response actions accordingly. The risk response actions should be aligned with the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to take in order to meet its strategic goals1. The other options are not the best ways for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response, as they are either less effective or less specific than assessing risk against business objectives. Aligning business objectives to the risk profile is a way of ensuring that the organization’s objectives are realistic and achievable, given the current and potential risks that the organization faces. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not indicate which risks should be addressed first or how they should be managed. Implementing an organization-specific risk taxonomy is a way of creating a common language and classification system for describing and categorizing risks. This can help improve the consistency and clarity of risk communication and reporting across the organization. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not measure the likelihood and impact of the risks, or their relation to the organization’s objectives. Explaining risk details to management is a way of providing information and insight on the sources, drivers, consequences, and responses of the risks. This can help increase the awareness and understanding of the risks among the decision makers and stakeholders. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not suggest or recommend the best course of action for managing the risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.6, Page 57.

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the risk register is the most useful component of the review of the overall risk profile from the targeted organization, as it provides a comprehensive and up-to-date record of the identified risks, their likelihood and impact, their risk response actions, and their residual risk levels. The risk register helps to:

Understand the current and potential threats and vulnerabilities that may affect the targeted organization’s objectives and performance

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and controls implemented by the targeted organization

Identify the gaps or weaknesses in the risk management practices and capabilities of the targeted organization

Assess the compatibility and alignment of the risk appetite and risk tolerance of the targeted organization with the acquiring organization

Estimate the value and benefits of the acquisition and the potential risks and costs involved

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.5: IT Risk Identification Methods and Techniques, pp. 38-391

The security risk associated with wearable technology in the workplace is the possibility and impact of unauthorized access, disclosure, or use of the data or information that are collected, stored, or transmitted by the wearable devices, such as smartwatches, fitness trackers, or glasses, that are worn or used by the employees12.

The first step in managing the security risk associated with wearable technology in the workplace is to identify the potential risk, which is the process of recognizing and describing the sources, causes, and consequences of the risk, and the potential impacts on the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation34.

Identifying the potential risk is the first step because it provides the basis and input for the subsequent steps of the risk management process, such as assessing, treating, monitoring, and communicating the risk34.

Identifying the potential risk is also the first step because it enables the organization to understand and prioritize the risk, and to allocate the appropriate resources and controls for the risk management process34.

The other options are not the first step, but rather possible subsequent steps that may depend on or follow the identification of the potential risk. For example:

Monitoring employee usage is a step that involves collecting and analyzing data and information on the frequency, duration, and purpose of the wearable devices that are used by the employees, and detecting and reporting any deviations, anomalies, or issues that may indicate a security risk5 . However, this step is not the first step because it requires the identification of the potential risk to provide the guidance and standards for the monitoring process5 .

Assessing the potential risk is a step that involves estimating and evaluating the likelihood and impact of the risk, and the level of risk exposure or tolerance for the organization34. However, this step is not the first step because it requires the identification of the potential risk to provide the information and data for the assessment process34.

Developing risk awareness training is a step that involves educating and training the employees and other stakeholders on the security risks and best practices associated with the wearable technology, and informing them of their roles, obligations, and responsibilities for the risk management process . However, this step is not the first step because it requires the identification of the potential risk to provide the content and objectives for the training process . References =

1: Wearable Devices in the Workplace: Security Threats and Protection1

2: 10 security risks of wearables | CSO Online2

3: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

4: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

5: Continuous Monitoring - ISACA3

: Continuous Monitoring: A New Approach to Risk Management - ISACA Journal4

: What Is Security Awareness Training and Why Is It Important? - Kaspersky5

: Security Awareness Training - Cybersecurity Education Online | Proofpoint US

 A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the risks that may affect a project, as well as the actions that are taken or planned to manage them1. A risk register should include information such as the risk description, category, source, impact, likelihood, severity, owner, status, and response2. Among these, the most important information to capture in the risk register is the action plans to address risk scenarios requiring treatment. This is because the action plans are the specific steps that are taken to reduce, avoid, transfer, or accept the risks, depending on the chosen risk treatment option3. The action plans should be clear, realistic, measurable, and aligned with the project objectives and constraints4. The action plans should also be monitored and updated regularly to ensure that they are effective and appropriate for the changing risk environment5. The action plans are essential for managing the risks and ensuring the successful delivery of the project. The other options are not the most important information to capture in the risk register, as they are either less relevant or less actionable than the action plans. The team that performed the risk assessment is the group of people who identified, analyzed, and evaluated the risks, using various tools and techniques6. While this information may be useful for accountability and communication purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not indicate how the risks are treated or resolved. The assigned risk manager to provide oversight is the person who has the responsibility and authority to oversee the risk management process and ensure that the risks are properly identified, assessed, treated, and reported. While this information may be useful for governance and coordination purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not specify what actions are taken or planned to manage the risks. The methodology used to perform the risk assessment is the approach or framework that is used to identify, analyze, and evaluate the risks, based on the project context, scope, and objectives. While this information may be useful for consistency and transparency purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not describe how the risks are addressed or mitigated. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.5, Page 55.

IT and business misalignment is the risk that the IT objectives, plans, and activities are not aligned with the business goals, needs, and expectations. This can result in wasted resources, missed opportunities, poor performance, and customer dissatisfaction. One of the best ways to mitigate this risk is to involve the business process owner in IT strategy. The business process owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for a specific business process and its outcomes. By involving the business process owner in IT strategy, the organization can ensure that the IT initiatives and solutions are relevant, effective, and beneficial for the business process and its stakeholders. The business process owner can also provide valuable input, feedback, and support for the IT strategy and its implementation. The other options are not the best ways to mitigate the risk associated with IT and business misalignment, although they may be helpful and complementary. Establishing business key performance indicators (KPIs) is a technique to measure and monitor the achievement of business objectives and outcomes. However, KPIs do not necessarily ensure that the IT strategy is aligned with the business strategy or that the IT activities support the business activities. Introducing an established framework for IT architecture is a method to design and implement the IT infrastructure, systems, and services in a consistent and coherent manner. However, an IT architecture framework does not guarantee that the IT architecture is aligned with the business architecture or that the IT capabilities meet the business requirements. Establishing key risk indicators (KRIs) is a tool to monitor and communicate the level of exposure to a given risk or the potential impact of a risk. However, KRIs do not directly address the risk of IT and business misalignment or the actions needed to align them. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 76

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), key risk indicator (KRI) thresholds are the most likely elements of a risk register to change as a result of change in management’s risk appetite, as they reflect the acceptable levels of risk exposure for the organization. KRI thresholds are the values or ranges that trigger an alert or a response when the actual KRI values deviate from the expected or desired values. KRI thresholds help to:

Monitor and measure the current risk levels and performance of the IT assets and processes

Identify and report any risk issues or incidents that may require attention or action

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response actions and controls

Align the risk management activities and decisions with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

If the management’s risk appetite changes, the KRI thresholds may need to be adjusted accordingly to ensure that the risk register reflects the current risk preferences and expectations of the organization.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: IT Risk Monitoring, pp. 217-2181

 According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the best course of action when a risk assessment has identified that an organization may not be in compliance with industry regulations is to conduct a gap analysis against compliance criteria, which is a method of comparing the current state of compliance with the desired or required state of compliance. Conducting a gap analysis against compliance criteria helps to:

Identify and evaluate the differences or discrepancies between the compliance requirements and the actual compliance practices and capabilities

Assess the impact and severity of the compliance gaps on the organization’s objectives and performance

Prioritize the compliance gaps based on their urgency and importance

Develop and implement appropriate actions or measures to close or reduce the compliance gaps

Monitor and measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions or measures taken to address the compliance gaps

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.5: IT Risk Identification Methods and Techniques, pp. 34-351

A recovery time objective (RTO) is the maximum acceptable time or duration that a business process or function can be disrupted or unavailable due to a disaster or incident, before it causes unacceptable or intolerable consequences for the organization. It is usually expressed in hours, days, or weeks, and it is aligned with the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery objectives and requirements.

The primary factor in determining a RTO is the cost of downtime due to a disaster, which is the estimated loss or damage that the organization may suffer if a business process or function is disrupted or unavailable for a certain period of time. The cost of downtime can be expressed in terms of financial, operational, reputational, or legal consequences, and it can help the organization to assess the impact and urgency of the disaster, and to decide on the appropriate recovery strategy and resources.

The other options are not the primary factors in determining a RTO, because they do not address the fundamental question of how long the organization can tolerate the disruption or unavailability of a business process or function.

The cost of offsite backup premises is the cost of acquiring, maintaining, or using an alternative or secondary location or facility that can be used to resume or continue the business process or function in case of a disaster or incident. The cost of offsite backup premises is important to consider when selecting or implementing a recovery strategy, but it is not the primary factor in determining a RTO, because it does not indicate the impact or urgency of the disaster, and it may not reflect the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery objectives and requirements.

The cost of testing the business continuity plan is the cost of conducting, evaluating, or improving the tests or exercises that are performed to verify or validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the business continuity plan, which is the document that describes the actions and procedures that the organization will take to recover or restore the business process or function in case of a disaster or incident. The cost of testing the business continuity plan is important to consider when developing or updating the business continuity plan, but it is not the primary factor in determining a RTO, because it does not indicate the impact or urgency of the disaster, and it may not reflect the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery objectives and requirements.

The response time of the emergency action plan is the time or duration that it takes for the organization to initiate or execute the emergency action plan, which is the document that describes the immediate actions and procedures that the organization will take to protect the life, health, and safety of the people, and to minimize the damage or loss of the assets, in case of a disaster or incident. The response time of the emergency action plan is important to consider when preparing or reviewing the emergency action plan, but it is not the primary factor in determining a RTO, because it does not indicate the impact or urgency of the disaster, and it may not reflect the organization’s business continuity and disaster recovery objectives and requirements. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 62-63, 66-67, 70-71, 74-75, 78-79

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 165

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 The business application owner should have the authority to accept the associated risk, because they are responsible for the performance and outcomes of the critical application, and they understand the business requirements, expectations, and impact of the application. The business application owner can also evaluate the trade-offs between the potential benefits and costs of the application, and the potential risks and consequences of a disruption or failure of the application. The business application owner can also communicate and justify their risk acceptance 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 have the authority to accept the associated risk. The business continuity director is responsible for overseeing the planning and execution of the business continuity strategy, which includes ensuring the availability and resilience of the critical business processes and applications. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. The disaster recovery manager is responsible for managing the recovery and restoration of the IT systems and applications in the event of a disaster or disruption. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. The data center manager is responsible for managing the operation and maintenance of the data center infrastructure, which includes providing the physical and environmental security, power, cooling, and network connectivity for the IT systems and applications. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 181

Risk mitigation procedures are the actions and plans that an organization implements to reduce the likelihood and impact of identified risks. Risk mitigation procedures should include the deployment of counter measures, which are the specific controls or solutions that address the root causes or sources of the risks, and prevent or minimize the potential losses or damages. For example, a counter measure for the risk of data breach could be encrypting the data or implementing a firewall. The deployment of counter measures should be based on a cost-benefit analysis, a risk assessment, and a risk response strategy. The other options are not necessarily part of risk mitigation procedures. Buying an insurance policy is an example of risk transfer, which is a risk response strategy that shifts the responsibility or burden of the risk to another party, such as an insurer or a vendor. However, risk transfer does not eliminate or reduce the risk itself, and it may involve additional costs or conditions. Acceptance of exposures is an example of risk acceptance, which is a risk response strategy that acknowledges the existence and consequences of the risk, and decides not to take any action to change the risk situation. However, risk acceptance does not mitigate the risk, and it may require contingency plans or reserves to deal with the potential outcomes. Enterprise architecture implementation is an example of a business process or project that may involve or create risks, but it is not a risk mitigation procedure itself. Enterprise architecture is the design and structure of an organization’s IT systems, networks, and resources, and how they align with the organization’s goals and strategies. Enterprise architecture implementation may require risk management activities, such as risk identification, assessment, and response, but it is not a risk mitigation procedure itself. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 151

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information and status of the identified risks and their responses. It includes the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, priority, response, owner, action plan, status, etc.

A risk scenario is a description or representation of a possible or hypothetical situation or event that may cause or result in a risk for the organization. A risk scenario usually consists of three elements: a threat or source of harm, a vulnerability or weakness, and an impact or consequence.

Multiple risk practitioners are the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and communication of the risks and their responses. They may include the risk owners, risk managers, risk analysts, risk consultants, risk auditors, etc.

A single risk register is a risk register that is shared or used by multiple risk practitioners across the organization, and that contains the information and status of all the risks and their responses that are relevant or applicable to the organization.

The most important consideration when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register is using a consistent method for risk assessment, which is the process of determining the significance and urgency of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations. Risk assessment involves measuring and comparing the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizing them based on their magnitude and importance.

Using a consistent method for risk assessment when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register ensures that the risk scenarios are captured and recorded in a uniform and standardized way, and that they are comparable and compatible with each other. It also helps to avoid or reduce the inconsistencies, discrepancies, or conflicts that may arise from the different perspectives, assumptions, or judgments of the multiple risk practitioners, and to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the risk register.

The other options are not the most important considerations when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register, because they do not address the main challenge or issue that may arise from the multiple risk practitioners capturing risk scenarios in a single risk register, which is the lack of consistency or standardization in the risk assessment method.

Aligning risk ownership and control ownership means ensuring that the individuals or groups that are accountable and responsible for the risks and their responses are clearly defined and assigned, and that they have the authority and resources to perform their roles and duties. Aligning risk ownership and control ownership is important when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register, but it is not the most important consideration, because it does not ensure that the risk scenarios are captured and recorded in a uniform and standardized way, and that they are comparable and compatible with each other.

Developing risk escalation and reporting procedures means establishing and implementing the processes and guidelines for communicating and sharing the information and status of the risks and their responses among the relevant stakeholders, and for escalating or transferring the risks and their responses to the appropriate levels or parties when necessary or required. Developing risk escalation and reporting procedures is important when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register, but it is not the most important consideration, because it does not ensure that the risk scenarios are captured and recorded in a uniform and standardized way, and that they are comparable and compatible with each other.

Maintaining up-to-date risk treatment plans means updating and revising the actions or plans that are selected and implemented to address or correct the risks and their responses, based on the changes or developments that may occur in the risk environment or performance. Maintaining up-to-date risk treatment plans is important when multiple risk practitioners capture risk scenarios in a single risk register, but it is not the most important consideration, because it does not ensure that the risk scenarios are captured and recorded in a uniform and standardized way, and that they are comparable and compatible with each other. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 178

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A systems interruption caused by a personal USB device plugged into the corporate network by an IT employee who bypassed internal control procedures is a serious breach of information security and IT risk management. The person who should be accountable for this incident is the chief information officer (CIO), who is responsible for overseeing the IT function and ensuring compliance with IT policies and standards. The CIO should also ensure that appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken to prevent such incidents from recurring and to mitigate the impact of the systems interruption on the business operations and objectives. The CIO should also report the incident to the senior management and the board of directors, and communicate with the relevant stakeholders about the incident and the actions taken. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 181

The most important characteristic of an effective risk management program is that risk ownership is assigned. Risk ownership is the accountability and authority to manage a risk1. Assigning risk ownership means identifying and assigning the person or entity who is responsible for evaluating, treating, monitoring, and reporting on a specific risk2. Assigning risk ownership is essential for ensuring that the risk management program works effectively and efficiently, as it helps to:

Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different functions or groups involved in risk management and internal control;

Ensure that the risks are managed in accordance with the organization’s objectives, strategies, and risk appetite;

Provide guidance and support to the risk owners in identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks;

Monitor and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the risk owners and the risk response actions;

Communicate and report on the risk status and issues to the relevant stakeholders and authorities. The other options are not the most important characteristic of an effective risk management program, as they are either less relevant or less specific than assigning risk ownership. Risk response plans are documented. This option is a consequence or outcome of an effective risk management program, not a characteristic of it. Risk response plans are the actions or measures that are taken to modify the risk, such as reducing, avoiding, transferring, or accepting the risk3. Documenting risk response plans means recording and maintaining the details and outcomes of the risk response actions, such as the objectives, scope, resources, timelines, performance indicators, and results4. Documenting risk response plans can help to improve the consistency and transparency of the risk management process, as well as to support the monitoring and evaluation of the risk response actions. However, documenting risk response plans is not the most important characteristic of an effective risk management program, as it does not address the accountability and authority for managing the risk. Controls are mapped to key risk scenarios. This option is a specific or narrow example of an effective risk management program, not a general or broad characteristic of it. Controls are the measures or actions that are taken to reduce the likelihood or impact of a risk, or to increase the likelihood or impact of an opportunity5. Mapping controls to key risk scenarios means linking the controls to the specific situations or events that may affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance6. Mapping controls to key risk scenarios can help to enhance the design and implementation of the controls, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls in mitigating the risk. However, mapping controls to key risk scenarios is not the most important characteristic of an effective risk management program, as it does not cover the other aspects of risk management, such as risk identification, assessment, treatment, and monitoring. Key risk indicators are defined. This option is a component or element of an effective risk management program, not a characteristic of it. Key risk indicators are the metrics that measure the level and trend of a risk that may affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance7. Defining key risk indicators means establishing and maintaining the criteria and methods for measuring and reporting on the risk8. Defining key risk indicators can help to enhance the risk identification, assessment, and reporting processes, as well as to support the risk decision making and prioritization. However, defining key risk indicators is not the most important characteristic of an effective risk management program, as it does not indicate the accountability and authority for managing the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1, Page 85.

 A control self-assessment (CSA) is a technique that allows managers and work teams directly involved in business units, functions, or processes to participate in assessing the organization’s risk management and control processes. The main purpose of conducting a CSA is to gain a better understanding of the control effectiveness in the organization, which means how well the controls are designed, implemented, and operated to achieve the desired outcomes and mitigate the risks. A CSA can help to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing controls, as well as the gaps and opportunities for improvement. A CSA can also help to enhance the awareness, ownership, and accountability of the control environment among the managers and staff. The other options are not the main purpose of conducting a CSA, although they may be related or beneficial. Gaining a better understanding of the risk in the organization is a result of conducting a CSA, but it is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to evaluate the controls that address the risks, not the risks themselves. Adjusting the controls prior to an external audit is a possible action that may follow a CSA, but it is not the reason for conducting a CSA. The reason for conducting a CSA is to improve the control effectiveness, not to prepare for an audit. Reducing the dependency on external audits is a potential benefit of conducting a CSA, but it is not the objective of conducting a CSA. The objective of conducting a CSA is to enhance the internal control assurance, not to replace the external audit assurance. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 153-1541; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 802

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

A threat risk assessment will best quantify the risk associated with malicious users in an organization, because it focuses on identifying and evaluating the potential sources of harm or damage to the organization’s assets, such as data, systems, or networks. A malicious user is a person who intentionally and unauthorizedly accesses, modifies, destroys, or steals the organization’s information or resources, for personal gain, revenge, espionage, or sabotage. A threat risk assessment can help the organization to estimate the likelihood and impact of malicious user attacks, based on factors such as the user’s motivation, capability, opportunity, and access level. A threat risk assessment can also help the organization to determine the appropriate risk response strategies, such as prevention, detection, mitigation, or transfer, to reduce the risk exposure and impact of malicious user attacks. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 141

 The results of risk analyses should be presented in quantitative or qualitative terms based primarily on the requirements of management, because they are the intended audience and users of the risk information, and they have the authority and responsibility to make risk-based decisions. The requirements of management may vary depending on the purpose, scope, and context of the risk analysis, and the level of detail, accuracy, and reliability that they need. Quantitative risk analysis uses numerical data and mathematical models to estimate the probability and impact of risks, and to express the risk exposure and value in monetary or other measurable units. Qualitative risk analysis uses descriptive data and subjective judgments to assess the likelihood and severity of risks, and to rank the risks according to their relative importance or priority. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and they can be used separately or together, depending on the situation and the availability of data and resources. However, the primary factor that determines the choice of the method is the requirements of management, as they are the ones who will use the risk information to support their objectives, strategies, and actions. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 141

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, or developments 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. New system 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 to justify 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 risk scenarios are the descriptions or representations of the possible or hypothetical situations or events that may cause or result in an IT risk for the organization. IT risk scenarios usually consist of three elements: a threat or source of harm, a vulnerability or weakness, and an impact or consequence.

The best approach to use when creating a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios is to map scenarios to a recognized risk management framework, which is an established or recognized model or standard that provides the principles, guidelines, and best practices for the organization’s IT risk management function. Mapping scenarios to a recognized risk management framework can help the organization to create a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios by providing the following benefits:

It can ensure that the IT risk scenarios are relevant, appropriate, and proportional to the organization’s IT objectives and needs, and that they support the organization’s IT strategy and culture.

It can ensure that the IT risk scenarios are consistent and compatible with the organization’s IT governance, risk management, and control functions, and that they reflect the organization’s IT risk appetite and tolerance.

It can provide useful references and benchmarks for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and communication of the IT risk scenarios, and for the alignment and integration of the IT risk scenarios with the organization’s IT risk policies and standards.

The other options are not the best approaches to use when creating a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that mapping scenarios to a recognized risk management framework provides, and they may not be specific or applicable to the organization’s IT objectives and needs.

Deriving scenarios from IT risk policies and standards means creating or generating the IT risk scenarios based on the rules or guidelines that define and describe the organization’s IT risk management function, and that specify the expectations and requirements for the organization’s IT risk management function. Deriving scenarios from IT risk policies and standards can help the organization to create a consistent and compliant set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not cover all the relevant or significant IT risks that may affect the organization, and it may not support the organization’s IT strategy and culture.

Gathering scenarios from senior management means collecting or obtaining the IT risk scenarios from the senior management or executives that oversee or direct the organization’s IT activities or functions. Gathering scenarios from senior management can help the organization to create a high-level and strategic set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not reflect the operational or technical aspects of the IT risks, and it may not involve the input or feedback from the other stakeholders or parties that are involved or responsible for the IT activities or functions.

Benchmarking scenarios against industry peers means comparing and contrasting the IT risk scenarios with those of other organizations or industry standards, and identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats that may affect the organization’s IT objectives or operations. Benchmarking scenarios against industry peers can help the organization to create a competitive and innovative set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not be relevant or appropriate for the organization’s IT objectives and needs, and it may not comply with the organization’s IT policies and standards. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 199

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A root cause analysis is a process of identifying and understanding the underlying or fundamental causes or factors that contribute to or result in a problem or incident that has occurred or may occur in the organization. A root cause analysis can provide useful insights and solutions on the origin and nature of the problem or incident, and prevent or reduce its recurrence or impact.

Performing a root cause analysis is the risk practitioner’s best recommendation when the number of tickets to rework application code has significantly exceeded the established threshold, because it can help the organization to address the following questions:

Why did the application code require rework?

What were the errors or defects in the application code?

How did the errors or defects affect the functionality or usability of the application?

Who was responsible or accountable for the application code development and testing?

When and how were the errors or defects detected and reported?

What were the costs or consequences of the rework for the organization and its stakeholders?

How can the errors or defects be prevented or minimized in the future?

Performing a root cause analysis can help the organization to improve and optimize the application code quality and performance, and to reduce or eliminate the need for rework. It can also help the organization to align the application code development and testing with the organization’s objectives and requirements, and to comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the risk practitioner’s best recommendations when the number of tickets to rework application code has significantly exceeded the established threshold, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of performing a root cause analysis, which is to identify and understand the underlying or fundamental causes or factors that contribute to or result in the problem or incident.

Performing a code review is a process of examining and evaluating the application code for its quality, functionality, and security, using the input and feedback from the peers, experts, or tools. Performing a code review can help the organization to identify and resolve the errors or defects in the application code, but it is not the risk practitioner’s best recommendation, because it does not indicate why the application code required rework, and how the errors or defects affected the organization and its stakeholders.

Implementing version control software is a process of using a software tool to manage and track the changes and modifications to the application code, and to ensure the consistency and integrity of the application code. Implementing version control software can help the organization to control and monitor the application code development and testing, but it is not the risk practitioner’s best recommendation, because it does not indicate why the application code required rework, and how the errors or defects affected the organization and its stakeholders.

Implementing training on coding best practices is a process of providing and facilitating the learning and development of the skills and knowledge on the principles, guidelines, and standards for the application code development and testing. Implementing training on coding best practices can help the organization to enhance the competence and performance of the application code developers and testers, but it is not the risk practitioner’s best recommendation, because it does not indicate why the application code required rework, and how the errors or defects affected the organization and its stakeholders. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 189

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

Corporate culture is the set of values, beliefs, and norms that shape the behavior and attitude of an organization and its people. Corporate culture alignment is the degree of consistency and compatibility between the corporate culture and the organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and objectives. Corporate culture misalignment is the situation where the corporate culture is not aligned with the organization’s goals and expectations, and may hinder or undermine the achievement of those goals. The acceptance of control costs that exceed risk exposure is most likely an example of corporate culture misalignment, as it indicates that the organization is not following a rational and optimal approach to risk management. The organization is spending more resources on controlling risks than the potential benefits or losses that the risks entail, which may result in inefficiency, waste, or opportunity cost. The organization may also be overemphasizing the importance of risk avoidance or mitigation, and neglecting the potential value creation or innovation that may arise from taking or accepting some risks. The other options are not the best answers, as they do not explain the situation of accepting control costs that exceed risk exposure. Low risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is not willing to accept. Low risk tolerance may lead to excessive or unnecessary controls, but it does not necessarily mean that the control costs exceed the risk exposure. High risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is willing to accept. High risk tolerance may lead to insufficient or ineffective controls, but it does not imply that the control costs exceed the risk exposure. Corporate culture alignment is the situation where the corporate culture is aligned with the organization’s goals and expectations, and supports and facilitates the achievement of those goals. Corporate culture alignment would not result in accepting control costs that exceed risk exposure, as it would imply a balanced and rational approach to risk management. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 812

A control deficiency is a weakness or flaw in the design or implementation of a control that reduces its effectiveness or efficiency in achieving its intended objective or mitigating the risk that it is designed to address. A control deficiency may be caused by various factors, such as human error, system failure, process inefficiency, resource limitation, etc.

When determining which control deficiencies are most significant, the most useful information would be the risk analysis results, which are the outcomes or outputs of the risk analysis process that measures and compares the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizes them based on their significance and urgency. The risk analysis results can help to determine which control deficiencies are most significant by providing the following information:

The level and priority of the risks that are associated with the control deficiencies, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization if they materialize.

The gap or difference between the current and desired level of risk, and the extent or degree to which the control deficiencies contribute to or affect the gap or difference.

The cost-benefit or feasibility analysis of the possible actions or plans to address or correct the control deficiencies, and the expected or desired outcomes or benefits that they may provide for the organization.

The other options are not the most useful information when determining which control deficiencies are most significant, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that the risk analysis results provide, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the organization.

An exception handling policy is a policy that defines and describes the procedures and guidelines for dealing with the situations or circumstances that deviate from the normal or expected operation or functionality of a control, and that may require special or alternative actions or measures to address or resolve them. An exception handling policy can provide useful information on how to handle or manage the control deficiencies, but it is not the most useful information when determining which control deficiencies are most significant, because it does not indicate the level and priority of the risks that are associated with the control deficiencies, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization.

A vulnerability assessment is an assessment that identifies and evaluates the weaknesses or flaws in the organization’s assets, processes, or systems that can be exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A vulnerability assessment can provide useful information on the existence and severity of the control deficiencies, but it is not the most useful information when determining which control deficiencies are most significant, because it does not indicate the likelihood and impact of the risk scenarios that are associated with the control deficiencies, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization.

A benchmarking assessment is an assessment that compares and contrasts the organization’s performance, practices, or processes with those of other organizations or industry standards, and identifies the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A benchmarking assessment can provide useful information on the best practices or improvement areas for the organization, but it is not the most useful information when determining which control deficiencies are most significant, because it does not indicate the level and priority of the risks that are associated with the control deficiencies, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 176

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

Nonrepudiation is the ability to prevent or deny the parties involved in an electronic transaction from disputing or rejecting the validity or authenticity of the transaction. Nonrepudiation ensures that the parties cannot claim that they did not send or receive the transaction, or that the transaction was altered or tampered with.

The tool that helps ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions is digital signatures, which are the electronic equivalents of handwritten signatures that are used to verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction. Digital signatures are generated by applying a cryptographic algorithm to the transaction, using the sender’s private key, which is a secret and unique code that only the sender knows and possesses. The digital signature can be verified by the receiver or any third party, using the sender’s public key, which is a code that is publicly available and corresponds to the sender’s private key. The digital signature can prove that the transaction was sent by the sender, and that the transaction was not altered or tampered with during the transmission.

The other options are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not provide the same level of verification and validation that digital signatures provide, and they may not be sufficient or effective to prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.

Encrypted passwords are the passwords that are converted into a secret or unreadable form, using a cryptographic algorithm, to protect them from unauthorized access or disclosure. Encrypted passwords can help to ensure the confidentiality and security of the passwords, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.

One-time passwords are the passwords that are valid or usable for only one session or transaction, and that are randomly generated or derived from a dynamic factor, such as time, location, or device. One-time passwords can help to enhance the security and authentication of the parties involved in the transaction, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.

Digital certificates are the electronic documents that contain the information and credentials of the parties involved in the transaction, such as their name, public key, expiration date, etc., and that are issued and signed by a trusted authority or entity, such as a certificate authority or a digital signature provider. Digital certificates can help to establish and confirm the identity and trustworthiness of the parties involved in the transaction, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 197

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 Residual risk is the risk that remains after applying controls to mitigate the inherent risk. Inherent risk is the risk that exists before considering the controls. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation from the risk appetite. Improvements in the design and implementation of a control will most likely result in an update to the residual risk, because they will reduce the likelihood and impact of the risk event, and therefore lower the risk exposure and value. By improving the design and implementation of a control, the organization can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the control, and ensure that it is aligned with the risk objectives, expectations, and outcomes. The improvement can also address any gaps, overlaps, redundancies, or conflicts among the controls, and any changes or enhancements that are needed to optimize the controls. The other options are less likely to be updated due to improvements in the design and implementation of a control. The inherent risk will not change, as it is based on the nature and value of the asset and the threats and vulnerabilities that exist. The risk appetite and the risk tolerance will also not change, as they are based on the organization’s culture, strategy, and stakeholder expectations. Therefore, the most likely factor to be updated is the residual risk, as it reflects the actual risk level that the organization faces after applying the controls. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 131

 Check totals are IT controls that verify the accuracy and completeness of data by comparing the sum or count of data records or data fields with a predetermined or expected value. Check totals can help detect and prevent errors, omissions, or alterations in data entry, processing, or transmission. Check totals can also help identify and correct data discrepancies or anomalies. Therefore, check totals are the most useful IT controls in mitigating the risk associated with inaccurate data. The other options are not the best answers because they do not directly address the risk of inaccurate data. Encrypted storage of data is an IT control that protects the confidentiality and integrity of data by preventing unauthorized access or modification. However, encryption does not ensure the accuracy or validity of the data itself. Links to source data are IT controls that provide traceability and transparency of data by allowing users to access or view the original data from which the derived or aggregated data is obtained. However, links to source data do not verify or correct the data quality or consistency. Audit trails for updates and deletions are IT controls that record the history and changes of data by capturing the date, time, user, and action performed on the data. Audit trails can help monitor and review the data activities and transactions, but they do not prevent or detect the data errors or inaccuracies. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 164-1651; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 722

The organization’s risk appetite and tolerance are the most important topics to cover in a risk awareness training for senior management. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk tolerance is the level of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is prepared to accept. Senior management plays a key role in defining and communicating the risk appetite and tolerance, as well as ensuring that they are aligned with the organization’s strategy, culture, and values. By covering these topics in the training session, the risk practitioner can help senior management understand and articulate the risk preferences and boundaries of the organization, as well as monitor and adjust them as needed. The other options are not the most important topics to cover in a risk awareness training for senior management, although they may be relevant and useful. The organization’s strategic risk management projects are specific initiatives or activities that aim to identify, assess, and treat risks that may affect the organization’s objectives. Senior management roles and responsibilities are the duties and expectations that senior management has in relation to risk management, such as providing leadership, oversight, and support. Senior management allocation of risk management resources is the process of assigning and prioritizing the human, financial, and technical resources that are needed to implement and maintain risk management activities. These topics are more operational and tactical than strategic and may vary depending on the context and scope of the risk management function. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 40-411; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 732

Information systems control deficiencies are the weaknesses or flaws in the design or implementation of the controls that are intended to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the information systems and resources. Information systems control deficiencies may reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls, and expose the organization to various risks, such as unauthorized access, data loss, system failure, etc.

Reviewing results from control self-assessment (CSA) is the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because CSA is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the information systems controls, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the information systems activities or functions. CSA can help the organization to identify and document the information systems control deficiencies, and to align them with the organization’s information systems objectives and requirements.

CSA can be performed using various techniques, such as questionnaires, surveys, interviews, workshops, etc. CSA can also be integrated with the organization’s governance, risk management, and compliance functions, and aligned with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best ways to identify information systems control deficiencies, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that CSA provides, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the organization.

Vulnerability and threat analysis is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses or flaws in the organization’s assets, processes, or systems that can be exploited or compromised by the potential threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. Vulnerability and threat analysis can help the organization to assess and prioritize the risks, and to design and implement appropriate controls or countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the risks, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it does not indicate whether the existing information systems controls are adequate and effective, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Control remediation planning is a process of selecting and implementing the actions or plans to address or correct the information systems control deficiencies that have been identified, analyzed, and evaluated. Control remediation planning involves choosing one of the following types of control responses: mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept. Control remediation planning can help the organization to improve and optimize the information systems controls, and to reduce or eliminate the information systems control deficiencies, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it is a subsequent or follow-up process that depends on the prior identification of the information systems control deficiencies.

User acceptance testing (UAT) is a process of verifying and validating the functionality and usability of the information systems and resources, using the input and feedback from the end users or customers that interact with the information systems and resources. UAT can help the organization to ensure that the information systems and resources meet the user or customer expectations and requirements, and to identify and resolve any issues or defects that may affect the user or customer satisfaction, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it does not focus on the information systems controls, and it may not cover all the relevant or significant information systems control deficiencies that may exist or arise. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 186

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the risks that may affect the organization, as well as the actions that are taken or planned to manage them1. A risk register provides the best evidence that the IT risk profile is up to date, because it reflects the current and potential IT risks that the organization faces, as well as their likelihood, impact, severity, owner, status, and response2. An IT risk profile is a document that describes the types, amounts, and priority of IT risk that the organization finds acceptable and unacceptable3. An IT risk profile is developed collaboratively with various stakeholders within the organization, including business leaders, data and process owners, enterprise risk management, internal and external audit, legal, compliance, privacy, and IT risk management and security4. By maintaining and updating the risk register regularly, the organization can ensure that the IT risk profile is aligned with the changing IT risk environment, and that the IT risk management activities and performance are consistent and effective. The other options are not the best evidence that the IT risk profile is up to date, as they are either less comprehensive or less relevant than the risk register. A risk questionnaire is a tool that collects and analyzes the opinions and perceptions of the stakeholders about the risks that may affect the organization5. A risk questionnaire can help to identify and assess the risks, as well as to communicate and report on the risk status and issues. However, a risk questionnaire is not the best evidence that the IT risk profile is up to date, as it may not capture all the IT risks that the organization faces, or reflect the actual or objective level and nature of the IT risks. A management assertion is a statement or declaration made by the management about the accuracy and completeness of the information or data that they provide or report. A management assertion can help to increase the confidence and trust of the stakeholders and auditors in the information or data, as well as to demonstrate the accountability and responsibility of the management. However, a management assertion is not the best evidence that the IT risk profile is up to date, as it does not provide the details or outcomes of the IT risk management activities or performance, or verify the validity and reliability of the IT risk information or data. A compliance manual is a document that contains the policies, procedures, and standards that the organization must follow to meet the legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements that apply to its activities or operations. A compliance manual can help to ensure the quality and consistency of the organization’s compliance activities or performance, as well as to avoid or reduce the penalties or sanctions for non-compliance. However, a compliance manual is not the best evidence that the IT risk profile is up to date, as it does not address the IT risks that the organization faces, or the IT risk management activities or performance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.5, Page 55.

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information and status of the identified risks and their responses. It includes the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, priority, response, owner, action plan, status, etc.

A risk register update is a change or modification to the information or status of the risks and their responses in the risk register. It may be triggered by the occurrence or resolution of a risk event, the identification or evaluation of a new or emerging risk, the implementation or completion of a risk response, the monitoring or review of the risk performance, etc.

The most important risk register update for senior management to review is avoiding a risk that was previously accepted, which means that the organization has decided to eliminate or withdraw from the risk exposure or activity that may cause the risk, instead of tolerating or retaining the risk as before. This may indicate a significant change in the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, objectives, or environment, and it may have a major impact on the organization’s performance and value.

The other options are not the most important risk register updates for senior management to review, because they do not indicate a significant change or impact on the organization’s risk profile or performance.

Extending the date of a future action plan by two months means that the organization has postponed the implementation or completion of the planned actions or measures to address the risk, due to some reasons or constraints. This may indicate a delay or deviation from the expected or desired risk outcome, but it may not have a major impact on the organization’s performance and value, unless the risk is very urgent or critical.

Retiring a risk scenario no longer used means that the organization has removed or discarded the risk scenario that is no longer relevant or applicable to the organization’s objectives or operations, due to some changes or developments. This may indicate a reduction or improvement in the organization’s risk exposure or level, but it may not have a major impact on the organization’s performance and value, unless the risk scenario was very significant or influential.

Changing a risk owner means that the organization has assigned or transferred the responsibility and accountability for the risk and its response to a different person or role, due to some reasons or circumstances. This may indicate a change or improvement in the organization’s risk governance or culture, but it may not have a major impact on the organization’s performance and value, unless the risk owner was very ineffective or inappropriate. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 160

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information and status of the identified risks and their responses. It includes the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, priority, response, owner, action plan, status, etc.

A risk profile is a summary or representation of the organization’s exposure or level of risk, based on the results of the risk assessment and evaluation. A risk profile can show the distribution and comparison of the risks based on various criteria, such as likelihood, impact, category, source, etc. A risk profile can also indicate the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and the gaps or opportunities for improvement.

The primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register is that it helps to build a risk profile for management review, because it provides the data and information that are necessary and relevant for creating and updating the risk profile, and for communicating and reporting the risk profile to the management. Maintaining an up-to-date risk register can help to build a risk profile for management review by providing the following benefits:

It can ensure that the risk profile reflects the current and accurate state and performance of the organization’s risk management function, and that it covers all the relevant and significant risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations.

It can provide useful references and benchmarks for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and communication of the risks and their responses, and for the alignment and integration of the risks and their responses with the organization’s strategy and culture.

It can support the decision making and planning for the risk management function, and for the allocation and optimization of the resources, time, and budget for the risk management function.

The other options are not the primary benefits of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of building a risk profile for management review, which is to summarize and represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and to communicate and report it to the management.

Implementing uniform controls for common risk scenarios means applying and enforcing the same or similar controls or countermeasures for the risks that have the same or similar characteristics or features, such as source, cause, impact, etc. Implementing uniform controls for common risk scenarios can help to ensure the consistency and efficiency of the risk management function, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because it does not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be relevant or appropriate for the organization’s objectives and needs.

Ensuring business unit risk is uniformly distributed means ensuring that the risks that are associated with the different business units or divisions of the organization are balanced or equalized, and that they do not exceed or fall below the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. Ensuring business unit risk is uniformly distributed can help to optimize the performance and profitability of the organization, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because it does not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be feasible or realistic for the organization.

Quantifying the organization’s risk appetite means measuring and expressing the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing and able to accept or take, in pursuit of its objectives and goals. Quantifying the organization’s risk appetite can help to establish and communicate the boundaries and expectations for the organization’s risk management function, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because it does not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be consistent or compatible with the organization’s strategy and culture. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 201

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A third-party security assessment report is the most helpful to ensure effective security controls for a cloud service provider, because it provides an independent and objective evaluation of the cloud provider’s security posture, policies, and practices. A third-party security assessment report can help to verify and validate the cloud provider’s compliance with the relevant standards, regulations, and best practices, such as ISO 27001, PCI DSS, NIST, or CSA. A third-party security assessment report can also help to identify and address any gaps, weaknesses, or vulnerabilities in the cloud provider’s security controls, and to provide recommendations and guidance for improvement. A third-party security assessment report can also help to increase the trust and confidence of the cloud customers, and to facilitate the due diligence and risk management processes. The other options are less helpful to ensure effective security controls for a cloud service provider. A control self-assessment is a process that enables the cloud provider to assess its own security controls, using a predefined framework or questionnaire. However, a control self-assessment may not be as reliable or comprehensive as a third-party security assessment report, as it may be biased, incomplete, or inaccurate, and it may not cover all the aspects or dimensions of security. Internal audit reports from the vendor are documents that provide the results and findings of the internal audits conducted by the cloud provider’s own auditors, to verify and validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the security controls. However, internal audit reports from the vendor may not be as credible or trustworthy as a third-party security assessment report, as they may be influenced by the cloud provider’s interests, objectives, or agenda, and they may not follow the same standards or criteria as the external auditors. Service level agreement monitoring is a process that measures and evaluates the performance and availability of the cloud services, based on the predefined metrics and targets agreed between the cloud provider and the cloud customer. However, service level agreement monitoring may not be sufficient or relevant to ensure effective security controls for a cloud service provider, as it may not address the security aspects or requirements of the cloud services, such as confidentiality, integrity, or accountability, and it may not reflect the actual security risks or incidents that may occur in the cloud environment. References = Cloud Security Controls: Key Elements and 4 Control Frameworks 1

Control processes are the procedures and activities that aim to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s operations, the reliability of its information, and the compliance with its policies and regulations12.

The ongoing efficiency of control processes is the degree to which the control processes achieve their intended results with minimum resources, costs, or waste34.

The best way to determine the ongoing efficiency of control processes is to analyze key performance indicators (KPIs), which are quantifiable measures of progress toward an intended result, such as a strategic objective or a desired outcome56.

Analyzing KPIs is the best way because it provides a systematic and consistent method of evaluating the performance of the control processes, and identifying the areas of improvement or optimization56.

Analyzing KPIs is also the best way because it enables the organization to monitor and report the efficiency of the control processes to the relevant stakeholders, and to take corrective or preventive actions when necessary56.

The other options are not the best way, but rather possible sources of information or inputs that may support or complement the analysis of KPIs. For example:

Performing annual risk assessments is a way to identify and evaluate the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, and to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the control processes in mitigating those risks12. However, this way is not the best because it is periodic rather than continuous, and may not capture the changes or trends in the efficiency of the control processes12.

Interviewing process owners is a way to collect and verify the information and feedback from the people who are responsible for designing, implementing, and operating the control processes12. However, this way is not the best because it is subjective and qualitative, and may not provide reliable or comparable data on the efficiency of the control processes12.

Reviewing the risk register is a way to examine and update the documentation and status of the risks and the control processes that are associated with them12. However, this way is not the best because it is descriptive rather than analytical, and may not measure or evaluate the efficiency of the control processes12. References =

1: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

2: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

3: The Control Process | Principles of Management4

4: Control Management: What it is + Why It’s Essential | Adobe Workfront5

5: What is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI)? Guide & Examples - Qlik1

6: What is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI)? - KPI.org2

Risk responses are the actions or strategies that are taken to address the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation12.

The most effective way to increase the likelihood that risk responses will be implemented is to assign ownership, which is the process of identifying and appointing the individuals or groups who are responsible and accountable for the execution and monitoring of the risk responses34.

Assigning ownership is the most effective way because it ensures the clarity and commitment of the roles and responsibilities for the risk responses, and avoids the confusion or ambiguity that may arise from the lack of ownership34.

Assigning ownership is also the most effective way because it enhances the communication and collaboration among the stakeholders involved in the risk responses, and provides the feedback and input that are necessary for the improvement and optimization of the risk responses34.

The other options are not the most effective way, but rather possible steps or tools that may support or complement the assignment of ownership. For example:

Creating an action plan is a step that involves defining and documenting the specific tasks, resources, timelines, and deliverables for the risk responses34. However, this step is not the most effective way because it does not guarantee the implementation of the risk responses, especially if there is no clear or agreed ownership for the action plan34.

Reviewing progress reports is a tool that involves collecting and analyzing the information and data on the status and performance of the risk responses, and identifying the issues or gaps that need to be addressed34. However, this tool is not the most effective way because it does not ensure the implementation of the risk responses, especially if there is no ownership for the progress reports or the corrective actions34.

Performing regular audits is a tool that involves conducting an independent and objective assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the risk responses, and providing the findings and recommendations for improvement56. However, this tool is not the most effective way because it does not ensure the implementation of the risk responses, especially if there is no ownership for the audit results or the follow-up actions56. References =

1: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

2: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

3: Risk Response Plan in Project Management: Key Strategies & Tips1

4: ProjectManagement.com - How to Implement Risk Responses2

5: IT Audit and Assurance Standards, ISACA, 2014

6: IT Audit and Assurance Guidelines, ISACA, 2014

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

When determining an appropriate risk assessment approach, the most important factor to understand is the value of information assets. This is because the value of information assets determines the potential impact of risks and the level of protection required. The value of information assets can be assessed based on their confidentiality, integrity, availability, and relevance to the business objectives and processes. A risk assessment approach should be aligned with the value of information assets and the risk appetite of the organization. The other options are not the most important factors to understand when determining a risk assessment approach, although they may influence the choice of methods and tools. The complexity of the IT infrastructure may affect the scope and depth of the risk assessment, but it does not indicate the level of risk or the priority of risk management. The management culture may affect the risk tolerance and the risk communication, but it does not reflect the value of information assets or the risk exposure. The threats and vulnerabilities may affect the likelihood and severity of risks, but they do not measure the value of information assets or the risk acceptance. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 38-391; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 582

The risk associated with the leakage of confidential data is the possibility and impact of unauthorized disclosure, access, or use of sensitive information that may harm the organization or its stakeholders12.

The first step in managing the risk associated with the leakage of confidential data is to define and implement a data classification policy, which is a document that establishes the criteria, categories, roles, and responsibilities for identifying, labeling, and handling different types of data according to their sensitivity, value, and protection needs34.

Defining and implementing a data classification policy is the first step because it provides the foundation and framework for the data protection strategy, and enables the organization to prioritize and allocate the appropriate resources and controls for the most critical and confidential data34.

Defining and implementing a data classification policy is also the first step because it supports the compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, such as GDPR, HIPAA, or PCI-DSS, that require the organization to classify and protect the personal or financial data of its customers or clients34.

The other options are not the first step, but rather possible subsequent steps that may depend on or follow the data classification policy. For example:

Maintaining and reviewing the classified data inventory is a step that involves creating and updating a record of the data assets that have been classified, and verifying their accuracy and completeness over time34. However, this step is not the first step because it requires the data classification policy to provide the guidance and standards for the data inventory process34.

Implementing mandatory encryption on data is a step that involves applying a cryptographic technique that transforms the data into an unreadable format, and requires a key or a password to decrypt and access the data56. However, this step is not the first step because it requires the data classification policy to determine which data needs to be encrypted, and what level of encryption is appropriate56.

Conducting an awareness program for data owners and users is a step that involves educating and training the people who are responsible for or have access to the data, and informing them of their roles, obligations, and best practices for data protection78. However, this step is not the first step because it requires the data classification policy to define the data ownership and user rights, and the data protection policies and procedures78. References =

1: Top Four Damaging Consequences of Data Leakage | ZeroFox1

2: 8 Data Leak Prevention Strategies for 2023 | UpGuard2

3: Data Classification: What It Is, Why You Need It, and How to Do It3

4: Data Classification Policy Template - IT Governance USA4

5: Encryption: What It Is, How It Works, and Why You Need It5

6: Encryption Policy Template - IT Governance USA6

7: What Is Security Awareness Training and Why Is It Important? - Kaspersky7

8: Security Awareness Training - Cybersecurity Education Online | Proofpoint US8

IT risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe the sources, causes, and consequences of IT-related risks, and the potential impacts on the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation12.

A corporate risk register is a document that records and tracks the significant risks that the organization faces, and the responses and actions that are taken to address them34.

The greatest benefit of incorporating IT risk scenarios into the corporate risk register is that exposure is integrated into the organization’s risk profile, which is a comprehensive and integrated representation of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation56.

Exposure is integrated into the organization’s risk profile means that the organization has a complete and consistent view of the IT risk landscape, and the potential impacts and interdependencies of IT risks on other types of risks, such as financial, operational, strategic, or reputational risks56.

Exposure is integrated into the organization’s risk profile also means that the organization can make informed and balanced decisions on the risk responses and actions, and allocate the appropriate resources and priorities to the IT risk management and control processes56.

The other options are not the greatest benefit, but rather possible outcomes or consequences of incorporating IT risk scenarios into the corporate risk register. For example:

Corporate incident escalation protocols are established is an outcome of incorporating IT risk scenarios into the corporate risk register that indicates the organization has defined and implemented the procedures and mechanisms for reporting and resolving IT-related incidents, and for escalating them to the appropriate authorities or levels when necessary78. However, this outcome does not measure or reflect the exposure or the risk profile of the organization, which may depend on other factors such as the frequency, severity, or complexity of the incidents78.

Risk appetite cascades to business unit management is a consequence of incorporating IT risk scenarios into the corporate risk register that indicates the organization has communicated and aligned the risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue, to the business unit management, who are responsible for executing the risk strategy and objectives at the operational level . However, this consequence does not indicate or imply the exposure or the risk profile of the organization, which may vary depending on the context, environment, or stakeholder expectations .

The organization-wide control budget is expanded is an outcome of incorporating IT risk scenarios into the corporate risk register that indicates the organization has increased the amount of resources and funds that are allocated to the control processes, which are the procedures and activities that aim to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s operations, the reliability of its information, and the compliance with its policies and regulations . However, this outcome does not affect or determine the exposure or the risk profile of the organization, which is independent of the control budget . References =

1: IT Risk Scenarios - Morland-Austin3

2: Risk Scenarios Toolkit, ISACA, 2019

3: Risk Register Template and Examples | Prioritize and Manage Risk1

4: Risk Register Examples for Cybersecurity Leaders4

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

7: Security Incident Reporting and Response, University of Toronto, 2017

8: Security Incident Reporting and Response, ISACA, 2019

: Risk Appetite: Linking Strategy, Risk and Performance, ISACA, 2012

: Risk Appetite and Tolerance, ISACA Journal, Volume 4, 2013

: The Control Process | Principles of Management2

: Control Management: What it is + Why It’s Essential | Adobe Workfront5

The group that has primary ownership of reputational risk stemming from unethical behavior within the organization is A. Board of directors. According to the CFA Institute, the board of directors is responsible for setting the tone at the top and ensuring that the company adheres to high ethical standards and values. The board of directors also oversees the company’s culture, governance, and risk management practices, and holds the management accountable for any misconduct or breach of trust1 The board of directors may delegate some of its oversight functions to other committees, such as the human resources, risk management, or audit committee, but ultimately, the board of directors bears the ultimate responsibility for the company’s reputation and integrity

Cybersecurity incident response procedures are the plans and actions that an organization takes to respond to and recover from a cybersecurity attack. They include identifying the source and scope of the attack, containing and eradicating the threat, restoring normal operations, and analyzing the root cause and lessons learned. Reviewing cybersecurity incident response procedures is the most effective course of action when the probability of a successful cybersecurity attack is increasing and the potential loss could exceed the organization’s risk appetite, as it helps to prepare the organization for minimizing the impact and duration of the attack, as well as improving the resilience and security posture of the organization.

According to the FIC Article by FSCA, accountable institutions remain fully accountable, responsible and liable for any compliance failures that may result from or be associated with an outsourcing arrangement and as such, liability and/or culpability for non-compliance with the FIC Act obligations cannot be transferred to a third-party service provider2. Therefore, even if a business process is outsourced to a cloud service provider, the organization still has the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the risk associated with the outsourced process. The other options are not correct, as they imply that the cloud service provider can take over the accountability or responsibility for the risk, or that the organization can mitigate the risk by acquiring insurance, which is not the case.

 The most important factor to ensure when reviewing an organization’s risk register is that the risk ownership is recorded, as it indicates the authority and responsibility for managing the risk and its associated controls, and facilitates the communication and accountability of the risk management process and activities. The other options are not the most important factors, as they are more related to the identification, classification, or measurement of the risk, respectively, rather than the management of the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

Risk threshold exceptions are instances when a KRI exceeds or falls below a predefined level or point that triggers an action or a warning. An increase in the number of risk threshold exceptions indicates that the KRIs are not reflecting the current risk exposure or environment accurately or effectively. This may suggest that the KRIs are outdated, irrelevant, or poorly defined. Therefore, the KRIs should be revised to ensure that they are aligned with the organizational objectives, risk appetite, and risk management strategy.

References

•Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide | SafetyCulture

•Key Risk Indicators: Examples & Definitions - SolveXia

•Choosing and Using Key Risk Indicators - Institute of Risk Management

Automated asset management software is the best method to track asset inventory because it can provide real-time, accurate, and comprehensive data on the location, condition, value, and usage of assets. It can also help to optimize asset utilization, reduce costs, improve compliance, and enhance security.

References

•Free Asset Tracking Templates | Smartsheet

•5 Best Asset Management Software (2023) – Forbes Advisor

•What Is Asset Tracking? Benefits & How It Works - Forbes

•Inventory and Asset Tracking: Keep it Simple (But Powerful)

The policy has not been approved by the organization’s board should be of most concern, as it indicates a lack of governance and oversight for the organization’s cybersecurity posture. The board is ultimately responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization, and for ensuring that the cybersecurity policy aligns with them. Without the board’s approval, the policy may not reflect the organization’s vision, mission, values, and culture, and may not be communicated, implemented, or enforced effectively. The board’s approval also demonstrates the commitment and support of the senior management for the cybersecurity program, and enhances the accountability and responsibility of the stakeholders involved.

References:

•ISACA, Essential Functions of a Cybersecurity Program1

•ISACA, Cybersecurity: Based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework2

Key control indicators (KCIs) are metrics that measure the performance of a control in reducing the causes, consequences, or likelihood of a risk. They help to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the internal control environment, which is the set of policies, procedures, and practices that support the achievement of organizational objectives and the management of risks. By monitoring KCIs, organizations can identify and address any gaps or weaknesses in their internal controls and ensure that they are operating as intended.

References

•ISACA CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Domain 3: Risk Response, Section 3.2.2: Control Design and Implementation

•KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva

•What is the difference between key risk indicators and key control indicators?

Payroll system risk mitigation plans are the actions that are taken to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with payroll processing. When a migration from an in-house developed system to an external cloud-based solution is affecting a previously rated key risk scenario related to payroll processing, the first part of the risk register that should be updated is the payroll system risk mitigation plans. This is because the migration may introduce new risks or change the existing risks, and the risk mitigation plans may need to be revised or replaced accordingly. Updating the payroll system risk mitigation plans can help ensure that the risk level is acceptable and the payroll process is secure and reliable. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, one of the key risk treatment techniques is to update the risk action plan, which is a document that outlines the risk mitigation plans1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, updating the risk mitigation plans is the correct answer to this question2.

Payroll system risk factors, payroll process owner, and payroll administrative controls are not the first part of the risk register that should be updated when a migration is affecting a key risk scenario. Payroll system risk factors are the sources or causes of risk, such as threats, vulnerabilities, or uncertainties. Payroll process owner is the person who is responsible for the payroll process and its outcomes. Payroll administrative controls are the policies, procedures, or guidelines that govern the payroll process. These parts of the risk register may also need to be updated, but they are not as urgent or critical as the risk mitigation plans. Updating the risk factors, process owner, and administrative controls can help identify, assess, and monitor the risk, but they do not directly address the risk response. The risk response is the most important part of the risk management process, as it determines how the risk is handled and controlled.

KRI thresholds are the levels or points that trigger an action or a response when a KRI reaches or exceeds them. They reflect the risk appetite of the organization, which is the amount and type of risk that it is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. A new privacy regulation may reduce the risk appetite of the organization, as it may impose stricter requirements and penalties for non-compliance. Therefore, the organization may need to adjust its KRI thresholds to lower levels, to ensure that it can identify and manage privacy risks more effectively and proactively

Regulatory requirements should be the primary basis for deciding whether to disclose information related to risk events that impact external stakeholders, because they define the rules or standards that the organization must comply with to meet the expectations of the regulators, such as government agencies or industry bodies, and to avoid legal or reputational consequences. A risk event is an occurrence or incident that may cause harm or damage to the organization or its objectives, such as a natural disaster, a cyberattack, or a human error. An external stakeholder is a person or group that has an interest or influence in the organization or its activities, but is not part of the organization, such as customers, suppliers, partners, investors, or regulators. Disclosing information related to risk events that impact external stakeholders is a process of communicating or reporting the relevant facts or details of the risk events to the affected or interested parties. Disclosing information related to risk events may have benefits, such as maintaining trust, transparency, and accountability, but it may also have drawbacks, such as exposing vulnerabilities, losing competitive advantage, or inviting litigation. Therefore, regulatory requirements should be the primary basis for deciding whether to disclose information, as they provide the legal and ethical obligations and boundaries for the disclosure process. Stakeholder preferences, contractual requirements, and management assertions are all possible factors for deciding whether to disclose information related to risk events, but they are not the primary basis, as they may vary or conflict depending on the situation or context, and may not override the regulatory requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 158

Reviewing the risk register change log is the best way for management to validate whether risk response activities have been completed, because it helps to track and monitor the changes and updates that have been made to the risk register, and to verify that the risk response activities have been implemented and closed. A risk register is a document that captures, identifies, assesses and tracks risk as part of the risk management process4. A risk register change log is a record that documents the date, description, and reason for each change or update that is made to the risk register. A risk response activity is an action or task that is performed to implement the chosen risk response strategy for a specific risk, such as avoid, transfer, mitigate, or accept. Reviewing the risk register change log is the best way, as it helps to ensure that the risk register is accurate and current, and that the risk response activities have been completed and reported. Reviewing evidence of risk acceptance, control effectiveness test results, and control design documentation are all possible ways to validate whether risk response activities have been completed, but they are not the best way, as they may not cover all the risk response activities, and they may not reflect the changes or updates in the risk register. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1, page 101

An independent review is typically sought to provide an objective assessment of the IT risk management program, ensuring that it aligns with the organization’s overall strategy and objectives. The reviewer can identify areas where the program may not be effectively addressing the organization’s strategic goals or where improvements can be made to better manage IT risks.

 User Access Management:

Effective user access management ensures that accounts are properly created, managed, and disabled to prevent unauthorized access.

Monitoring the percentage of accounts disabled within the SLA helps ensure that the organization responds promptly to changes in user status, reducing the risk of unauthorized access.

 Importance of KPI:

This KPI measures the efficiency and effectiveness of the user access management process by tracking how quickly accounts are disabled when no longer needed.

A high percentage indicates timely action, reducing the risk of orphaned accounts being exploited.

 Comparing Other KPIs:

Proportion of End Users Having More Than One Account: Useful but not directly related to the timeliness of disabling accounts.

Proportion of Privileged to Non-Privileged Accounts: Important for monitoring privilege distribution but does not measure process efficiency.

Percentage of Accounts Not Activated: Indicates potential inefficiencies but does not address the risk of active accounts.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual highlights the importance of timely account management to mitigate access risks (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.3 User Access Management)​​.

 Enterprise Risk Management (ERM):

ERM involves a comprehensive approach to identifying, assessing, managing, and monitoring risks across an organization. Effective governance of organizational assets is a key component.

 Importance of a Risk Profile:

Developing a detailed risk profile is the first step in supporting ERM implementation. It provides a clear understanding of the organization's risk landscape, including the types of risks, their potential impact, and likelihood.

A risk profile helps in prioritizing risks, allocating resources, and establishing appropriate risk management strategies.

 Steps to Develop a Risk Profile:

Identify all organizational assets and their importance to business operations.

Assess the vulnerabilities and threats associated with each asset.

Determine the potential impact and likelihood of risk events.

Document the findings to create a comprehensive risk profile.

 Supporting Implementation:

A detailed risk profile informs decision-makers and supports the development of policies, controls, and procedures to mitigate identified risks.

It serves as a foundation for continuous monitoring and improvement of the risk management program.

 Other Options:

Hiring experienced resources, scheduling internal audits, and conducting risk assessments are essential actions but come after establishing a detailed risk profile. The risk profile provides the necessary information to guide these activities effectively.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of developing a detailed risk profile as a foundational step in the ERM process (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 1: Governance, Section 1.6.5 Asset Valuation)​​.

Differences in regulatory requirements are the most important factor for a multinational organization to consider when developing its security policies and standards. This is because different countries or regions may have different laws, regulations, or standards that govern the protection of information and data, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in Canada. A multinational organization must comply with the applicable regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction where it operates, or it may face legal, financial, or reputational risks. Therefore, the organization should develop its security policies and standards in a way that meets or exceeds the minimum regulatory requirements, and also aligns with its business objectives and risk appetite. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, one of the key elements of IT governance is to ensure compliance with external laws and regulations1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, differences in regulatory requirements is the correct answer to this question2.

Regional competitors’ policies and standards, ability to monitor and enforce compliance, and industry-standard templates are not the most important factors for a multinational organization to consider when developing its security policies and standards. These factors may be useful or relevant, but they are not as critical or mandatory as the differences in regulatory requirements. Regional competitors’ policies and standards may provide some insights or benchmarks, but they may not reflect the organization’s specific needs or risks. Ability to monitor and enforce compliance is an important aspect of implementing and maintaining security policies and standards, but it does not determine the content or scope of the policies and standards. Industry-standard templates may offer some guidance or best practices, but they may not cover all the regulatory requirements or the organization’s unique circumstances.

The percentage of unpatched systems is best classified as a Key Risk Indicator (KRI). KRIs are metrics used by organizations to provide an early signal of increasing risk exposures in various areas of the business. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Understanding KRIs:

Definition: KRIs are specific metrics that provide insights into the risk level of an organization. They help in identifying potential risks that could impact the business negatively if not addressed promptly.

Purpose: KRIs are used to monitor the effectiveness of risk management strategies and to provide an early warning system for emerging risks.

Percentage of Unpatched Systems as a KRI:

Indicator of Vulnerability: The percentage of unpatched systems directly indicates how vulnerable an organization is to cyber threats. Unpatched systems are a common entry point for attackers, making this metric critical for assessing the organization's exposure to cyber risks.

Impact on Security Posture: A high percentage of unpatched systems can significantly increase the likelihood of security incidents, making it a valuable metric for risk management.

Proactive Risk Management: By monitoring this KRI, organizations can take proactive measures to address vulnerabilities before they are exploited.

Comparison with Other Options:

Threat Vector: A threat vector refers to the path or means by which a threat can reach and impact an asset. It is not a metric like the percentage of unpatched systems.

Critical Success Factor (CSF): CSFs are essential elements necessary for an organization to achieve its mission. While important, they are not specific metrics used to measure risk.

Key Performance Indicator (KPI): KPIs measure how effectively an organization is achieving its key business objectives. While related, KPIs focus on performance rather than risk exposure.

CRISC Review Manual: Provides detailed insights into KRIs and their role in risk management.

ISACA Risk IT Framework: Discusses the use of KRIs in monitoring and managing IT risks effectively.

References:

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.

The best time to identify Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) is while developing a risk monitoring process.

KRIs and Risk Monitoring:

Definition: KRIs are metrics used to signal potential risk events and the effectiveness of controls in place. They help in monitoring the risk landscape continuously.

Integration in Monitoring: As the risk monitoring process is developed, identifying KRIs ensures that the process includes mechanisms to track and respond to these indicators effectively.

Benefits:

Proactive Risk Management: Identifying KRIs during the development of the monitoring process allows the organization to set up a proactive risk management system. It ensures that potential risks are detected early and managed appropriately.

Alignment with Objectives: This timing allows KRIs to be aligned with organizational risk management objectives and thresholds from the beginning, ensuring coherence in the overall risk management strategy.

References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of integrating KRIs into the risk monitoring process for effective risk management and early warning systems .

 Business Impact Assessment (BIA):

BIA identifies and evaluates the potential effects of interruptions to critical business operations. It helps determine the priority of risk mitigation efforts based on the potential impact on business functions.

BIA provides detailed information on which processes and systems are most critical to the organization's operations and their respective impact levels.

 Prioritizing Risk Mitigation:

The results of a BIA guide decision-makers in prioritizing which risks to address first based on their potential to disrupt critical business operations.

Risks that could cause significant operational, financial, or reputational damage are prioritized higher.

 Comparing Other Factors:

Cost of Risk Mitigation: Important but secondary to understanding the impact on business operations.

Asset Criticality: Relevant but typically part of the BIA process.

Acceptable Risk Level: Defines the threshold but does not prioritize specific risks.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses how BIA facilitates risk prioritization by identifying critical processes and their impacts (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.7 Business Impact Analysis)​​.

Updating the risk register to include outcomes from a risk assessment is the greatest benefit because it enables the organization to prioritize and respond to the most significant risks in a timely manner. The risk register is a tool that records and tracks the current status of risks, their likelihood, impact, and response strategies. By updating the risk register with the results of a risk assessment, the organization can ensure that the risk information is accurate, relevant, and actionable. Maintaining evidence of compliance with risk policy, validating the organization’s risk appetite, and helping to mitigate internal and external risk factors are all possible benefits of updating the risk register, but they are not the greatest benefit, as they do not directly support risk-based decision making. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1, page 83

Conducting interviews with senior management is the best method for determining an enterprise’s current appetite for risk, because it helps to obtain the direct and qualitative input and feedback from the senior management on their expectations and preferences regarding the level and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept or pursue, in relation to its objectives and strategy. Risk appetite is the amount and nature of risk that an enterprise is willing to take in order to achieve its objectives and create value. Risk appetite is influenced by factors such as the enterprise’s culture, values, vision, mission, and strategy, as well as the external environment and stakeholders. Risk appetite may vary depending on the context and situation, and may change over time. Conducting interviews with senior management is the best method, as it helps to understand and capture the current and explicit risk appetite of the enterprise, and to align the risk management process and activities with the senior management’s risk vision and direction. Conducting comparative analysis of peer companies, reviewing brokerage firm assessments, and performing trend analysis using prior annual reports are all possible methods for determining an enterprise’s current appetite for risk, but they are not the best method, as they may provide only indirect, quantitative, or historical information, and may not reflect the current and specific risk appetite of the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 45

A possible action that a risk practitioner should do next when an increased industry trend of external cyber attacks is identified is A. Conduct a threat and vulnerability analysis. A threat and vulnerability analysis is a process of identifying and assessing the potential sources and methods of cyber attacks, as well as the weaknesses and gaps in the organization’s information systems and security controls12 By conducting a threat and vulnerability analysis, a risk practitioner can determine the level of exposure and risk that the organization faces from external cyber attacks, and prioritize the actions and resources needed to mitigate or prevent them3 A threat and vulnerability analysis can also help to update the risk impact rating and the key risk indicator in the risk register, as well as to notify senior management of the new risk scenario, but these are subsequent steps that follow after the analysis is completed. Therefore, the first action that a risk practitioner should do next is to conduct a threat and vulnerability analysis.

Business Impact Analysis (BIA):

Objective: The primary objective of a BIA is to identify and evaluate the effects of disruptions on business operations. This includes determining the criticality of IT assets that support key business processes.

Risk Mitigation: By identifying critical IT assets, organizations can prioritize risk mitigation efforts to ensure that key business processes remain operational during and after disruptions.

Appropriate IT Risk Mitigation:

Critical Asset Identification: Knowing which IT assets are essential allows for targeted risk mitigation strategies. This ensures resources are allocated efficiently to protect the most important systems.

Impact Assessment: Understanding the impact of potential disruptions on critical IT assets helps in developing effective disaster recovery and continuity plans.

Comparison with Other Options:

Validating Critical IT Risk: While important, this is typically part of a broader BIA process rather than its primary objective.

Assigning Accountability for IT Risk: This is crucial for governance but does not directly enable risk mitigation actions.

Defining IT Risk-aware Culture: Important for overall risk management but does not directly influence specific mitigation actions.

Best Practices:

Detailed Asset Inventory: Maintain an up-to-date inventory of IT assets and their dependencies on business processes.

Regular Updates and Reviews: Continuously update the BIA to reflect changes in the IT environment and business processes.

References:

CRISC Review Manual: Emphasizes the role of BIA in identifying critical IT assets and supporting risk mitigation strategies .

ISACA Standards: Outline the importance of aligning IT risk management with business continuity planning through effective BIAs .

Automated asset management software is the best method to track asset inventory, as it can provide accurate, timely, and comprehensive information about the organization’s IT assets, such as their location, status, configuration, ownership, and value. Automated asset management software can also help to optimize the utilization, performance, and lifecycle of the IT assets, and to reduce the risks of loss, theft, damage, or obsolescence. Automated asset management software can integrate with other systems, such as configuration management database (CMDB), service desk, and security tools, to enable better visibility, control, and governance of the IT assets.

References:

•ISACA, IT Asset Valuation, Risk Assessment and Control Implementation Model1

•ISACA, IT Asset Management: It’s All About Process2

•ISACA, IT Asset Management Audit/Assurance Program3

The effective implementation of a risk treatment plan is best indicated by managing residual risk within the organization’s appetite and tolerance levels. Residual risk is the remaining risk after controls have been applied, and ensuring it is within acceptable levels demonstrates that the risk treatment plan is effective.

Managing Residual Risk within Appetite and Tolerance (Answer B):

Definition: Residual risk is the risk remaining after risk treatment measures have been implemented.

Significance: Managing residual risk within the set appetite and tolerance levels shows that the implemented controls are effective and aligned with the organization’s risk management objectives.

Outcome: It ensures that the organization's risk exposure is kept within acceptable boundaries, thereby protecting its assets and operations.

Comparison with Other Options:

A. Inherent risk is managed within an acceptable level:

Definition: Inherent risk is the risk before any controls are applied.

Limitation: The focus should be on residual risk post-treatment.

C. Risk treatments are aligned with industry peers:

Purpose: While benchmarking is useful, it does not directly indicate the effectiveness of risk treatment.

D. Key controls are identified and documented:

Purpose: Identifying and documenting controls is necessary, but effectiveness is shown by managing residual risk.

References:

ISACA CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3, "Risk Response and Reporting", which highlights the importance of managing residual risk within the organization’s appetite and tolerance.

Escalating to senior management is the best course of action when an organization’s stakeholders are unable to agree on appropriate risk responses. This is because senior management has the authority and responsibility to make strategic decisions and resolve conflicts regarding risk management. Senior management can also provide guidance and direction on the risk appetite, tolerance, and criteria for the organization, as well as allocate resources and assign roles and responsibilities for risk response. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, one of the key risk response techniques is to escalate the risk to senior management when the risk exceeds the acceptable level or when there is a disagreement on the risk response1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, escalating to senior management is the correct answer to this question2.

Identifying a risk transfer option, reassessing risk scenarios, and benchmarking with similar industries are not the best courses of action when an organization’s stakeholders are unable to agree on appropriate risk responses. These are possible actions that can be taken as part of the risk response process, but they do not address the underlying issue of stakeholder disagreement. Identifying a risk transfer option can help reduce or share the risk with a third party, such as an insurance company or a vendor, but it may not be suitable or acceptable for all types of risks or stakeholders. Reassessing risk scenarios can help update the risk analysis and evaluation, but it may not change the risk level or the risk response options. Benchmarking with similar industries can help compare the risk performance and practices of the organization with its peers, but it may not reflect the organization’s specific needs or risks.

•Risk acceptance is a status quo risk response, where the risk owner acknowledges the risk exists but accepts it with minimal response1. Risk acceptance may be appropriate when the cost of other risk responses exceeds the value that would be gained, or when the risk is below the risk acceptance criteria2.

•Risk acceptance criteria are the criteria used as a basis for decisions about acceptable risk2. They should be established before conducting a risk assessment, and they may be influenced by factors such as utility, equality, technology, and risk perception2. Different organizations and countries may have different risk acceptance criteria, depending on their context and values3.

•In this scenario, the organization has conducted a risk assessment for regulatory compliance, and has identified only one possible mitigating control. However, the cost of the control is higher than the penalty of noncompliance, which implies that the risk is below the risk acceptance criteria. Therefore, the best recommendation is to accept the risk with management sign-off, which means that the management agrees to take the risk and is accountable for the consequences.

•Ignoring the risk until the regulatory body conducts a compliance check (option B) is not a good recommendation, as it may expose the organization to legal, financial, or reputational damage. Moreover, ignoring the risk may violate the principle of risk reduction, which states that risks should be reduced wherever practicable2.

•Mitigating the risk with the identified control (option C) is not a good recommendation, as it may not be cost-effective or efficient for the organization. The cost of the control is higher than the penalty of noncompliance, which means that the organization would spend more resources than necessary to reduce the risk. Moreover, mitigating the risk may not be aligned with the principle of utility, which states that resources should be used as efficiently as possible for the society as a whole2.

•Transferring the risk by buying insurance (option D) is not a good recommendation, as it may not be feasible or beneficial for the organization. Transferring the risk means that the organization shifts the responsibility or burden of the risk to another party, such as an insurer, a contractor, or a partner1. However, transferring the risk does not eliminate the risk, and it may incur additional costs or complications for the organization. Moreover, transferring the risk may not be possible or acceptable for some types of regulatory compliance risks, such as those related to health, safety, or environmental standards3.

References:

•Compliance risk assessments - Deloitte United States

•Compliance Risk Assessment [5 Key Steps] | Hyperproof

•Compliance Risk Assessments | Deloitte US

•Risk Acceptance Criteria: Overview of ALARP and Similar Methodologies as Practiced Worldwide

•Risk Assessment 4. Risk acceptance criteria - Norwegian University of Science and Technology

•Risk Acceptance - Institute of Internal Auditors

The effectiveness of a control refers to how well it achieves its intended purpose of reducing the risk of material misstatement or error in a process or activity2. One way to measure the effectiveness of a control is to monitor the number of control deviations detected, which are instances where the control fails to operate as designed or is not applied consistently or correctly3. A high number of control deviations indicates a low effectiveness of the control, while a low number of control deviations indicates a high effectiveness of the control. The other options are not good indicators of the effectiveness of a control, as they do not directly relate to the performance or outcome of the control. The scope of the control coverage, the number of exceptions granted, and the number of steps necessary to operate the process are more relevant to the design or efficiency of the control, not its effectiveness

Restricting access to the risk register on a need-to-know basis is important because it contains vulnerabilities and threats that could expose the organization to potential harm or loss if they are disclosed or exploited by unauthorized parties. The risk register is a tool that captures and documents the risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment processes1. The risk register contains sensitive information such as the sources and causes of risk, the potential impacts and consequences of risk, the likelihood and frequency of risk occurrence, and the risk response actions and plans1. If this information is accessed by unauthorized parties, such as competitors, hackers, or malicious insiders, they could use it to launch attacks, sabotage operations, or gain an unfair advantage over the organization. Therefore, access to the risk register should be limited to those who have a legitimate need and authorization to view, modify, or use the information, such as the risk owners, managers, or practitioners

Social engineering exercises are simulations of real-world attacks that exploit human vulnerabilities, such as phishing, baiting, pretexting, or quid pro quo. Conducting social engineering exercises can help assess the risk associated with data loss due to human vulnerabilities by measuring the employees’ susceptibility to such attacks, their awareness of security policies and procedures, and their response to incidents. Reviewing password change history, performing periodic access recertifications, and reviewing the results of security awareness surveys are also useful, but they do not directly test the employees’ behavior and resilience in the face of social engineering attacks.

The most appropriate action for the risk manager to take after undertaking a risk assessment of a production system is to inform the process owner of the concerns and propose measures to reduce them, as the process owner has the authority and responsibility to manage the production system and its associated risks and controls, and to decide on the optimal risk response. Recommending a program that minimizes the concerns of that production system, informing the IT manager of the concerns and proposing measures to reduce them, and informing the development team of the concerns and together formulating risk reduction measures are not the most appropriate actions, as they may not involve the process owner, who is the key stakeholder and decision maker for the production system and its risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

The most important factor when reporting to senior management on changes in trends related to IT risk is materiality. Materiality is the extent to which the information reported is significant, relevant, and useful for decision-making purposes. Materiality helps to prioritize the most important risks and communicate them effectively to senior management12

1: Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management - ISACA 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 271

The second line of defense is responsible for challenging the risk decision making of the first line of defense, which is the business process owners and managers. The second line of defense also provides oversight, guidance, and support to the first line of defense in implementing and maintaining effective risk management practices. The second line of defense includes functions such as risk management, compliance, quality assurance, and internal audit. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.2: IT Risk Management Roles and Responsibilities, Page 14.

 The ultimate goal of conducting a privacy impact analysis (PIA) is to identify gaps in data protection controls, as it involves assessing the privacy risks and impacts of collecting, using, storing, and disclosing personally identifiable information (PII), and determining the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing or proposed controls to mitigate those risks and impacts. Developing a customer notification plan, identifying PII, and determining gaps in data identification processes are possible steps or outcomes of conducting a PIA, but they are not the ultimate goal, as they do not address the root cause or solution of the privacy issues. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 155.

The risk practitioner’s best course of action after identifying risk scenarios related to noncompliance with new industry regulations is to escalate to senior management, as they have the authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate risk response and allocate the necessary resources. Transferring the risk, implementing monitoring controls, and recalculating the risk are possible risk responses, but they require senior management approval and direction. References = Risk Scenarios Toolkit, page 19; CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 107.

A loss event is the result of a realized risk scenario, as it represents the actual occurrence of an adverse outcome or impact due to the exploitation of a vulnerability by a threat. A threat event, a vulnerability event, and a technical event are not the results of a realized risk scenario, as they are more related to the sources, conditions, or mechanisms of the risk, respectively, rather than the outcome or impact of the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 100.

The best course of action when a recent regulatory requirement has the potential to affect an organization’s use of a third party to supply outsourced business services is to conduct a gap analysis, as it involves comparing the current and desired states of compliance, and identifying any gaps or discrepancies that need to be addressed. Terminating the outsourcing agreement, identifying compensating controls, and transferring risk to the third party are not the best courses of action, as they may not be feasible, effective, or appropriate, respectively, and may require the prior knowledge of the compliance gaps and risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 111.

Risk Treatment Strategy - Avoidance:

Definition: Risk avoidance involves taking actions to completely eliminate a risk by discontinuing the activities or conditions that give rise to it.

Application: In this case, the organization decided to shut down its online sales order system temporarily to avoid the risk of a data breach until sufficient controls are implemented.

Steps Involved:

Identifying the Risk: Recognizing the potential for a data breach due to inadequate controls.

Decision to Avoid: Determining that the best course of action is to shut down the system to prevent any possible breach.

Implementation: Taking immediate action to shut down the system and communicate this decision to relevant stakeholders.

Comparison with Other Options:

Transfer: Involves shifting the risk to another party (e.g., through insurance), which is not applicable here.

Mitigation: Involves reducing the impact or likelihood of the risk, but does not eliminate it completely as avoidance does.

Acceptance: Accepting the risk without taking action, which is not the chosen strategy here.

Best Practices:

Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Conduct thorough risk assessments to determine when risk avoidance is the most appropriate strategy.

Clear Communication: Ensure all stakeholders are informed about the decision and the reasons behind it.

CRISC Review Manual: Provides detailed explanations of different risk treatment strategies, including avoidance​​.

ISACA Guidelines: Highlight the importance of choosing the appropriate risk treatment strategy based on the specific risk scenario​​.

References:

Perform a Risk Assessment:

Immediate Action: The first step when discovering a non-compliant implementation is to understand the potential risks it poses to the organization. This involves identifying threats, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts of the non-fungible token (NFT) asset program.

Risk Identification and Evaluation: Assess the new program’s impact on the organization’s risk profile. Determine if it introduces significant security, compliance, or operational risks.

Documentation and Reporting: Document the findings and present them to senior management along with recommendations for mitigation or further action.

Comparison with Other Options:

Report the Infraction: Reporting is necessary but should follow the risk assessment to provide a clear understanding of the implications and necessary mitigations.

Conduct Risk Awareness Training: Training is preventive and should be part of a long-term strategy, not the immediate response to a specific incident.

Discontinue the Process: Discontinuing the process may be a necessary step after assessing the risk, but the assessment must come first to justify such an action.

Best Practices:

Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Ensure that the risk assessment covers all aspects, including financial, reputational, and regulatory risks.

Stakeholder Involvement: Involve relevant stakeholders in the assessment process to gather diverse perspectives and ensure a thorough evaluation.

Actionable Recommendations: Provide clear, actionable recommendations based on the risk assessment findings.

CRISC Review Manual: Discusses the importance of performing risk assessments when new systems or processes are implemented without following established procedures.

ISACA Standards: Emphasize the need for a systematic approach to identifying and assessing risks introduced by new initiatives or changes within the organization.

References:

Providing encrypted access to organizational assets is the best method to mitigate the risk of inadvertent data leakage by remote workers. Encryption ensures that data remains secure, even if accessed over unsecured networks.

 Understanding KPIs:

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are metrics used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of a process. They must be accurate and relevant to provide meaningful insights.

 Process Inefficiency Despite No Control Issues:

If a KPI shows inefficiency but no control issues are noted, it suggests that the KPI may not be accurately reflecting the process performance.

Recalibrating the KPI ensures that it correctly measures what it is intended to, providing a true picture of the process efficiency.

 Steps for Recalibration:

Review the current KPI and its alignment with process objectives.

Adjust the KPI parameters or thresholds to better reflect process performance.

Validate the recalibrated KPI with historical data to ensure accuracy.

 Comparing Other Actions:

Implementing New Controls: Premature without understanding the root cause of the KPI discrepancy.

Redesigning the Process: Extensive and unnecessary if the KPI is simply miscalibrated.

Re-Evaluating Existing Control Design: Important but secondary to ensuring KPI accuracy.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of accurate KPIs in monitoring process performance and the need for recalibration when discrepancies are found (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.14 Key Performance Indicators)​​.

Organizational objectives should be the primary input to determine risk tolerance, as they define the desired outcomes and performance of the organization, and guide the selection of the acceptable level of risk that the organization is willing to take to achieve those objectives. Regulatory requirements, annual loss expectancy (ALE), and risk management costs are not the primary inputs, as they are more related to the external or internal constraints or factors that affect the risk tolerance, rather than the drivers or determinants of the risk tolerance. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 109.

Prioritizing concerns based on frequency of reports is the most efficient approach to analyze the security-related concerns reported by employees, because it helps to identify and focus on the most common or recurring issues that may pose the highest risk or impact to the organization. A security-related concern is a potential or actual problem or threat that may affect the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the organization’s IT systems or data. A service desk is a function that provides a single point of contact for users to report and resolve their IT-related issues or requests. A workflow is a sequence of steps or tasks that are performed to achieve a specific goal or outcome. A workflow for supporting employee reports of security-related concerns may include capturing, categorizing, prioritizing, assigning, and resolving the concerns. Prioritizing concerns based on frequency of reports is the most efficient approach, as it helps to optimize the use of resources and time, and to reduce the likelihood and severity of security incidents or breaches. Mapping concerns to organizational assets, sorting concerns by likelihood, and aligning concerns to key vendors are all possible approaches to analyze the security-related concerns, but they are not the most efficient approach, as they may require more data collection, analysis, or coordination, and may not reflect the urgency or importance of the concerns. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 200

A risk register is a document that contains information about potential cybersecurity risks that could threaten a project’s success, or even the business itself2. Therefore, it is important to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the risk register from unauthorized or inappropriate access, modification, or disclosure. One way to do this is to implement role-based access, which is a method of restricting access to the risk register based on the roles or responsibilities of the users1. This way, only authorized users who need to view or edit the risk register for legitimate purposes can do so, and the access rights can be revoked or modified as needed. This would most effectively reduce the potential for inappropriate exposure of vulnerabilities documented in the risk register. The other options are not as effective or feasible as option C, as they do not address the need to balance the security and availability of the risk register. Option A, limiting access to senior management only, would compromise the availability and usefulness of the risk register, as other stakeholders such as project managers, risk owners, or auditors may need to access the risk register for risk identification, analysis, response, or monitoring purposes3. Option B, encrypting the risk register, would enhance the security of the risk register, but it would not prevent authorized users from exposing the vulnerabilities to unauthorized parties, either intentionally or unintentionally. Encryption also adds complexity and cost to the risk register management process, and may affect the performance or usability of the risk register4. Option D, requiring users to sign a confidentiality agreement, would rely on the compliance and ethics of the users, but it would not prevent or detect any breaches of the agreement. A confidentiality agreement also does not specify the access rights or roles of the users, and may not be legally enforceable in some cases5.

•A risk treatment plan is a document that describes the actions and resources needed to implement the chosen risk response strategy for each identified risk1. A risk response strategy is the way an organization decides to address a risk, such as avoiding, accepting, mitigating, or transferring it2.

•Sometimes, a risk treatment plan may not be completed on time due to various reasons, such as delays, resource constraints, technical issues, or changes in the risk environment. In such cases, the best approach is to implement compensating controls until the preferred action can be completed3.

•Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that provide a similar level of assurance or protection as the original controls, when the latter are not feasible or sufficient3. Compensating controls can help to reduce the residual risk or maintain the risk within the acceptable level until the risk treatment plan is fully executed3.

•For example, if the risk treatment plan involves installing a firewall to protect the network from external threats, but the firewall is not available or compatible with the current system, a compensating control could be to use encryption, authentication, or monitoring tools to secure the network traffic until the firewall is installed3.

•Implementing compensating controls is better than the other options because it allows the organization to continue with the risk treatment plan while maintaining an adequate level of security and compliance. The other options are not advisable for the following reasons:

oReplacing the action owner with a more experienced individual (option A) may not solve the problem if the issue is not related to the action owner’s competence or performance. Moreover, replacing the action owner may cause disruption, confusion, or conflict in the risk management process.

oChanging the risk response strategy of the relevant risk to risk avoidance (option C) may not be possible or desirable if the risk is associated with a critical or beneficial activity or process. Risk avoidance means eliminating the source of the risk or discontinuing the activity that causes the risk2. This may result in losing opportunities, benefits, or value for the organization.

oDeveloping additional key risk indicators (KRIs) until the preferred action can be completed (option D) may not be effective or efficient if the existing KRIs are already sufficient to monitor and measure the risk. KRIs are metrics or data points that provide early warning signals or information about the level or trend of a risk456. Developing additional KRIs may not reduce the risk or improve the risk treatment plan, but may increase the complexity and cost of the risk management process.

References =

•Key Risk Indicators: Examples & Definitions - SolveXia

•Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide | SafetyCulture

•Complete Guide to Key Risk Indicators — RiskOptics

•Risk Response Plan in Project Management: Key Strategies & Tips

•Risk response strategies: mitigation, transfer, avoidance, acceptance - Twproject: project management software,resource management, time tracking, planning, Gantt, kanban

•Risk Response Strategies: A Guide to Navigating Uncertainty - Teamly

•Compensating Controls | Audit and Compliance | Pathlock

In the three lines of defense model, the primary responsibility for ensuring risk mitigation controls are properly configured belongs to line management.

First Line of Defense:

Operational Management: Line management is part of the first line of defense and is responsible for managing risks and implementing controls in their day-to-day operations.

Direct Control: They have the most direct control over processes and are best positioned to ensure that risk mitigation controls are properly configured and functioning as intended.

Responsibilities:

Implementation and Monitoring: Line management is responsible for both implementing the controls and monitoring their effectiveness. They are on the front lines of risk management and are integral to maintaining control effectiveness.

Accountability: They are accountable for ensuring that controls are aligned with the organization's risk management policies and procedures.

References:

The CRISC Review Manual clearly outlines the roles in the three lines of defense model, emphasizing that operational management (line management) holds the primary responsibility for risk control implementation and configuration​​.

Presenting the impact of IT risks on organizational processes in monetary terms is effective for obtaining management buy-in because it directly relates to the organization's financial health and decision-making. It provides a clear and tangible understanding of the potential financial implications of risks, making it easier for management to appreciate the need for additional controls.

 Whistleblower Program:

A whistleblower program provides a confidential and anonymous channel for employees to report unethical behavior, violations of laws, regulations, or company policies.

It is a proactive approach to uncover ethical violations that might not be detected through regular monitoring and controls.

 Enabling Detection:

Encourages employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.

Provides management with early warning signs of potential ethical issues, allowing them to address problems before they escalate.

 Comparing Other Methods:

Transaction Log Monitoring: While useful for detecting anomalies, it may not specifically identify ethical violations.

Access Control Attestation: Ensures that users have appropriate access but does not directly address ethical behavior.

Periodic Job Rotation: Helps prevent fraud by reducing opportunities for unethical behavior but may not actively detect violations.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses the role of whistleblower programs in managing ethical risks and detecting violations (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 4: Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.4.4 Reporting Mechanisms) .

Preparing a risk response that is aligned to the organization’s risk tolerance is the next step after completing a risk assessment and reporting the validated vulnerability findings that require mitigation to the application owner, 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 is a strategy or tactic for managing the identified risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risk. A risk response should be aligned to the organization’s risk tolerance, which is the acceptable level of variation from the organization’s objectives or expectations. A vulnerability is a weakness or flaw in an IT system or application that can be exploited by a threat or attack to cause harm or damage. A vulnerability finding is a result of a vulnerability assessment, which is a process of identifying and evaluating the vulnerabilities in an IT system or application. A vulnerability finding requires mitigation, which is a type of risk response that involves applying controls or countermeasures to reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk. Therefore, preparing a risk response that is aligned to the organization’s risk tolerance is the next step, as it helps to address the vulnerability findings and to achieve the desired level of risk. Reporting the findings to executive management, reassessing each vulnerability, and conducting a penetration test are all possible steps to perform after preparing a risk response, but they are not the next step, as they depend on the results and approval of the risk response. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2, page 103

Ensuring senior management understands the organization’s risk universe in relation to the IT risk management program is primarily to define effective enterprise IT risk appetite and tolerance levels. This understanding is essential for setting the boundaries within which the organization is willing to operate regarding IT risks.

Defining Effective IT Risk Appetite and Tolerance Levels (Answer A):

Purpose: Senior management needs to understand the range and nature of IT risks to set appropriate risk appetite and tolerance levels.

Impact: This enables the organization to make informed decisions about which risks to accept, mitigate, transfer, or avoid.

Alignment: It ensures that the IT risk management strategy is aligned with the overall business objectives and risk posture of the organization.

Comparison with Other Options:

B. To execute the IT risk management strategy in support of business objectives:

Purpose: While important, it follows the definition of risk appetite and tolerance.

Limitation: Without understanding the risk universe, execution may be misaligned.

C. To establish business-aligned IT risk management organizational structures:

Purpose: Structural alignment is crucial but secondary to setting risk appetite and tolerance.

D. To assess the capabilities and maturity of the organization’s IT risk management efforts:

Purpose: This is part of the ongoing process but not the primary purpose of understanding the risk universe.

References:

ISACA CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 1, "Governance", which discusses the importance of risk appetite and tolerance in the context of IT risk management.

Updating a risk register with assessment results for a key project must primarily capture action plans to address risk scenarios requiring treatment.

Risk Register Purpose:

Documentation of Risks: The risk register is a central repository for all identified risks and their respective treatment plans. It ensures that all risks are documented, tracked, and managed throughout the project lifecycle.

Action Plans: It is crucial to document action plans for risks that require treatment. This ensures that there are clear strategies in place to mitigate or manage these risks.

Importance of Action Plans:

Mitigation and Management: Action plans detail the steps necessary to mitigate identified risks, providing a clear path for risk management. This is vital for ensuring that risks do not negatively impact the project.

Accountability and Tracking: Including action plans in the risk register assigns responsibility and timelines for risk treatment, which is essential for accountability and tracking progress.

References:

According to ISACA's guidelines, a comprehensive risk register should include action plans for addressing risk scenarios. This ensures that all identified risks are managed effectively and that appropriate actions are taken in a timely manner​​.

The risk profile is the most important thing to reassess when an organization implements new technologies that enable the use of robotic process automation (RPA). The risk profile is a comprehensive and dynamic view of the organization’s risks, their ratings, responses, and status. RPA can introduce new risks or change the existing risks related to the organization’s objectives, operations, and performance. For example, RPA can create risks such as system failures, data breaches, compliance violations, human errors, or ethical dilemmas. Therefore, the organization should reassess its risk profile to identify, assess, treat, monitor, and review the risks associated with RPA, and to ensure that the risk management strategy is aligned with the business needs and expectations.

References:

•ISACA, Robotic Process Automation for Internal Audit1

•ISACA, Key Considerations for Robotic Process Automation2

Assessing risk scenarios is the starting point when performing a risk analysis for an asset. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could cause harm or loss to an asset. Assessing risk scenarios involves identifying the sources and causes of risk, the potential impacts and consequences of risk, and the likelihood and frequency of risk occurrence. Assessing risk scenarios can help establish the risk context, scope, and criteria for the asset, and provide the basis for further risk analysis steps, such as evaluating threats, assessing controls, and updating the risk register. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, assessing risk scenarios is the first step in the IT risk assessment process1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, assessing risk scenarios is the correct answer to this question

Reassessing the risk profile is the first course of action that a risk practitioner should take after a hospital recently implemented a new technology to allow virtual patient appointments. This is because reassessing the risk profile can help identify, analyze, and evaluate the new or changed risks that the new technology may introduce or affect, such as data privacy, security, quality, reliability, or compliance risks. Reassessing the risk profile can also help determine the appropriate risk response and mitigation strategies, as well as monitor and report the risk performance and outcomes. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, reassessing the risk profile is one of the key steps in the IT risk management process1. According to the web search results, reassessing the risk profile is a common and recommended practice for addressing the risks of virtual patient appointments

During an initial risk assessment, it is crucial to consider existing controls primarily to determine the current risk level. Here's a detailed explanation:

Understanding Existing Controls:

Existing controls are measures already in place to mitigate risks. These controls can include technical, administrative, and physical safeguards designed to protect organizational assets.

Knowing what controls are currently in place helps to understand the organization’s current defense mechanisms against potential threats.

Assessing the Current Risk Level:

The current risk level is the risk that remains after considering the effectiveness of existing controls, often referred to as residual risk.

By evaluating these controls, one can determine how much risk is actually mitigated and what level of risk remains.

For instance, if an organization has implemented firewalls and intrusion detection systems, these controls would reduce the risk of cyber attacks. The effectiveness of these controls will determine the residual risk level.

Differentiating Between Risk Types:

Inherent Risk: This is the level of risk that exists before any controls are applied. It’s the raw risk associated with a particular asset or process.

Residual Risk: This is the risk that remains after existing controls have been applied. It's the actual risk that an organization faces after mitigation efforts.

Current Risk: This term is often used interchangeably with residual risk but focuses on the risk level at the present moment, considering the existing controls.

Primary Objective in Initial Risk Assessment:

The primary objective of considering existing controls during the initial risk assessment is to gain an accurate picture of the current risk landscape. This allows risk practitioners to understand what additional controls or modifications might be needed to further reduce risk to acceptable levels.

Without considering existing controls, the assessment would only reflect the inherent risk, which doesn’t provide a realistic view of the organization's risk exposure.

References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of understanding the current risk level by assessing existing controls (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.9.3 Current Risk).

A KRI is a measure used by an organization to measure the health of a particular risk. In this case, the risk practitioner is developing a metric to measure the risk associated with security threats that were not identified by antivirus software12.

References

1Standardized Scoring for Security and Risk Metrics - ISACA

2Key Performance Indicators for Security Governance, Part 1 - ISACA

The MOST important aspect for the risk practitioner to confirm is:

A. Appropriate approvals for the control changes

Ensuring that the control design changes have the appropriate approvals is crucial. This confirms that the changes are recognized and sanctioned by the necessary authority within the organization, aligning with governance practices and maintaining the integrity of the risk management process.

The risk practitioner’s best recommendation after recovery steps have been completed is B. Perform a root cause analysis. A root cause analysis is a process of identifying and assessing the underlying causes of a problem or an incident. By performing a root cause analysis, the risk practitioner can help the organization to understand how and why the cyber attack happened, what vulnerabilities and gaps were exploited, and what actions and controls can be implemented to prevent or mitigate similar incidents in the future12

A root cause analysis can also help the organization to improve its incident response plan, which is a set of instructions to help IT staff detect, respond to, and recover from network security incidents3 A root cause analysis can provide valuable feedback and lessons learned from the cyber attack, and help the organization to update and test its incident response plan accordingly45

Developing new key risk indicators, recommending the purchase of cyber insurance, and reviewing the incident response plan are all possible actions that the risk practitioner can take after a cyber attack, but they are not the best recommendation. Developing new key risk indicators can help the organization to monitor and measure its risk exposure and performance, but it does not address the root causes of the cyber attack12 Recommending the purchase of cyber insurance can help the organization to hedge against the financial losses caused by cyber incidents, but it does not prevent or solve the underlying issues67 Reviewing the incident response plan can help the organization to evaluate its effectiveness and identify areas for improvement, but it does not explain how and why the cyber attack occurred345

Therefore, the best recommendation is to perform a root cause analysis, as it can help the organization to understand, resolve, and prevent the cyber attack and its consequences12

Risk capacity is the amount of risk that an organization can financially afford to take, without jeopardizing its ability to meet its objectives or obligations. Risk capacity is determined by factors such as the organization’s income, assets, liabilities, and cash flow. An organization that has built up its cash reserves has increased its risk capacity, as it has more financial resources and flexibility to support additional risk. This may enable the organization to pursue more opportunities or initiatives that involve higher risk and higher reward.

Risk profile is a summary of the key risks that an organization faces, and their implications for the organization’s objectives and strategy. Risk profile may change due to factors such as new technologies, business initiatives, or external events, but not necessarily due to changes in cash reserves.

Risk indicators are metrics or indicators that help to monitor and evaluate the likelihood or impact of a risk, or the effectiveness or efficiency of a control. Risk indicators may vary depending on the risk sources, scenarios, or responses, but not necessarily due to changes in cash reserves.

Risk tolerance is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept, based on its risk appetite and risk capacity. Risk tolerance is influenced by factors such as the organization’s culture, values, and objectives, as well as the risk environment and expectations. Risk tolerance may change due to changes in cash reserves, but it is not the most likely impact, as it also depends on the organization’s risk appetite and other factors.

Risk response options are the most important factor to determine as a result of a risk assessment, as they involve selecting the optimal strategy and actions to address the identified and assessed risks, and align them with the risk tolerance and appetite of the organization. Process ownership, risk appetite statement, and risk tolerance levels are not the most important factors, as they are more related to the governance, definition, or communication of the risk, respectively, rather than the response to the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 108.

Risk management is the process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and communicating the risks that may affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives. Risk management helps to optimize the risk exposure and performance of the organization, and support the business objectives and strategies. The primary reason to engage business unit managers in risk management processes is to enable better-informed business decisions, which are the decisions that incorporate the risk information and analysis into the strategic and operational choices of the organization. By engaging business unit managers in risk management processes, the organization can ensure that the business unit managers have the insight and understanding of the current and potential risks, their likelihood and impact, their interrelationships and dependencies, and their alignment with the risk appetite and tolerance. This can help the business unit managers to prioritize the risks, allocate the resources, select the risk responses, monitor the risk performance, and evaluate the risk outcomes. References = 5