How to Easily Pass the Isaca CRISC Exam: Expert Advice

The best course of action for a risk practitioner when senior management is deciding whether to share confidential data with the organization’s business partners is to submit a report to senior management containing the possible risk and suggested mitigation plans. A risk practitioner is a professional who is responsible for identifying, assessing, and managing the risks that could affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A risk practitioner should provide senior management with the information and guidance they need to make informed and effective decisions regarding the sharing of confidential data. A risk practitioner should submit a report that outlines the possible risk scenarios, such as data loss, theft, or compromise, and their likelihood and impact. A risk practitioner should also suggest mitigation plans, such as encryption, access control, monitoring, or contractual agreements, that could reduce or transfer the risk. The other options are not as effective as submitting a report containing the possible risk and suggested mitigation plans, although they may be part of or derived from the report. Designing controls to encrypt the data to be shared, developing a project plan for classification of the data, and summarizing the data protection and privacy legislation are all activities or outcomes that could be included or referenced in the report, but they are not the best course of action for a risk practitioner. References = CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 2-23

 Risk tolerance is the best term to describe the situation where an organization has agreed to a 99% availability for its online services and will not accept availability that falls below 98.5%. Risk tolerance is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in order to achieve its objectives. Risk tolerance defines the acceptable variation in outcomes related to specific performance measures, such as availability, reliability, or security. Risk tolerance is usually expressed as a range, such as 99% +/- 0.5%. Risk mitigation, risk evaluation, and risk appetite are not the correct terms to describe this situation, because they refer to different aspects of risk management, such as reducing, assessing, or pursuing risk, respectively. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, page 1-8.

An IT risk threat analysis is best used to establish risk scenarios. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that may affect the achievement of the IT objectives. A risk scenario consists of three elements: a threat, a vulnerability, and an impact. A threat is a potential cause of an unwanted incident. A vulnerability is a weakness or flaw that can be exploited by a threat. An impact is the consequence or effect of the incident on the IT objectives. An IT risk threat analysis is a technique that identifies and evaluates the threats that may pose a risk to the IT assets and processes. An IT risk threat analysis can help to establish risk scenarios by providing the information and context for the threat element of the risk scenario. The other options are not as directly related to an IT risk threat analysis, as they are related to the outcomes, measures, or responsibilities of the IT risk management process, not the inputs or sources of the IT risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.3: IT Risk Scenarios, page 23.

The first thing that should be done by IT governance to support the development of a new risk management plan to specifically address legal and regulatory risk scenarios is to establish IT-specific compliance objectives. Compliance objectives are the goals or targets that the organization sets to ensure that its IT activities and processes comply with the relevant laws, regulations, standards, and contracts. Compliance objectives help to define the scope, criteria, and expectations for the IT compliance program, and to align the IT compliance activities with the organization’s strategy, risk appetite, and performance measures. Compliance objectives also help to communicate and demonstrate the organization’s commitment and accountability for IT compliance to the internal and external stakeholders, such as the board, management, regulators, auditors, and customers. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, although they may be useful or necessary steps or components of the IT compliance program. Requesting a regulatory risk reporting methodology, requiring critical success factors (CSFs) for IT risks, and communicating IT key risk indicators (KRIs) and triggers are all activities that can help to implement and monitor the IT compliance program, but they require the prior definition and agreement of the IT compliance objectives. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1, page 2-37.

 The key performance indicator (KPI) that best measures the effectiveness of an organization’s disaster recovery program is the percentage of critical systems recovered within the recovery time objective (RTO). The RTO is the acceptable timeframe within which a business process or system must be restored after a disruption. The percentage of critical systems recovered within the RTO indicates how well the disaster recovery program can meet the business continuity requirements and minimize the impact of the disruption. The other options are not as good as the percentage of critical systems recovered within the RTO, as they are related to the efficiency, quality, or scope of the disaster recovery program, not the effectiveness of the disaster recovery program. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Performance Indicators, page 183.

Accepting risk is the only risk response strategy that could be applied to both positive and negative risk that has been identified. Accepting risk means taking no action to change the likelihood or impact of the risk, but being prepared to deal with the consequences if the risk occurs. Accepting risk is usually chosen when the risk is low, unavoidable, or outweighed by the benefits. For positive risks, accepting risk means taking advantage of the opportunities if they arise. For negative risks, accepting risk means setting aside contingency reserves or plans to cope with the threats. The other risk response strategies are specific to either positive or negative risks. Transfer, exploit, and mitigate are strategies for negative risks, while share, enhance, and avoid are strategies for positive risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, page 4-23.

The greatest concern when establishing key risk indicators (KRIs) is using ineffective methods to assess risk. KRIs are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of risks, and help monitor and prioritize the most critical risks. To establish effective KRIs, the risk assessment methods should be reliable, valid, consistent, and timely. Ineffective methods to assess risk could lead to inaccurate or misleading KRIs, which could result in poor risk management decisions and outcomes. The other options are not as significant as using ineffective methods to assess risk, although they may also affect the quality and usefulness of KRIs. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, page 4-36.

The lack of integrity of data is the greatest concern when replication of a critical database used by two business units failed. Data integrity means that the data is accurate, complete, consistent, and reliable. If the replication failed, it means that the data in the primary and secondary databases may not be synchronized and may have discrepancies or errors. This could affect the quality and reliability of the data and the business processes that depend on it. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of integrity of data, as they are related to the efficiency, cost, or confidentiality of the data, which are less critical than the accuracy and reliability of the data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Performance Indicators, page 183.

The best way to prevent technical vulnerabilities from being exploited is to update the software with the latest patches and updates. Patches and updates are software modifications that fix the known bugs, errors, or flaws in the software. They also improve the performance, functionality, and security of the software. By updating the software with the latest patches and updates, the company can reduce the exposure and likelihood of the technical vulnerabilities, and protect the software from potential attacks or exploits. The other options are not as effective as updating the software with the latest patches and updates, as they are related to the quality assurance, legal protection, or error handling of the software, not the prevention or mitigation of the technical vulnerabilities. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

The person who should be accountable for resolving the situation where a root cause analysis indicates a major service disruption due to a lack of competency of newly hired IT system administrators is the chief information officer (CIO). The CIO is the senior executive who is responsible for the overall management and governance of the IT function within the organization, including the IT strategy, objectives, policies, processes, and resources. The CIO is also accountable for the performance and value of the IT services and systems, and for ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of the business and its stakeholders. The CIO should be accountable for resolving the situation, because it involves a major IT service disruption that could affect the organization’s operations and reputation, and because it is related to the IT staff competency and capability, which are under the CIO’s authority and responsibility. The other options are not as accountable as the CIO, although they may have some roles or involvement in the situation. The HR training director, the business process owner, and the HR recruitment manager are not directly responsible for the IT function or the IT service delivery, and they may not have the authority or the expertise to resolve the situation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 2-3.

 Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that provide an early warning of increasing risk exposure in various areas of the organization. They help to monitor changes in the level of risk and enable timely actions to mitigate the risk. The major advantage of using KRIs is that they identify when risk exceeds defined thresholds, which are the acceptable or tolerable levels of risk that the organization has established. By identifying when risk exceeds defined thresholds, the KRIs can alert the management and stakeholders of the need to take corrective or preventive measures, and avoid or reduce the potential losses or damages. References = 3

The primary objective of collecting information and reviewing documentation when performing periodic risk analysis is to identify new or emerging risk issues that may affect the enterprise’s objectives, processes, or resources. This helps to update the risk profile and prioritize the risk responses accordingly. Satisfying audit requirements, surveying and analyzing historical risk data, and understanding internal and external threat agents are secondary objectives that support the primary objective of risk identification. References = Risk IT Framework, 2nd Edition, page 22; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 64.

The standard operating procedure (SOP) statement that best illustrates appropriate risk register maintenance is to remove risk when mitigation results in residual risk within tolerance levels. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk response or mitigation has been applied. Tolerance levels are the acceptable or allowable ranges of variation or deviation from the expected or desired outcomes or objectives. When the mitigation results in residual risk within tolerance levels, it means that the risk has been reduced or managed to an acceptable or satisfactory level, and that no further action or monitoring is required. Therefore, the risk can be removed from the risk register, as it is no longer a significant or relevant risk for the organization. The other options are not as appropriate as removing risk when mitigation results in residual risk within tolerance levels, as they are related to the transfer, acceptance, or change of the risk, not the removal of the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Response, page 87.

The most important concern when assigning multiple risk owners for an identified risk is that accountability may not be clearly defined. Accountability is the obligation of an individual or group to take responsibility for the risk and its associated actions and outcomes. If multiple risk owners are assigned for the same risk, there may be confusion, conflict, or overlap in their roles and responsibilities, and they may not be held accountable for the risk management performance. Risk ratings being inconsistently applied, different risk taxonomies being used, and mitigation efforts being duplicated are other possible concerns, but they are not as important as accountability not being clearly defined. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 12; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 215.

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

The best way to ensure key risk indicators (KRIs) provide value to risk owners is to provide timely notification of the changes in the risk exposure. KRIs are metrics that provide an early warning of increasing risk exposure in various areas of the organization. By providing timely notification of the KRI values, the risk owners can be alerted of the risk situation and take appropriate actions to manage the risk. Ongoing training, return on investment (ROI), and cost minimization are other possible ways to ensure KRIs provide value, but they are not as effective as timely notification. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 10; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 140.

The most comprehensive resource for prioritizing the implementation of information systems controls is the risk register. The risk register is a document that records the identified risks, their analysis, and their responses. The risk register provides a holistic and systematic view of the risk profile and the risk treatment of the organization. The risk register can help to prioritize the implementation of information systems controls by providing the information on the likelihood, impact, and exposure of the risks, the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, and the gaps or issues of the control environment. The other options are not as comprehensive as the risk register, as they are related to the specific aspects or components of the information systems controls, not the overall assessment and evaluation of the information systems controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Response, page 87.

 A heat map is a graphical tool that displays the level of risk severity for various risk scenarios or categories using different colors, shapes, or sizes. A heat map is most helpful in providing a high-level overview of current IT risk severity, as it can show the relative importance and urgency of the risks, and highlight the areas that require attention or action. A heat map can also help to communicate the risk information to the stakeholders, and facilitate the risk prioritization and decision making. References = 5

The management action that will most likely change the likelihood rating of a risk scenario related to remote network access is implementing multi-factor authentication. Multi-factor authentication is a technique that requires the user to provide two or more pieces of evidence to verify their identity, such as a password, a token, or a biometric factor. Multi-factor authentication can help to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized or malicious access to the remote network, as it adds an extra layer of security and makes it harder for the attackers to compromise the user credentials. The other options are not as likely to change the likelihood rating of the risk scenario, as they are related to the update, creation, or maintenance of the remote network access, not the verification or protection of the remote network access. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

The most important thing when implementing an organization’s security policy is to obtain management support. Management support means that the senior management and the board of directors endorse, approve, and fund the security policy and its implementation. Management support also means that the management communicates, promotes, and enforces the security policy across the organization. Management support can help to ensure that the security policy is aligned with the organizational strategy and objectives, and that it is effective, consistent, and sustainable. The other options are not as important as obtaining management support, as they are related to the specific aspects or components of the security policy implementation, not the overall success and acceptance of the security policy implementation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

A dashboard summarizing key risk indicators (KRIs) is the best way for a risk practitioner to present an annual risk management update to the board because it provides a concise and visual overview of the current risk status, trends, and performance of the organization. KRIs are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of risks, and help the board monitor and prioritize the most critical risks. A summary of risk response plans, a report with control environment assessment results, and a summary of IT risk scenarios are all useful information, but they are too detailed and technical for the board, who needs a high-level and strategic view of the risk management program. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, page 4-36.

 The primary reason to report the information about the new risk scenarios identified after the implementation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices to risk owners is to confirm the impact to the risk profile. The risk profile is a summary of the level and nature of the risks that the organization faces or may face in the future. The risk profile reflects the risk appetite, tolerance, and capacity of the organization, and guides the risk management decisions and actions. The implementation of IoT devices may introduce new risks or increase the likelihood or impact of existing risks, such as data privacy, security, or interoperability issues. Therefore, the information about the new risk scenarios should be reported to the risk owners, who have the authority and responsibility for managing the risks and their responses, to confirm the impact to the risk profile and to determine the appropriate risk treatment plans. The other options are not as primary as confirming the impact to the risk profile, as they are related to the reevaluation, mitigation, or recommendation of the IoT devices, not the confirmation or assessment of the risk profile. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.2: IT Risk Register, page 19.

The main benefit of using key risk indicators (KRIs) for an organization is that they provide an early warning that a risk threshold is about to be reached. KRIs are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of risks, and help monitor and prioritize the most critical risks. KRIs also help to trigger timely and appropriate risk responses, before the risk becomes unmanageable or unacceptable. The other options are not the main benefit of using KRIs, although they may be secondary benefits or outcomes. KRIs signal that a change in the control environment has occurred, provide a basis to set the risk appetite for an organization, and assist in the preparation of the organization’s risk profile. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, page 4-36.

The most concerning factor for a risk practitioner reviewing risk action plans for documented IT risk scenarios is that many action plans were discontinued after senior management accepted the risk. Risk action plans are documents that define the roles, responsibilities, procedures, and resources for implementing the risk responses and strategies for the IT risk scenarios. Risk action plans help to reduce, transfer, avoid, or accept the IT risks, and to monitor and report on the IT risk performance and improvement. Discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk is a major concern, because it may indicate that the risk acceptance decision was not based on a proper risk analysis or evaluation, or that the risk acceptance decision was not communicated or coordinated with the relevant stakeholders, such as the board, management, business units, and IT functions. Discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk may also create challenges or risks for the organization, such as compliance, legal, reputational, or operational risks, or conflicts or inconsistencies with the organization’s risk appetite, risk objectives, or risk policies. The other options are not as concerning as discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk, although they may also pose some difficulties or limitations for the risk management process. Individuals outside IT managing action plans for the risk scenarios, target dates for completion missing from some action plans, and senior management approving multiple changes to several action plans are all factors that could affect the quality and timeliness of the risk management process, but they do not necessarily indicate a lack of risk management accountability or oversight. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, page 4-32.