Free IIBA IIBA-CCA Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Vendor Security Requirements must be included in theRequest For Proposalsbecause the RFP is the formal mechanism used to communicate mandatory expectations to suppliers and to evaluate them consistently during selection. Cybersecurity and third-party risk management practices require that security expectations be establishedbeforea vendor is chosen, so the organization can assess whether a supplier can meet confidentiality, integrity, availability, privacy, and compliance obligations. Embedding requirements in the RFP makes them contractual in nature once incorporated into the final agreement and ensures vendors price and design their solution with security controls in scope rather than treating them as optional add-ons later.

Security requirements in an RFP typically cover topics such as secure development practices, vulnerability management, patching and support timelines, encryption for data at rest and in transit, identity and access controls, audit logging, incident notification timelines, subcontractor controls, data residency and retention, penetration testing evidence, compliance attestations, and right-to-audit provisions. The RFP also enables objective scoring by requesting documented evidence such as security certifications, control descriptions, and responses to standardized security questionnaires.

A training plan and business continuity plan are operational deliverables and do not drive vendor selection criteria. A project charter sets scope and governance at a high level, but it is not the primary procurement artifact for binding vendor security obligations. Therefore, the correct answer is Request For Proposals.

When a system processes multiple information types with different security categorizations, cybersecurity standards require the system’s overall security categorization to reflect thehighest impact levelamong those information types. This is commonly called thehigh-water markapproach. The reason is straightforward: the system is only as secure as the protection applied to the most sensitive or most mission-critical data it handles. If the system were categorized at the lowest impact value, an attacker could target the weaker control baseline and still reach higher-impact information, creating an unacceptable gap in confidentiality, integrity, or availability protection.

In practice, categorization evaluates the potential impact of loss for each of the three security objectives and then selects the highest level for each objective across all information types handled by the system. That resulting system categorization then drives control selection, assurance activities, and the rigor of monitoring and incident response expectations. This approach also supports consistent governance: it prevents under-protecting systems that contain a mix of low and high sensitivity information and aligns control strength with worst-case business impact.

Segregating data across systems can be a valid architecture decision to reduce cost or scope, but it is not the required categorization rule; it is an optional design strategy that must be justified and implemented securely. Merging categories or using the lowest value contradicts risk-based protection principles and would likely fail compliance and audit scrutiny.

Transport Layer Security (TLS) strengthens the trustworthiness of application communications by ensuring that data exchanged over an untrusted network is not silently modified and is coming from the expected endpoint. While TCP provides delivery features such as sequencing and retransmission, TLS contributes to what many cybersecurity documents describe as “reliable” secure communication by addingcryptographic integrity protections. TLS uses integrity checks (such as message authentication codes in older versions/cipher suites, or authenticated encryption modes like AES-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305 in modern TLS) so that any alteration of data in transit is detected. If an attacker intercepts traffic and tries to change commands, session data, or application content, the integrity verification fails and the connection is typically terminated, preventing corrupted or manipulated messages from being accepted as valid.

This is distinct from merely being “stateful” (a transport-layer property) or “using TCP/IP” (a networking stack choice). TLS can run over TCP and relies on TCP for delivery reliability, but TLS itself is focused onconfidentiality, integrity, and endpoint authentication. Public/private keys and certificates are used during the TLS handshake to authenticate servers (and optionally clients) and to establish shared session keys, but the ongoing protection that prevents undetected tampering is the integrity check on each protected record. Therefore, the best match to how TLS ensures secure, dependable communication is the message integrity mechanism described in option B.

Directory management is important because it provides a centralized way to define identities, groups, roles, and permissions, which directly determines who can access network resources. In most enterprises, directory services store user and service accounts and then integrate with file servers, applications, email platforms, VPN, and cloud services. This integration enables consistent enforcement of authorization rules such as group-based access to shared folders and files, role-based access control, and least privilege. Option D captures this core security purpose: directory management is a foundational control mechanism for governing access to networked resources.

From a cybersecurity controls perspective, directory management supports secure onboarding and offboarding, ensuring that new users receive only appropriate permissions and that departing users are disabled promptly to reduce insider and external risk. It also strengthens authentication by enabling enterprise-wide policies such as password rules, account lockouts, multi-factor authentication integration, and conditional access. In addition, centralized directories improve auditability: administrators can review memberships and entitlements, monitor privileged group changes, and generate logs that support investigations and compliance reporting.

The other options are either too broad or not primarily about directory management. While directories help protect confidential information indirectly, their direct function is not “preventing outside agents” by itself; it is enforcing access rules. They also do not manage all application security through one interface, and preventing outsiders from knowing employee personal information is a privacy objective, not the main purpose of directory management.

Top of Form

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

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

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

Top of Form

Risk mitigation is the risk treatment approach focused onreducing risk to an acceptable levelby lowering either the likelihood of a risk event, the impact of that event, or both. In cybersecurity risk management, mitigation is accomplished by implementingcontrols and countermeasuressuch as technical safeguards, process changes, and administrative measures. Examples include patching vulnerable systems, hardening configurations, enabling multi-factor authentication, applying least privilege, network segmentation, encryption, improved logging and monitoring, secure development practices, and user awareness training. Each of these actions reduces exposure or limits damage if an incident occurs.

The other options describe different risk treatment strategies, not mitigation. Purchasing insurance is generally consideredrisk transfer, where financial impact is shifted to a third party, but the underlying threat and vulnerability may still exist. Eliminating risk by stopping the risky activity isrisk avoidance; it removes the exposure by discontinuing the process, system, or behavior causing the risk. Documenting the risk and preparing a recovery plan aligns more closely withrisk acceptancecombined withcontingency planningor resilience planning; it acknowledges the risk and focuses on recovery rather than reducing the probability of occurrence.

Therefore, the correct definition of risk mitigation is reducing the risk through implementing one or more countermeasures.

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

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

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

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

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

A data warehouse is designed primarily to supportanalytics, reporting, and decision-makingrather than day-to-day transaction processing. Operational systems are optimized for fast inserts/updates and real-time business operations such as order entry, billing, or customer service workflows. In contrast, a warehouse consolidates data—often from multiple sources—into structures optimized for querying, trending, and historical analysis. From a cybersecurity and governance perspective, this distinction matters because warehouses frequently contain large volumes of aggregated, historical, and sometimes sensitive information, which can increase impact if confidentiality is breached. As a result, controls like strong access governance, role-based access, least privilege, segregation of duties, encryption, and audit logging are emphasized for warehouses to reduce insider misuse and limit exposure.

Option B is false because warehouses often use different structures (for example, dimensional models) than production systems, specifically to improve analytical performance and usability. Option C can be true in some architectures, but it is not universally required; organizations may operate multiple warehouses, data marts, or lakehouse patterns, and not all operational data is appropriate to centralize due to privacy, cost, and regulatory constraints. Option D is incorrect because cleansing is commonly performed in dedicated integration pipelines and staging layers rather than changing operational systems to “pre-clean” data. Therefore, A is the best verified statement.

AnAccess Control List (ACL)is a structured, system-maintained list of authorization rules that specifieswho or what is allowed to access a resourceand what actions are permitted. In many operating systems, network devices, and applications, an ACL functions as an internal table that maps identities such as user IDs, group IDs, service accounts, or even device/terminal identifiers to permissions like read, write, execute, modify, delete, or administer. When a subject attempts to access an object, the system consults the ACL to determine whether the requested operation should be allowed or denied, enforcing the organization’s security policy at runtime.

The description in the question matches the classic definition of an ACL as a computerized table of access rules tied to login IDs and sometimes the originating endpoint or terminal context. ACLs are central to implementingdiscretionary access controland are also widely used in networking (for example, permitting or denying traffic flows based on source/destination and ports) and file systems (controlling access to folders and files).

AnAccess Control Entry (ACE)is only a single line item within an ACL (one rule for one subject). A “Relational Access Database” is not a standard security control term for authorization tables. A “Directory Management System” manages identities and groups, but it is not the same as the enforcement list attached to a specific resource. Therefore, the correct answer isAccess Control List.