Free Isaca CCAK Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

 Cloud service providers offer application programming interfaces (APIs) to encourage clients to extend the cloud platform. APIs are sets of rules and protocols that define how different software components or applications can communicate and interact with each other. APIs enable clients to access the cloud services and data, integrate them with their own applications or systems, and customize or enhance their functionality and performance. APIs also allow clients to leverage the cloud platform’s features and capabilities, such as scalability, reliability, security, and analytics.12

Some examples of cloud service providers that offer APIs are Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services (AWS), IBM Cloud, and Oracle Cloud. These providers offer various types of APIs for different purposes and domains, such as compute, storage, database, networking, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, internet of things, and blockchain. These APIs help clients to build, deploy, manage, and optimize their cloud applications and solutions.34567

References := What is an API? - Definition from WhatIs.com1; What is a Cloud API? - Definition from Techopedia2; Cloud APIs | Google Cloud3; Cloud Services - Deploy Cloud Apps & APIs | Microsoft Azure4; AWS Application Programming Interface (API) | AWS5; IBM Cloud API Docs6; Oracle Cloud Infrastructure API Documentation

Role-based access controls (RBAC) are a method of restricting access to resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization. RBAC allows administrators to assign permissions to roles, rather than to specific users, and then assign users to those roles. This simplifies the management of access rights and reduces the risk of unauthorized or excessive access. RBAC is especially important for ensuring adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment, which is the final stage of the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) process where code is deployed to the end-users. Access to the production environment should be limited to only those who are responsible for deploying, monitoring, and maintaining the code, such as production engineers, release managers, or site reliability engineers. Developers, testers, or other stakeholders should not have access to the production environment, as this could compromise the security, quality, and performance of the code. RBAC can help enforce this separation of duties and responsibilities by defining different roles for different pipeline stages and granting appropriate permissions to each role. For example, developers may have permission to create, edit, and test code in the development pipeline, but not to deploy or modify code in the production pipeline. Conversely, production engineers may have permission to deploy, monitor, and troubleshoot code in the production pipeline, but not to create or edit code in the development pipeline. RBAC can also help implement the principle of least privilege, which states that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks. This reduces the attack surface and minimizes the potential damage in case of a breach or misuse. RBAC can be configured at different levels of granularity, such as at the organization, project, or object level, depending on the needs and complexity of the organization. RBAC can also leverage existing identity and access management (IAM) solutions, such as Azure Active Directory or AWS IAM, to integrate with cloud services and applications.

References:

Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines

Azure DevOps: Access, Roles and Permissions

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know

The cloud service provider is responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer in all three cloud deployment models (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). The hypervisor layer is the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. The hypervisor layer is part of the cloud infrastructure, which is owned and operated by the cloud service provider. The cloud service provider is responsible for ensuring that the hypervisor layer is secure, reliable, and up to date with the latest patches and updates. The cloud service provider should also monitor and report on the status and performance of the hypervisor layer, as well as any issues or incidents that may affect it.

The cloud service customer is not responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer, as they do not have access or control over the cloud infrastructure. The cloud service customer only has access and control over the cloud resources and services that they consume from the cloud service provider, such as virtual machines, storage, databases, applications, etc. The cloud service customer is responsible for ensuring that their own cloud resources and services are secure, compliant, and updated with the latest patches and updates.

The patching of the hypervisor layer is not a shared responsibility between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, as it is solely under the domain of the cloud service provider. The shared responsibility model in cloud computing refers to the division of security and compliance responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, depending on the type of cloud deployment model. For example, in IaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing the physical infrastructure, network, and hypervisor layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own operating systems, applications, data, etc. In PaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the platform layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own applications and data. In SaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the application layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own data and user access.

Patching on hypervisor layer is required, as it is essential for maintaining the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure. Patching on hypervisor layer can help prevent vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the virtual machines or other cloud resources and services. Patching on hypervisor layer can also help improve or enhance the features or capabilities of the hypervisor software or hardware. References :=

Patching process - AWS Prescriptive Guidance

What is a Hypervisor in Cloud Computing and Its Types? - Simplilearn

In all three cloud deployment models, (IaaS, PaaS, and … - Exam4Training

Reference Architecture: App Layering | Citrix Tech Zone

Hypervisor - GeeksforGeeks

Regarding suppliers of a cloud service provider, it is most important for the auditor to be aware that the client organization has a clear understanding of the provider’s suppliers. This is because cloud services often involve multiple parties in the supply chain, such as cloud providers, sub-providers, brokers, carriers, and auditors. Each party may have different roles and responsibilities in delivering the cloud services and ensuring their quality, security, and compliance. Therefore, it is essential for the client organization to have visibility and assurance of the performance and compliance of the provider’s suppliers and to establish clear and transparent agreements with them regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.12

An auditor should be aware of the importance of the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers because it provides a basis for assessing the risks and challenges associated with outsourcing services to a cloud provider and its supply chain. An auditor can use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to verify that the client organization has conducted a thorough due diligence of the provider’s suppliers and their capabilities, qualifications, certifications, and reputation. An auditor can also use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to evaluate whether the client organization has implemented adequate controls and processes to monitor, audit, or verify the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. An auditor can also use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the client organization’s security management program and to provide recommendations for improvement.34

References := Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.01; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …2; Cloud Computing: The Audit Challenge - ISACA3; Cloud Computing: Audit Considerations - AICPA4

In a multi-level supply chain structure where cloud service provider A relies on other sub cloud service providers, the provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the provider’s data or resources, and therefore need to comply with the same standards and regulations as the provider. Passing the compliance requirements to the sub cloud service providers can also help the provider to monitor and audit the sub cloud service providers’ performance and security, and to mitigate any risks or issues that may arise.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 85-86.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 7-8

A corrective control is a measure taken to correct or reduce the impact of an error, deviation, or unwanted activity1. Corrective control can be either manual or automated, depending on the type of control used. Corrective control can involve procedures, manuals, systems, patches, quarantines, terminations, reboots, or default dates1. A Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is an example of a corrective control.

Unsuccessful access attempts being automatically logged for investigation is an example of a corrective control because it is a response to a potential security incident that aims to identify and resolve the cause and prevent future occurrences2. Logging and investigating failed login attempts can help detect unauthorized or malicious attempts to access sensitive data or systems and take appropriate actions to mitigate the risk.

The other options are examples of preventive controls, which are designed to prevent problems from occurring in the first place3. Preventive controls can include:

A central antivirus system installing the latest signature files before allowing a connection to the network: This is a preventive control because it prevents malware infection by blocking potentially harmful connections and updating the antivirus software regularly4.

All new employees having standard access rights until their manager approves privileged rights: This is a preventive control because it prevents unauthorized access by enforcing the principle of least privilege and requiring approval for granting higher-level permissions5.

Privileged access to critical information systems requiring a second factor of authentication using a soft token: This is a preventive control because it prevents credential theft or compromise by adding an extra layer of security to verify the identity of the user.

References:

What is a corrective control? - Answers1, section on Corrective control

Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com2, section on Unsuccessful login attempts

Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?3, section on Preventive Controls

What Are Security Controls? - F54, section on Preventive Controls

The 3 Types of Internal Controls (With Examples) | Layer Blog5, section on Preventive Controls

What are the 3 Types of Internal Controls? — RiskOptics - Reciprocity, section on Preventive Controls

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit is to validate an understanding of the organization’s current state and how the cloud audit plan fits into the existing audit approach1. The auditor should consider the organization’s business objectives, strategies, risks, and opportunities, as well as the regulatory and contractual requirements that apply to the organization’s use of cloud services. The auditor should also assess the organization’s cloud maturity level, governance structure, policies and procedures, roles and responsibilities, and existing controls related to cloud services. The auditor should then align the cloud audit plan with the organization’s context and ensure that it covers the relevant scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology.

The other options are not the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit. Option A is a possible audit procedure, but not the main goal of understanding the organization’s context. Option C is a possible audit outcome, but not the main purpose of understanding the organization’s context. Option D is a possible audit finding, but not the main reason for understanding the organization’s context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 12-13.

Trust in a cloud service provider is fundamentally based on the assurance that the provider can deliver secure and reliable services. The level of proven technical skills is a critical factor because it demonstrates the provider’s capability to implement and maintain robust security measures, manage complex cloud infrastructures, and respond effectively to technical challenges. Technical expertise is essential for establishing trust, as it directly impacts the security and performance of the cloud services offered.

References = The importance of technical skills in establishing trust is supported by the resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA). These resources emphasize the need for cloud service providers to have a strong technical foundation to ensure the fulfillment of internal requirements, proper controls, and compliance with regulations, which are crucial for maintaining customer trust and mitigating risks1234.

According to the CSA website, the primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, trusted certification of cloud providers1 The OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework2 The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services, such as the lack of simple, cost effective ways to evaluate and compare providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy, and service portability2 The OCF also aims to promote industry transparency and reduce complexity and costs for both providers and customers3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because facilitating an effective relationship between the cloud service provider and cloud client is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential benefit or outcome of it. The OCF can help facilitate an effective relationship between the provider and the client by providing a common language and framework for assessing and communicating the security and compliance posture of the provider, as well as enabling trust and confidence in the provider’s capabilities and performance. However, this is not the main goal or objective of the OCF, but rather a means to achieve it.

Option B is not correct because ensuring understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a possible implication or consequence of it. The OCF can help ensure understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users by providing objective and verifiable information and evidence about the provider’s security and compliance level, as well as allowing comparison and benchmarking with other providers in the market. However, this is not the main aim or intention of the OCF, but rather a result or effect of it.

Option D is not correct because enabling the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential advantage or opportunity for it. The OCF can enable the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements by providing a flexible, incremental and multi-layered approach to certification and/or attestation that allows the provider to choose the level of assurance that suits their business needs and goals. However, this is not the main reason or motivation for the OCF, but rather a benefit or option for it.

References: 1: Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA 2: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 3: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. This will help the auditor to verify if the provider has a DR plan that meets the organization’s requirements and expectations, and if the provider has evidence of testing and validating the plan annually. The auditor should also check if the contract specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the RTO and RPO values, the SLA terms, and the penalties for non-compliance.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider (option A) might give some information about the provider’s security practices and controls, but it might not be sufficient or relevant to assess the DR plan. Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (option B) might also provide some assurance about the provider’s compliance with standards and regulations, but it might not address the specific DR needs of the organization. Planning an audit of the provider (option D) might be a possible course of action, but it would require more time and resources, and it might not be feasible or necessary if the contract and DR capability are already satisfactory. References:

Disaster recovery planning guide

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan