Free Isaca CCAK Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

A RACI chart is a tool used to clarify the roles and responsibilities in processes, projects, or operations. In the context of cloud compliance, documenting these responsibilities in a RACI chart ensures that all parties within the enterprise are aware of their specific obligations regarding compliance with laws and regulations. This helps in creating a clear, organized view of how each part of the organization contributes to overall compliance, facilitating better coordination and accountability.

References = The answer is informed by general best practices in cloud compliance and governance, which recommend the use of RACI charts or similar tools to delineate responsibilities clearly. While I can’t reference specific documents from the CCAK or related resources, these practices are widely accepted in the field of cloud security and compliance.

SLAs in cloud computing define performance metrics and uptime commitments, making them crucial for monitoring and measuring service delivery against predefined benchmarks. Metrics from SLAs help in tracking service performance, compliance with contractual obligations, and cloud service provider accountability. ISACA’s CCAK outlines the importance of SLAs for cloud governance and risk management, as they provide a measurable baseline that informs cloud audit activities (referenced in CCM under Governance, Risk, and Compliance - GOV-05).

=========================

 The primary component to determine the success or failure of an organization’s cloud compliance program is mapping who possesses the information and data that should drive the compliance goals. This is because the cloud compliance program should be aligned with the organization’s business objectives and risk appetite, and the information and data that support these objectives and risks are often distributed across different cloud service providers, business units, and stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential to identify who owns, controls, and accesses the information and data, and how they are protected, processed, and shared in the cloud environment. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-02: Data Governance, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage data throughout its lifecycle in accordance with regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and industry standards."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 53

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

 In a multi-level supply chain structure, the cloud service provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers, regardless of their geographic location. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the data of the provider’s customers, and thus may affect the compliance status of the provider. The provider should also monitor and verify the compliance of the sub cloud service providers on a regular basis. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-01: Regulatory Frameworks, which states that "The organization should identify and comply with applicable regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 51

 In situations where Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud service providers do not permit on-premise audits, auditors must adapt by utilizing alternative sources of data to evaluate the customer’s controls. This can include using automated tools, third-party certifications, and other forms of assurance provided by the service provider. This approach ensures that the auditor can still assess the security posture and compliance of the cloud services without direct physical access to the provider’s infrastructure.

References = The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) provides guidelines on effective cloud auditing practices, including the use of alternative data sources when on-premise audits are not feasible1. Additionally, discussions on the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) highlight the importance of adapting audit strategies to the cloud environment2.

According to the blog article “Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification” by the Cloud Security Alliance, a certification target helps in the formation of a continuous certification framework by incorporating the scope description and security attributes to be tested1 A certification target is a set of security objectives that a cloud service provider (CSP) defines and commits to fulfill as part of the continuous certification process1 Each security objective is associated with a policy that specifies the assessment frequency, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 A certification target also includes a set of tools that are capable of verifying that the security objectives are met, such as automated scripts, APIs, or third-party services1

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the service level objective (SLO) and service qualitative objective (SQO) are not part of the certification target, but rather part of the service level agreement (SLA) between the CSP and the cloud customer. An SLO is a measurable characteristic of the cloud service, such as availability, performance, or reliability. An SQO is a qualitative characteristic of the cloud service, such as security, privacy, or compliance2 The SLA defines the expected level of service and the consequences of not meeting it. The SLA may be used as an input for defining the certification target, but it is not equivalent or synonymous with it.

Option C is not correct because the frequency of evaluating security attributes is not the only component of the certification target, but rather one aspect of it. The frequency of evaluating security attributes is determined by the policy that is associated with each security objective in the certification target. The policy defines how often the security objective should be verified by the tools, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 However, the frequency alone does not define the certification target, as it also depends on the scope description and the security attributes to be tested.

Option D is not correct because CSA STAR level 2 attestation is not a component of the certification target, but rather a prerequisite for it. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is a third-party independent assessment of the CSP’s security posture based on ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)3 CSA STAR level 2 attestation provides a baseline assurance level for the CSP before they can define and implement their certification target for continuous certification. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is also required for CSA STAR level 3 certification, which is based on continuous auditing and continuous certification3

References: 1: Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification - Cloud Security Alliance 2: Service Level Agreement | CSA 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

Risk appetite and budget constraints have the most substantial impact on how aggressive or conservative the cloud approach of an organization will be. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Budget constraints are the limitations on the financial resources that an organization can allocate to its cloud initiatives. Both factors influence the organization’s strategic decisions on which cloud service models, deployment models, providers, and solutions to adopt, as well as the level of security, compliance, and performance to achieve. An organization with a high risk appetite and a large budget may opt for a more aggressive cloud approach, such as moving critical applications and data to a public cloud provider, while an organization with a low risk appetite and a small budget may opt for a more conservative cloud approach, such as keeping sensitive information on-premises or using a private cloud provider12.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 17-18.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 63.

According to the CCAK Study Guide, the business continuity management and operational resilience strategy of the cloud customer should be formulated jointly with the cloud service provider, as they share the responsibility for ensuring the availability and recoverability of the cloud services. The strategy should cover all aspects of business continuity and resilience planning, taking inputs from the assessed impact and risks, to consider activities for before, during, and after a disruption. These activities include prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, restoration, and improvement. The strategy should also define the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the communication channels and escalation procedures, the testing and exercising plans, and the review and update mechanisms1

The other options are not correct because:

Option B is not correct because the strategy should not only be developed within the acceptable limits of the risk appetite, but also aligned with the business objectives and stakeholder expectations of both parties. The risk appetite is only one of the factors that influence the strategy formulation1

Option C is not correct because the strategy should not only cover the activities required to continue and recover prioritized activities within identified time frames and agreed capacity, but also consider the activities for before and after a disruption, such as prevention, mitigation, improvement, etc. The strategy should also include other elements such as roles and responsibilities, communication channels, testing plans, etc1

References: 1: ISACA, Cloud Security Alliance. Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide. 2021. pp. 83-84.