Free Isaca CRISC Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 6

Disaster recovery plans are essential for ensuring the continuity and resilience of business operations in the event of a disruption or disaster. However, creating and maintaining separatedisaster recovery plans for each business unit may not be cost-effective or efficient, as it may result in duplication, inconsistency, or gaps in the plans. Therefore, the best course of action would be to evaluate opportunities to combine disaster recovery plans across the business units, where possible and appropriate. This would help to achieve economies of scale, standardization, and alignment of the plans, as well as reduce complexity and costs. However, this does not mean that all disaster recovery plans should be identical or centralized, as different business units may have different risk profiles, recovery objectives, and requirements. Therefore, the combined disaster recovery plans should still be tailored and customized to suit the specific needs and characteristics of each business unit. References = ISACA CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, page 71.

Upon identification of an indicator of compromise (IoC) associated with an APT actor, the risk practitioner's best course of action is to assess the adequacy of existing security controls. This involves evaluating whether current defenses are sufficient to detect, prevent, and respond tosuch sophisticated threats. Ensuring control effectiveness is vital to mitigating the risk posed by APTs.CISA

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, risk nomenclature and taxonomy is the set of terms and definitions that are used to describe and classify risks and their attributes. Risk nomenclature and taxonomy is the most important consideration when aligning IT risk management with the enterprise risk management (ERM) framework, as it helps to ensure a common and consistent understanding and communication of risks across the organization. Risk nomenclature and taxonomy also helps to integrate and harmonize the IT risk management processes and activities with the ERM framework, and to facilitatethe aggregation and reporting of risks at different levels of the organization. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 197.

 The best course of action for a risk practitioner upon learning that a control under internal review may no longer be necessary is to obtain approval to retire the control. This will help to ensure that the control is removed in a controlled and documented manner, and that the relevant stakeholders are informed and agree with the decision. Retiring unnecessary controls can also help to optimize the control environment, reduce costs and complexity, and improve efficiency and performance. Updating the status of the control as obsolete, consulting the internal auditor for a second opinion, and verifying the effectiveness of the original mitigation plan are not the best courses of action, as they may not address the root cause of the control’s obsolescence, and may delay or complicate the control retirement process. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.2, page 1071

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 649.

A risk practitioner is a person who is responsible for performing risk management activities, such as identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and communicating risks. When an organization is implementing a project to automate the purchasing process, including the modification of approval controls, the task that is the responsibility of the risk practitioner is to verify that the existing controls continue to properly mitigate the defined risk. This means thatthe risk practitioner should ensure that the automation and modification of the approval controls do not introduce new risks or change the existing risk profile, and that the controls are still effective and adequate for the purchasing process. The risk practitioner should also monitor the performance and compliance of the controls, and recommend any improvements or adjustments as needed. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 177.

Updating the BCP to align with real-time recovery requirements ensures the organization’s resilience to disruptions while meeting regulatory standards. This action reflectsBusiness Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planningbest practices.

KRIs provide predictive metrics to monitor changes in risk levels, enabling timely interventions to maintain risks within the organization's appetite. This aligns with theRisk Monitoring and Reportingframework, which emphasizes proactive identification of risk thresholds.

Effective risk governance requires senior management to have a clear understanding of business risks and the associated ownership. This understanding enables them to make informed decisions, allocate resources appropriately, and establish accountability for risk management activities throughout the organization.

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 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 oreffectively. 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

Risk exposure is the potential loss or negative impact that may result from a risk. Expressing risk exposure in business terms means translating the technical or quantitative aspects of risk into meaningful and understandable information for the risk owner and other stakeholders. This canhelp the risk owner to make risk-aware decisions, as it can provide a clear and consistent basis for comparing and prioritizing risks, evaluating the cost-benefit of risk responses, and aligning the risk management strategy with the business objectives and value. The other options are not as helpful as risk exposure expressed in business terms, because they do not provide a comprehensive and relevant view of the risk, but rather focus on specific or partial aspects of the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 45.

Risk culture encompasses the values, beliefs, and attitudes towards risk within an organization. It significantly influences how risk appetite is defined and communicated. Understanding the organization's risk culture ensures that the established risk appetite aligns with stakeholder expectations and supports effective risk management practices.

The best way is toassess the loss impactif information is compromised. This aligns with ISACA’s risk management approach, which prioritizes the potential impact on business objectives and regulatory compliance when valuing information assets.

===========

Optimizing resource utilization is the main reason for prioritizing IT risk responses, as it helps to allocate resources to the most critical and urgent risks. The other options are not the main reasons for prioritizing IT risk responses, although they may be related to the process.

The business process owner is the person or entity that has the accountability and authority to manage a business process and its outcomes. The business process owner would be the most appropriate owner of the risk associated with an IT control gap in a key process, as they are responsible for ensuring that the process meets its objectives and delivers value to the enterprise. The business process owner should also ensure that the process is aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and risk appetite, and that the process risks are identified, assessed, and mitigated effectively. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 247. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 247. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 247. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the identified risks, their causes, impacts, probabilities, responses, and owners. It is a living document that should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in therisk environment and the status of the risk responses12. The best way to improve a risk register is to ensure that it is updated based upon significant events, such as:

New risks are identified or existing risks are eliminated

Risk probabilities or impacts change due to internal or external factors

Risk responses are implemented or modified

Risk owners or stakeholders change

Risk incidents or issues occur

Risk thresholds or appetite change

Risk reporting or communication requirements change

Updating the risk register based upon significant events can help to:

Maintain the accuracy and relevance of the risk information

Enhance the risk awareness and accountability of the risk owners and stakeholders

Support the risk monitoring and reporting activities

Facilitate the risk evaluation and decision-making processes

Improve the risk management performance and maturity

References =

Risk Register - Project Management Knowledge

How to Create a Risk Register: A Step-by-Step Guide - ProjectManager.com

The best way to mitigate the risk of reputational damage from inappropriate use of social media sites by employees is to implement training and awareness programs that educate them on the acceptable andunacceptable use of social media, the potential consequences of violating the policy, and the best practices for protecting the organization’s reputation and information. Training and awareness programs can also help to foster a culture of risk awareness and responsibility among employees, and encourage them to report any incidents or issues related to social media use. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4, page 131.

Facilitating the exception process ensures that any deviations from the standard risk assessment procedures are formally documented, reviewed, and approved by appropriate governance bodies. This approach maintains the integrity of the risk management process while addressing the business unit manager's concerns.

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

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

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, stakeholders are the individuals or groups that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the IT system and its risks. Stakeholders include the system owners, users, operators, developers, managers, auditors, regulators, and customers. It is most important to ensure that agreement is obtained from stakeholders when testing the security of an IT system, as this helps to define the scope, objectives, and expectations of the test, and to obtain the necessary authorization, support, and resources for the test. Agreement from stakeholders also helps to avoid any conflicts, disruptions, or misunderstandings that may arise during or after the test, and to ensure the validity and acceptance of the test results and recommendations. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 198, 224.

 The chief information officer (CIO) is the most likely person to be responsible for the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, because the CIO is the senior executive who oversees the information technology (IT) function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy, objectives, and operations. The CIO is also responsible for ensuring that the IT function delivers value, supports innovation, and manages IT risks effectively and efficiently. The CIO can coordinate the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy by communicating and collaborating with other business leaders, establishing and implementing IT governance frameworks and policies, and monitoring and reporting on IT performance and risk indicators. The other options are not as likely as the CIO to be responsible for the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, because they have different or limited roles and responsibilities in relation to IT and business risk management, as explained below:

A. Chief financial officer (CFO) is the senior executive who oversees the financial function and manages the financial risks of the organization. The CFO may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to budgeting, funding, or reporting on IT-related projects and initiatives, but the CFO is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives.

B. Information security director is the senior manager who oversees the information security function and manages the information security risks of the organization. The information security director may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets and systems, but the information security director is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives.

C. Internal audit director is the senior manager who oversees the internal audit function and provides independent assurance on the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s governance, risk management, and control processes. The internal audit director may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to auditing, reviewing, or testing the IT-related processes and controls, but the internal audit director is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1, page 7. The Strategic CIO: Balancing Business and ITPriorities, Technology’s Role in Enterprise Risk Management, Aligning Enterprise Cyber Risk and Business Strategy

A baseline assessment is the first step in assessing the maturity of an organization’s internal control environment. A baseline assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the current state of the internal control structure, processes, and activities across the organization. A baseline assessment helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing internal controls, as well as the gaps and opportunities for improvement. A baseline assessment also provides a reference point for measuring the progress and effectiveness of the internal control improvement initiatives. The other options are not the first steps in assessing the maturity of an internal control environment, although they may be part of the subsequent steps. Validating control process execution is a technique to verify that the internal control activities are performed as designed and intended. Determining if controls are effective is a process to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the internal controls in achieving the desired outcomes and mitigating the risks. Identifying key process owners is a task to assign the roles and responsibilities for the internal control design, implementation, and monitoring to the appropriate individuals or groupswithin theorganization. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 153-1541; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 742

 Masking data before being transferred to the test environment is the best recommendation to address the situation where sensitive data from the production environment is required for testing purposes in non-production environments. Data masking is a technique that replaces sensitive data elements with realistic but fictitious data, preserving the format, structure, and meaning of the original data. Data masking ensures that the test data is sufficiently anonymized and de-identified, while still maintaining its functionality and validity for testing purposes. Data masking also reduces the risk of data leakage, exposure, or breach in the test environment, which may have lower security controls than the production environment. The other options are not the best recommendations, as they do not adequately protect the sensitive data or meet the testingrequirements. Enabling data encryption in the test environment may protect the data from unauthorized access, but it does not prevent the data from being decrypted by authorized users who may misuse or mishandle it. Implementing equivalent security in the test environment may be costly, complex, or impractical, and it may not be feasible to replicate the same level of security controls as in the production environment. Preventing the use of production data for test purposes may not be possible or desirable, as production data may be required to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and quality of the testing results. References = P = NP: Cloud dataprotection in vulnerable non-production environments …; Data masking secures sensitive data in non-production environments …; CRISC EXAM TOPIC 2 LONG Flashcards | Quizlet

When disposing of storage media, the best way to prevent the loss of highly sensitive data is physical destruction. Here’s why:

Physical Destruction:

Physical destruction involves destroying the storage media so that the data it contains cannot be recovered or reconstructed.

Methods include shredding, crushing, incinerating, or using industrial-grade degaussers that destroy the magnetic fields on the media.

Comparison with Other Methods:

Degaussing:This method erases data by disrupting the magnetic fields of the storage media. While effective for some types of media, it may not work on all (e.g., solid-state drives) and does not provide a visual confirmation that the data is irrecoverable.

Data Anonymization:This process involves altering data to prevent identification of individuals, but it does not destroy the data itself and is not applicable for disposing of storage media.

Data Deletion:Simply deleting data does not remove it permanently. Deleted data can often be recovered using specialized software unless it is overwritten multiple times, which is still less reliable than physical destruction.

Security Best Practices:

Physical destruction is considered the most secure method because it ensures that the media is rendered completely unusable and the data cannot be retrieved by any means.

This method is recommended by various standards and frameworks, including NIST Special Publication 800-88 Guidelines for Media Sanitization.

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

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.

The most useful information to determine mitigating controls when a core data center went offline abruptly for several hours affecting many transactions across multiple locations is the root cause analysis. Root cause analysis is a technique that identifies the underlying factors or reasons that caused the problem or incident. Root cause analysis can help to understand the nature, scope,and impact of the problem or incident, and to prevent or reduce the recurrence or severity of the problem or incident in the future. Root cause analysis can also help to identify and prioritize the appropriate mitigating controls that address the root causes of the problem or incident. The other options are not as useful as root cause analysis, as they are related to the investigation, evaluation, or measurement of the problem or incident, not the resolution or prevention of the problem or incident. References = Risk and Information Systems ControlStudy Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.4: Key Control Indicators, page 211.

 The risk owner should be assigned accountability for monitoring risk levels, as they have the authority and responsibility to manage the risk and its associated controls, and to report on the risk status and performance. The risk practitioner, the business manager, and the control owner are not the best choices, as they have different roles and responsibilities related to risk identification, assessment, response, and reporting, but they are not accountable for the risk and its monitoring. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

 Understanding Risk Analysis:

Risk analysis involves identifying potential risks associated with a new application and assessing their likelihood and impact on the organization.

It provides a detailed understanding of the potential threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences, enabling informed decision-making.

 Steps in Conducting a Risk Analysis:

Identify Risks:Determine what risks could arise from the new application, including security vulnerabilities, compliance issues, and operational disruptions.

Assess Risks:Evaluate the likelihood and impact of each identified risk. This includes both qualitative and quantitative assessments.

Prioritize Risks:Rank the risks based on their assessed impact and likelihood to focus on the most significant threats first.

 Importance of Risk Analysis:

Provides senior management with a comprehensive view of the risks involved, enabling them to make informed decisions about proceeding with the application.

Helps in developing mitigation strategies to address the identified risks.

 Comparing Other Options:

Perform an Audit:Audits are useful for evaluating existing controls but are not the first step in assessing risks for a new application.

Develop Risk Scenarios:This is part of the risk analysis process but comes after identifying and assessing risks.

Perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis:Important for decision-making but follows the initial risk analysis to understand potential impacts.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of conducting a risk analysis to understand and manage risks associated with new applications (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.2.1 Conducting Risk Analysis)​​.

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.

Periodically reviewing and updating a risk register with details on identified risk factors primarily helps to provide a current reference to stakeholders for risk-based decisions, which are the decisions that are made based on the consideration and evaluation of the risks and their responses. Providing a current reference to stakeholders for risk-based decisions helps to ensure that the decisions are consistent, appropriate, and proportional to the level and nature of the risks, and that they support the organization’s objectives and values. It also helps to optimize the balance between risk and return, and to create and protect value for the organization and its stakeholders.

The other options are not the primary benefits of periodically reviewing and updating a risk register with details on identified risk factors, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of a risk register, which is to provide a current reference to stakeholders for risk-based decisions.

Minimizing the number of risk scenarios for risk assessment means reducing the scope and depth of risk analysis and reporting, and impairing the organization’s ability to identify and respond to emerging or changing risks. Periodically reviewing and updating a risk register with details onidentified risk factors does not necessarily minimize the number of risk scenarios for risk assessment, and it may not be a desirable or beneficial outcome for the organization.

Aggregating risk scenarios identified across different business units means combining or consolidating the risks that are identified by different parts or functions of the organization, and creating a holistic or integrated view of the organization’s risk profile. Periodically reviewing and updating a risk register with details on identified risk factors does not necessarily aggregate risk scenarios identified across different business units, and it may not be a sufficient or effective way to achieve a holistic or integrated view of the organization’s risk profile.

Building a threat profile of the organization for management review means creating or developing a summary or representation of the potential threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, and presenting or reporting it to the senior management for their awareness and approval. Periodically reviewing and updating a risk register with details on identified risk factors does not necessarily build a threat profile of the organization for management review, and it may not be a comprehensive or reliable way to create or develop a summary or representation of the potential threats or sources of harm that may affect 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 172

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

The most effective approach to prioritize risk scenarios is by assessing the impact to the strategic plan, because this will help to align the risk management process with the organization’s vision, mission, and goals. The strategic plan is the document that defines the organization’s direction, priorities, and objectives, and guides the allocation of resources and efforts. By assessing theimpact to the strategic plan, the organization can determine which risk scenarios pose the greatest threat or opportunity to the achievement of the strategic objectives, and prioritize them accordingly. The other options are not as effective as assessing the impact to the strategic plan, because they do not directly relate to the organization’s specific context, needs, and expectations, as explained below:

B. Aligning with industry best practices is an approach that involves following the standards, norms, and expectations for risk management that are established and followed by the peers or competitors in the same industry or sector. Aligning with industry best practices can help to benchmark and compare the organization’s risk management performance and maturity, and identify areas for improvement or innovation. However, this approach is not as effective as assessing the impact to the strategic plan, because it does not account for the organization’s unique and customized risk scenarios, which may differ from the industry average or standard.

C. Soliciting input from risk management experts is an approach that involves seeking advice, guidance, or feedback from the professionals or specialists who have the knowledge, experience, or skills in risk management. Soliciting input from risk management experts can help to enhance the quality and validity of the risk analysis and evaluation, and provide insights and recommendations for risk mitigation. However, this approach is not as effective as assessing the impact to the strategic plan, because it does not reflect the organization’s risk appetite, preferences, and expectations, which may differ from the risk management experts’ opinions or perspectives.

D. Evaluating the cost of risk response is an approach that involves estimating the resources and efforts required to implement the risk response strategies, such as avoiding, reducing, transferring, or accepting the risk. Evaluating the cost of risk response can help to optimize the risk management efficiency and effectiveness, and balance the potential benefits and costs of taking risks. However, this approach is not as effective as assessing the impact to the strategic plan, because it does not consider the potential consequences and outcomes of the risk scenarios, which may affect the organization’s performance and reputation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 45. The Ultimate Guide to Risk Prioritization - Hyperproof, Risk Prioritization: What Is It? [2021 Guide & Matrix] - ERM Software, What is Risk Prioritization | Centraleyes, Scenario Planning in Risk Management: Why It is Needed - SmartCompliance

The most helpful input to develop risk scenarios associated with hosting an organization’s key IT applications in a cloud environment is conducting a risk workshop with key stakeholders. A risk workshop is a facilitated session that involves brainstorming, discussing, and analyzing the potential risks and opportunities related to a specific topic or project. A risk workshop helps to identify and prioritize the most relevant and significant risk scenarios, as well as to explore the possible causes, impacts, and responses. A risk workshop also helps to engage and align the key stakeholders, such as the business owners, IT managers, cloud providers, and risk experts, and to leverage their knowledge, experience, and perspectives. The other options are not as helpful as conducting a risk workshop, although they may provide some inputor information for the risk scenario development. Reviewing the results of independent audits, performing a site visit to the cloud provider’s data center, and performing a due diligence review are all activities that can help to assess the current state and performance of the cloud environment, but they do not necessarily generate or evaluate the risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 4-13.

 The primary accountability for a control owner is to ensure the control operates effectively, as they have the authority and responsibility to design, implement, monitor, and report on the performance and adequacy of the control, and to identify and address any control gaps or deficiencies. Communicating risk to senior management, owning the associated risk the control is mitigating, and identifying and assessing control weaknesses are not the primaryaccountabilities, as they are more related to the roles and responsibilities of the risk owner, the risk practitioner, or the auditor, respectively, rather than the control owner. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

A control assessment is the process of evaluating the design and effectiveness of controls that are implemented to mitigate risks. A control assessment can help identify the root causes of data loss, thegaps in the existing controls, and the potential solutions to improve the control environment. A control assessment should be conducted after identifying a high probability of data loss in a system, as it can provide valuable information for risk response and reporting. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.2: Control Assessment, p. 147-149.

Scheduling periodic audits is the best way to facilitate the maintenance of data classification requirements, because it helps to verify and validate that the data are classified and handled according to the established policies, standards, and guidelines, and that the data classification requirements are updated and aligned with the changes in the data environment or regulations. Data classification is a process of categorizing data according to their sensitivity, confidentiality, and value to the organization, and specifying the appropriate handling and protection measures for each category. Data classification requirements are the rules or criteria that define how data should be classified and treated. Scheduling periodic audits is the best way to ensure that the data classification requirements are followed and maintained, and that any issues or gaps are identified and addressed. Assigning a data custodian, implementing technical controls over theassets, and establishing a data loss prevention (DLP) solution are all useful ways to facilitate the maintenance of data classification requirements, but they are not the best way, as they do not provide a comprehensive and independent review and assessment of the data classification process and outcomes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 158

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

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 andinterdependencies 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 Recovery Time Objective (RTO) is the maximum acceptable length of time that a system can be down after a failure or disaster. Determining the RTO involves assessing the cost of downtime and its impact on business operations to ensure that recovery strategies are cost-effective and aligned with business needs.

The percent of patches implemented within established timeframe is the best metric to demonstrate the effectiveness of an organization’s patch management process, as it measures how well the organization meets its patching objectives and reduces its exposure to vulnerabilities. This metric reflects the timeliness, completeness, and quality of the patching process, and can be compared against the organization’s patch management policy and standards. A high percent of patches implemented within established timeframe indicates that the organization has a mature and efficient patch management process that minimizes the risk of security breaches or operational disruptions due to unpatched systems.

 Performing a post-implementation review is the best way to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system, as it helps to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and its controls after they have been deployed and operationalized. A post-implementation review is a process of assessing and validating the system and its controls against the predefined criteria and objectives, such as functionality, performance, security, compliance, and user satisfaction. A post-implementation review can help to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system by providing the following benefits:

It verifies that the system and its controls meet the design specifications and standards, and comply with the relevant laws, regulations, and contractual obligations.

It identifies and measures the actual or potential benefits and value of the system and its controls, such as improved efficiency, reliability, or quality.

It detects and analyzes any issues, gaps, or weaknesses in the system and its controls, such as errors, inconsistencies, or vulnerabilities.

It provides recommendations and action plans to address the identified issues, gaps, or weaknesses, and to improve or enhance the system and its controls.

It communicates and reports the results and findings of the review to the relevant stakeholders, and solicits their feedback and suggestions.

The other options are not the best ways to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system. Conducting user acceptance testing is an important step to ensure that the system and its controls meet the user requirements and expectations, but it is usually performed before the system is implemented and operationalized, and it may not cover all aspects of the system and its controls. Reviewing the key performance indicators (KPIs) is a useful method to measure and monitor the performance of the system and its controls, but it may not provide a comprehensive or objective evaluation of the system and its controls. Interviewing process owners is a possible technique to collect and analyze information on the system and its controls, but it may not provide sufficient or reliable evidence to confirm the appropriateness of the system and its controls. References = Post-Implementation Review: The Key to a Successful Project, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Post Implementation Review (PIR) - Project Management Knowledge

 According to the Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, the main reason for analyzing risk scenarios is to identify additional risk scenarios that may not have been considered in the initial risk identification process. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe how, where, and why adverse events can occur. By analyzing risk scenarios, the risk manager can gain a better understanding of the relationships between assets, processes, threats, vulnerabilities, and other factors that may affect the organization’s objectives. Analyzing risk scenarios can also help to evaluate the likelihood and impact of the potential risks, as well as the effectiveness of the existing controls and the need for additional controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, Page 215. How to write good risk scenarios and statements

Internal audit provides independent assurance to the board and senior management regarding the effectiveness of risk management program implementation, consistent withGovernance and Assurance Principles.

 IT risk management is the process of 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 organization1.

The best indicator of the effectiveness of IT risk management processes is the time between when IT risk scenarios are identified and the enterprise’s response. This indicator can help to measure how quickly and efficiently the organization can detect and respond to the IT risks, and how well the organization can prevent or minimize the negative impacts of the IT risks. The time between when IT risk scenarios are identified and the enterprise’s response can include:

The time taken to identify and report the IT risk scenarios, using various methods and sources, such as risk assessments, audits, monitoring, alerts, or incidents

The time taken to analyze and evaluate the IT risk scenarios, using various tools and techniques, such as risk matrices, risk registers, risk indicators, or risk models

The time taken to select and implement the IT risk responses, using various strategies and controls, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer, or acceptance

The time taken to review and improve the IT risk management processes, using various feedback and learning mechanisms, such as lessons learned, best practices, or benchmarks23

The other options are not the best indicators of the effectiveness of IT risk management processes, but rather some of the inputs or outputs of IT risk management processes. Percentage of business users completing risk training is an indicator of the awareness and competence of the IT users and providers, which can affect the IT risk management performance, but it does not measure the IT risk management processes directly. Percentage of high-risk scenarios for which risk action plans have been developed is an indicator of the completeness and coverage of the IT risk management activities, which can affect the IT risk management outcomes, but it does not measure the IT risk management processes directly. Number of key risk indicators (KRIs) defined is an indicator of the scope and complexity of the IT risk management objectives, whichcan affect the IT risk management resources and capabilities, but it does not measure the IT risk management processes directly. References =

IT Risk Management - ISACA

Risk Management Process - ISACA

Risk Response - ISACA

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

Maintaining alignment between action plans and their associated risk is critical. The risk practitioner must ensure that each plan directly addresses its risk, not just that timelines, budgets, or indicators exist.

Although detailed references aren’t available in our accessible summary, ISACA guidelines emphasize verifying that responses remain appropriately focused on risk scenarios.

Risk tolerance is the most useful input when evaluating the appropriateness of risk responses, as it defines the acceptable level of risk for the organization and guides the selection of the optimal risk response. Incident reports, cost-benefit analysis, and control objectives are also useful inputs, but they are not the most useful, as they provide information on the actual or potential impact, cost, and effectiveness of the risk responses, but not the desired level of risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 108.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk taxonomy is the system of classification and categorization of risks based on common characteristics and attributes. Risk taxonomy is necessary to enable an IT risk register to be consolidated with the rest of the organization’s risk register, because it helps to ensure consistency, comparability, and alignment of the risks across the organization. Risk taxonomy also helps to facilitate the communication, reporting, and aggregation of the risks. The other options are not the correct answers, because they are not essential for consolidating the risk registers. Risk response is the action taken to address the risk, which may vary depending on the risk level and strategy. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept, which may differ across the organization’s units and functions. Risk ranking is the process of prioritizing the risks based on their impact and likelihood, which may change over time and context. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2, page 69.

Determining if organizational risk is tolerable requires understanding the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives1. Understanding the organization’s risk appetite can help to:

Define and communicate the risk tolerance, which is the acceptable or unacceptable level of risk for each risk category or scenario2.

Guide and align the risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment processes, and ensure that the risks are consistent and proportional to the risk appetite3.

Measure and monitor the risk performance and outcome, and ensure that the residual risk (the risk that remains after the risk responses) is within the risk appetite, or take corrective actions if needed4.

The other options are not the best ways to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, because:

Mapping residual risk with cost of controls is a useful but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it provides a quantitative analysis of the trade-off between the risk level and the risk response cost5. However, mapping residual risk with cost of controls does not consider the qualitative aspects of the risk, such as the impact on the organization’s strategy, culture, or reputation.

Comparing against regulatory requirements is a necessary but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it ensures that the organization complies with the applicable laws, rules, or standards that govern its activities and operations6. However, comparing against regulatory requirements does not guarantee that the organization meets its own objectives and expectations, which may be higher or lower than the regulatory requirements.

Comparing industry risk appetite with the organization’s risk appetite is a helpful but not sufficient way to determine if organizational risk is tolerable, as it provides a reference or a standard for benchmarking the organization’s risk level and performance with its peers or competitors7. However, comparing industry risk appetite with the organization’s risk appetitedoes not ensure that the organization addresses its specific or unique risks, which may differ from the industry risks.

References =

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Tolerance - CIO Wiki

Risk Management Process - CIO Wiki

Risk Monitoring - CIO Wiki

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

Regulatory Compliance - CIO Wiki

Benchmarking - CIO Wiki

Risk and Information Systems Control documents and learning resources by ISACA

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, access controls are the policies, procedures, practices, and technologies that are designed and implemented to prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to IT resources and data. Access controls are essential for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data, especially personally identifiable information (Pll), which is any information that can be used to identify, locate, or contact an individual. Insufficient access controls are the greatest concern related to data privacy when implementing an Internet of Things (loT) solution that collects Pll, as they can expose the data to various risks and threats, such asdata leakage, theft, loss, corruption, manipulation, or misuse. Insufficient access controls can also cause legal, regulatory, ethical, or reputational issues for the organization, if the data privacy rights and expectations of the individuals are violated or compromised. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 240, 253.

 The greatest concern for the risk practitioner when an organization wants to launch a campaign to advertise a new product using data analytics is the purpose limitation. Purpose limitation is a principle that states that personal data should be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. By using data analytics to target potential customers, the organization may violate the purpose limitation principle if the data was collected for a different purpose and the customers did not consent to the new use of their data. Data minimization, accountability, and accuracy are other principles that should be followed, but they are not as concerning as the purposelimitation. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 8; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 97.

Train all staff on relevant information security best practices, because it helps to increase the awareness and understanding of the employees regarding the acceptable use policy and its purpose, and to improve their skills and knowledge on how to protect and handle confidential information. An acceptable use policy is a document that outlines the standards and expectations for the proper usage of the organization’s IT resources, such as systems, applications, networks, or devices, and the consequences of non-compliance. Confidential information is information that is sensitive or proprietary, and may cause harm or damage to the organizationor its stakeholders if disclosed or compromised, such as trade secrets, customer data, or financial records. Training all staff on relevant information security best practices is the best way to reinforce the effectiveness of the policy, as it helps to ensure that the employees are aware of and comply with the policy, and that they adopt the appropriate behaviors and techniques to prevent or mitigate the risk of disclosing confidential information.

Communicating sanctions for policy violations to all staff, obtaining signed acceptance of the new policy from employees, and implementing data loss prevention (DLP) within the corporate network are all possible ways to reinforce the effectiveness of the policy, but they are not the best way, as they do not directly address the awareness and understanding of the employees regarding the policy and its purpose, and they may not be sufficient or effective to prevent or mitigate the risk of disclosing confidential information.