Free PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 7

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 requires the audit team leader to conduct a follow-up audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified during a previous audit1. The follow-up audit should be conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and should result in a conclusion on the status of the nonconformities and any remaining issues1. Therefore, when conducting a follow-up audit, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

• Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.
• Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.
• Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.
• Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 6.2 requires an organization to establish information security objectives at relevant functions and levels1. The objectives should be consistent with the information security policy; measurable (if practicable) or capable of being evaluated; monitored; communicated; updated as appropriate1. Therefore, when auditing an organization’s information security objectives, an ISMS auditor should verify these aspects in accordance with the audit criteria.

Three responses from the ISMS auditor in training that would cause concern in relation to conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are:

• I am going to check that top management have determined the Information Security objectives for the current year. If not, I will check that this task has been programmed to be completed: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives at relevant functions and levels, not just at the top management level. It also implies that the auditor in training is willing to accept a delay or postponement in determining the information security objectives, which may affect the ISMS performance and effectiveness.
• I am going to check that the Information Security objectives are written down on paper so that everyone is clear on what needs to be achieved, how it will be achieved, and by when it will be achieved: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives that are measurable (if practicable) or capable of being evaluated, not just written down on paper. It also implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the flexibility and suitability of different media or formats for documenting and communicating information security objectives, such as electronic or digital records, posters, newsletters, etc.
• I am going to check that a completion date has been set for each objective and that there are no objectives with missing ‘achieve by’ dates: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives that are monitored, not just completed by a certain date. It also implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the possibility and necessity of updating information security objectives as appropriate, such as when changes occur in the internal or external context of the organization, or when new risks or opportunities arise.

The other responses from the ISMS auditor in training are acceptable and do not cause concern in relation to conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022. For example, checking how each Information Security objective has been communicated to those who need to be aware of it in order for the objective to be achieved is relevant to verifying the communication aspect of clause 6.2; checking that there is a process in place to periodically revisit Information Security objectives, with a view to amending or cancelling them if circumstances necessitate this is relevant to verifying the updating aspect of clause 6.2; checking that the necessary budget, manpower and materials to achieve each objective has been determined is relevant to verifying the planning aspect of clause 6.2; checking that all the Information Security objectives are measurable. If they are not measurable the organisation will not be able to track progress against them is relevant to verifying the measurability aspect of clause 6.2. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements

These two options are not required for audit planning of a certification audit, as they are not relevant to the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods. The working experience of the management system representative is not a requirement of ISO/IEC 27001, nor does it affect the conformity or effectiveness of the ISMS. The organisation’s financial statement is not part of the ISMS documentation, nor does it provide evidence of the ISMS performance or improvement. The other options are required for audit planning, as they help to determine the audit activities, resources, schedule, and sampling strategy. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 19-20; ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on2, page 1-2; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)3, clause 9.2.

The purpose of a follow-up audit is to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified in a previous audit1. A follow-up audit is a type of audit that is conducted after an initial audit, and it focuses on the specific areas where nonconformities were found and corrective actions were agreed upon2. A follow-up audit can be conducted as a separate audit or as part of a scheduled audit, depending on the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the audit programme objectives3.

The other options are not the purpose of a follow-up audit, but rather the purpose of other types of audits. For example:

•Option A is the purpose of a performance audit, which is a type of audit that evaluates the effectiveness of the management system in achieving its intended results4.

•Option B is the purpose of a compliance audit, which is a type of audit that verifies the conformity of the management system with the specified requirements, such as the ISMS objectives5.

•Option C is the purpose of a process audit, which is a type of audit that examines the inputs, activities, outputs, and interactions of a specific process within the management system, such as the risk treatment process.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 6.7; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 3.7; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 5.5.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 3.6; 5: ISO 19011:2018, 3.5; : ISO 19011:2018, 3.4; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : [ISO 19011:2018]

• A. Advise the Shipping Manager that his request will be included in the audit report. This is true because the audit report should document all the relevant information and evidence related to the audit, including any requests or objections raised by the auditee. The audit report should also provide the rationale for the audit conclusions and recommendations12.
• B. Advise management that the new information provided will be discussed when the auditors have more time. This is true because the auditors should not make hasty decisions based on incomplete or unverified information. The auditors should review and evaluate the new information in a systematic and objective manner, and determine whether it affects the audit findings, nonconformities, or conclusions12.
• F. Thank the Shipping Manager for his honesty but advise that withdrawing the nonconformity is not the right way to proceed. This is true because the auditors should acknowledge and appreciate the cooperation and transparency of the auditee, but also maintain their professional integrity and independence. The auditors should not withdraw a nonconformity unless they are satisfied that it was raised in error or that it has been effectively corrected and verified12.

References :=

• ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems
• ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, an audit programme is a set of one or more audits planned for a specific time frame and directed towards a specific purpose1. The individual(s) managing the audit programme are responsible for establishing, implementing and maintaining the audit programme in accordance with the organization’s policies and objectives1. This includes defining the extent of the audit programme based on strategic direction, risks and opportunities; establishing the audit programme by defining its objectives, scope and criteria; determining the resources necessary for the audit programme; selecting competent auditors and assigning them to appropriate audits; defining the objectives, scope and criteria for each individual audit; defining the plan of each individual audit; retaining documented information of the audit results; reviewing and improving the performance of the audit programme1. Therefore, these six actions are part of the responsibilities of the individual(s) managing the audit programme. The other option, communicating with the auditee during the audit, is not a responsibility of the individual(s) managing the audit programme, but rather a responsibility of the audit team leader1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

The appropriate actions to take next are to investigate whether pest infestation is an identified risk and if so, what risk treatment is to be applied, to determine whether the high levels of rainfall have had other impacts on data centre operations, and to check with the guide that they intend to initiate the organisation’s information security incident process. These actions are relevant to the ISMS audit objectives and criteria, as they relate to the organisation’s risk assessment and treatment, security performance, and incident management processes. The other actions are either not within the scope of the ISMS audit, not required by the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, or not the responsibility of the auditor. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 21-22; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)2, clauses 6.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.2.

The scenario described is a classic example of a phishing attack, which is a type of social engineering threat where attackers masquerade as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. The goal is to trick individuals into providing sensitive information. This represents an unauthorized action type of threat because it involves an attacker attempting to gain unauthorized access to personal information. References: = This understanding of phishing as a threat is consistent with the principles of information security management systems and is supported by resources that describe phishing attacks and their prevention