Free PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 9

Scenario 4: SendPay is a financial company that provides its services through a network of agents and financial institutions. One of their main services is transferring money worldwide. SendPay, as a new company, seeks to offer top quality services to its clients. Since the company offers international transactions, it requires from their clients to provide personal information, such as their identity, the reason for the transactions, and other details that might be needed to complete the transaction. Therefore, SendPay has implemented security measures to protect their clients' information, including detecting, investigating, and responding to any information security threats that may emerge. Their commitment to offering secure services was also reflected during the ISMS implementation where the company invested a lot of time and resources.

Last year, SendPay unveiled their digital platform that allows money transactions through electronic devices, such as smartphones or laptops, without requiring an additional fee. Through this platform, SendPay's clients can send and receive money from anywhere and at any time. The digital platform helped SendPay to simplify the company's operations and further expand its business. At the time, SendPay was outsourcing its software operations, hence the project was completed by the software development team of the outsourced company. The same team was also responsible for maintaining the technology infrastructure of SendPay.

Recently, the company applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification after having an ISMS in place for almost a year. They contracted a certification body that fit their criteria. Soon after, the certification body appointed a team of four auditors to audit SendPay's ISMS.

During the audit, among others, the following situations were observed:

1.The outsourced software company had terminated the contract with SendPay without prior notice. As a result, SendPay was unable to immediately bring the services back in-house and its operations were disrupted for five days. The auditors requested from SendPay's representatives to provide evidence that they have a plan to follow in cases of contract terminations. The representatives did not provide any documentary evidence but during an interview, they told the auditors that the top management of SendPay had identified two other software development companies that could provide services immediately if similar situations happen again.

2.There was no evidence available regarding the monitoring of the activities that were outsourced to the software development company. Once again, the representatives of SendPay told the auditors that they regularly communicate with the software development company and that they are appropriately informed for any possible change that might occur.

3.There was no nonconformity found during the firewall testing. The auditors tested the firewall configuration in order to determine the level of security provided by

these services. They used a packet analyzer to test the firewall policies which enabled them to check the packets sent or received in real-time.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

Regarding the third situation observed, auditors themselves tested the configuration of firewalls implemented in SendPay's network. How do you describe this situation? Refer to scenario 4.

Scenario 5: Data Grid Inc. is a well-known company that delivers security services across the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. For two decades, Data Grid Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks through advanced products and services. Having achieved reputation in the information and network security field, Data Grid Inc. decided to obtain the ISO/IEC 27001 certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain competitive advantage.

Data Grid Inc. appointed the audit team, who agreed on the terms of the audit mandate. In addition, Data Grid Inc. defined the audit scope, specified the audit criteria, and proposed to close the audit within five days. The audit team rejected Data Grid Inc.'s proposal to conduct the audit within five days, since the company has a large number of employees and complex processes. Data Grid Inc. insisted that they have planned to complete the audit within five days, so both parties agreed upon conducting the audit within the defined duration. The audit team followed a risk-based auditing approach.

To gain an overview of the main business processes and controls, the audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts. They were unable to perform a deeper analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was restricted. However, the audit team stated that the risk that a significant defect could occur to Data Grid Inc.'s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by asking the representatives of Data Grid Inc. the following questions:

•How are responsibilities for IT and IT controls defined and assigned?

•How does Data Grid Inc. assess whether the controls have achieved the desired results?

•What controls does Data Grid Inc. have in place to protect the operating environment and data from malicious software?

•Are firewall-related controls implemented?

Data Grid Inc.'s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

The audit team leader drafted the audit conclusions and reported them to Data Grid Inc.'s top management. Though Data Grid Inc. was recommended for certification by the auditors, misunderstandings were raised between Data Grid Inc. and the certification body in regards to audit objectives. Data Grid Inc. stated that even though the audit objectives included the identification of areas for potential improvement, the audit team did not provide such information.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

Based on scenario 5, the audit team assessed the ISMS as a whole, rather than assessing the effectiveness and conformity of each process. Is this acceptable?