Free Practice Questions for HITRUST CCSFP Exam

HITRUST uses a scoring scale from 0 to 100, with categories for Fully Compliant, Mostly Compliant, Partially Compliant, Somewhat Compliant, and Non-Compliant. A score of 37 falls into the “Somewhat Compliant” category. This reflects significant weaknesses in Policy, Procedure, or Implementation maturity levels. Such a low score indicates a gap that must be addressed. Depending on whether the control is required for certification, HITRUST may require a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). CAPs are required when certification-critical controls score below thresholds (e.g., Implementation not at 100% where required). Therefore, a Requirement Statement score of 37 would be treated as a gap with a possible required CAP, depending on its criticality within the certification process.

The A1 Security Assessment module evaluates the security, governance, and risk management of artificial intelligence models. HITRUST specifies coverage for widely used model types, including:

Predictive models, which forecast outcomes based on historical data (e.g., fraud detection, patient risk scoring).

Generative models, which create new data outputs (e.g., AI image or text generators).

Rule-based models, which use defined logic for decision-making.

The goal of the A1 assessment is to ensure that these AI models are developed, implemented, and monitored securely, with appropriate safeguards around data integrity, bias management, and model explainability. Options like Hodgkin-Huxley (a neuroscience model) and Back Propagation (a training algorithm) are not types of AI models scoped by the A1 assessment. Instead, the A1 factor focuses on applied model categories used in operational environments.

A validated assessment does not require a readiness assessment as a prerequisite.

A Readiness Assessment is optional and intended to help organizations self-identify gaps before a validated assessment.

A Validated Assessment involves an independent HITRUST Authorized External Assessor validating evidence and submitting results to HITRUST for quality assurance and potential certification.

Many organizations choose to do a readiness assessment first, but it is not mandatory.

Extract Reference (CCSFP Study Guide & HITRUST CSF Assurance Program [0020]):

Organizations may perform a readiness assessment prior to a validated assessment to identify gaps, but it is not required; validated assessments can be performed independently.

Primary scoping components are systems, applications, and infrastructure directly involved in processing, storing, or transmitting sensitive information. Examples include hypervisors (supporting virtualized systems), servers (hosting applications and data), databases like Oracle (storing structured data), and network attached storage (NAS) devices (storing files). These are all core elements of an IT environment subject to assessment. By contrast, smoke detectors are physical safety devices, not considered primary scoping components for HITRUST. Physical safeguards like detectors may fall under facility security, but they are not tested as primary IT components. Proper identification of primary scoping components is critical to defining the assessment boundary and ensuring appropriate requirements are applied.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

According to the HITRUST CSF Assurance Program, the reliance period for a point-in-time assessment is one year (12 months) from the assessment report date.

The statement claims a two-year validity, which is incorrect.

Reliance beyond one year would require an updated assessment or interim assessment for assurance continuity.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Assurance Program, CCSFP Objectives [0078]):

Point-in-time reports can only be relied upon if issued within one year from the assessment start date; two years is not permitted.

The A1 Security Assessment factor is an optional module that introduces requirements for evaluating the security and governance of AI-based systems. These requirements are mapped into HITRUST CSF across domains like risk management, monitoring, and governance. Importantly, the A1 factor is not restricted solely to r2 assessments. While r2 provides the most comprehensive assurance model, A1 can also be added to other eligible assessment types such as i1 when the scope involves AI risks. The factor is treated like any other regulatory or organizational factor in MyCSF—its selection generates additional tailored requirement statements. Therefore, the claim that A1 can only be added to r2 is inaccurate. The correct understanding is that A1 can apply to multiple assessment types, depending on scoping decisions.

PCI-DSS is not considered a Risk Management Framework (RMF). Instead, it is a prescriptive security standard developed by the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council to protect cardholder data. PCI-DSS specifies detailed control requirements such as encryption, access control, and monitoring, but it does not provide a holistic risk management structure for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks. RMFs, such as NIST RMF or HITRUST’s risk-based approach, focus on identifying risks, applying controls proportionally, and managing risk over time. HITRUST includes PCI-DSS as a regulatory factor that can generate applicable requirements in assessments, but PCI-DSS itself is not classified as an RMF.

HITRUST requires that all new r2 assessments use the latest available version of the CSF framework. This ensures that assessments reflect the most current regulatory mappings, authoritative source updates, and industry security practices. For example, if HITRUST releases CSF version 11.x, new assessments initiated after its release must adopt that version. Organizations with ongoing assessments may complete them on the prior version but must transition to the latest version for new engagements. This policy ensures consistency and prevents outdated control sets from being used in certification, which could weaken reliance by stakeholders. Keeping assessments aligned with the current version also reflects HITRUST’s commitment to maintaining the CSF as a “living framework.”

During an interim assessment for r2 certifications, only a subset of Requirement Statements is retested. This sample is not determined manually by assessors or clients but is systematically generated by MyCSF. The tool ensures randomness and fairness while including mandatory items such as:

Requirement Statements with open gaps from the prior validated assessment.

Requirement Statements with active Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

A random selection of additional requirements to confirm continued control performance.

This approach balances efficiency and assurance. It ensures that areas of previously identified weakness are re-examined while still sampling across the broader control set. By automating sample selection, HITRUST prevents bias and ensures consistency across interim reviews.

HITRUST allows organizations to inherit scores from third-party providers (such as cloud service providers) when those providers have already completed validated HITRUST assessments. For inheritance to be valid, three conditions must be met:

The Cross Version IDs (CVIDs) must match between the requirement statement in the provider’s assessment and the subscriber’s assessment to ensure alignment across framework versions.

The requirement must be designated as inheritable by HITRUST; not all requirements are eligible for inheritance.

The provider must have published their assessment for inheritance in MyCSF, enabling subscribers to formally link and inherit the validated results.

If any of these are missing, inheritance cannot occur. This ensures transparency, consistency, and proper traceability between assessments.