Free Practice Questions for Isaca CCAK Exam

 According to the cloud shared responsibility model, the cloud customer is responsible for managing the access controls for the SaaS functionality and operations, and this should be audited by the cloud auditor12. Access controls are the mechanisms that restrict and regulate who can access and use the SaaS applications and data, and how they can do so. Access controls include identity and access management, authentication, authorization, encryption, logging, and monitoring. The cloud customer is responsible for defining and enforcing the access policies, roles, and permissions for the SaaS users, as well as ensuring that the access controls are aligned with the security and compliance requirements of the customer’s business context12.

The other options are not the aspects of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Option B is incorrect, as vulnerability management is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the security weaknesses in the SaaS applications and infrastructure, and this is usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option C is incorrect, as patching is the process of updating and fixing the SaaS applications and infrastructure to address security issues or improve performance, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option D is incorrect, as source code reviews are the process of examining and testing the SaaS applications’ source code to detect errors or vulnerabilities, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

The Customer’s Responsibility in the Cloud Shared Responsibility Model - ISACA

Reputational business impact refers to the effect on a company’s reputation and public perception following an incident or action. Option A is an example of reputational impact because the public dispute among high-level executives after a breach was reported reflects poorly on the company’s governance and crisis management capabilities. This public display of discord can erode stakeholder trust and confidence, potentially leading to a decline in the company’s market value, customer base, and ability to attract and retain talent.

References = The answer is derived from the understanding of reputational risk and its consequences on businesses, as discussed in various cloud auditing and security resources. Reputational impact is a key consideration in the governance of cloud operations, which is a topic covered in the CCAK curriculum1234.

 The best way for the organization to take advantage of the supplier relationship feature of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is to leverage this feature to enable a smarter selection of the next cloud provider. The supplier relationship feature is a column in the CCM spreadsheet that indicates whether a control is influenced by contractual agreements between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer. This feature can help the organization to identify and compare the security and compliance capabilities of different cloud providers, as well as to negotiate and customize the terms of service (TOS) and service level agreements (SLA) according to their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not the best ways to use the supplier relationship feature. Option A, filter out only those controls directly influenced by contractual agreements, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other important controls that are not influenced by contractual agreements, but still relevant for cloud security and governance. Option B, leverage this feature to enable the adoption of the Shared Responsibility Model, is not a good way to use the feature because the Shared Responsibility Model is defined by another column in the CCM spreadsheet, which indicates whether a control is applicable to the cloud service provider or the cloud customer. Option C, filter out only those controls having a direct impact on current TOS and SLA, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other controls that may have an indirect or potential impact on the TOS and SLA, or that may be subject to change or negotiation in the future. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software3

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

 An example of financial business impact is a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours, resulting in millions in lost sales. Financial business impact refers to the monetary losses or gains that an organization may experience as a result of a cloud security incident. Financial business impact can be measured by factors such as revenue, profit, cost, cash flow, market share, and stock price .

Option A is an example of financial business impact because it shows how a DDoS attack, which is a type of cyberattack that overwhelms a system or network with malicious traffic and prevents legitimate users from accessing it, can cause direct and significant financial losses for the customer’s organization due to the interruption of its cloud services and the inability to generate sales. Option A also implies that the customer’s organization depends on the availability of its cloud services for its core business operations.

The other options are not examples of financial business impact. Option B is an example of operational business impact, which refers to the disruption or degradation of the organization’s processes, functions, or activities as a result of a cloud security incident. Operational business impact can be measured by factors such as productivity, efficiency, quality, performance, and customer satisfaction . Option B shows how a hacker using a stolen administrator identity, which is a type of identity theft or impersonation attack that exploits the credentials or privileges of a legitimate user to access or manipulate a system or network, can cause operational business impact for the customer’s organization by bringing down its SaaS sales and marketing systems, which are essential for its business functions.

Option C is an example of reputational business impact, which refers to the damage or enhancement of the organization’s image, brand, or reputation as a result of a cloud security incident. Reputational business impact can be measured by factors such as trust, loyalty, satisfaction, awareness, and perception of the organization’s stakeholders, such as customers, partners, investors, regulators, and media . Option C shows how a breach reported in a timely manner to the CEO, which is a good practice for ensuring transparency and accountability in the event of a cloud security incident, can still cause reputational business impact for the customer’s organization due to the public blame game between the CFO and CISO, which reflects poorly on the organization’s leadership and culture and leads to the board replacing all three. References :=

Business Impact Analysis - Ready.gov

Business Impact Analysis - Cloud Security Alliance

What Is A Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Attack? | Cloudflare

What is Identity Theft? - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

The best method to report continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) is through a set of dedicated application programming interfaces (APIs). According to the CSA website1, the STAR Continuous program is a component of the STAR certification that allows cloud service providers to validate their security posture on an ongoing basis. The STAR Continuous program leverages a set of APIs that can integrate with the cloud provider’s existing tools and processes, such as security information and event management (SIEM), governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC), or continuous monitoring systems. The APIs enable the cloud provider to collect, analyze, and report security-related data to the CSA STAR registry in near real-time. The APIs also allow the CSA to verify the data and provide feedback to the cloud provider and the customers. The STAR Continuous program aims to provide more transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling continuous visibility into the security performance of cloud services.

The other methods listed are not suitable for reporting continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the CSA. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) assessment by a third-party auditor on a periodic basis is part of the STAR Certification Level 2 program, which provides a point-in-time validation of the cloud provider’s security controls. However, this method does not provide continuous assessment or reporting, as it only occurs once every 12 or 24 months2. The tools selected by the third-party auditor may vary depending on the scope, criteria, and methodology of the audit, and they may not be compatible or consistent with the CSA’s standards and frameworks. Moreover, the tools may not be able to report the audit results to the CSA STAR registry automatically or frequently. The SOC 2 Type 2 attestation is an independent audit report that evaluates the cloud provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. However, this report is not specific to cloud computing and does not cover all aspects of the CCM. Furthermore, this report is not intended to be shared publicly or reported to the CSA STAR registry3.

References:

STAR Continuous | CSA

STAR Certification | CSA

SOC 2 vs CSA STAR: Which One Should You Choose?

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the final decision to include a material finding in a cloud audit report should be made by the cloud auditor1. A material finding is a significant error or risk in the cloud service that could affect the achievement of the audit objectives or the cloud customer’s business outcomes. The cloud auditor is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and reporting the material findings based on the audit criteria, methodology, and evidence. The cloud auditor should also communicate the material findings to the auditee and other relevant stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and responses.

The other options are not correct. Option A is incorrect, as the auditee’s senior management is not in charge of the audit report, but rather the subject of the audit. The auditee’s senior management should provide their perspective and action plans for the material findings, but they cannot decide whether to include or exclude them from the report. Option B is incorrect, as the organization’s CEO is not involved in the audit process, but rather the ultimate recipient of the audit report. The organization’s CEO should review and act upon the audit report, but they cannot influence the content of the report. Option D is incorrect, as the organization’s CISO is not an independent party, but rather a stakeholder of the audit. The organization’s CISO should support and collaborate with the cloud auditor, but they cannot make the final decision on the material findings. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 19-20.

According to the CSA website, the primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, trusted certification of cloud providers1 The OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework2 The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services, such as the lack of simple, cost effective ways to evaluate and compare providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy, and service portability2 The OCF also aims to promote industry transparency and reduce complexity and costs for both providers and customers3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because facilitating an effective relationship between the cloud service provider and cloud client is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential benefit or outcome of it. The OCF can help facilitate an effective relationship between the provider and the client by providing a common language and framework for assessing and communicating the security and compliance posture of the provider, as well as enabling trust and confidence in the provider’s capabilities and performance. However, this is not the main goal or objective of the OCF, but rather a means to achieve it.

Option B is not correct because ensuring understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a possible implication or consequence of it. The OCF can help ensure understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users by providing objective and verifiable information and evidence about the provider’s security and compliance level, as well as allowing comparison and benchmarking with other providers in the market. However, this is not the main aim or intention of the OCF, but rather a result or effect of it.

Option D is not correct because enabling the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential advantage or opportunity for it. The OCF can enable the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements by providing a flexible, incremental and multi-layered approach to certification and/or attestation that allows the provider to choose the level of assurance that suits their business needs and goals. However, this is not the main reason or motivation for the OCF, but rather a benefit or option for it.

References: 1: Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA 2: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 3: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

Management representation is a term used in audit parlance to refer to the statements made by management in response to specific inquiries or through the financial statements, as part of the audit evidence that the auditor obtains. Management representation can be oral or written, but the auditor usually obtains written representation from management in the form of a letter that attests to the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements and other information provided to the auditor. The management representation letter is signed by senior management, such as the CEO and CFO, and is dated the same date of audit work completion. The management representation letter confirms or documents the representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor during the audit, indicates the continuing appropriateness of such representations, and reduces the possibility of misunderstanding concerning the matters that are the subject of the representations12.

Management representation is not a person or group of persons representing executive management during audits (A), as this would imply that management is not directly involved or accountable for the audit process. Management representation is not a mechanism to represent organizational structure (B), as this would imply that management representation is a graphical or diagrammatic tool to show the hierarchy or relationships within an organization. Management representation is not a project management technique to demonstrate management’s involvement in key project stages ©, as this would imply that management representation is a method or practice to monitor or report on the progress or outcomes of a project.

 Metrics around Platform as a Service (PaaS) development environments are frequently immature, as PaaS is a relatively new and evolving cloud service model that offers various tools and platforms for developing, testing, deploying, and managing cloud applications. PaaS metrics are often not well-defined, standardized, or consistent across different providers and platforms, and may not capture the full value and performance of PaaS services. PaaS metrics may also be difficult to measure, monitor, and compare, as they depend on various factors, such as the type, complexity, and quality of the applications, the level of customization and integration, the usage patterns and demand, and the security and compliance requirements. Therefore, PaaS metrics may not provide sufficient insight or assurance to cloud customers and auditors on the effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, and security of PaaS services12.

References:

Cloud Computing Service Metrics Description - NIST

Cloud KPIs You Need to Measure Success - VMware Blogs

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation. A policy violation refers to the breach or violation of a written policy or rule of the organization. A policy or rule is a statement that defines the expectations, standards, or requirements for the behavior, conduct, or performance of the organization’s members, such as employees, customers, partners, or suppliers. Policies and rules can be based on various sources, such as laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, principles, values, ethics, or best practices12.

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation because it is responsible for establishing, communicating, enforcing, and monitoring its own policies and rules. The organization should also define the consequences and remedies for policy violations, such as warnings, sanctions, penalties, termination, or legal action. The organization should ensure that its policies and rules are clear, consistent, fair, and aligned with its mission, vision, and goals12.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the external auditor, is incorrect because the external auditor is an independent party that provides assurance or verification of the organization’s financial statements, internal controls, compliance status, or performance. The external auditor does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but evaluates them against relevant standards or criteria3. Option C, the Internet service provider (ISP), is incorrect because the ISP is a company that provides access to the Internet and related services to the organization. The ISP does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer4. Option D, the cloud provider, is incorrect because the cloud provider is a company that provides cloud computing services to the organization. The cloud provider does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer5. References :=

Policy Violation Definition | Law Insider1

How to Write Policies and Procedures | Smartsheet2

What is an External Auditor? - Definition from Safeopedia3

What is an Internet Service Provider (ISP)? - Definition from Techopedia4

What is Cloud Provider? - Definition from Techopedia