Free Practice Questions for Isaca CCAK Exam

The Egregious 11 refers to a list of top threats to cloud computing, as published by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) in 2019. The CSA is a leading organization dedicated to defining standards, certifications and best practices to help ensure a secure cloud computing environment. The Egregious 11 report ranks the most critical and pressing cloud security issues, such as data breaches, misconfigurations, insufficient identity and access management, and account hijacking. The report also provides recommendations for security, compliance, risk and technology practitioners to mitigate these threats. The Egregious 11 is based on a survey of industry experts and a review of current literature and media reports. The report is intended to raise awareness of the risks and challenges associated with cloud computing and promote strong security practices.12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 961; CSA Top Threats to Cloud Computing: Egregious 11

 Termination for convenience is a contractual provision that allows one party to unilaterally terminate the contract without the fault of the other party. This type of termination does not require the terminating party to prove that the other party has failed to meet their obligations or is at fault in any way. Instead, it is often used to end a contract when it is no longer in the best interest of the terminating party to continue, for reasons that may include changes in business strategy, financial considerations, or other external factors.

References = The concept of termination for convenience is commonly found in various contractual agreements and is a standard clause in government contracts, allowing the government to terminate a contract when it is deemed to be in the public interest. While the search did not yield specific CCAK documents detailing this type of termination, it is a well-established principle in contract law and is likely covered under the broader topic of contract management within the CCAK curriculum.

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the auditor should review the relationship between the cloud service provider and its service provider to help direct and estimate the level of effort and analysis the auditor should apply1. The auditor should understand the nature and scope of the services provided by the service provider, the contractual obligations and service level agreements, the security and compliance requirements, and the monitoring and reporting mechanisms. The auditor should also assess the risks and controls associated with the service provider, and determine if additional audit procedures are needed to obtain sufficient assurance.

The other options are not the best approach for the auditor. Option A is too strict and might not be feasible or necessary, depending on the type and level of services provided by the service provider. Option C is too lax and might overlook significant risks and gaps in the cloud service. Option D is too narrow and might ignore the impact of the service provider on the cloud customer’s business context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 13-14.

 Contracts and SLAs are legal documents that define the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud customer. They also specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. An auditor should review these documents to assess the alignment of the CSP’s services with the customer’s business requirements and risk appetite, as well as to identify any gaps or inconsistencies that may pose legal risks. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 35-36

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, GRM-01: Contracts and SLAs

Cryptography and authentication are good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are critical aspects of cloud security that require constant monitoring and verification. Cryptography and authentication refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and communications in the cloud environment. Cryptography involves the use of encryption algorithms and keys to protect data from unauthorized access or modification. Authentication involves the use of credentials and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Continuous auditing can help to assess the effectiveness and compliance of cryptography and authentication controls, such as data encryption, key management, password policies, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. Continuous auditing can also help to detect and alert any anomalies or issues that may compromise or affect cryptography and authentication, such as data breaches, key leakage, password cracking, unauthorized access, etc123.

Procedures (A) are not good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Procedures refer to the steps or actions that are performed to achieve a certain objective or result in a specific domain or context. Procedures may vary depending on the type, nature, or complexity of the task or process involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Procedures may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess their effectiveness or compliance123.

Governance (B) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Governance refers to the framework or system that defines the roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, procedures, and practices for managing and overseeing an organization or a domain. Governance may involve multiple stakeholders, such as management, board of directors, regulators, auditors, customers, etc., who have different interests, expectations, or perspectives. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Governance may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123.

Documentation quality (D) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Documentation quality refers to the degree to which the documents that describe or support an organization or a domain are accurate, complete, consistent, relevant, and understandable. Documentation quality may depend on various factors, such as the purpose, audience, format, style, language, structure, content, etc., of the documents involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Documentation quality may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

The CSA STAR Certification is based on criteria outlined in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) in addition to ISO/IEC 27001 implementation. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that covers 17 domains and 197 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud technology. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. The CSA STAR Certification demonstrates that a cloud service provider conforms to the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, has addressed issues critical to cloud security as outlined in the CCM, and has been assessed against the STAR Capability Maturity Model for the management of activities in CCM control areas1. The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider and provides a high level of assurance and trust to customers2.

References:

CSA STAR Certification - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

STAR | CSA

When auditing a public cloud, it is essential to review areas such as Identity and Access Management (IAM) and data protection. IAM involves ensuring that only authorized individuals have access to the cloud resources, and that their access is appropriately managed and monitored. This includes reviewing user authentication methods, access control policies, role-based access controls, and user activity monitoring1.

Data protection is another critical area to review. It involves ensuring that the data stored in the public cloud is secure from unauthorized access, breaches, and leaks. This includes reviewing data encryption methods, data backup and recovery processes, data privacy policies, and compliance with relevant data protection regulations1.

While the other options may also be relevant in certain contexts, they are not as universally applicable as IAM and data protection for auditing a public cloud. Source code reviews and hypervisor (option B), patching and configuration (option C), and vulnerability management and cybersecurity reviews (option D) are important but are more specific to certain types of cloud services or deployment models. References:

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know - ISACA

The most critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding would indicate that the application is vulnerable to various threats and attacks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, injection, cross-site scripting, denial-of-service, etc. This finding would also imply that the application does not comply with the security standards and best practices for cloud services, such as ISO/IEC 27017:20151, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix2, or NIST SP 800-1463. This finding would require immediate remediation and improvement of the application security posture, as well as the implementation of security controls and tests throughout the DevOps process.

Certifications with global security standards specific to cloud are not reviewed, and the impact of noted findings are not assessed (A) would be a significant finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not aware or informed of the security requirements and expectations for cloud services, as well as the gaps or issues that may affect their compliance or performance. This finding would require regular review and analysis of the certifications with global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO/IEC 270014, CSA STAR Certification, or FedRAMP Authorization, as well as the assessment of the impact of noted findings on the organization’s risk profile and business objectives.

Outsourced cloud service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data occurred at the cloud service provider (B) would be a serious finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the cloud service provider failed to ensure the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the cloud services and data that they provide to the organization. This finding would require investigation and resolution of the root cause and impact of the incident, as well as the implementation of preventive and corrective measures to avoid recurrence. This finding would also require review and verification of the contractual terms and conditions between the organization and the cloud service provider, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the cloud services.

The organization is not using a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements © would be an important finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not following a consistent and systematic approach to manage and monitor its cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, etc. This finding would require adoption and implementation of a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as COBIT, NIST Cybersecurity Framework, or CIS Controls, as well as the alignment and integration of these frameworks with the DevOps process.

Role-based access controls (RBAC) are a method of restricting access to resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization. RBAC allows administrators to assign permissions to roles, rather than to specific users, and then assign users to those roles. This simplifies the management of access rights and reduces the risk of unauthorized or excessive access. RBAC is especially important for ensuring adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment, which is the final stage of the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) process where code is deployed to the end-users. Access to the production environment should be limited to only those who are responsible for deploying, monitoring, and maintaining the code, such as production engineers, release managers, or site reliability engineers. Developers, testers, or other stakeholders should not have access to the production environment, as this could compromise the security, quality, and performance of the code. RBAC can help enforce this separation of duties and responsibilities by defining different roles for different pipeline stages and granting appropriate permissions to each role. For example, developers may have permission to create, edit, and test code in the development pipeline, but not to deploy or modify code in the production pipeline. Conversely, production engineers may have permission to deploy, monitor, and troubleshoot code in the production pipeline, but not to create or edit code in the development pipeline. RBAC can also help implement the principle of least privilege, which states that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks. This reduces the attack surface and minimizes the potential damage in case of a breach or misuse. RBAC can be configured at different levels of granularity, such as at the organization, project, or object level, depending on the needs and complexity of the organization. RBAC can also leverage existing identity and access management (IAM) solutions, such as Azure Active Directory or AWS IAM, to integrate with cloud services and applications.

References:

Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines

Azure DevOps: Access, Roles and Permissions

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know