Free Practice Questions for Isaca CRISC Exam

The most important information to review from the acquired company to facilitate the task of updating the organization’s IT risk profile is the risk assessment and risk register. The risk assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the IT risks of the acquiredcompany. The risk register is a document that records the details of the IT risks, such as their sources, causes, consequences, likelihood, impact, and responses. By reviewing the risk assessment and risk register, the risk practitioner can gain a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the IT risk profile of the acquired company, and integrate it with the IT risk profile of the acquiring organization. Internal and external audit reports, risk disclosures in financial statements, and business objectives and strategies are other possible sources of information, but they are not as important as the risk assessment and risk register. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 11; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 144.

Business impact analysis (BIA) is a process that involves analyzing the potential consequences of an IT risk event on the organization’s critical business functions and processes. BIA can help to understand the severity and duration of the disruption, the financial and operational losses, the recovery time objectives, and the recovery point objectives. BIA can also help to prioritize the recovery activities and resources, as well as to determine the acceptable level of risk and the risk mitigation strategies. BIA is the most helpful tool to understand the consequences of an IT risk event, as it provides a comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the impact and the recovery requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2, p. 206-207

Limited integration with external systems and blockchainsis the greatest concern. Without considering interoperability during the SDLC, the system may not be able to connect seamlessly with partners or external networks, hindering business goals and limiting the blockchain’s benefits.

===========

The person who should be accountable for resolving the situation where a root cause analysis indicates a major service disruption due to a lack of competency of newly hired IT system administrators is the chief information officer (CIO). The CIO is the senior executive who is responsible for the overall management and governance of the IT function within the organization, including the IT strategy, objectives, policies, processes, and resources. The CIO is also accountable for the performance and value of the IT services and systems, and for ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of the business and its stakeholders. The CIO should be accountable for resolving the situation, because it involves a major IT service disruption that could affect the organization’s operations and reputation, and because it is related to the IT staff competency and capability, which are under the CIO’s authority and responsibility. The other options are not as accountable as the CIO, although they may have some roles or involvement inthe situation. The HR training director, the business process owner, and the HR recruitment manager are not directly responsible for the IT function or the IT service delivery, and they may not have the authority or the expertise to resolve the situation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 2-3.

Risk appetite determined by senior management reflects the enterprise's willingness to accept certain levels of risk, including noncompliance. This decision underscores the strategic trade-offs made in risk management, a key element inGovernance and Risk Policy Alignment.

Using aconsistent risk taxonomyensures that IT risks can be aggregated and compared with enterprise-level risks in a meaningful way. ISACA emphasizes that standardized risk language and categories are critical to integrating IT risk with ERM processes.

===========

The most important factor when determining risk appetite is gaining management consensus, as it involves obtaining the agreement and support of the senior management and the board of directors on the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, and ensuring the alignment and consistency of the risk appetite across the organization. The other options are not the most important factors, as they are more related to the assessment, benchmarking, or identification of the risk, respectively, rather than the determination of the risk appetite. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 109.

An increase in system vulnerabilities directly correlates with an elevated exposure to potential threats. Identifying more vulnerabilities signals a need to re-evaluate the risk environment.

Conducting independent audits to verify that appropriate security controls are in place is the most effective way to mitigate the risk of data loss at a third-party provider. These audits provide assurance that the provider adheres to security best practices and complies with relevant standards and regulations. While contractual clauses and insurance can provide financial remedies post-incident, proactive verification of security controls helps prevent breaches from occurring in the first place.

A maturity model is a tool that assesses the level of development and performance of key processes within an organization. A maturity model typically defines a set of criteria, standards, and best practices for each process, and assigns a rating or score based on the degree of compliance or achievement. A maturity model can help compare the current state of key processes to their desired state, by identifying the strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and opportunities for improvement. A maturity model can also help establish a roadmap for process improvement, by setting realistic and measurable goals and objectives, and monitoring the progress and results. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: IT Risk Scenarios, p. 49-50.

Enforcing segregation of duties between the vendor master file and invoicing is the best process control to mitigate the risk of an employee issuing fraudulent payments to a vendor. This is because segregation of duties is a key internal control that prevents or detects errors, fraud, orabuse by ensuring that no single person can perform incompatible or conflicting tasks. The vendor master file is a database that contains the information and settings for each vendor, such as name, address, bank account, payment terms, etc. Invoicing is the process of generating and sending bills to the vendors for the goods or services they provide. If the same person can access and modify the vendor master file and issue invoices, he or she could create fictitious vendors, alter vendor information, or generate false or duplicate invoices, and then divert the payments to his or her own account. By segregating these duties, the organization can reduce the opportunity and likelihood of such fraudulent activities. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, segregation of duties is one of the key IT control objectives and practices1. According to the web search results, segregation of duties between the vendor master file and invoicing is a common and recommended control to prevent vendor fraud

When establishing leading indicators for the information security incident response process, it is most important to consider the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the service levelagreement (SLA). A leading indicator is a metric that can predict or influence the future performance or outcome of a process or activity. A leading indicator for the information security incident response process should measure how well the process is achieving its objectives, such as minimizing the impact of incidents, restoring normal operations as quickly as possible, and preventing recurrence of incidents. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is a leading indicator that reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of the information security incident response process. It shows how well the process is meeting the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders, such as the business units, customers, and regulators. It also shows how well the process is managing the resources, such as time, budget, and personnel, that are allocated for incident response. A high percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is performing well and delivering value to the organization. A low percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is facing challenges and needs improvement. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA can also help identify the root causes of incidents, the gaps in the process, and the areas for improvement. For example, if the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is low, it may indicate that the process has issues with the following aspects: - Incident detection and reporting: The process may not have adequate tools, techniques, or procedures to detect and report incidents in a timely and accurate manner. - Incident prioritization and classification: The process may not have clear and consistent criteria to prioritize and classify incidents based on their severity, impact, and urgency. - Incident analysis and investigation: The process may not have sufficient skills, knowledge, or evidence to analyze and investigate the incidents and determine their root causes, scope, and consequences. - Incident containment and eradication: The process may not have effective methods or measures to contain and eradicate the incidents and prevent them from spreading or escalating. - Incidentrecovery and restoration: The process may not have reliable backup and recovery plans or systems to restore the normal operations and functionality of the affected systems or services. - Incident communication and escalation: The process may not have proper communication and escalation channels or protocols to inform and involve the relevant stakeholders, such as the management, the users, the vendors, or the authorities. - Incident documentation and closure:The process may not have adequate documentation and closure procedures to record and report the incidents and their resolution. - Incident review and improvement: The process may not have regular review and improvement activities to evaluate and enhance the process and its performance. Therefore, the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is the most important leading indicator for the information security incident response process, as it can provide valuable insights and feedback for the process and its improvement. References = Information Security Incident Response | Process Street1, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response2, 7 Incident Response Metrics and How to Use Them3

Information security requirements should be defined during theInitiationphase of the SDLC. This ensures that security is integrated into the design from the beginning, minimizing vulnerabilities and aligning security measures with business requirements. Early identification of security needs reduces rework and costs associated with later stages.

Risk mitigation is a proactive business strategy to identify, assess, and mitigate potential threats or uncertainties that could harm an organization’s objectives, assets, or operations1. It entails specific action plans to reduce the likelihood or impact of these identified risks2.

There are several recognized ways to mitigate risk, such as accepting, avoiding, hedging, transferring, or reducing the risk3. Among the options given, only C is an example of risk reduction, which involvesimplementing controls or safeguards to minimize the negative effects of the risk3. Change and configuration management processes are methods to ensure that changes to the IT systems or infrastructure are properly authorized, documented, tested, and implemented, and that the configuration of the IT assets is consistent and accurate. These processes can help prevent or detect errors, defects, or vulnerabilities that could compromise the IT performance, security, or availability.

The other options are not examples of risk mitigation, but rather risk avoidance (A), risk transfer (B), or risk acceptance (D). Risk avoidance means eliminating the risk entirely by not engaging in the activity that causes the risk3. Not providing capability for employees to work remotely could avoid the risk of data breaches or network issues, but it could also limit the productivity and flexibility of the workforce. Risk transfer means shifting the responsibility or burden of the risk to another party, such as a vendor or an insurer3. Outsourcing the IT activities and infrastructure could transfer the risk of IT failures or incidents to the service provider, but it could also introduce new risks such as vendor dependency or loss of control. Risk acceptance means acknowledging the risk and its consequences without taking any action to address it3. Taking out insurance coverage for IT-related incidents could provide some financial compensation in case of a loss, but it does not reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk itself. References =

5 Key Risk Mitigation Strategies (With Examples) | Indeed.com

10 Risk Mitigation techniques you need to know - Stakeholdermap.com

Risk Mitigation Strategies: Types & Examples (+ Free Template)

[Change and Configuration Management - ISACA]

The data owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility to classify, label, and protect the information assets of the organization. The data owner is accountable for the risk ofpotential loss of confidential information, as they are the ones who determine the level of protection and access required for the data. The risk manager is responsible for identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks that may affect the organization, but they are not accountable for the data itself. The end user is the person who uses the information assets for their operational tasks, but they are not accountable for the data protection or classification. The IT department is responsible for providing the technical support and infrastructure for the information assets, but they are not accountable for the data ownership or risk management. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.3: Data Classification, p. 69-70.

A vulnerability management process is a process that identifies, analyzes, prioritizes, and remediates the vulnerabilities in the IT systems and applications. The effectiveness of a vulnerability management process can be measured by the key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the achievement of the process objectives and the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. The best KPI to measure the effectiveness of a vulnerability management process is the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level. This KPI indicates how well the process is able to address the vulnerabilities in a timely and efficientmanner, and reduce the exposure and impact of the risks associated with the vulnerabilities. The other options are not as good as the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level, as they may not reflect the quality or timeliness of the remediation actions, or the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.1, pp. 171-172.

A managed security service provider (MSSP) is a third-party entity that offers network security services to an organization, such as firewall operation, administration, monitoring, and maintenance1. A firewall is a device or software that controls the incoming and outgoing network traffic based on predefined rules2. A firewall administrator is a person or entity that manages and maintains the firewall configuration, rules, and policies3. When an organizationuses an MSSP as a firewall administrator, the greatest concern is the exposure of log data, because log data contains sensitive and valuable information about the organization’s network activity, such as source and destination IP addresses, ports, protocols, timestamps, and user identities4. If the log data is not protected properly by the MSSP, it could be accessed, modified, or stolen by unauthorized parties, such as hackers, competitors, or regulators, which could result in data breaches, compliance violations, reputational damage, or legal liabilities for the organization5. The other options are not as concerning as the exposure of log data, because they do not pose a direct and immediate threat to the organization’s data security and privacy, but rather affect the quality and efficiency of the firewall management, as explained below:

B. Lack of governance is a concern when an organization uses an MSSP as a firewall administrator, because it could lead to misalignment or inconsistency between the organization’s and the MSSP’s objectives, policies, and standards for firewall management. However, this concern can be mitigated by establishing a clear and comprehensive service level agreement (SLA) with the MSSP,which defines the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and performance indicators for the firewall management service6.

C. Increased number of firewall rules is a concern when an organization uses an MSSP as a firewall administrator, because it could create complexity, confusion, or duplication in the firewall configuration, which could affect the firewall performance and security. However, this concern can be mitigated by conducting regular firewall audits and reviews with the MSSP, which can help to rationalize, optimize, and update the firewall rules, and to ensure that they are relevant, effective, and efficient for the organization’s network environment.

D. Lack of agreed-upon standards is a concern when an organization uses an MSSP as a firewall administrator, because it could result in gaps or weaknesses in the firewall design and implementation, which could compromise the firewall functionality and security. However, this concern can be mitigated by adopting and following industry best practices, norms, and expectations for firewall management, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines, the Center for Internet Security (CIS) benchmarks, or the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requirements . References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 115. What Is A Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP)? - Fortinet, What is a Firewall? - Definition from Techopedia, Firewall Administrator Job Description - Betterteam, What is a Firewall Log? - Definition from Techopedia, Firewall Log Management: Why It’s Important and How to Do It Right, How to Write a Service Level Agreement (SLA) for an MSSP, [Firewall Auditing: BestPractices for Security and Compliance], [Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall Policy | CSRC], [CIS Firewall Benchmark - CIS], [PCI DSS and Firewalls - PCI Security Standards Council]

The organization has adopted the risk treatment of transfer, which means that it has shifted some or all of the potential negative consequences of a risk event to another party, such as a vendor, an insurer, or a partner. By including penalties for loss of availability in the contract, the organization has transferred the financial impact of a service disruption to the vendor, who will be liable for compensating the organization for the loss. Transfer does not eliminate the risk, but it reduces the organization’s exposure to the risk.

Recovery time objectives (RTOs) are the maximum acceptable time frames for restoring the critical functions and processes after a disruption1. RTOs are derived from the business impact analysis (BIA) andreflect the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept to achieve its objectives2. Risk tolerance is the level of risk a company is willing to tolerate, and it is affected by a number of factors, including how much uncertainty or financial loss can be tolerated and where those losses will impact operations3. Risk tolerance is used to measure if the risk exposure is within the risk appetite and to implement controls to reduce the residual risk to an acceptable level2. If the majority of core IT application RTOs have exceeded the maximum time defined by the business application owners, it means that the organization is not meeting its risk appetite and is exposed to more risk than it can accept. Therefore, the most likely change as a result is to adjust the risk tolerance to reflect the current reality and to take actions to improve the recovery capabilities and reduce the risk exposure4. Risk forecasting is the process of estimating the potential outcomes and impactsof future events that may affect the organization’s objectives5. Risk forecasting may change as aresult of the RTOs exceeding the maximum time, but it is not the most likely change, as it does not directly address the gap between the risk appetite and the risk exposure. Risk likelihood is the probability of a risk event occurring5. Risk likelihood may change as a result of the RTOs exceeding the maximum time, but it is not the most likely change, as it does not directly measure the impact of the risk event on the organization’s objectives. Risk appetite is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept to achieve its objectives2. Risk appetite may change as a result of the RTOs exceeding the maximum time, but it is not the most likely change, as it is a strategic decision that reflects the organization’s vision and mission, and not a tactical response to a specific risk event. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 5.3: Business Continuity Planning, pp. 227-238.

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when there is a gap between the acceptable downtime and the actual recovery time of an application is to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of alternatives available to reduce the gap. The cost-benefit analysis should compare the costs of implementing different risk response options, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer or acceptance, with the benefits of reducing the impact and likelihood of the risk. The cost-benefit analysis should also consider the alignment of the risk response options with the enterprise’s risk appetite, business objectives and strategy. The cost-benefit analysis should help the application owner and the risk owner to select the most appropriate risk response option that optimizes the value of the application and minimizes the residual risk.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 162-1631

The business process owner should be the risk owner for the risk exposure due to weak technical controls in a newly implemented HR system, because they are responsible for the performance and outcomes of the HR business process, and they understand the business requirements, expectations, and impact of the HR system. The business process owner can also evaluate the trade-offs between the potential benefits and costs of the HR system, and the potential risks and consequences of a failure or breach of the system. The business process owner can also communicate and justify their risk acceptance or mitigation decision to the senior management and other stakeholders, and ensure that the risk is monitored and reviewed regularly. The other options are less appropriate to be the risk owner for this risk exposure. The chief risk officer is responsible for overseeing the enterprise-wide risk management framework and process, which includesensuring the identification, assessment, and reporting of risks. However, they are not the owner of the HR system or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. The project manager is responsible for managing the implementation of the HR system, which includes ensuring the delivery of the system within the scope, time, and budget constraints. However, they are not the owner of the HR system or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. The chief information officeris responsible for managing the IT function and resources, which includes providing the technical support and security for the HR system. However, they are not the owner of the HRsystem or the HR business process, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept or mitigate the risk on behalf of the business. References = Getting risk ownership right 1

The risk practitioner’s next step after learning of an incident that has affected a competitor is to develop risk scenarios, as it involves identifying and describing the potential sources, events, impacts, and responses of the risk that may affect the organization in a similar way as the competitor, and assessing the likelihood and magnitude of the risk. Activating the incident response plan, implementing compensating controls, and updating the risk register are not the next steps, as they are more related to the reaction, mitigation, or reporting of the risk, respectively, rather than the identification and assessment of the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 100.

Ineffective control implementation can result in increased risk exposure, reduced compliance, and diminished performance for the organization. Therefore, the most relevant information for stakeholders is the impact of ineffective control implementation on the business objectives, processes, and outcomes. The impact on business can include financial losses, reputational damage, operational inefficiencies, customer dissatisfaction, and legal liabilities. The other options are not as relevant as the impact on business, because they do not directly link the control effectiveness to the business value. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 128.

Architecture is the design and structure of a system or a process, such as an IT system or a business process. Architecture documentation is the document that describes and explains the architecture, such as its components, functions, relationships, requirements, constraints, orstandards. Architecture documentation can help to understand, communicate, and improve the system or the process1.

An environment that lacks documentation of the architecture faces a great risk of unknown vulnerabilities, which are the weaknesses or flaws in the system or the process that could be exploited by threats or attackers, but are not identified or addressed by the organization. Unknown vulnerabilities can pose a serious risk to the organization, because they can:

Compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system or the process, and the information or resources that it handles or supports

Cause financial, operational, reputational, or legal damages or losses to the organization, such as data breaches, fraud, errors, delays, or fines

Remain undetected or unresolved for a long time, and increase the exposure or impact of the risk over time

Require more resources or efforts to mitigate or recover from the risk, and reduce the efficiency or effectiveness of the risk management process23

Lack of documentation of the architecture can increase the risk of unknown vulnerabilities, because it can:

Prevent or hinder the identification and assessment of the vulnerabilities, and the evaluation and prioritization of the risks

Impede or delay the implementation and enforcement of the controls or safeguards to prevent or reduce the vulnerabilities, and the monitoring and reporting of the risk status and progress

Obstruct or limit the communication and coordination among the stakeholders, and the awareness and accountability of the risk owners and users

Restrict or hamper the review and improvement of the system or the process, and the learning and feedback of the risk management4

The other options are not the greatest risks associated with an environment that lacks documentation of the architecture, but rather some of the possible causes or consequences of it.Legacy technology systems are outdated or obsolete systems that are still in use by the organization, but are no longer supported or maintained by the vendors or developers. Legacy technology systems can be a cause of lack of documentation of the architecture, as they may have been developed or acquired without proper documentation, or the documentation may have been lost or discarded over time. Network isolation is the separation or segregation of a network or a system from other networks or systems, either physically or logically, to prevent or limit the access or communication between them. Network isolation can be a consequence of lack of documentation of the architecture, as it may result from the inability or difficulty to integrate or connect the system or the process with other systems or processes. Overlapping threats are threats that affect more than one system or process, or have similar or related sources or causes, such as natural disasters, cyberattacks, or human errors. Overlapping threats can be a consequence of lack of documentation of the architecture, as they may arise from the lack of understanding or coordination of the system or the process with other systems or processes. References =

Architecture Documentation - ISACA

Vulnerability - ISACA

The Risks of Not Having a Vulnerability Management Program

The Importance of Architecture Documentation - ISACA

[The Risk of Poor Document Control - ComplianceBridge]

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

 Utilizing secure encryption protocols is the most important factor to mitigate risk associated with data privacy when implementing a new Software as a Service (SaaS) speech-to-text solution, as it ensures that the data is protected from unauthorized access, interception, or modification during the transmission and storage in the cloud. Setting up multi-factor authentication for users, approving the solution architecture by IT, and including a risk transfer clause in the contract are not the most important factors, as they may not address the data privacy issue, but rather the data access, quality, or liability issue, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 153.

The control owner is the person who is responsible for designing, implementing, monitoring, and maintaining a control. The control owner is best suited to determine whether a new control properly mitigates data loss risk within a system, as they have the most knowledge and authority over the control. The control owner should also evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the control and report any issues or gaps to the risk owner.

The other options are not the best suited to determine whether a new control properly mitigates data loss risk within a system. The data owner is the person who has the accountability and authority over the data and its classification. The data owner may not have the technical expertise or access to evaluate the new control. The risk owner is the person who has the accountability and authority to manage a specific risk. The risk owner may not have the detailed knowledge orinvolvement in the new control. The system owner is the person who has the accountability and authority over the system and its operation. The system owner may not have the direct responsibility or oversight of the new control. References = CRISC TOPIC 3 EXAM SHORT Flashcards, CRISC-1-50 topic3 Flashcards, CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question609

Real-time monitoring is adetective control, as it is designed to identify and report suspicious or unauthorized activities as they occur. Detective controls provide feedback to mitigate ongoing risks and serve as an integral part of incident response plans.

Defining recovery time objectives (RTOs) and acceptable data loss thresholds is critical for effective disaster response, ensuring recovery activities are aligned with business priorities. This supportsBusiness Continuity Planning.

A key performance indicator (KPI) is a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively an organization is achieving its key objectives. A KPI should be relevant, specific, measurable, achievable, and time-bound. The number of identified system vulnerabilities is a KPI that measures the security posture and performance of the organization’s information systems. It also helps to identify the areas that need improvement or remediation. The number of identified system vulnerabilities is relevant to the organization’s objective of protecting its information assets, specific to the system level, measurable by using tools or methods, achievable by implementing security controls or practices, and time-bound by setting a target or threshold. Aggregate risk of the organization, number of exception requests processed in the past 90 days, and number of attacks against the organization’s website are not KPIs, as they are either too broad, not relevant, or not measurable. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.1, page 1741

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 647.

Continuously monitoring a critical security transformation program is crucial for a risk practitioner primarily to ensure that any risk events are identified and mitigated promptly. This ensures that the security transformation remains on track and that potential risks do not escalate to a level that could compromise the program’s success.

Identifying and Mitigating Risks:

Risk Identification:Continuously monitoring the program helps in the early identification of risks. This is essential because unidentified risks can lead to unexpected issues that might derail the program.

Timely Mitigation:Once risks are identified, it is crucial to mitigate them as quickly as possible. Delays in mitigation can allow risks to grow in impact, making them harder and more expensive to address.

Ensuring Program Continuity:

Maintaining Momentum:Security transformation programs often involve significant changes and can be disruptive. By ensuring that risks are mitigated in a timely manner, the risk practitioner helps maintain the program’s momentum and keeps it on schedule.

Preventing Escalation:Timely risk mitigation prevents minor issues from escalating into major problems that could halt the program.

Aligning with Strategic Goals:

Strategic Alignment:Ensuring timely mitigation of risks helps in keeping the program aligned with the strategic goals of the organization. It ensures that the security objectives are met without significant delays or cost overruns.

 Developing IT Risk Scenarios:

Risk scenarios are hypothetical events that describe potential threats and their impact on business operations. These scenarios are essential for identifying and assessing risks.

 Importance of Potential Impact Events:

Events that could potentially impact the business provide the most useful information for developing risk scenarios because they directly relate to the organization’s objectives and operations.

Understanding these events helps in crafting realistic and relevant risk scenarios that can guide risk assessment and mitigation efforts.

 Components of Risk Scenarios:

Threat Actors:Identify who might exploit vulnerabilities.

Threat Events:Describe the specific events that could impact the business.

Business Impact:Assess how these events would affect business operations, finances, reputation, etc.

 Using Impact Events for Scenario Development:

Focusing on events that could disrupt critical business functions ensures that the scenarios are relevant and actionable.

It enables the risk practitioner to communicate the potential consequences effectively to stakeholders and prioritize mitigation efforts accordingly.

 Comparing Other Information Sources:

Published Vulnerabilities:Useful for understanding specific threats but may not directly relate to business impact.

Threat Actors:Important for identifying potential sources of risk but not sufficient alone for scenario development.

IT Assets:Relevant for risk assessment but secondary to understanding potential impact events.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses the importance of considering events that could impact the business when developing risk scenarios (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4 Risk Scenario Development)​​.

 Establishing clear accountability for risk is the best way for an organization to enable risk treatment decisions, as it ensures that the risk owners and stakeholders have the authority and responsibility to manage and mitigate the risks that they are assigned to. Establishing clear accountability for risk also facilitates communication and collaboration among the risk owners and stakeholders, and enables them to monitor and report the risk status and performance. Establishing clear accountability for risk also supports the risk governance and culture of the organization, and aligns the risk management process with the organization’s strategy and objectives. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 250. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 250. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 250. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

Data flow documentation provides insight into how and where data moves, stored, or processed. It helps identify vulnerable points in the data lifecycle where data loss can occur.

The 3-minute threshold is a KRI designed to act as an early warning before a more critical limit (5 minutes) is breached, helping prevent risk realization.

A risk dashboard provides a visual, real-time overview of risk levels, trends, and key metrics, making it easier for executive management to understand and act upon. It integrates data from various sources, making it comprehensive.

 The most important reason to revisit a previously accepted risk is to ensure that the risk levels have not changed. A previously accepted risk is a risk that the organization has decided to tolerate or retain without taking any further action, because the risk is either low or unavoidable, or the cost or effort of mitigation outweighs the potential benefit. However, risk acceptance is not a static or permanent decision, as the risk levels may change over time due to various factors, such as new threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, or opportunities. Therefore, it is essential to revisit a previously accepted risk periodically or when there is a significant change in the internal or external environment, to verify that the risk is still within the acceptable range and that the risk acceptance rationale is still valid. If the risk levels have increased or decreased, the organization may need to revise the risk acceptance decision and consider other risk response options, such as avoidance, reduction, sharing, or exploitation. The other options are not the most important reason to revisit a previously accepted risk, although they may be relevant or necessary depending on the context and nature of the risk. Updating risk ownership is a part of the risk governance process, which ensures that the roles and responsibilities for managing the risk are clearly defined and assigned, but it does not affect the risk levels or the risk acceptance decision. Reviewing the risk acceptance with new stakeholders is a part of the risk communication process, which ensures that the risk information and the risk acceptance rationale are shared and understood by the relevant parties, but it does not change the risk levels or the risk acceptance decision. Ensuring that the controls are still operating effectively is a part of the risk monitoring and review process, which ensures that the risk response actions are implemented and maintained properly, but it does not apply to the accepted risks, as they do not have any additionalcontrols. References = Understanding Accepted Risk - SC Dashboard | Tenable®, Risk Acceptance — ENISA, Accepting Risk - Overview, Advantages, Disadvantages, Alternatives

The MOST important consideration when developing IT risk scenarios is the potential threats and vulnerabilities that may have an impact on the business, because they are the key elements of a risk scenario that describe the sources and causes of the risk, and the potential consequences and impacts of the risk on the business objectives and processes. The other options are not as important as the potential threats and vulnerabilities, because:

Option A: The impact of controls on the efficiency of the business in delivering services is a secondary consideration that may affect the cost-benefit analysis of the risk response, but it does not directly affect the identification and assessment of the risk scenario.

Option B: Linkage of identified risk scenarios with enterprise risk management is a good practice that ensures the alignment and integration of the IT risk management with the overall enterprise risk management, but it does not directly affect the identification and assessment of the risk scenario.

Option D: Results of network vulnerability scanning and penetration testing are useful sources of information that may reveal some of the threats and vulnerabilities in the IT environment, but they are not the only or the most important consideration when developing IT risk scenarios, as they may not cover all the aspects and dimensions of the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 104.

Thepercentage of critical systemsrecovered within the definedRTOdirectly reflects the organization’s ability to meet its recovery goals. It is a leading measure of the DR program's success.

Internal audit reports provide the most useful information to assess the magnitude of identified deficiencies in the IT control environment. Internal audit reports are independent and objective evaluations of the design and operating effectiveness of the IT controls, as well as the compliance with policies, standards, and regulations. Internal audit reports also provide recommendations for improvement and follow-up actions for the control deficiencies. Internal audit reports can help measure the impact and severity of the control deficiencies, and prioritize the remediation efforts. Peer benchmarks, business impact analysis (BIA) results, and threat analysis results are not as directly related to the assessment of the control deficiencies, although they may provide some contextual or comparative information. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1, page 1-19.

Enterprise architecture (EA) documentation provides the most useful information to trace the impact of aggregated risk across the organization’s technical environment, because it describesthe structure and behavior of the organization’s IT systems, applications, infrastructure, and processes, and how they support and enable the organization’s strategy and objectives. EA documentation also defines the principles, standards, and guidelines that govern the design and implementation of the IT solutions and services. Aggregated risk is the total or combined level of risk that the organization faces from multiple or interrelated sources or scenarios. Aggregated risk may have a greater impact than the sum of the individual risks, due to the synergistic or compounding effects of the risks. The technical environment is the set of IT components and capabilities that support the organization’s business functions and processes. Tracing the impact of aggregated risk across the technical environment is a process of identifying and assessing the potential or actual consequences of the aggregated risk on the performance, functionality, or security of the IT systems, applications, infrastructure, or processes. EA documentation provides the most useful information, as it helps to understand and analyze the interdependencies and relationships of the IT components and capabilities, andto evaluate the effect of the aggregated risk on the alignment and integration of IT with the organization’s strategy and objectives. Business case documentation, organizational risk appetite statement, and organizational hierarchy are all possible sources of information to trace the impact of aggregated risk, but they are not the most useful information, as they do not provide a comprehensive and detailed view of the technical environment and its architecture. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, page 183

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, a risk action plan is a document that defines the specific actions, resources, responsibilities, and timelines for implementing the risk responses. A risk action plan should be developed after the results of a vulnerability assessment are shared with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business manager, to address the identified vulnerabilities and mitigate the associated risks. Developing a risk action plan is the next step in the risk management process, as it helps to ensure that the risk responses are executed effectively and efficiently, and that the residual risks are within the acceptable levels. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 201.

The primary focus of an IT risk awareness program is to cultivate long-term behavioral change. An IT risk awareness program is a program that educates and informs the stakeholders, such as the employees, managers, customers, or partners, about the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. An IT risk awareness program helps to increase the knowledge and understanding of the IT risks and the IT risk management objectives, strategies, and processes, and to promote the participation and collaboration of the stakeholders in the IT risk management activities. Theprimary focus of an IT risk awareness program is to cultivate long-term behavioral change, which is the change in the attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions of the stakeholders regarding the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. Cultivating long-term behavioral change helps to create and sustain a risk-aware culture, which is a culture that recognizes,respects, and supports the IT risk management activities, and that encourages the stakeholders to take responsibility and ownership of the IT risks and the IT risk management activities. Cultivating long-term behavioral change also helps to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT risk management activities, and to align the IT risk management activities with the business goals and values. Ensuring compliance with the organization’s internal policies, communicating IT risk policy to the participants, and demonstrating regulatory compliance are not the primary focus of an IT risk awareness program, as they are either the benefits or the objectives of the IT risk awareness program, and they do not address the primary need of changing the behavior of the stakeholders. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

= Change management is the process of planning, implementing, and monitoring changes to IT systems, services, or infrastructure in a controlled and coordinated manner1. Change management controls are the policies, procedures, and tools that ensure changes are authorized, documented, tested, and reviewed before they are deployed to the production environment2.

Change-related exceptions are the deviations or violations from the established change management controls, such as unauthorized, untested, or failed changes3. Change-related exceptions pose a high risk to theorganization, as they can cause system instability, performance degradation, security breaches, data loss, or compliance issues3.

An increase in change-related exceptions per month would be the greatest concern for an IT risk practitioner, as it indicates a lack of effectiveness, efficiency, or compliance of the change management process and controls. An increase in change-related exceptions per month could result from:

Poor change planning, prioritization, or scheduling

Insufficient change approval, review, or communication

Inadequate change testing, validation, or verification

Lack of change monitoring, reporting, or auditing

Low change awareness, training, or support

An IT risk practitioner should investigate the root causes of the increase in change-related exceptions per month, and recommend corrective and preventive actions to improve the change management process and controls, such as:

Aligning the change management process with the organization’s goals, strategies, and risk appetite

Implementing a standardized and consistent change management methodology, such as ITIL or COBIT

Defining clear roles and responsibilities for change management stakeholders, such as change owners, change managers, change advisory boards, change implementers, and change users

Establishing clear and measurable criteria and thresholds for change authorization, classification, and evaluation

Leveraging tools and technologies to automate and streamline the change management process and controls, such as change management software, configuration management databases, or change management dashboards

Enhancing the change management culture and capabilities, such as change management awareness, training, support, or feedback

The other options are not as concerning as an increase in change-related exceptions per month, because they do not directly imply a risk to the organization’s IT systems, services, or infrastructure. Rolled backchanges below management’s thresholds, which are the changes that are reversed or undone due to errors, defects, or issues, may indicate a need for improvement in the change testing, validation, or verification processes, but they do not necessarily cause harm or damage to the production environment, as long as they are within the acceptable limits set bythe management. The average implementation time for changes, which is the duration of the change deployment process, may affect the organization’s agility, efficiency, or productivity, but it does not necessarily compromise the quality, security, or reliability of the changes, as long as they are implemented according to the change management controls. The number of user stories approved for implementation, which are the requirements or features that are expressed from the perspective of the end users, may reflect the organization’s demand, innovation, or customer satisfaction, but it does not necessarily increase the risk of the changes, as long as they are managed and controlled by the change management process.

References = What is Change Management? | ITIL | AXELOS, Change Management Controls: Definition, Types, and Best Practices, Change Management Exceptions: Definition, Causes, and Impacts, ITIL Change Management: Best Practices & Processes - BMC Software, COBIT 2019: Change Enablement

After entering a large number of low-risk scenarios into the risk register, it is most important for the risk practitioner to analyze changes to aggregate risk. Aggregate risk is the total amount and type of risk that the organization faces or accepts, considering all the individual and interrelated risk scenarios. Aggregate risk helps to measure and monitor the organization’s risk profile, riskappetite, and risk performance, and to support the risk decision-making and reporting processes. Analyzing changes to aggregate risk is important after entering a large number of low-risk scenarios, because even though the individual risk scenarios may have low likelihood or impact, they may still have a significant cumulative or combined effect on the organization’s objectives or operations. Analyzing changes to aggregate risk also helps to identify and prioritize the most critical or relevant risk scenarios, and to select the most appropriate and effective risk responses and strategies. The other options are not as important as analyzing changes to aggregate risk, although they may be part of or derived from the risk analysis process. Preparing a follow-up risk assessment, recommending acceptance of the risk scenarios, and reconfirming risk tolerance levels are all activities that can help to implement or update the risk management process, but they are not the most important after entering a large number of low-risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, page 4-25.

The most important factor when reporting to senior management on changes in trends related to IT risk is materiality. Materiality is the extent to which the information reported is significant, relevant, and useful for decision-making purposes. Materiality helps to prioritize the most important risks and communicate them effectively to senior management12

1: Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management - ISACA 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 271

KRIs and KCIs are both metrics that measure and monitor the risk and control environment of an enterprise. KRIs are indicators that reflect the level and trend of risk exposure, and help to identify potential risk events or issues. KCIs are indicators that reflect the performance andeffectiveness of the risk controls, and help to ensure that the controls are operating as intended and mitigating the risk. Both KRIs and KCIs provide insight to potential changes in the level of risk, as they can signal the need for risk response actions, such as enhancing, modifying, or implementing new controls, or adjusting the risk strategy and objectives. References = Most Asked CRISC Exam Questions and Answers. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 240.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, a risk owner is the person who is accountable for the risk and its associated mitigation actions. The risk owner is responsible for monitoring the risk, reporting the risk status, and implementing the risk response. Therefore, the most appropriate risk owner would be the individual who is accountable for loss if the risk materializes, as it implies that they have the authority and the incentive to manage the risk effectively. The other options are not the most appropriate risk owners, as they are not directly accountable for the risk or its consequences. The person who is in charge of information security is responsible for overseeing the IT security function and ensuring that the IT security policy is enforced, but they may not have the authority or the resources to manage the risk. The person who is responsible for enterprise risk management (ERM) is responsible for establishing and maintaining the ERM framework and processes, but they may not have the knowledge or the involvement to manage the risk. The person who can implement remediation action plans is responsible for executing the risk response, but they may not have the decision-making power or the accountability to manage the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2, page 108.

Assigning a data owner ensures accountability and responsibility for classifying and protecting data according to its sensitivity. This role is critical in implementing effectiveData Governance Practices.

According to the GDPR, personal data shall be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes1. This means that a business unit can only use personal information for a different purpose if it has obtained the consent of the data subject, or if it has a clear legal basis or obligation to do so2. Therefore, informed consent should be the first consideration when a business unit wants to use personal information for a purpose other than for which it was originally collected.

References = GDPR Article 5 (1) (b) and Article 6 (4)1, ICO Principle (b): Purpose limitation2

A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract between a SaaS vendor and a customer that defines the quality and availability of the SaaS service, as well as the responsibilities and obligations of both parties. An SLA is most important to include in a SaaS vendor agreement because it sets the expectations and standards for the SaaS service, provides a mechanism for measuring and monitoring the serviceperformance, and establishes the remedies and penalties for service failures or breaches. An SLA can also help to mitigate the risks and liabilities associated with SaaS delivery, such as data security, privacy, compliance, and disaster recovery. The other options are not the most important to include in a SaaS vendor agreement, although they may be beneficial or desirable depending on the context and nature of the SaaS service. An annual contract review is a process of evaluating and revising the SaaS vendor agreement to reflect the changing needs and circumstances of the customer and the vendor, but it is not a mandatory or essential element of the agreement. A requirement to adopt an established risk managementframework is a way of ensuring that the SaaS vendor follows the best practices and standards for identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks related to the SaaS service, but it is not a specific or measurable term of the agreement. A requirement to provide an independent audit report is a way of verifying and validating the SaaS vendor’s compliance with the SLA and other contractual obligations, but it is not a direct or primary component of the agreement. References = SaaS Agreements: Key Contractual Provisions, SaaS Agreement: Everything You Need to Know, Essential checklist for SaaS agreement negotiations, KeyClauses To Understand and Evaluate in SaaS Contracts, SaaS Reseller Agreement: Everything You Need to Know