Free Practice Questions for Isaca CRISC Exam

 Risk acceptance is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging the existence and potential impact of a risk, but deciding not to take any action to reduce or eliminate it. Risk acceptance can be appropriate when the cost or effort of implementing a risk response outweighs the benefit, or when there are no feasible or effective risk responses available. An organization has identified that terminated employee accounts are not disabled or deleted within the time required by corporate policy, which poses a security risk to the organization. The organization is unsure of the reason for this issue, and has decided to monitor the situation for three months to obtain more information, rather than taking any immediate action to resolve the issue. As a result of this decision, the risk has been accepted, as the organization has chosen to tolerate the risk exposure for a certain period of time, and has not implemented any controls or measures to prevent or reduce the risk occurrence or impact. References = Risk Response Strategies: Avoid, Transfer, Mitigate, Accept, Risk Response Strategies: What They Are and How to Use Them, Risk Response Strategy: Definition, Types, and Examples.

The greatest challenge when implementing a corporate risk framework for a global organization is the management support. A corporate risk framework is a set of principles, policies, standards, and processes that guide and govern the risk management activities across the organization. Acorporate risk framework helps to establish a consistent and integrated approach to risk management, and to align the risk management objectives and strategies with the business goals and values. Implementing a corporate risk framework for a global organization requires the management support, which is the commitment, involvement, and endorsement of the senior management and the board. Management support is essential for providing the vision, direction, and resources for the risk management initiatives, and for ensuring the accountability, responsibility, and ownership of the risk management roles and functions. Management support is also critical for creating and sustaining a risk-aware culture, and for promoting the risk management awareness and communication among the stakeholders. Management support can be challenging to obtain and maintain, especially for a global organization, as it may face various barriers, such as different expectations, priorities, preferences, or perspectives of the management, lack of trust or confidence in the risk management value or performance, resistance to change or innovation, or competing interests or agendas. Privacy risk controls, business continuity, and risk taxonomy are not as challenging as management support, as they are thecomponents or outcomes of the corporate risk framework, andthey can be addressed or improved by applying the appropriate methods, techniques, or tools. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 35.

The primary goal of risk mitigation is to reduce residual risk to an acceptable level. This aligns with the principles ofRisk Treatment, ensuring that the implemented strategies effectively address identified risks without exceeding the organization's risk appetite.

Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)are metrics used to monitor changes in risk exposure, enabling proactive adjustments to keep risks within appetite. They provide early warnings of potential breaches in risk thresholds.

User accounts provisioning is the process of creating, managing, and modifying user accounts within a system or an application, based on the user’s roles, responsibilities, and requirements. User accounts provisioning is an essential part of identity and access management (IAM), which aims to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system or the application, and the information or resources that it handles or supports1.

The best key performance indicator (KPI) for monitoring adherence to an organization’s user accounts provisioning practices is the percentage of accounts without documented approval, because it can help to measure how well the organization follows the policies, standards, and procedures for user accounts provisioning, and how effectively the organization controls andaudits the user accounts provisioning activities. The percentage of accounts without documented approval can indicate:

The level of compliance and accountability of the user accounts provisioning process, and the extent to which the user accounts provisioning requests and actions are authorized and verified by the appropriate parties, such as managers, IT staff, or security officers

The level of risk and exposure of the user accounts provisioning process, and the likelihood and impact of unauthorized or inappropriate user accounts provisioning, such as granting excessive or unnecessary access privileges, creating duplicate or fraudulent accounts, or violating legal or regulatory requirements

The level of quality and efficiency of the user accounts provisioning process, and the ability and capacity of the organization to manage and maintain the user accounts provisioning records and documents, such as forms, logs, or reports23

The other options are not the best KPIs for monitoring adherence to an organization’s user accounts provisioning practices, but rather some of the factors or outcomes of it. User accountswith default passwords are user accounts that have not changed their passwords from the initial or default values that are assigned by the system or the application. User accounts with default passwords are a factor that can increase the risk of unauthorized or malicious access to the system or the application, as the default passwords may be easily guessed or compromised by attackers. Active accounts belonging to former personnel are user accounts that have not been deactivated or deleted after the users have left the organization. Active accounts belonging to former personnel are an outcome of ineffective or inefficient user accounts deprovisioning, which is the process of revoking or removing the user accounts and access privileges when they are no longer needed or valid. Accounts with dormant activity are user accounts that have not been used or accessed for a long period of time. Accounts with dormant activity are an outcome of poor or inconsistent user accounts management, which is the process of updating or modifying the user accounts and access privileges according to the changes or needs of the users or the organization4. References =

User Provisioning for SaaS Apps: Top 10 Best Practices | Resmo

Top Identity and Access Management Metrics

KPI-driven approach to Identity & Access Management - Elimity

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

Validation of risk analysis results ensures the data is accurate, reliable, and can be trusted for making informed decisions. It minimizes the risk of acting on flawed insights.

Ensuring segregation of duties are implemented within key systems or processes is the best strategy employed by risk management to prevent internal fraud, because it reduces the opportunity for a single person to manipulate or misuse the system or process for fraudulent purposes. Segregation of duties is a control that assigns different roles and responsibilities to different individuals, such that no one person can perform all the steps of a transaction or process. Requiring control owners to conduct an annual control certification, conducting regular internal and external audits on the systems supporting financial reporting, and requiring the information security officer to review unresolved incidents are all useful strategies to detect ordeter internal fraud, but they are not the best strategy to prevent it, as they do not directly address the root cause of fraud. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1, page 197

Identifying specific risk events provides the foundational input for creating relevant and actionable risk scenarios. These scenarios form the basis of assessing potential impacts and determining effective controls. This is a key step in theRisk Identification and Assessmentprocess.

 The best way to provide information to management about emergency changes that may not be approved is to use key risk indicators (KRIs). KRIs are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of risks, and help monitor and prioritize the most critical risks. KRIs help to provide information to management about emergency changes, because they help to alert and inform management about the potential risks and consequences of the changes, and to support the risk decision-making and reporting processes. KRIs also help to provide information to management about emergency changes, because they help to track and evaluate the effectiveness and performance of the changes, and to identify and address any issues or gaps that may arise from the changes. The other options are not the best way to provide information to management about emergency changes, although they may be part of or derived from the KRIs. Change logs, change management meeting minutes, and key control indicators (KCIs) are all examples of documentation or communication tools, which may help to record or report the details and status of the changes, but they do not necessarily measure or monitor the risks and outcomes of the changes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1, page 4-38.

When assessing the likelihood that a recently discovered software vulnerability will be exploited, the most important consideration is the skill level required of a threat actor. Here's an explanation:

Skill Level of Threat Actors:

The skill level required to exploit a vulnerability determines how accessible the exploit is to potential attackers.

If a vulnerability requires advanced technical skills to exploit, it is less likely to be targeted by less sophisticated attackers.

Conversely, if the exploit can be easily executed with minimal skills, it increases the likelihood of widespread exploitation.

Factors Influencing Likelihood of Exploitation:

Availability of Exploit Tools:If automated tools or scripts are available to exploit the vulnerability, even less skilled attackers can take advantage of it.

Publication of Exploit Details:If the vulnerability and its exploitation method are widely published, it becomes more accessible to a broader range of attackers.

Assessment of Likelihood:

Security teams assess the skill level required by analyzing whether the exploit is straightforward or complex.

They also consider the presence of exploit kits in the wild that could lower the barrier to entry for potential attackers.

Comparison with Other Factors:

Amount of PII Disclosed:While important, it relates more to the impact rather than the likelihood of exploitation.

Ability to Detect and Trace:This is crucial for response but does not directly influence the likelihood of exploitation.

Amount of Data Exposed:Similar to PII, this factor pertains to the impact rather than the likelihood of exploitation.

The accuracy of a key risk indicator (KRI) is the degree to which the indicator reflects the true level and trend of the risk. It is most important that the indicator is correlated to risk and tracks variances in the risk, as this ensures that the indicator is relevant, reliable, and responsive to the risk situation. A correlated indicator has astrong and consistent relationship with the risk, meaning that changes in the indicator reflect changes in the risk. A variance-tracking indicator measures the difference between the actual and expected risk level, meaning that the indicator can detect and report deviations from the risk appetite or threshold. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, correlation and variance tracking are two of the key characteristics of an effective KRI1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, correlation and variance tracking are the correct answer to this question2.

Assigning the indicator to IT processes and projects with a low level of risk, having a high correlation with the process outcome, and triggering response based on risk thresholds are not the most important factors for determining the accuracy of a KRI. These factors may be useful or desirable, but they do not directly affect the accuracy of the indicator. Assigning the indicator to IT processes and projects with a low level of risk may reduce the complexity and uncertainty ofthe indicator, but it may also limit the scope and value of the indicator. Having a high correlation with the process outcome may indicate that the indicator is aligned with the business objectives, but it may not capture the risk factors or drivers that affect the outcome. Triggering response based on risk thresholds may indicate that the indicator is actionable and timely, but it may not reflect the actual or potential changes in the risk level.

Tracking opened phishing emails provides a real-time behavioral indicator of how well employees follow security awareness and email policies. It is a leading metric of adherence and risk awareness.

Biometric systems are preventive controls designed to restrict access to authorized personnel only, thereby proactively mitigating unauthorized access risks. This aligns withAccess and Authentication Controlprinciples in risk management.

The risk practitioner should report that the associated risk has been deferred, as this means that the risk response has been postponed or delayed due to lack of resources or other constraints. Deferring a risk response implies that the risk owner acknowledges the risk and intends to implement the risk mitigation action plan at a later stage, when the resources or conditions are available. The other options are not correct, as they do not reflect the actual status of the risk response. Mitigating a risk means that the risk response has been implemented and the risk level has been reduced. Accepting a risk means that the risk response has been rejected or waived, and the risk level has been accepted as it is. Avoiding a risk means that the risk response has beenimplemented and the risk level has been eliminated or transferred. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk Response, page 146.

Several network user accounts were recently created without the required management approvals. This indicates that there is a risk of unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction of the network resources or data, which may affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the network.

The best recommendation to address this situation is to investigate the root cause of noncompliance. This means that the risk practitioner should analyze the factors or reasons that led to the creation of the network user accounts without the required management approvals, such as human error, negligence, malice, system failure, process flaw, etc.

Investigating the root cause of noncompliance helps to identify and correct the source of the problem, prevent or reduce the recurrence of the problem, and improve the compliance and security of the network user accounts.

The other options are not the best recommendations to address this situation. They are either secondary or not effective for noncompliance.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 31

Information Technology & Security, page 25

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 23

 The best way to measure the effectiveness of the subsidiary’s IT systems controls is to review metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs), as they provide quantitative and qualitative measures of the performance and outcomes of the IT systems and processes, and how well they meet the predefined standards and expectations. Metrics and KPIs can help to evaluate the efficiency, reliability, security, and quality of the IT systems and controls, and to identify any gaps, weaknesses, or issues that need to be addressed. Metrics and KPIs can also help to compare and benchmark the subsidiary’s IT systems and controls with those of the parent organization or other similar entities. The other options are not the best ways to measure the effectiveness of the subsidiary’s IT systems controls, although they may be useful or complementary methods. Implementing IT systems in alignment with business objectives is a good practice, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it focuses on the alignment andintegration of the IT systems with the business strategy and goals. Reviewing design documentation of IT systems can provide some information on the specifications and requirements of the IT systems, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it does not reflect the actual implementation and operation of the IT systems. Evaluating compliance with legal and regulatory requirements can ensure that the subsidiary’s IT systems and controls meet the minimum standards and obligations of the foreign country, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it does not consider the performance and outcomes of the IT systems and processes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, page 187.

A reciprocal agreement is an agreement made by two or more organizations to use each other’s resources during a disaster1. For example, two organizations with similar IT infrastructure may agree to provide backup servers or data centers for each other in case of a major disruption. By doing so, they transfer the risk of losing their IT capabilities to the other party, who agrees to share the responsibility and cost of recovery.

A reciprocal agreement is a form of risk transfer, which is one of the four risk treatment options according to ISO 270012. Risk transfer means that the organization shifts the potential negative consequences of a risk to another party, such as an insurance company, a vendor, or a partner. This reduces the organization’s exposure and liability to the risk, but it does not eliminate the risk completely, as the other party may fail to fulfill their obligations or charge a high price for their services.

References = Reciprocal Agreement - Risky Thinking, ISO 27001 Risk Assessment & Risk Treatment: The Complete Guide - Advisera

Robotics process automation (RPA) is the use of software robots to perform repetitive, rules-based tasks that interact with multiple applications. RPA can help internal audit departments automate certain continuous auditing tasks, such as data extraction, validation, analysis, and reporting. RPA can improve the efficiency, quality, and coverage of internal audit activities, and provide greater insight and value to the business. However, RPA also involves certain risks, such as errors, failures, security breaches, or compliance issues, that need to be identified, assessed, and managed. The risk associated with ineffective design of the software bots is the possibility and impact of the bots not functioning as intended, or producing inaccurate or unreliable results. The risk owner of this risk is the person or entity who has the authority and responsibility for managing the risk. The risk owner should be able to define the risk appetite, assess the risk level, select and implement the risk response, monitor and report the risk status, and ensure the risk alignment with the project objectives and strategy. The risk owner of the risk associated with ineffective design of the software bots is the project manager, who is the person in charge of planning, executing, monitoring, and closing the RPA project. The project manager understands the project scope, requirements, budget, timeline, and deliverables, and the potential consequences of ineffective design of the software bots. The project manager also has the resources and incentives to address the risk effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the project manager is the most appropriate risk owner of the risk associated with ineffective design of thesoftware bots. References = Robotic Process Automation for Internal Audit, p. 3-4, Adopting robotic process automation in Internal Audit, Robotic Process Automation (RPA) – Internal Audit Use and Risks.

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, risk nomenclature and taxonomy is the set of terms and definitions that are used to describe and classify risks and their attributes. Risk nomenclature and taxonomy is the most important consideration when aligning IT risk management with the enterprise risk management (ERM) framework, as it helps to ensure a common and consistent understanding and communication of risks across the organization. Risk nomenclature and taxonomy also helps to integrate and harmonize the IT risk management processes and activities with the ERM framework, and to facilitatethe aggregation and reporting of risks at different levels of the organization. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 197.

 A vulnerability is a weakness or gap in a system, application, or network that can be exploited by a threat to cause harm or gain unauthorized access1. A vulnerability can be caused by various factors, such as design flaws, coding errors, configuration errors, or outdated software2.

Among the four options given, only option C (a standard procedure for applying software patches two weeks after release) represents a vulnerability. This is because software patches are updates or fixes that address security weaknesses or bugs in software applications or systems3. By applying software patches two weeks after release, the organization is exposing itself to the risk of being attacked or compromised by malicious actors who may exploit the known vulnerabilities in the software before they are patched. This risk is especially high if the software is internet-facing or critical to the organization’s operations4.

References = What is a Vulnerability?, Vulnerability Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, Vulnerability Patching: A Resource Guide - Rezilion, Why is Software Vulnerability Patching Crucial for Your Software and …

Scalable infrastructure ensures the system can handle increased load without failure, thus minimizing the risk of downtime or degraded performance during traffic spikes.

A multinational organization that operates in different countries should be aware of the legal and regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction. Some countries may have strict privacy laws that prohibit or limit the collection and use of personal information of employees, such as their criminal records, credit history, or medical conditions. Therefore, implementing standard background checks for all new employees may violate the laws in some countries and expose the organization to legal risks and reputational damage. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: IT Risk Factors, page 31.

According to the ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control study guide and handbook, the most important reason to communicate control effectiveness to senior management is to ensure management understands the current risk status. Control effectiveness is a measure of how well a control reduces the likelihood or impact of a risk event. By communicating control effectiveness, risk managers can provide management with relevant and timely information about the residual risk level, the risk appetite and tolerance, and the potential gaps or weaknesses in the control environment. This can help management make informed decisions about risk response strategies, resource allocation, and risk oversight12

1: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Study Guide, 4th Edition, page 33 2: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Handbook, 1st Edition, page 25

Reassessing the risk profile is the first course of action that a risk practitioner should take after a hospital recently implemented a new technology to allow virtual patient appointments. This is because reassessing therisk profile can help identify, analyze, and evaluate the new or changed risks that the new technology may introduce or affect, such as data privacy, security, quality, reliability, or compliance risks. Reassessing the risk profile can also help determine the appropriate risk response and mitigation strategies, as well as monitor and report the risk performance and outcomes. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, reassessing the risk profile is one of the key steps in the IT risk management process1. According to the web search results, reassessing the risk profile is a common and recommended practice for addressing the risks of virtual patient appointments

 The chief information officer (CIO) is the most likely person to be responsible for the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, because the CIO is the senior executive who oversees the information technology (IT) function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy, objectives, and operations. The CIO is also responsible for ensuring that the IT function delivers value, supports innovation, and manages IT risks effectively and efficiently. The CIO can coordinate the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy by communicating and collaborating with other business leaders, establishing and implementing IT governance frameworks and policies, and monitoring and reporting on IT performance and risk indicators. The other options are not as likely as the CIO to be responsible for the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, because they have different or limited roles and responsibilities in relation to IT and business risk management, as explained below:

A. Chief financial officer (CFO) is the senior executive who oversees the financial function and manages the financial risks of the organization. The CFO may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to budgeting, funding, or reporting on IT-related projects and initiatives, but the CFO is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives.

B. Information security director is the senior manager who oversees the information security function and manages the information security risks of the organization. The information security director may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets and systems, but the information security director is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives.

C. Internal audit director is the senior manager who oversees the internal audit function and provides independent assurance on the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s governance, risk management, and control processes. The internal audit director may be involved in the coordination between the IT risk strategy and the business risk strategy, especially when it comes to auditing, reviewing, or testing the IT-related processes and controls, but the internal audit director is not the primary person who oversees the IT function and aligns it with the organization’s strategy and objectives. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1, page 7. The Strategic CIO: Balancing Business and ITPriorities, Technology’s Role in Enterprise Risk Management, Aligning Enterprise Cyber Risk and Business Strategy

The risk practitioner’s best course of action after identifying risk scenarios related to noncompliance with new industry regulations is to escalate to senior management, as they have the authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate risk response and allocate the necessary resources. Transferring the risk, implementing monitoring controls, and recalculating the risk are possible risk responses, but they require senior management approval and direction. References = Risk Scenarios Toolkit, page 19; CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 107.

The most important consideration when identifying stakeholders to review risk scenarios developed by a risk analyst is that the reviewers are accountable for the affected processes. This is because the reviewers need to have a clear understanding of the business processes that are exposed to the risks, and the potential impact and consequences of the risk scenarios. The reviewers also need to have the authority and responsibility to implement the risk responses and monitor the risk performance. By involving the stakeholders who are accountable for the affected processes, the risk analyst can ensure that the risk scenarios are realistic, relevant, and comprehensive, and that the risk management process is aligned with the business objectives and expectations. The other options are not as important as the accountability for the affected processes, because they do not guarantee that the reviewers have the necessary knowledge, experience, and involvement in the risk management process, as explained below:

B. Members of senior management are not the most important consideration, because they may not have the detailed or operational knowledge of the business processes that are exposed to the risks, or the technical or practical aspects of the risk scenarios. Senior management may also have different or conflicting priorities or perspectives on the risk management process, which may affect the quality and validity of the review.

C. Authorized to select risk mitigation options are not the most important consideration, because they may not have the direct or regular involvement in the business processes that are exposed to the risks, or the specific or contextual understanding of the risk scenarios. The authority to select risk mitigation options may also depend on other factors, such as the risk appetite, the budget, or the organizational structure, which may limit or influence the review.

D. Independent from the business operations are not the most important consideration, because they may not have the sufficient or relevant knowledge of the business processes that are exposed to the risks, or the potential or actual impact and consequences of the risk scenarios. The independence from the business operations may also create a gap or disconnect between the risk management process and the business objectives and expectations, which may affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the review. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 45. A Stakeholder Approach to Risk Management, Module 2. Project risk management: stakeholders’ risks and the project manager’s role, What Is Risk Management Scenario Analysis?

Risk appetite and tolerance reflect strategic priorities. As business and external environments evolve, regular updates ensure that risk responses and decisions remain aligned with organizational goals and acceptable boundaries.

•A risk owner is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility to manage a specific risk1. The risk owner is accountable for the implementation and effectiveness of the risk response strategy and the risk treatment plan2.

•Identifying the risk owner is the first step when a new risk scenario has been identified, because the risk owner is the key stakeholder who will be involved in the subsequent steps of the risk management process, such as risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk treatment, and risk monitoring2.

•Identifying the risk owner also helps to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different parties involved in the risk management process, such as the risk manager, the risk analyst, the risk committee, and the risk auditor3. This can improve the communication, coordination, and collaboration among the risk management team and ensure that the risk is managed effectively and efficiently.

•Estimating the residual risk (option A) is not the first step when a new risk scenario has been identified, because the residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk treatment plan has been implemented2. Therefore, estimating the residual risk requires prior steps such as risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk treatment.

•Establishing key risk indicators (KRIs) (option B) is not the first step when a new risk scenario has been identified, because KRIs are metrics or data points that provide early warning signals or information about the level or trend of a risk4. Therefore, establishing KRIs requires prior steps such as risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation.

•Designing control improvements (option C) is not the first step when a new risk scenario has been identified, because control improvements are part of the risk treatment plan, which is the set of actions and resources needed to implement the chosen risk response strategy2. Therefore,designing control improvements requires prior steps such as risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk response selection.

References =

•Risk Owner - Institute of Internal Auditors

•Risk Treatment Plan - ISACA

•Risk Management Roles and Responsibilities - 360factors

•Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide | SafetyCulture

 The best recommendation to address the situation where personal information from the production environment is required for testing purposes in non-production environments is to de-identify data before being transferred to the test environment. De-identification is the process of removing or modifying any personally identifiable information (PII) or other sensitive data from the data sets, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, etc., so that the data cannot be traced back to specific individuals. De-identification protects the privacy and confidentiality of the data, while still allowing for testing, analysis, or training purposes. Enabling data encryption, preventing the use of production data, and enforcing multi-factor authentication are also useful measures, but they do not eliminate the risk of data breaches or unauthorized access to PII. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1, page 3-21.

The risk practitioner’s primary focus when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk should be the level of residual risk, because this indicates the amount and type of risk that remains after applying the controls, and whether it is acceptable or not. Residual risk is the risk that is left over after the risk responseactions have been taken, such as implementing or improving controls. Controls are the measures or actions that are designed and performed to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of a risk event, or to exploit the opportunities that a risk event may create. The adequacy of controls to mitigate risk depends on how well they address the root causes or sources of the risk, and how effectively and efficiently they reduce the risk exposure and value. The level of residual risk reflects the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it shows the gap between the inherent risk and the actual risk, and whether it is within the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. The risk practitioner should focus on the level of residual risk when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk, as it helps to evaluate and compare the benefits and costs of the controls, and to decide on the best risk response strategy, such as accepting, avoiding, transferring, or further reducing the risk. The other options are less important or relevant to focus on when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk. Sensitivity analysis is a technique that measures how the risk value changes when one or more input variables are changed, such as the probability, impact, or control effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis can help to identify and prioritize the most influential or critical variables that affect the risk value, and to test the robustness or reliability of the risk assessment. However, sensitivity analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Cost-benefit analysis is a technique that compares the expected benefits and costs of a control or a risk response action, and determines whether it is worthwhile or not. Cost-benefit analysis can help to justify and optimize the investment or resource allocation for the control or the risk response action, and to ensure that it is aligned with the organization’s objectives and value. However, cost-benefit analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite can help to define and communicate the organization’s risk preferences and boundaries, and to guide the risk decision-making and behavior. However, risk appetite does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the actual risk performance. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 131

Information systems control deficiencies are the weaknesses or flaws in the design or implementation of the controls that are intended to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the information systems and resources. Information systems control deficiencies may reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls, and expose the organization to various risks, such as unauthorized access, data loss, system failure, etc.

Reviewing results from control self-assessment (CSA) is the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because CSA is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the information systems controls, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the information systems activities or functions. CSA can help the organization to identify and document the information systems control deficiencies, and to align them with the organization’s information systems objectives and requirements.

CSA can be performed using various techniques, such as questionnaires, surveys, interviews, workshops, etc. CSA can also be integrated with the organization’s governance, risk management, and compliance functions, and aligned with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best ways to identify information systems control deficiencies, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that CSA provides, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the organization.

Vulnerability and threat analysis is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses or flaws in the organization’s assets, processes, or systems that can be exploited or compromised by the potential threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. Vulnerability and threat analysis can help the organization to assess and prioritize the risks, and to design and implement appropriate controls or countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the risks, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it does not indicate whether the existing information systems controls are adequate and effective, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Control remediation planning is a process of selecting and implementing the actions or plans to address or correct the information systems control deficiencies that have been identified,analyzed, and evaluated. Control remediation planning involves choosing one ofthe following types of control responses: mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept. Control remediation planning can help the organization to improve and optimize the information systems controls, and to reduce or eliminate the information systems control deficiencies, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it is a subsequent or follow-up process that depends on the prior identification of the information systems control deficiencies.

User acceptance testing (UAT) is a process of verifying and validating the functionality and usability of the information systems and resources, using the input and feedback from the endusers or customers that interact with the information systems and resources. UAT can help the organization to ensure that the information systems and resources meet the user or customer expectations and requirements, and to identify and resolve any issues or defects that may affect the user or customer satisfaction, but it is not the best way to identify information systems control deficiencies, because it does not focus on the information systems controls, and it may not cover all the relevant or significant information systems control deficiencies that may exist or arise. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 186

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, impact analysis is the process of estimating and evaluating the potential effects of a risk event on the organization’s objectives, processes, resources, and risks. Impact analysis helps to quantify and qualify the severity and likelihood of the risk, and to identify the possible consequences and implications for the organization. Impact analysis is the first step that should be done when a risk practitioner learns about a new threat, as it helps to assess the current level of risk exposure and the urgency of the risk response. Impact analysis also helps to communicate and report the risk to the relevant stakeholders, and to facilitate risk-based decision making and action planning. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 208.

An increase in emergency changes without proper approval indicates potential weaknesses in the change management process. Initiating a comprehensive review helps identify root causes, assess control effectiveness, and implement necessary improvements to prevent recurrence.

 The best way to facilitate the development of effective IT risk scenarios is to utilize a cross-functional team. A cross-functional team is a group of people with different skills, expertise, and perspectives who work together to achieve a common goal. A cross-functional team can help to create realistic, comprehensive, and relevant IT risk scenarios by bringing diverse knowledge, experience, and insights from various domains and functions. A cross-functional team can alsohelp to identify and address the interdependencies, interactions, and impacts of IT risks across the organization. The other options are not the best ways to facilitate the development of effective IT risk scenarios, although they may be useful or necessary depending on the context and nature of the IT risks. Participation by IT subject matter experts is important, but it is notsufficient, as IT risks may affect or be affected by non-IT factors and stakeholders. Integration of contingency planning is a part of the risk response process, which follows the risk scenario development process, but it is not the same as creating the risk scenarios. Validation by senior management is a quality assurance step that ensures the accuracy and completeness of the risk scenarios, but it is not the same as facilitating the development of the risk scenarios. References = Six Steps to Using Risk Scenarios for Improved Risk Management, IT Risk Scenarios - Morland-Austin, IT Risk Resources | ISACA

 Enterprise IT risk management is the process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating the IT-related risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or assets1. Enterprise IT risk management should be aligned with the organization’s overall riskmanagement framework and strategy, and support the organization’s value creation and protection2.

When evaluating enterprise IT risk management, it is most important to confirm the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to take in order to meet its strategic objectives3. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation that an organization is willing to accept around its risk appetite4. By confirming the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, the evaluation can:

Ensure that the enterprise IT risk management is consistent and compatible with the organization’s risk culture and vision

Provide clear and measurable criteria and boundaries for assessing and prioritizing the IT risks and their impacts

Guide the selection and implementation of the appropriate risk responses and controls that balance the costs and benefits of risk mitigation

Enable the monitoring and reporting of the IT risk performance and outcomes, and the adjustment of the IT risk strategy and objectives as needed5

References = Enterprise IT Risk Management - ISACA, Enterprise Risk Management - Wikipedia, Risk Appetite - COSO, Risk Tolerance - COSO, Risk Appetite and Tolerance - IRM

Showing projected residual risk is the most helpful way to respond to the request of explaining how existing risk treatment plans would affect risk posture at the end of the year. Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the implementation of risk responses1. Projected residual risk is the estimated level of risk that will remain at a future point in time, based on the assumptions and expectations of the risk responses2. By showing projected residual risk, the risk practitioner can:

Demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk treatment plans, and how they reduce the risk level from the inherent risk (the risk before the risk responses) to the residual risk3.

Compare the projected residual risk with the risk appetite and tolerance, which are the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives4. This can help to determine whether the projected residual risk is acceptable or not, and whether the risk treatment plans are consistent and proportional to the risk level5.

Identify and address any gaps, issues, or challenges that may affect the achievement of the projected residual risk, and recommend and implement appropriate improvement actions or contingency plans6.

The other options are not the most helpful ways to respond to the request, because:

Assessing risk with no controls in place is not the most helpful way, as it does not reflect the current or future risk posture of the organization. Controls are the measures or actions that are implemented to modify the risk, such as prevent, detect, correct, or mitigate the risk7. Assessing risk with no controls in place can help to measure the inherent risk, but it does not show the impact or outcome of the risk treatment plans.

Providing peer benchmarking results is not the most helpful way, as it does not reflect the specific or unique risk profile of the organization. Peer benchmarking is the process ofcomparing the organization’s risk level and performance with its peers or competitors, based on a common set of criteria or indicators8. Providing peer benchmarking results can help to provide a reference or a standard for the risk posture, but it does not show the effect or result of the risk treatment plans.

Assessing risk with current controls in place is not the most helpful way, as it does not reflect the future or projected risk posture of the organization. Assessing risk with current controls in place can help to measure the current residual risk, but it does not show the expected or estimated residual risk at the end of the year.

References =

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

Projected Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

Risk Treatment Plan - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite and Tolerance - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite: What It Is and Why It Matters - Gartner

Risk Monitoring and Review - The National Academies Press

Control - CIO Wiki

Benchmarking - CIO Wiki

[Risk Treatment - CIO Wiki]

Regular reviews with stakeholders ensure the risk scenarios are current, complete, and relevant. Stakeholders provide operational and strategic insights, enabling the identification of new, evolving, or obsolete risks. Periodic reviews foster dynamic and continuous alignment of risk scenarios with the business context and threat landscape.

 The PRIMARY purpose of using control metrics is to evaluate the variance against objectives, because control metrics are measures that indicate the performance and effectiveness of the controls in achieving the desired outcomes and goals. Control metrics can help to identify and quantify the gaps or deviations between the actual and expected results of the controls, and to provide feedback and improvement for the control design and implementation. The other options are not the primary purpose, because:

Option A: Amount of risk reduced by compensating controls is a result of using control metrics, but not the primary purpose. Compensating controls are controls that provide an alternative or additional level of protection or assurance when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective. Control metrics can help to measure and monitor the amount of risk reduced by compensating controls, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the control performance and effectiveness.

Option B: Amount of risk present in the organization is an input to using control metrics, but not the primary purpose. The amount of risk present in the organization is the level of exposure and uncertainty that the organization faces in pursuing its objectives and goals. Control metrics can help to assess and report the amount of risk present in the organization, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the risk profile and exposure.

Option D: Number of incidents is a source of using control metrics, but not the primary purpose. Incidents are events or occurrences that disrupt or threaten the normal operations or security of the organization. Control metrics can help to analyze and respond to the number of incidents, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the incident management andresolution. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 120.

Control Self-Assessments (CSAs)provide an efficient way for process owners and staff to assess control effectiveness continuously. ISACA recognizes CSAs as a proactive approach that encourages accountability and early detection of control weaknesses, reducing the need for frequent external testing.

===========

 The effectiveness of a control monitoring program can be measured by how quickly it can detect and correct any control failures that may compromise the achievement of the organization’s objectives. A shorter time between control failure and failure detection means that the control monitoring program is able to identify and report the issues promptly, and initiate the remediation actions accordingly. This can reduce the impact and likelihood of the risks associated with the control failures, and enhance the performance and reliability of the controls. The other options are not as good indicators of the effectiveness of a control monitoring program, because they do not reflect the timeliness and responsiveness of the program, but rather the scope, effort, or frequency of the program. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, page 130.

A risk profile is a summary of the key risks that an organization faces, along with the corresponding risk responses, risk owners, and risk indicators1. A risk profile is a useful tool for communicating and reporting the risk status and performance to the management and other stakeholders2. When developing a risk profile for management approval, the most useful information to include is the residual risk and the risk appetite, because:

Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the implementation of risk responses3. It indicates the degree of exposure or uncertainty that the organization still faces, and the potential impact or consequences of the risk events. Residual risk helps the management to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the risk responses, and to decide whether to accept, reduce, transfer, or avoid the risk4.

Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives5. It reflects the organization’s risk culture, strategy, and priorities, and provides a basis for setting risk thresholds and targets. Risk appetite helps the management to align the risk profile with the organizational goals and values, and to ensure that the risk responses are consistent and proportional to the risk level6.

The other options are not the most useful information when developing a risk profile for management approval, because:

Strength of detective and preventative controls is a measure of how well the controls can identify or prevent the occurrence or impact of the risk events7. It is a part of the risk response information, but it does not provide a comprehensive or holistic view of the risk profile. It does not show the residual risk or the risk appetite, which are more relevant and important for the management approval.

Effectiveness and efficiency of controls is a measure of how well the controls achieve their intended objectives and how well they use the available resources8. It is a part of the risk performance information, but it does not provide a complete or balanced view of the risk profile.It does not show the residual risk or the risk appetite, which are more significant and meaningful for the management approval.

Inherent risk and risk tolerance are related but different concepts from residual risk and risk appetite. Inherent risk is the level of risk that exists before the implementation of risk responses3. Risk tolerance is the acceptable variation or deviation from the risk appetite or the risk objectives5. They are useful for the risk assessment and analysis, but they do not provide the current or desired state of the risk profile. They do not show the residual risk or the risk appetite, which are more critical and valuable for the management approval.

References =

Risk Profile - CIO Wiki

Risk Profile: Definition, Example, and How to Create One

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

What is Residual Risk? - Definition from Techopedia

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite: What It Is and Why It Matters - Gartner

Preventive and Detective Controls - CIO Wiki

Control Effectiveness and Efficiency - CIO Wiki

Ongoing availability of data is the most important consideration when selecting key risk indicators (KRIs) to monitor risk trends over time, as it ensures that the KRIs can provide timely and reliable information on the current and future risk status and performance. KRIs are metrics that measure the level of risk exposureand the effectiveness of risk response strategies, and they should be aligned with the enterprise’s risk appetite and objectives. Ongoing availability ofdatameans that the data sources and collection methods for the KRIs are consistent, accessible, and sustainable, and that the data quality and integrity are maintained and verified. Ability to aggregate data, ability to predict trends, and availability of automated reporting systems are not the most important considerations, as they do not affect the validity and usefulness of the KRIs, but rather the presentation and analysis of the KRI data. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question213; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 213.

The best way to resolve the concern where a control process has been implemented in response to a new regulatory requirement, but has significantly reduced productivity, is to escalate the issue to senior management. Senior management is the highest level of authority and responsibility in the organization, and they are responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization. Senior management should also oversee the risk management process, and ensure that the controls are aligned with the organization’s goals and values. Escalating the issue to senior management can help to find a balance between complying with the regulatory requirement and maintaining the productivity of the organization. The other options are not as effective or desirable as escalating the issue to senior management, because they either ignore the problem, violate the regulation, or compromise the control.

Vulnerable firmware that lacks updates is a significant security risk, as it can be exploited by attackers. Addressing this issue aligns withSecure IoT Deployment Practicesto reduce exposure.

A disaster recovery test is a simulation of a disaster scenario that evaluates the effectiveness and readiness of the disaster recovery plan. The main purpose of a disaster recovery test is to ensure that the organization can resume its normal operations as quickly as possible after a disaster, with minimal or no data loss. Therefore, the most important objective of a disaster recovery test from a business perspective is to verify that all critical data can be recovered within the RTOs, which are the maximum acceptable time frames for restoring the data and systems after a disaster. If the RTOs are not met, the organization may face significant financial, operational, and reputationallosses. The other options are not the most important objectives of a disaster recovery test, although they may be beneficial outcomes. Gaining assurance that the organization can recover from a disaster is a subjective and qualitative goal, while recovering data within RTOs is a measurable and quantitative goal. Discovering errors in the disaster recovery process is a valuable result of a disaster recovery test, but it is not the primary objective. The objective is to correct the errors and improve the process, not just to find them. Testing all business criticalsystems is a necessary step in a disaster recovery test, but it is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to ensure that the systems can be restored and function properly within the RTOs. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 197-1981; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 572