Authentic Isaca Certification Exam CRISC Questions Answers

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 level agreement (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. - Incident recovery 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

 According to the CRISC 351-400 topic3 Flashcards, the greatest concern when using a generic set of IT risk scenarios for risk analysis is that the risk factors might not be relevant to the organization. This is because generic risk scenarios are not tailored to the specific context, objectives, and environment of the organization, and they may not capture the unique threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts that the organization faces. Therefore, using generic risk scenarios may result in inaccurate or incomplete risk assessment and analysis, and may lead to ineffective or inappropriate risk responses. To avoid this, the organization should customize the risk scenarios to reflect its own situation and needs, and involve the relevant stakeholders and experts in the process. References = CRISC 351-400 topic3 Flashcards, Generic IT Risk Scenarios for Risk Analysis: The Greatest Concern

 A business impact analysis (BIA) is a process that identifies and evaluates the potential effects of a disaster on the critical functions and processes of an organization1. A BIA helps to forecast the operational, financial, legal, and reputational impacts of a disaster, as well as the recovery priorities and resources needed to resume normal operations2. A BIA also helps to determine the recovery time objectives (RTO), which are the maximum acceptable time frames for restoring the critical functions and processes after a disaster3. Therefore, developing a BIA is the most important step for an organization to forecast the effects of a disaster and plan for its recovery. Defining RTOs is a part of the BIA process, not a separate activity. Analyzing capability maturity model gaps is a method to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s processes and practices, but it does not directly forecast the effects of a disaster4. Simulating a disaster recovery is a way to test and validate the recovery plans and procedures, but it does not forecast the effects of a disaster either5. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 5.3: Business Continuity Planning, pp. 227-238.