CRISC Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

Compensating controls are additional or alternative controls that are implemented when the existing controls are found to be ineffective or do not meet the required standards. Compensating controls are designed to reduce the risk exposure to an acceptable level and ensure that the organization can still comply with the relevant regulations and industry best practices. For an organization that processes credit cards, compensating controls may include enhanced encryption, monitoring, auditing, or authentication mechanisms. By having compensating controls in place, the organization can maintain an effective overall control environment despite the deficiencies in the existing controls. The other options are not correct because they do not ensure that the overall control environment is effective. A control mitigation plan is a document that outlines the actions and resources needed to address the control deficiencies, but it does not guarantee that the compensating controls will be implemented or effective. Risk management is a process that involves identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating risks, but it does not directly affect the control environment. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk treatment, and it may or may not be acceptable depending on the risk appetite of the organization. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 153-1541; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 632

Unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator is a security risk that involves altering, deleting, or inserting data on a database without proper authorization or approval, by a person who has privileged access to the database, such as a database administrator12.

The best control to detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator is to review database activity logs, which are records that capture and store the details and history of the transactions or activities that are performed on the database, such as who, what, when, where, and how34.

Reviewing database activity logs is the best control because it provides evidence and visibility of the database operations, and enables the detection and reporting of any deviations, anomalies, or issues that may indicate unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator34.

Reviewing database activity logs is also the best control because it supports the accountability and auditability of the database operations, and facilitates the investigation and resolution of any unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator34.

The other options are not the best controls, but rather possible measures or techniques that may supplement or enhance the review of database activity logs. For example:

Reviewing database access rights is a measure that involves verifying and validating the permissions and privileges that are granted or revoked to the users or roles who can access or modify the data on the database56. However, this measure is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the database administrator has legitimate access rights to the data56.

Comparing data to input records is a technique that involves matching and reconciling the data on the database with the original or source data that are entered or imported into the database, and identifying and correcting any discrepancies or errors78. However, this technique is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the input records are also modified or compromised78.

Reviewing changes to edit checks is a technique that involves examining and evaluating the modifications or updates to the edit checks, which are rules or validations that are applied to the data on the database to ensure their accuracy, completeness, and consistency9 . However, this technique is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the edit checks are bypassed or disabled9 . References =

1: Database Security: Attacks and Solutions | SpringerLink2

2: Unauthorised Modification of Data With Intent to Cause Impairment3

3: Database Activity Monitoring - Wikipedia4

4: Database Activity Monitoring (DAM) | Imperva5

5: Database Access Control - Wikipedia6

6: Database Access Control: Best Practices for Database Security7

7: Data Reconciliation - Wikipedia8

8: Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection9

9: Edit Check - Wikipedia

: Edit Checks: A Data Quality Tool

The most important benefit of key risk indicators (KRIs) is providing an early warning to take proactive actions, because this helps organizations to prevent or mitigate potential risks that may impact their operations, objectives, or performance. KRIs are specific metrics that measure the level and impact of risks, and provide timely signals that something may be going wrong or needs urgent attention. By monitoring and analyzing KRIs, organizations can identify and assess emerging or existing risks, and initiate appropriate risk responses before the risks escalate into significant issues. This can enhance the organization’s resilience, competitiveness, and value creation. The other options are less important benefits of KRIs. Assisting in continually optimizing risk governance is a benefit of KRIs, but it is not the most important one. Risk governance is the framework and process that defines how an organization manages its risks, including the roles, responsibilities, policies, and standards. KRIs can help to evaluate and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of risk governance, but they are not the only factor that influences it. Enabling the documentation and analysis of trends is a benefit of KRIs, but it is not the most important one. Documenting and analyzing trends can help organizations to understand the patterns, causes, and consequences of risks, and to learn from their experiences. However, this benefit is more relevant for historical or retrospective analysis, rather than for proactive action. Ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements is a benefit of KRIs, but it is not the most important one. Compliance is the adherence to the laws, regulations, and standards that apply to an organization’s activities and operations. KRIs can help to monitor and demonstrate compliance, but they are not the only tool or objective for doing so. References = Why Key Risk Indicators Are Important for Risk Management 1

IT risk scenarios are hypothetical situations or occurrences that illustrate the potential impact of IT-related threats or opportunities on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation12.

Business risk scenarios are hypothetical situations or occurrences that illustrate the potential impact of business-related threats or opportunities on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation34.

The best way for the risk practitioner to address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT-related risk scenarios is to describe IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk, which is a technique that involves translating and communicating the IT risk scenarios into the language and context of the business risk scenarios, and highlighting the linkages and dependencies between them56.

Describing IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk is the best way because it helps the business executives to understand and appreciate the relevance and importance of IT risk scenarios, and how they affect the achievement of the organization’s goals and the delivery of value to the stakeholders56.

Describing IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk is also the best way because it helps the business executives to accept and fulfill their roles and responsibilities as the owners of IT risk scenarios, and to collaborate and coordinate with the IT team and other stakeholders in the risk management process56.

The other options are not the best ways, but rather possible alternatives or supplements that may support or enhance the description of IT risk scenarios in terms of business risk. For example:

Recommending the formation of an executive risk council to oversee IT risk is a way that involves establishing and empowering a group of senior leaders from different business units and functions to provide the strategic direction, guidance, and oversight for the IT risk management process78. However, this way is not the best way because it does not directly address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT risk scenarios, and it may not be feasible or effective without a clear and common understanding of IT risk scenarios among the council members78.

Providing an estimate of IT system downtime if IT risk materializes is a way that involves quantifying and communicating the potential loss or disruption of the IT systems or services that support the organization’s operations, if the IT risk scenarios occur9 . However, this way is not the best way because it does not fully capture or convey the impact of IT risk scenarios on the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation, and it may not be relevant or meaningful for some IT risk scenarios that are not related to IT system downtime9 .

Educating business executives on IT risk concepts is a way that involves providing and delivering the knowledge and skills on the principles, frameworks, and techniques of IT risk management, and the roles and responsibilities of the IT risk owners and stakeholders . However, this way is not the best way because it does not specifically address the concerns of the business executives who question why they have been assigned ownership of IT risk scenarios, and it may not be sufficient or effective without a practical and contextual application of IT risk concepts to the organization’s situation and goals . References =

1: IT Scenario Analysis in Enterprise Risk Management - ISACA2

2: New Toolkit and Course From ISACA Help Practitioners Develop Risk Scenarios - ISACA1

3: Business Risk - Investopedia3

4: Business Risk: Definition, Types, Examples & How to Manage4

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

7: Executive Risk Council - ISACA5

8: Executive Risk Council: A Guide to Success6

9: IT System Downtime - ISACA7

: IT System Downtime: Causes, Costs, and How to Prevent It8

: IT Risk Education - ISACA9

: IT Risk Education: A Guide to Success

The organization’s risk appetite and tolerance are the most important topics to cover in a risk awareness training for senior management. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk tolerance is the level of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is prepared to accept. Senior management plays a key role in defining and communicating the risk appetite and tolerance, as well as ensuring that they are aligned with the organization’s strategy, culture, and values. By covering these topics in the training session, the risk practitioner can help senior management understand and articulate the risk preferences and boundaries of the organization, as well as monitor and adjust them as needed. The other options are not the most important topics to cover in a risk awareness training for senior management, although they may be relevant and useful. The organization’s strategic risk management projects are specific initiatives or activities that aim to identify, assess, and treat risks that may affect the organization’s objectives. Senior management roles and responsibilities are the duties and expectations that senior management has in relation to risk management, such as providing leadership, oversight, and support. Senior management allocation of risk management resources is the process of assigning and prioritizing the human, financial, and technical resources that are needed to implement and maintain risk management activities. These topics are more operational and tactical than strategic and may vary depending on the context and scope of the risk management function. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 40-411; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 732

IT and business misalignment is the risk that the IT objectives, plans, and activities are not aligned with the business goals, needs, and expectations. This can result in wasted resources, missed opportunities, poor performance, and customer dissatisfaction. One of the best ways to mitigate this risk is to involve the business process owner in IT strategy. The business process owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for a specific business process and its outcomes. By involving the business process owner in IT strategy, the organization can ensure that the IT initiatives and solutions are relevant, effective, and beneficial for the business process and its stakeholders. The business process owner can also provide valuable input, feedback, and support for the IT strategy and its implementation. The other options are not the best ways to mitigate the risk associated with IT and business misalignment, although they may be helpful and complementary. Establishing business key performance indicators (KPIs) is a technique to measure and monitor the achievement of business objectives and outcomes. However, KPIs do not necessarily ensure that the IT strategy is aligned with the business strategy or that the IT activities support the business activities. Introducing an established framework for IT architecture is a method to design and implement the IT infrastructure, systems, and services in a consistent and coherent manner. However, an IT architecture framework does not guarantee that the IT architecture is aligned with the business architecture or that the IT capabilities meet the business requirements. Establishing key risk indicators (KRIs) is a tool to monitor and communicate the level of exposure to a given risk or the potential impact of a risk. However, KRIs do not directly address the risk of IT and business misalignment or the actions needed to align them. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 76

A critical patch is a software update that fixes a security vulnerability or a bug that may affect the performance, functionality, or reliability of a system or a network. A critical patch implementation is a process that applies the software update to the system or network in a timely and effective manner. The failure of a critical patch implementation is a situation where the software update is not applied or not applied correctly, which may expose the system or network to various threats, such as data theft, data corruption, data leakage, or denial of service. The failure of a critical patch implementation would be reflected in an organization’s risk profile by increasing the residual risk. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk response, which means the risk that is not avoided, transferred, or mitigated by the existing controls or measures. The failure of a critical patch implementation would increase the residual risk, as it would reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the existing controls or measures that are supposed to address the security vulnerability or the bug. The failure of a critical patch implementation would also increase the likelihood or impact of the potential threats, as well as the exposure or consequences of the system or network. The other options are not the correct changes that would be reflected in an organization’s risk profile after the failure of a critical patch implementation, although they may be affected or related. Risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is not willing to accept. Risk tolerance may be decreased by the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the organization may become more cautious or conservative in accepting the risk, but it is not a direct or immediate change in the risk profile. Inherent risk is the risk that exists in the absence of any controls or measures, which means the risk that is inherent to the system or network or the environment. Inherent risk may be increased by the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the system or network may become more vulnerable or susceptible to the threats, but it is not a change in the risk profile, as the risk profile considers the existing controls or measures. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite may be decreased by the failure of a critical patch implementation, as the organization may become less willing or able to accept the risk, but it is not a change in the risk profile, as the risk profile reflects the actual or current risk level, not the desired or expected risk level. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 32-331; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 972; What is a Critical Patch? - Definition from Techopedia3; What is Residual Risk? - Definition from Techopedia4

 The results of risk analyses should be presented in quantitative or qualitative terms based primarily on the requirements of management, because they are the intended audience and users of the risk information, and they have the authority and responsibility to make risk-based decisions. The requirements of management may vary depending on the purpose, scope, and context of the risk analysis, and the level of detail, accuracy, and reliability that they need. Quantitative risk analysis uses numerical data and mathematical models to estimate the probability and impact of risks, and to express the risk exposure and value in monetary or other measurable units. Qualitative risk analysis uses descriptive data and subjective judgments to assess the likelihood and severity of risks, and to rank the risks according to their relative importance or priority. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and they can be used separately or together, depending on the situation and the availability of data and resources. However, the primary factor that determines the choice of the method is the requirements of management, as they are the ones who will use the risk information to support their objectives, strategies, and actions. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 141

Detailed Explanation:When likelihood is unknown, range-based estimates from subject-matter experts provide informed and realistic insights into potential risk exposure. This approach helps approximate the inherent risk based on experience and expertise, supporting effective decision-making.

Detailed Explanation:The next step is to identify risk response options to address the noncompliance and mitigate its impact. This may include corrective actions, implementing controls, or negotiating terms to reduce exposure.

An organization’s account provisioning process is the process of creating, modifying, or deleting user accounts and access rights for the organization’s information systems and resources. It involves defining the access requirements, policies, and standards, and implementing and enforcing them across the organization.

The best evidence of the effectiveness of an organization’s account provisioning process is entitlement reviews, which are the periodic or regular reviews and validations of the user accounts and access rights that are granted or assigned to the users or entities that interact with the organization’s information systems and resources. Entitlement reviews can provide assurance and verification that the account provisioning process is accurate, consistent, and compliant, and that it meets the organization’s security and business objectives and requirements.

Entitlement reviews can be performed using various techniques, such as automated tools, reports, audits, surveys, etc. Entitlement reviews 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 evidence of the effectiveness of an organization’s account provisioning process, because they do not provide the same level of assurance and verification that the account provisioning process is accurate, consistent, and compliant, and that it meets the organization’s security and business objectives and requirements.

User provisioning is the process of creating, modifying, or deleting user accounts and access rights for a specific user or entity, based on their identity, role, or function in the organization. User provisioning is an important part of the account provisioning process, but it is not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because it does not indicate whether the user accounts and access rights are appropriate and authorized, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Role-based access controls are the controls that grant or restrict user accounts and access rights based on the predefined roles or functions that the users or entities perform or assume in the organization. Role-based access controls are an important part of the account provisioning process, but they are not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because they do not indicate whether the roles or functions are defined and assigned correctly and consistently, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

Security log monitoring is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the security events or activities that are recorded or logged by the organization’s information systems and resources. Security log monitoring is an important part of the account provisioning process, but it is not the best evidence of the effectiveness of the account provisioning process, because it does not indicate whether the security events or activities are legitimate or authorized, and whether they comply with the organization’s policies and standards. 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 173

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

The most critical factor when designing controls is the involvement of the process owner, who is the person responsible for the performance and outcomes of a business process. The process owner has the best knowledge and understanding of the process objectives, activities, inputs, outputs, resources, and risks. The process owner can provide valuable input and feedback on the design of controls that are relevant, effective, efficient, and aligned with the process goals. The process owner can also ensure that the controls are implemented, monitored, and improved as needed. The involvement of the process owner can also increase the acceptance and ownership of the controls by the process participants and stakeholders. The other options are less critical when designing controls. The involvement of internal audit can provide assurance and advice on the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls, but internal audit is not responsible for the design or implementation of the controls. The quantitative impact of the risk can help to prioritize and justify the controls, but it is not sufficient to determine the appropriate type and level of controls. The identification of key risk indicators can help to monitor and measure the risk and the performance of the controls, but it is not the main driver of the control design. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 181

An IT risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) is a process that helps organizations identify and evaluate operational risks and assess the effectiveness of their control measures12. It is a structured approach that involves identifying, assessing, mitigating, and monitoring risks across all levels of an organization12.

A report to senior management is a document that summarizes and communicates the results and findings of the RCSA, and provides recommendations and action plans for improving the risk management and control processes34.

The most important aspect of an IT risk and control self-assessment to include in a report to senior management is an increase in residual risk, which is the risk remaining after risk treatment, and represents the exposure or potential impact of the risk on the organization’s objectives56.

An increase in residual risk is the most important aspect because it indicates the level of risk that the organization is willing to accept or tolerate, and the gap between the current and desired risk profile56.

An increase in residual risk is also the most important aspect because it requires the attention and decision of the senior management, who are responsible for defining the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and criteria, and for ensuring that the residual risk is within the acceptable range56.

The other options are not the most important aspects, but rather possible components or outcomes of an IT risk and control self-assessment that may support or complement the report to senior management. For example:

Changes in control design are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve modifying or updating the control measures to address the changes in the risk environment or the organization’s objectives56. However, changes in control design are not the most important aspect because they do not measure or reflect the residual risk, which is the ultimate goal of the risk treatment56.

A decrease in the number of key controls is an outcome of an IT risk and control self-assessment that indicates the improvement or optimization of the control processes, and the reduction of the complexity or redundancy of the control measures56. However, a decrease in the number of key controls is not the most important aspect because it does not indicate or imply the residual risk, which may depend on other factors such as the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls56.

Changes in control ownership are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve assigning or reassigning the responsibility and accountability for the control processes to the appropriate individuals or groups within the organization56. However, changes in control ownership are not the most important aspect because they do not affect or determine the residual risk, which is independent of the control owners56. References =

1: Risk and control self-assessment - KPMG Global1

2: Control Self Assessments - PwC2

3: How-To Guide: Implementing Risk Control Self-Assessment Steps4

4: RISK MANAGEMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE - Smartsheet5

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), establishing an organizational code of conduct is an example of a directive control, which is a type of control that guides or steers the behavior of individuals or processes to achieve desired outcomes. A directive control aims to influence or encourage compliance with the organization’s policies, standards, procedures, and guidelines. A directive control can also communicate the organization’s values, ethics, and expectations to its stakeholders. A directive control can take various forms, such as:

Codes of conduct or ethics

Policies or manuals

Training or awareness programs

Job descriptions or roles and responsibilities

Performance appraisals or incentives

Supervision or oversight

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Scenarios, pp. 105-1061

The most likely factor to change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability being discovered in a globally used brand of hardware server that allows hackers to gain access to affected IT systems is the risk likelihood. Risk likelihood is the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring, or the possibility of a risk event occurring within a given time period. Risk likelihood is one of the key dimensions of risk analysis, along with the risk impact. Risk likelihood helps to determine the severity and priority of the risk, and to select the most appropriate and effective risk response. Risk likelihood also helps to evaluate the cost-benefit and trade-off of the risk response, and to measure the residual risk and the risk performance. The risk likelihood is likely to change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability, because a zero-day vulnerability is a security flaw that has been discovered but not yet patched by the vendor, which means that it can be exploited by hackers before the affected systems can be updated or protected. A zero-day vulnerability increases the risk likelihood, because it creates a window of opportunity for hackers to launch attacks that could compromise the affected systems, and because it may not be detected or prevented by the existing security controls or measures. The other options are not as likely to change as the risk likelihood, although they may also be affected or influenced by the zero-day vulnerability. Control effectiveness, risk appetite, and key risk indicator (KRI) are all factors that could change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability, but they are not the most likely factor to change. Control effectiveness is the extent to which the risk controls or responses achieve the intended risk objectives or outcomes. Control effectiveness could change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability, because the existing controls may not be able to detect or prevent the exploitation of the vulnerability, or because new or additional controls may be needed to address the vulnerability. However, control effectiveness is not the most likely factor to change, because it depends on the type and level of the controls that are already in place or that can be implemented, and because it may not change until the vulnerability is actually exploited or the risk response is executed. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives. Risk appetite could change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability, because the vulnerability could affect the organization’s objectives or operations, and because the organization may need to adjust its risk tolerance or threshold to cope with the vulnerability. However, risk appetite is not the most likely factor to change, because it is a strategic and long-term decision that is driven by the organization’s mission, vision, values, and strategy, and because it may not change until the vulnerability is resolved or the risk impact is realized. Key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that measures the likelihood and impact of risks, and helps monitor and prioritize the most critical risks. KRI could change as a result of a zero-day vulnerability, because the vulnerability could increase the likelihood and impact of the risks, and because the organization may need to update or revise its KRI to reflect the current risk situation. However, KRI is not the most likely factor to change, because it is a monitoring and reporting tool that is derived from the risk analysis and response, and because it may not change until the vulnerability is exploited or the risk response is implemented. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, page 4-25.

To ensure that new IT policies address the enterprise’s requirements, it is important to involve the business owners who are the primary stakeholders of the IT services and processes. Business owners can provide valuable input on the business objectives, risks, and expectations that the IT policies should align with and support. By involving business owners in the policy development process, the IT policies will be more relevant, realistic, and acceptable to the business units. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.3: IT Risk Scenarios, page 23.

The primary purpose of creating and documenting control procedures is to help manage risk to acceptable tolerance levels. Control procedures are the specific actions or steps that are performed to achieve the control objectives and mitigate the risks. Control procedures should be documented to provide clear guidance, consistency, and accountability for the control activities. Documenting control procedures also helps to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, and to identify and address any gaps or weaknesses. The other options are not the primary purpose of creating and documenting control procedures, although they may be secondary benefits or outcomes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2, page 1-15.

The most important factor for an organization to consider when developing its IT strategy is the organizational goals and objectives. The organizational goals and objectives are the statements that define the purpose, direction, and desired outcomes of the organization. The organizational goals and objectives help to align the IT strategy with the organization’s mission, vision, values, and strategy, and to ensure that the IT strategy supports and enables the organization’s performance and improvement. The organizational goals and objectives also help to communicate and coordinate the IT strategy with the organization’s stakeholders, such as the board, management, business units, and IT functions, and to facilitate the IT decision-making and reporting processes. The other options are not as important as the organizational goals and objectives, although they may be related to the IT strategy. IT goals and objectives, the organization’s risk appetite statement, and legal and regulatory requirements are all factors that could affect the feasibility and sustainability of the IT strategy, but they do not necessarily reflect or influence the organization’s purpose, direction, and desired outcomes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, page 1-9.

 The best course of action for the risk practitioner who has identified that the agreed RTO with a SaaS provider is longer than the business expectation is to document the gap in the risk register and report to senior management. The risk register is the document that records the details of all identified risks, including their sources, causes, impacts, likelihood, and responses. The risk register should be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the risk environment or the risk status. Reporting to senior management is also important, because 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 risks are aligned with the organization’s goals and values. By documenting the gap in the risk register and reporting to senior management, the risk practitioner can communicate the issue clearly and effectively, and seek guidance and support for resolving the problem. Collaborating with the risk owner, including a right to audit clause, or advising the risk owner to accept the risk are not the best courses of action, because they may not be feasible, effective, or desirable in some situations, or they may require senior management approval or involvement. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 4-13.

The lack of integrity of data is the greatest concern when replication of a critical database used by two business units failed. Data integrity means that the data is accurate, complete, consistent, and reliable. If the replication failed, it means that the data in the primary and secondary databases may not be synchronized and may have discrepancies or errors. This could affect the quality and reliability of the data and the business processes that depend on it. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of integrity of data, as they are related to the efficiency, cost, or confidentiality of the data, which are less critical than the accuracy and reliability of the data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Performance Indicators, page 183.

The audit planning process is the process of defining and describing the scope, objectives, and approach of the internal audit that is performed to assess and evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions. The audit planning process involves identifying and prioritizing the audit areas, topics, or issues, and allocating the audit resources, time, and budget.

The most important information for a risk practitioner to provide to the internal audit department during the audit planning process is the annual risk assessment results, which are the outcomes or outputs of the risk assessment process that measures and compares the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizes them based on their significance and urgency. The annual risk assessment results can help the internal audit department to plan the audit by providing the following information:

The level and priority of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization if they materialize.

The gap or difference between the current and desired level of risk, and the extent or degree to which the risk responses or controls contribute to or affect the gap or difference.

The cost-benefit or feasibility analysis of the possible actions or plans to address or correct the risks and their responses, and the expected or desired outcomes or benefits that they may provide for the organization.

The other options are not the most important information for a risk practitioner to provide to the internal audit department during the audit planning process, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that the annual risk assessment results provide, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the internal audit department.

Closed management action plans from the previous audit are the actions or plans that have been implemented or completed by the management to address or correct the findings or recommendations from the previous internal audit that was performed. Closed management action plans from the previous audit can provide useful information on the progress and performance of the management in improving and optimizing the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions, but they are not the most important information for a risk practitioner to provide to the internal audit department during the audit planning process, because they do not indicate the current or accurate state and performance of the organization’s risk profile, and they may not cover all the relevant or emerging risks that may exist or arise.

An updated vulnerability management report is a report that provides the information and status of the vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the organization’s assets, processes, or systems that can be exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. An updated vulnerability management report can provide useful information on the existence and severity of the vulnerabilities, and the actions or plans to mitigate or prevent them, but it is not the most important information for a risk practitioner to provide to the internal audit department during the audit planning process, because it does not indicate the likelihood and impact of the risk scenarios that are associated with the vulnerabilities, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization.

A list of identified generic risk scenarios is a list that contains the descriptions or representations of the possible or hypothetical situations or events that may cause or result in a risk for the organization, without specifying the details or characteristics of the risk source, event, cause, or impact. A list of identified generic risk scenarios can provide useful information on the types or categories of the risks that may affect the organization, but it is not the most important information for a risk practitioner to provide to the internal audit department during the audit planning process, because it does not indicate the level and priority of the risks, and the potential consequences or impacts that they may cause for the organization. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 188

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 The most important element of a successful risk awareness training program is customizing content for the audience, because this ensures that the training is relevant, engaging, and effective for the learners. Customizing content for the audience means tailoring the training materials and methods to suit the specific needs, preferences, and characteristics of the target group, such as their roles, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and learning styles. Customizing content for the audience can help to achieve the following benefits:

Increase the motivation and interest of the learners, as they can see the value and applicability of the training to their work and goals.

Enhance the comprehension and retention of the learners, as they can relate the training content to their prior knowledge and experience, and use examples and scenarios that are familiar and realistic to them.

Improve the transfer and application of the learners, as they can practice and apply the training content to their actual work situations and challenges, and receive feedback and support that are relevant and useful to them. References = Implementing risk management training and awareness (part 1) 1

The average time to provision user accounts is the most useful indicator to measure the efficiency of an identity and access management (IAM) process, because it reflects how quickly and smoothly the process can grant access to the appropriate users. The average time to provision user accounts can be calculated by dividing the total time spent on provisioning user accounts by the number of user accounts provisioned in a given period. A lower average time indicates a more efficient IAM process, as it means that users can access the resources they need without unnecessary delays or errors. A higher average time may indicate problems or bottlenecks in the IAM process, such as manual steps, complex workflows, lack of automation, or insufficient resources. The average time to provision user accounts can also be compared across different applications, systems, or business units to identify areas for improvement or best practices. The other options are less useful indicators to measure the efficiency of an IAM process. The number of tickets for provisioning new accounts shows the demand for the IAM process, but not how well the process meets the demand. The password reset volume per month shows the frequency of password-related issues, but not how effectively the IAM process handles them. The average account lockout time shows the impact of account lockouts on user productivity, but not how efficiently the IAM process prevents or resolves them. References = Top Identity and Access Management Metrics 

Detailed Explanation:SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is used in the risk identification phase to comprehensively analyze the organization's internal and external environments. By understanding strengths and weaknesses, internal risks can be identified, while opportunities and threats help to identify external risks. This method provides a foundation for proactive risk management.

A technical vulnerability is a weakness or flaw in the design or implementation of an information system or resource that can be exploited or compromised by a threat or source of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A technical vulnerability may be caused by various factors, such as human error, system failure, process inefficiency, resource limitation, etc.

A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the technical vulnerabilities that exist or may arise in the organization’s information systems or resources, and determining their severity and impact. A vulnerability assessment 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.

The best response to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited is to conduct a vulnerability assessment, because it can help the organization to address the following questions:

What is the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how does it affect the functionality or security of the information system or resource?

How is the technical vulnerability being exploited or compromised, and by whom or what?

What are the potential consequences or impacts of the exploitation or compromise of the technical vulnerability for the organization and its stakeholders?

How can the technical vulnerability be detected and reported, and what are the available or feasible options or solutions to address or correct it?

Conducting a vulnerability assessment can help the organization to improve and optimize the information system or resource quality and performance, and to reduce or eliminate the technical vulnerability. It can also help the organization to align the information system or resource with the organization’s objectives and requirements, and to comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best responses to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of conducting a vulnerability assessment, which is to identify and evaluate the technical vulnerability, and to determine its severity and impact.

Assessing the vulnerability management process is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the process that is used to identify, analyze, evaluate, and communicate the technical vulnerabilities, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements. Assessing the vulnerability management process can help the organization to improve and optimize the process, and to reduce or eliminate the gaps or weaknesses in the process, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Conducting a control self-assessment is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls that are intended to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the information systems and resources, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the information systems activities or functions. Conducting a control self-assessment can help the organization to identify and document the control deficiencies, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Reassessing the inherent risk of the target is a process of reevaluating and recalculating the amount and type of risk that exists in the absence of any controls, and that is inherent to the nature or characteristics of the target, which is the information system or resource that is affected by the technical vulnerability. Reassessing the inherent risk of the target can help the organization to understand and document the risk exposure or level, and to align it with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders. 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 195

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A systems interruption caused by a personal USB device plugged into the corporate network by an IT employee who bypassed internal control procedures is a serious breach of information security and IT risk management. The person who should be accountable for this incident is the chief information officer (CIO), who is responsible for overseeing the IT function and ensuring compliance with IT policies and standards. The CIO should also ensure that appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken to prevent such incidents from recurring and to mitigate the impact of the systems interruption on the business operations and objectives. The CIO should also report the incident to the senior management and the board of directors, and communicate with the relevant stakeholders about the incident and the actions taken. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 181

 Business process owners would provide the most important input when identifying IT risk scenarios. IT risk scenarios are the situations or events that may affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance due to the use of information and technology1. Identifying IT risk scenarios means finding, recognizing, and describing the IT risks that the organization faces, as well as their sources, drivers, consequences, and responses2. Business process owners are the persons or entities who are responsible for the design, implementation, and operation of the business processes that support the organization’s goals and values3. Business process owners would provide the most important input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they can:

Provide the context and perspective of the business objectives, strategies, and requirements that are affected or supported by the IT risks and controls;

Identify and prioritize the IT risks that are relevant and significant to their business processes, as well as the IT assets and resources that are involved or impacted by the IT risks;

Evaluate and communicate the likelihood and impact of the IT risks on their business processes, as well as the risk appetite and tolerance of their business units;

Suggest and implement the most suitable and effective IT risk response actions or measures to mitigate the IT risks, as well as monitor and report on the IT risk and control performance;

Align and integrate the IT risk management activities and outcomes with the business risk management framework, policies, and standards. The other options are not the most important roles for providing input when identifying IT risk scenarios, as they are either less relevant or less specific than business process owners. Information security managers are the persons or entities who are responsible for the planning, implementation, and maintenance of the information security measures and controls that protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organization’s data and systems4. Information security managers can provide input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they can:

Provide the expertise and guidance on the information security risks and controls that are related to the use of information and technology;

Identify and assess the information security vulnerabilities and threats that may affect the organization’s data and systems, as well as the information security assets and resources that are involved or impacted by the information security risks;

Recommend and implement the most appropriate and effective information security risk response actions or measures to reduce or eliminate the information security risks, as well as monitor and report on the information security risk and control performance;

Align and integrate the information security risk management activities and outcomes with the information security framework, policies, and standards. However, information security managers are not the most important roles for providing input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they may not have the full understanding or visibility of the business objectives, strategies, and requirements that are affected or supported by the IT risks and controls, or the risk appetite and tolerance of the business units. Internal auditors are the persons or entities who are responsible for the independent and objective assurance and consulting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s governance, risk management, and internal control system5. Internal auditors can provide input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they can:

Provide the assurance and validation on the design and operation of the IT risks and controls that are related to the use of information and technology;

Identify and evaluate the IT risk and control gaps or deficiencies that may affect the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance, as well as the IT risk and control objectives and activities that are involved or impacted by the IT risk and control gaps or deficiencies;

Report and recommend improvements or enhancements to the IT risks and controls, as well as follow up and verify the implementation and effectiveness of the IT risk and control improvements or enhancements;

Align and integrate the IT risk and control assurance and consulting activities and outcomes with the internal audit framework, policies, and standards. However, internal auditors are not the most important roles for providing input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they may not have the authority or responsibility to implement or operate the IT risks and controls, or to decide or prioritize the IT risk response actions or measures. Operational risk managers are the persons or entities who are responsible for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment of the risks that arise from the failures or inadequacies of the organization’s people, processes, systems, or external events6. Operational risk managers can provide input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they can:

Provide the oversight and coordination of the operational risk management activities and performance across the organization, including the IT risks and controls that are related to the use of information and technology;

Identify and prioritize the operational risks that are relevant and significant to the organization, as well as the operational assets and resources that are involved or impacted by the operational risks;

Evaluate and communicate the likelihood and impact of the operational risks on the organization, as well as the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization;

Suggest and implement the most suitable and effective operational risk response actions or measures to mitigate the operational risks, as well as monitor and report on the operational risk and control performance;

Align and integrate the operational risk management activities and outcomes with the operational risk management framework, policies, and standards. However, operational risk managers are not the most important roles for providing input when identifying IT risk scenarios, because they may not have the specific knowledge or expertise on the IT risks and controls that are related to the use of information and technology, or the context and perspective of the business processes that are affected or supported by the IT risks and controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1, Page 85.

The most important factor to include in the analysis of the policy exception is the risk associated with the inability to implement the multi-factor authentication requirement. A policy exception is a temporary or permanent deviation from the established policies or standards of the organization, due to various reasons, such as budget constraints, technical limitations, or business needs. A policy exception must be submitted and approved by the appropriate authority, and it must include a clear and comprehensive analysis of the rationale, impact, and mitigation of the exception. The risk associated with the inability to implement the multi-factor authentication requirement is the most important factor to include in the analysis, because it evaluates the probability and severity of potential threats or incidents that could exploit the lack of multi-factor authentication, such as unauthorized access, data breach, or identity theft. The risk analysis also helps to justify the need and urgency of the policy exception, and to propose alternative or compensating controls to reduce or transfer the risk, such as password policies, access restrictions, or encryption. The other options are not the most important factor, although they may be relevant or supportive to the policy exception analysis. Sections of the policy that may justify not implementing the requirement are the clauses or provisions in the policy that allow or enable the policy exception, such as exemptions, waivers, or variances. These sections can help to validate the legitimacy and feasibility of the policy exception, but they do not assess the risk or the impact of the exception. Budget justification to implement the new requirement during the current year is the explanation and evidence of the financial resources and constraints that affect the implementation of the multi-factor authentication requirement. This justification can help to demonstrate the cost-benefit and return on investment of the requirement, but it does not measure the risk or the mitigation of the exception. Industry best practices with respect to implementation of the proposed control are the proven methods and standards that are adopted by the leading organizations in a specific field or sector for implementing the multi-factor authentication requirement. These best practices can help to benchmark and improve the quality and effectiveness of the requirement, but they do not quantify the risk or the impact of the exception. References = Policy Exception Management - ISACA, Multi-Factor Authentication Policy - University of Arkansas, Common Conditional Access policy: Require MFA for all users

A threat risk assessment will best quantify the risk associated with malicious users in an organization, because it focuses on identifying and evaluating the potential sources of harm or damage to the organization’s assets, such as data, systems, or networks. A malicious user is a person who intentionally and unauthorizedly accesses, modifies, destroys, or steals the organization’s information or resources, for personal gain, revenge, espionage, or sabotage. A threat risk assessment can help the organization to estimate the likelihood and impact of malicious user attacks, based on factors such as the user’s motivation, capability, opportunity, and access level. A threat risk assessment can also help the organization to determine the appropriate risk response strategies, such as prevention, detection, mitigation, or transfer, to reduce the risk exposure and impact of malicious user attacks. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 141

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the most important consideration when sharing risk management updates with executive management is ensuring relevance to organizational goals, as this helps to align risk management with business strategy and performance. The risk management updates should:

Highlight the key risks that may affect the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives

Demonstrate the value and benefits of risk management in supporting decision making and enhancing business resilience

Provide clear and concise information on the current risk profile, risk appetite, risk tolerance and risk exposure of the organization

Recommend appropriate risk response actions and resource allocation to address the identified risks

Communicate the roles and responsibilities of executive management in overseeing and governing risk management

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: IT Risk Reporting, pp. 221-2221

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), a contract associated with a cloud service provider must include ownership of responsibilities, as this defines the roles and obligations of both the cloud provider and the customer in relation to the cloud services. The contract should specify who is responsible for:

Service delivery and performance

Data security and privacy

Compliance with regulations and standards

Incident management and reporting

Business continuity and disaster recovery

Change management and configuration control

Intellectual property rights and licensing

Termination and data egress

The contract should also include service level agreements (SLAs) that measure and monitor the quality and availability of the cloud services, as well as remedies and penalties for non-compliance. The contract should also address pricing and payment terms, dispute resolution mechanisms, and liability and indemnification clauses.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 173-1741

The maturity of an IT risk management program is most influenced by the organization’s risk culture, as this reflects the shared values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape how the organization perceives and responds to risk. The risk culture determines the level of awareness, commitment, and involvement of the stakeholders in the IT risk management process, as well as the degree of integration and alignment with the enterprise’s objectives and strategy. A mature IT risk management program requires a strong and positive risk culture that fosters trust, collaboration, and accountability among the stakeholders, and supports continuous improvement and learning. The other options are not the most influential factors for the maturity of an IT risk management program, although they may have some impact or relevance. Benchmarking results against similar organizations can provide useful insights and comparisons, but they do not necessarily reflect the organization’s own risk culture or context. Industry-specific regulatory requirements can impose certain standards and expectations, but they do not guarantee the effectiveness or efficiency of the IT risk management program. Expertise available within the IT department can enhance the technical and operational aspects of the IT risk management program, but it does not ensure the strategic and cultural alignment with the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, page 23.

 According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when an organization has determined a risk scenario is outside the defined risk tolerance level is to identify risk responses, which are the actions or measures taken to address the risk. Identifying risk responses helps to:

Reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the risk to an acceptable level

Align the risk response with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

Optimize the value and benefits of the risk response

Balance the costs and efforts of the risk response with the potential losses or damages caused by the risk

Coordinate and communicate the risk response with the relevant stakeholders

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 161-1621

 The business application owner should have the authority to accept the associated risk, because they are responsible for the performance and outcomes of the critical application, and they understand the business requirements, expectations, and impact of the application. The business application owner can also evaluate the trade-offs between the potential benefits and costs of the application, and the potential risks and consequences of a disruption or failure of the application. The business application owner can also communicate and justify their risk acceptance 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 have the authority to accept the associated risk. The business continuity director is responsible for overseeing the planning and execution of the business continuity strategy, which includes ensuring the availability and resilience of the critical business processes and applications. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. The disaster recovery manager is responsible for managing the recovery and restoration of the IT systems and applications in the event of a disaster or disruption. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. The data center manager is responsible for managing the operation and maintenance of the data center infrastructure, which includes providing the physical and environmental security, power, cooling, and network connectivity for the IT systems and applications. However, they are not the owner of the application, and they may not have the full knowledge or authority to accept the risk on behalf of the business. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 181

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), reviewing the business impact analysis (BIA) will best help an organization select a recovery strategy for critical systems, as it provides an assessment of the potential impact and consequences of a disruption to the organization’s critical business functions and processes. Reviewing the BIA helps to:

Identify and prioritize the critical systems and their dependencies that support the critical business functions and processes

Estimate the maximum tolerable downtime (MTD) and the recovery time objective (RTO) for each critical system

Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of various recovery strategies and options for each critical system

Select the most appropriate recovery strategy and option for each critical system based on the organization’s objectives and requirements

Develop and implement the recovery plan and procedures for each critical system

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 174-1751

Key risk indicator (KRI): A metric that measures the level of risk exposure or the likelihood of a risk event1.

KRI threshold: A predefined value or range that triggers an alert or action when the KRI reaches or exceeds it2.

Loss expectancy: The estimated amount of loss that an organization may incur due to a risk event3.

The most helpful thing in developing KRI thresholds is loss expectancy information. Loss expectancy information provides an estimate of the potential or expected impact of a risk event on the organization’s operations, reputation, or objectives. Loss expectancy information can help an organization to:

Quantify and prioritize the risks that pose the greatest threat to the organization

Determine the acceptable level of risk exposure or tolerance for each risk

Set the appropriate value or range for the KRI threshold that reflects the risk appetite and the risk mitigation strategy

Monitor and measure the performance and effectiveness of the risk management process and controls

Loss expectancy information can be derived from various sources, such as historical data, statistical analysis, expert judgment, or simulation models3.

The other options are not as helpful as loss expectancy information in developing KRI thresholds, because they do not directly address the potential or expected impact of a risk event. Control performance predictions, which are the forecasts or estimates of how well the risk management controls will perform in preventing, detecting, or mitigating risks, may help to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the risk management process and controls, but they do not provide a clear and quantifiable measure of the risk impact. IT service level agreements (SLAs), which are the contracts or agreements that define the quality and availability of IT services, may help to establish the standards and expectations for IT service delivery and performance, but they do not provide a comprehensive and current view of the risk exposure or likelihood. Remediation activity progress, which is the status or outcome of the actions taken to address and resolve a risk event, may help to monitor and report the effectiveness and compliance of the risk management process and controls, but it is usually done after the risk event has occurred and resolved, not before.

References = Key Risk Indicators: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, Loss Expectancy: Definition, Calculation, and Examples

 The most important requirement to include in an outsourcing contract to help ensure sensitive data stored with a service provider is secure is a third-party assessment report of control environment effectiveness. This will help to verify that the service provider has implemented adequate security controls and practices to protect the data, and that they comply with the enterprise’s security policies and standards. A third-party assessment report also provides an independent and objective assurance of the service provider’s security posture and performance. Incidents related to data loss, risk assessment results, and cyber insurance policy are also important requirements to include in an outsourcing contract, but they are not as important as a third-party assessment report. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1.2, page 2461

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 643.

The risk practitioner’s BEST course of action is to validate the transfer of risk and update the register to reflect the change, because outsourcing the backup and recovery procedures to a third-party cloud provider does not eliminate the risk, but rather transfers it to the service provider. The risk practitioner should verify that the service provider has adequate controls and capabilities to handle the backup and recovery procedures, and that the contractual agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties. The risk practitioner should also update the risk register to reflect the new risk owner and the residual risk level. The other options are not the best course of action, because:

Option A: Accepting the risk and documenting contingency plans for data disruption is not the best course of action, because it implies that the risk practitioner is still responsible for the risk, even though it has been transferred to the service provider. Contingency plans are also reactive measures, rather than proactive ones.

Option B: Removing the associated risk scenario from the risk register due to avoidance is not the best course of action, because it implies that the risk has been eliminated, which is not the case. The risk still exists, but it has been transferred to the service provider. The risk register should reflect the current risk status and ownership.

Option C: Mitigating the risk with compensating controls enforced by the third-party cloud provider is not the best course of action, because it implies that the risk practitioner is still involved in the risk management process, even though the risk has been transferred to the service provider. The risk practitioner should rely on the service provider’s controls and capabilities, and monitor their performance and compliance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 196.

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that measures the level of risk exposure or the likelihood of a risk event1. A KRI threshold is a predefined value or range that triggers an alert or action when the KRI reaches or exceeds it2. A data leakage incident is an unauthorized or accidental exposure of sensitive or confidential data to external parties3.

When a KRI threshold reaches the alert level, indicating that data leakage incidents are highly probable, the risk practitioner’s first course of action should be to review the incident handling procedures. Incident handling procedures are the plans and actions to be taken in the event of a data breach or security incident, such as data leakage4. Reviewing the incident handling procedures can help the risk practitioner to:

Verify the roles and responsibilities of the incident response team and other stakeholders

Confirm the communication and escalation channels and protocols

Identify the tools and resources available for incident detection, containment, analysis, eradication, recovery, and reporting

Evaluate the readiness and preparedness of the organization to respond to a data leakage incident

Update or revise the procedures as needed to reflect the current situation and risk level

Reviewing the incident handling procedures can help the risk practitioner to ensure that the organization can respond to a data leakage incident effectively and efficiently, minimizing the potential or expected impact on the organization’s operations, reputation, or objectives.

The other options are not the first course of action for the risk practitioner, although they may be relevant or necessary at later stages of the risk management process. Updating the KRI threshold, which means adjusting the value or range that triggers an alert or action, may be appropriate if the KRI threshold is too high or too low, but it does not address the imminent risk of data leakage or the response plan. Recommending additional controls, which means suggesting new or improved measures to prevent, detect, or mitigate data leakage, may be useful for reducing the risk exposure or impact, but it does not ensure that the organization is ready or capable to handle a data leakage incident. Performing a root cause analysis, which means finding and identifying the underlying factors that contributed to the risk event, may be helpful for learning from the incident and improving the risk management strategy, but it is usually done after the incident has occurred and resolved, not before.

References = Key Risk Indicators: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, What is Data Leakage? Definition, Causes, and Prevention, Incident Response Planning: Best Practices for Businesses

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics that measure the achievement of objectives and the effectiveness of processes. KPIs can help management report on risk by providing quantitative and qualitative information on the risk profile, the risk appetite, the risk response, and the risk outcomes. KPIs can also help monitor and communicate the progress and results of risk management activities, such as risk identification, assessment, mitigation, and reporting. KPIs can be aligned with the strategic, operational, and tactical goals of the organization, and can be tailored to the specific needs and expectations of different stakeholders. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Risk Indicators and Key Performance Indicators, p. 197-199.

Brainstorming sessions would best contribute to identifying obscure risk scenarios, as they allow participants to generate and share ideas without being constrained by conventional thinking or assumptions. Brainstorming sessions can help to identify risks that are not obvious, not well understood, or not covered by existing controls. Control self-assessments, vulnerability analysis, and Monte Carlo analysis are useful methods for evaluating and quantifying risks, but they are not designed to identify obscure risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Identification, page 59.

Continuous risk management process improvement is the practice of evaluating and enhancing the risk management process on a regular basis, to ensure that it is effective, efficient, and aligned with the business objectives and strategy. Continuous risk management process improvement can help identify and address the gaps, weaknesses, or opportunities for improvement in the risk management process, and ensure that the process is responsive and adaptable to the changing risk environment. The most effective method for continuous risk management process improvement is periodic assessments, which are systematic and objective evaluations of the risk management process, performed at predefined intervals or after significant events. Periodic assessments can help measure and monitor the performance and maturity of the risk management process, using criteria such as the risk management framework, standards, policies, procedures, methods, tools, roles, responsibilities, and results. Periodic assessments can also help identify and analyze the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities of the risk management process, and provide feedback and recommendations for improvement. Periodic assessments can also help communicate and report the status and progress of the risk management process to the stakeholders, and obtain their input and support for improvement actions. References = Continuous Risk Management Guidebook, p. 7-8, ISO 31000: risk management and its continuous improvement, How Continuous Monitoring Drives Risk Management.

According to the 1.9 Ownership & Accountability - CRISC, risk ownership is best established by mapping risk to specific business process owners. Details of the risk owner should be documented in the risk register. Results of the risk monitoring should be discussed and communicated with the risk owner as they own the risk and are accountable for maintaining the risk within acceptable levels. To ensure effective risk ownership, it is most important that risk owners have decision-making authority, as this enables them to take timely and appropriate actions to manage the risk and ensure that it is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. Without decision-making authority, risk owners may not be able to implement the necessary risk responses or escalate the issues to the relevant stakeholders. Therefore, the answer is D. risk owners have decision-making authority. References = 1.9 Ownership & Accountability - CRISC, The Importance of Effective Risk Governance in the C-suite - Aon

The first thing that the risk practitioner should do upon learning that a new third-party system on the corporate network has introduced vulnerabilities that could compromise corporate IT systems is to notify information security management. This will help to escalate the issue to the appropriate authority and responsibility level, and to initiate the incident response process. Information security management can also coordinate with the third party, the IT department, and other stakeholders to assess the impact and severity of the vulnerabilities, and to implement the necessary actions to contain, eradicate, and recover from the incident. Confirming the vulnerabilities with the third party, identifying procedures to mitigate the vulnerabilities, and requesting IT to remove the system from the network are not the first things that the risk practitioner should do, as they may not address the urgency and priority of the issue, and may not involve the relevant decision makers and responders. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.2, page 1931

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 659.

Once a risk owner has decided to implement a control to mitigate risk, it is most important to develop a process for measuring and reporting control performance. This process helps to monitor and evaluate the actual results and outcomes of the control, compare them with the expected or desired objectives and standards, identify any gaps or issues that may affect the control’s effectiveness or efficiency, and report them to the relevant stakeholders for decision making or improvement actions.

An alternate control design in case of failure of the identified control is a contingency plan that can be used to reduce the impact of a control failure or breakdown. It is not the most important thing to develop after implementing a control, but rather a backup option that can be activated when needed.

A process for bypassing control procedures in case of exceptions is a mechanism that allows authorized users to override or circumvent a control in certain situations, such as emergencies, errors, or special requests. It is not the most important thing to develop after implementing a control, but rather a risk response that can be applied when necessary.

Procedures to ensure the effectiveness of the control are the steps or actions that are required to implement, operate, and maintain the control in accordance with the risk owner’s expectations and requirements. They are not the most important thing to develop after implementing a control, but rather a part of the control design and implementation process.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 13

Information Technology & Security, page 7

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 5

 Risk assessment is the process of analyzing and evaluating the likelihood and consequences of the identified risks, and comparing them with the risk criteria and appetite. Risk assessment results can provide valuable information to support risk decisions, such as selecting and implementing the appropriate risk response strategies. The best way to provide executive management with the best information to make risk decisions as a result of a risk assessment is to present a comparison of risk assessment results to the desired state. The desired state is the optimal level of risk exposure that the organization wants to achieve, based on its risk objectives, goals, and strategy. A comparison of risk assessment results to the desired state can help executive management understand the current and potential gap between the actual and target risk levels, and prioritize the most critical and relevant risks that need attention and action. A comparison of risk assessment results to the desired state can also help executive management evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing risk response, and identify the opportunities and challenges for improvement. A comparison of risk assessment results to the desired state can also help communicate and justify the risk decisions to other stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and approval. References = Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative - ISACA, Risk Management Essentials: How to Develop a Risk Profile (TRN2-J07), Risk Response Strategies: Avoid, Transfer, Mitigate, Accept.

According to the Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture article, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite should be aligned with the organization’s strategy, goals, and values, and should reflect the organization’s risk culture and capabilities. One of the main considerations when validating an organization’s risk appetite is the capacity to withstand loss, which is the ability of the organization to absorb the impact of adverse events without jeopardizing its viability or reputation. The capacity to withstand loss depends on various factors, such as the financial strength, the operational resilience, the governance structure, and the stakeholder expectations of the organization. By assessing the capacity to withstand loss, the organization can determine if its risk appetite is realistic and appropriate, or if it needs to be adjusted to match its risk profile and environment. References = Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture

The next step for the risk practitioner when a key external technology supplier refuses to provide control design and effectiveness information is to review the supplier’s contractual obligations. The contract between the organization and the supplier should specify the terms and conditions for the provision of the service or function, including the requirements for control design and effectiveness information. By reviewing the contract, the risk practitioner can determine if the supplier is breaching the contract and take appropriate actions to enforce the contract or terminate the relationship. Escalating the non-cooperation to management, excluding applicable controls from the assessment, and requesting risk acceptance from the business process owner are other possible steps, but they are not as effective as reviewing the supplier’s contractual obligations. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 11; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 144.

The most effective way to mitigate the risk of unintentional data disclosure through the use of social media sites is to conduct user awareness training. User awareness training is a process of educating and informing the users about the security policies, procedures, and practices that are relevant and applicable to their roles and responsibilities. User awareness training can help to increase the knowledge, understanding, and compliance of the users regarding the data protection and privacy requirements, and the potential risks and consequences of data disclosure through social media sites. User awareness training can also help to influence the behavior, attitude, and culture of the users toward data security and privacy. The other options are not as effective as conducting user awareness training, as they are related to the technical, procedural, or contractual measures to mitigate the risk, not the human or behavioral measures to mitigate the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

The three lines of defense model is a framework that describes the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the risk management and internal control processes of an organization. The three lines of defense are:

The first line of defense: the operational management and staff who are responsible for identifying, assessing, and responding to the risks, as well as implementing and maintaining the controls within their areas of activity.

The second line of defense: the risk management, compliance, and security functions who are responsible for establishing the risk policies and standards, providing guidance and support, monitoring and reporting on the risk performance and compliance, and facilitating the risk management and internal control processes across the organization.

The third line of defense: the internal audit function who is responsible for providing independent and objective assurance on the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management and internal control processes, as well as recommending improvements and best practices. The stakeholders who are typically included as part of a line of defense within the three lines of defense model are the legal team, who belong to the second line of defense. The legal team is responsible for ensuring that the organization complies with the relevant laws and regulations, as well as for advising and assisting the organization on the legal aspects and implications of the risk management and internal control processes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1, p. 32-33