CRISC Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

The most important factor to consider when assessing the residual risk of implementing encryption for data at rest is the key management. Key management is the process of generating, storing, distributing, using, and destroying the cryptographic keys that are used to encrypt anddecrypt the data. Key management is essential for ensuring the security, availability, and integrity of the encrypted data, as well as for complying with the legal and regulatory requirements. Poor key management could result in the loss, theft, compromise, or corruption of the keys, which could lead to unauthorized access, data breach, data loss, or data recovery failure. Therefore, key management must be considered to assess the residual risk, which is the risk that remains after the risk treatment, such as encryption, is applied. Data retention requirements, data destruction requirements, and cloud storage architecture are not as important as key management, as they do not directly affect the encryption and decryption of the data, and they may not introduce significant residual risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 217.

 The control owner should be responsible for evaluating the residual risk after a compensating control has been implemented. A compensating control is a control that provides an alternative or additional measure of protection when the primary or preferred control is not feasible or effective. A residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk response or mitigation has beenapplied. The control owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for designing, implementing, and monitoring the controls that enforce the policy. The control owner can assess the impact and effectiveness of the compensating control on the residual risk, and report the results and recommendations to the risk owner or the risk practitioner. The other options are not as responsible as the control owner, as they are related to the compliance, ownership, or management of the risk, not the evaluation of the control. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.4: Key Control Indicators, page 211.

Business Impact Analysis (BIA):

Objective: The primary objective of a BIA is to identify and evaluate the effects of disruptions on business operations. This includes determining the criticality of IT assets that support key business processes.

Risk Mitigation: By identifying critical IT assets, organizations can prioritize risk mitigation efforts to ensure that key business processes remain operational during and after disruptions.

Appropriate IT Risk Mitigation:

Critical Asset Identification: Knowing which IT assets are essential allows for targeted risk mitigation strategies. This ensures resources are allocated efficiently to protect the most important systems.

Impact Assessment: Understanding the impact of potential disruptions on critical IT assets helps in developing effective disaster recovery and continuity plans.

Comparison with Other Options:

Validating Critical IT Risk: While important, this is typically part of a broader BIA process rather than its primary objective.

Assigning Accountability for IT Risk: This is crucial for governance but does not directly enable risk mitigation actions.

Defining IT Risk-aware Culture: Important for overall risk management but does not directly influence specific mitigation actions.

Best Practices:

Detailed Asset Inventory: Maintain an up-to-date inventory of IT assets and their dependencies on business processes.

Regular Updates and Reviews: Continuously update the BIA to reflect changes in the IT environment and business processes.

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), assessing changes in residual risk is the best approach for determining whether a risk action plan is effective, as it measures the impact and value of the risk response actions and controls on the risk level. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk response actions and controls have been implemented. Assessing changes in residual risk helps to:

Evaluate the extent to which the risk response actions and controls have reduced the likelihood and/or impact of the risk to an acceptable level

Identify and report any deviations, errors, or weaknesses in the risk response actions and controls and their performance

Recommend and implement corrective actions or improvement measures to address any issues or deficiencies in the risk response actions and controls

Monitor and measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response actions and controls and their alignment with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

Update the risk register and the risk treatment plan to reflect the current risk status and the residual risk levels

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

 A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the risks that may affect a project, as well as the actions that are taken or planned to manage them1. A risk register should include information such as the risk description, category, source, impact, likelihood, severity, owner, status, and response2. Among these, the most important information to capture in the risk register is the action plans to address risk scenarios requiring treatment. This is because the action plans are the specific steps that are taken to reduce, avoid, transfer, or accept the risks, depending on thechosen risk treatment option3. The action plans should beclear, realistic, measurable, and aligned with the project objectives and constraints4. The action plans should also be monitored and updated regularly to ensure that they are effective and appropriate for the changing risk environment5. The action plans are essential for managing the risks and ensuring the successful delivery of the project. The other options are not the most important information to capture in the risk register, as they are either less relevant or less actionable than the action plans. The team that performed the risk assessment is the group of people who identified, analyzed, and evaluated the risks, using various tools and techniques6. While this information may be useful foraccountability and communication purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not indicate how the risks are treated or resolved. The assigned risk manager to provide oversight is the person who has the responsibility and authority to oversee the risk management process and ensure that the risks are properly identified, assessed, treated, and reported. While this information may be useful for governance and coordination purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not specify what actions are taken or planned to manage the risks. The methodology used to perform the risk assessment is the approach or framework that is used to identify, analyze, and evaluate the risks, based on the project context, scope, and objectives. While this information may be useful for consistency and transparency purposes, it is not as important as the action plans, as it does not describe how the risks are addressed or mitigated. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.5, Page 55.

Policies and standards are important components of the risk management process, as they define the objectives, expectations, and requirements for managing risk within the organization. Policies and standards are also the means by which senior management formally approves and communicates the risk practices to the stakeholders, ensuring that the risk management process is aligned with the organizational strategy, culture, and values. Policies and standards also provide the authority and accountability for the risk management roles and responsibilities, as well as the criteria and metrics for measuring and reporting risk performance.

The next thing that the risk practitioner should do from a risk management perspective when the organization is considering the adoption of an aggressive business strategy to achieve desired growth is to identify new threats resulting from the new business strategy. A threat is a potentialcause of an unwanted incident that may affect the achievement of the objectives. An aggressive business strategy is a strategy that involves pursuing high-risk, high-reward opportunities or initiatives to gain a competitive advantage or a significant market share. An aggressive business strategy may introduce new threats or increase thelikelihood or impact of existing threats, such as market volatility, regulatory changes, customer dissatisfaction, or competitor retaliation. Therefore, the risk practitioner should identify the new threats resulting from the new business strategy, and assess their potential consequences and implications for the organization. The other options are not as immediate as identifying new threats resulting from the new business strategy, as they are related to the update, information, or measurement of the risk management process, not the identification or analysis of the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.3: IT Risk Scenarios, page 23.

The Three Lines Model (formerly “three lines of defense”) is a governance concept used in CRISC and other ISACA frameworks. Its primary objective is to clarify who does what in risk management:

First line – operational management: owns and manages risk, operates controls.

Second line – risk management/compliance: provides expertise, support, and monitoring for risk and controls.

Third line – internal audit: provides independent assurance on the effectiveness of governance, risk management, and control.

CRISC-related notes on the three lines state that:

The most significant benefit of using the three lines model is that it clarifies essential roles of key stakeholders.

Risk owner is a risk management role that is part of the first line of defense.

Establishing a risk management framework is a direct responsibility of the second line.

Operational management is the function that manages risk according to the three lines model.

So the core of the model is role and responsibility clarity, which directly supports effective governance and accountability for risk.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Oversight and monitoring are important outcomes, but they are consequences of properly defined roles rather than the model’s primary objective.

B. “Only employees are responsible” is false; accountability spans board, senior management, management, staff, and independent assurance.

**D. Senior management does have key responsibilities, but the model explicitly distributes risk roles across multiple lines, not just senior management.

Therefore, the PRIMARY objective is correctly captured by C: providing clear delineation of roles and responsibilities for managing IT risk.

The risk appetite of an organization is the amount and type of risk that it is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives1. Technology risk is the risk related to the use of information and technology in theorganization2. If an organization has raised its risk appetite for technology risk, it means that it is willing to accept more risk in exchange for more potential benefits from technology initiatives. This would likely result in lower risk management cost, as the organization would spend less on implementing and maintaining controls to mitigate technology risk. The other options are not the most likely results of raising the risk appetite for technology risk. Increased inherent risk is the risk before considering the effect of controls3, and it is not directly affected by the risk appetite. Higher risk management cost would be the opposite of the expected outcome, as the organization would reduce its risk management efforts. Decreased residual risk is the risk after considering the effect of controls3, and it would also be the opposite of the expected outcome, as the organization would accept more risk exposure. References = Organisations must define their IT risk appetite and tolerance; IT Risk Resources; CRISC | What Accurate CRISC Free Download Is

The best course of action when a recent regulatory requirement has the potential to affect an organization’s use of a third party to supply outsourced business services is to conduct a gap analysis, as it involves comparing the current and desired states of compliance, and identifying any gaps or discrepancies that need to be addressed. Terminating the outsourcing agreement, identifying compensating controls, and transferring risk to the third party are not the best courses of action, as they may not be feasible, effective, or appropriate, respectively, and may require the prior knowledge of the compliance gaps and risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 111.

An IT risk register is a document that records the identified IT risks, their analysis, and their responses. It is a useful tool for managing and communicating the IT risks throughout the project or the organization. The most important factor for maintaining the effectiveness of an IT risk register is to perform regular reviews and updates to the register, meaning that the riskpractitioner should periodically check and revise the riskregister to reflect the changes in the IT risk environment, the project status, or the organization’s objectives. Performing regular reviews and updates to the register can help to ensure that the risk register is accurate, complete, and current, and that it provides relevant and reliable information for the risk management decision making and actions. Performing regular reviews and updates to the register can also help to identify any new or emerging IT risks, as well as to monitor and report on the IT risk performance and improvement. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1, p. 106-107

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (aligned to ISACA CRISC guidance)

The BIA identifies critical processes, maximum tolerable downtime, and the business impact of disruptions. CRISC and business continuity practices emphasize that the BCP must be aligned with BIA results. Comparing the BIA with the BCP ensures that recovery strategies, objectives (RTOs/RPOs), and supporting technologies specified in the BCP actually reflect the priorities and impact levels identified in the BIA for each operational area. Alternative facilities and backup/restoration procedures are important BCP components, but the primary reason for comparison is to validate that the chosen solutions and recovery targets match business requirements. The BIA does not primarily “quantify the cost of the technology environment”; cost analysis may follow but is not the core BIA purpose. Therefore, ensuring that BCP objectives and enabling technology are consistent with BIA findings is the key objective of the comparison.

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

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

Senior management interviews would offer the MOST insight with regard to an organization’s risk culture, because they can reveal the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the seniormanagement towards risk management, and how they influence and support the risk management process and activities in the organization. Senior management interviews can also provide information on the risk appetite, tolerance, and objectives of the organization, and how they are communicated and implemented across the organization. The other options are not as insightful as senior management interviews, because:

Option A: Risk management procedures are the steps and methods that define how the risk management process and activities are performed in the organization, but they do not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the human and behavioral aspects of risk management.

Option C: Benchmark analyses are the comparisons of the performance and practices of the organization with those of similar or successful organizations, but they do not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the internal and unique aspects of risk management.

Option D: Risk management framework is the set of rules and standards that guide and support the risk management process and activities in the organization, but it does not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the leadership and commitment aspects of risk management. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 82.

Annual loss expectancy (ALE) is a method to assign a monetary value to risk by multiplying the probability of a risk event by the potential loss associated with that event1. ALE can be used to compare the costs and benefits of different risk mitigation options and to determine the optimallevel of investment in riskmanagement2. Business impact analysis (BIA) is a process to identify and evaluate the potential effects of a disruption on the critical functions and processes of an organization3. BIA can help to forecast the impacts of a risk event, but it does not assign a monetary value to the risk itself. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a technique to compare the costs and benefits of a project, decision, or action4. CBA can help to evaluate the feasibility and profitability of a risk mitigation option, but it does not assign a monetary value to the risk itself. Inherent vulnerabilities are the weaknesses or flaws in a system, process, or asset that expose it to potential threats5. Inherent vulnerabilities can increase the likelihood or impact of a risk event, but they do not assign a monetary value to the risk itself. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.2: Risk Analysis, pp. 77-81.

 Understanding KPIs:

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are metrics used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of a process. They must be accurate and relevant to provide meaningful insights.

 Process Inefficiency Despite No Control Issues:

If a KPI shows inefficiency but no control issues are noted, it suggests that the KPI may not be accurately reflecting the process performance.

Recalibrating the KPI ensures that it correctly measures what it is intended to, providing a true picture of the process efficiency.

 Steps for Recalibration:

Review the current KPI and its alignment with process objectives.

Adjust the KPI parameters or thresholds to better reflect process performance.

Validate the recalibrated KPI with historical data to ensure accuracy.

 Comparing Other Actions:

Implementing New Controls:Premature without understanding the root cause of the KPI discrepancy.

Redesigning the Process:Extensive and unnecessary if the KPI is simply miscalibrated.

Re-Evaluating Existing Control Design:Important but secondary to ensuring KPI accuracy.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of accurate KPIs in monitoring process performance and the need for recalibration when discrepancies are found (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.14 Key Performance Indicators)​​.

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

 The global organization has adopted risk acceptance as the risk response with regard to privacy requirements, as it has decided to continue with the implementation of the application that does not address all privacy requirements across multiple jurisdictions, and bear the potential consequences of noncompliance. Risk avoidance, risk transfer, and risk mitigation are not the risk responses adopted by the organization, as they would involve avoiding, sharing, or reducing the risk of noncompliance with privacy requirements, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 111.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines or systems that can perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, decision making, etc.

An organization that is considering adopting AI should be aware of the potential risks and challenges that may arise from using AI, such as ethical, legal, social, technical, operational, or security issues.

The most important course of action for the risk practitioner is to identify applicable risk scenarios. This means that the risk practitioner should analyze the context and objectives of theAI adoption, the stakeholders and their expectations, the data and information sources and quality, the AI models and algorithms and their reliability, the AI outputs and outcomes and their impact, and the AI governance and oversight mechanisms and their effectiveness.

Identifying applicable risk scenarios helps to assess the likelihood and impact of the risks, prioritize the risks, design and implement appropriate risk responses, monitor and evaluate the risk performance, and report and communicate the risk status and issues.

The other options are not the most important courses of action for the risk practitioner. They are either secondary or not essential for AI risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 24

Information Technology & Security, page 18

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 16

Lack of common understanding of the organization’s risk culture is the greatest barrier to achieving the initiative’s objectives, because it hinders the alignment and integration of risk management across the organization. Risk culture is the set of shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that influence how risk is perceived and managed in an organization. A risk universe is a comprehensive and structured representation of all the sources and types of risk that an organization faces. Developing a risk universe requires a common understanding of the organization’s risk culture, as it affects the risk appetite, tolerance, and strategy of the organization. Lack of cross-functional risk assessment workshops, lack of quantitative methods to aggregate the total risk exposure, and lack of an integrated risk management system are all challenges that may affect thedevelopment of a risk universe, but they are not the greatest barrier, as they can be overcome with appropriate tools and techniques. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 44

A RACI matrix is a tool that assigns the roles and responsibilities for each risk, such as who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. A RACI matrix helps to clarify the expectations and accountabilities for each risk owner and stakeholder, and to ensure that the risk is managed and monitored effectively and efficiently.

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the identified risks, their likelihood, impact, and mitigation strategies. A risk register does not assign the accountability for each risk, but rather the ownership and response.

A risk catalog is a collection of risks that have been identified and categorized based on common attributes, such as source, type, or impact. A risk catalog does not assign the accountability for each risk, but rather the classification and description.

A risk scenario is a technique that simulates the possible outcomes of different risk events and assesses their impact on the enterprise’s objectives and operations. A risk scenario does not assign the accountability for each risk, but rather the analysis and evaluation.

 The organization’s risk tolerance should be defined and approved by the board of directors, as they are the highest governing body of the organization and have the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the strategic direction and oversight of the risk management process. The board of directors should establish and communicate the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization, and ensure that they are aligned with the organization’s vision, mission, values, and goals. The board of directors should also monitor and review the risk management performance and outcomes, and provide guidance and support to the management and staff. The other options are not the correct answers, as they do not have the authority or responsibility to define and approve the organization’s risk tolerance, although they may have some roles or involvement in the risk management process. The chief risk officer (CRO) is the senior executive who leads and coordinates the risk management activities across the organization, and reports to the board of directors and the chief executive officer (CEO). The CRO should advise and assist the board of directors in defining and approving the risk tolerance, but they cannot do it on their own. The chief executive officer (CEO) is thehighest-ranking manager of the organization and has the responsibility and accountability for the execution and implementation of the risk management process. The CEO should support and communicate the risk tolerance defined and approved by the board of directors, but they cannot do it on their own. The chief information officer (CIO) is the senior executive who oversees and manages the information and technology functions and resources of the organization. The CIO should ensure that the IT risks and controls are aligned with the risk tolerance defined and approved by the board of directors, but they cannot do it on their own. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, page 24.

 The FIRST thing that the organization should do to reduce the risk of data exposure when modifying its system to enable acceptance of credit card payments is to conduct a risk assessment, because it is a process that involves identifying and analyzing the potential risks, threats, and vulnerabilities that may affect the system and the data, and their likelihood and impact on the business objectives and processes. A risk assessment can help to determine the current risk level and exposure, and to provide the basis for selecting and implementing the appropriate risk responses and controls. The other options are not the first thing that the organization should do, because:

Option B: Updating the security strategy is a result of conducting a risk assessment, but not the first thing that the organization should do. A security strategy is a plan that defines the security objectives, policies, standards, and procedures for the system and the data, and it should be aligned with the risk assessment results and the business requirements and expectations.

Option C: Implementing additional controls is a response to the risk assessment results, but not the first thing that the organization should do. Controls are the measures that are designed and implemented to prevent or reduce the occurrence or impact of the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities, and to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system and the data.

Option D: Updating the risk register is a part of the risk assessment process, but not the first thing that the organization should do. A risk register is a tool that documents and tracks the identified risks, their characteristics, their status, and their responses, and it should be updated regularly to reflect the current risk profile and exposure of the system and the data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 108.

Data confidentiality risk is the risk that the data may be accessed, disclosed, or modified by unauthorized parties, resulting in breaches of privacy, trust, or compliance1. Platform as a Service (PaaS) is a cloud computing model that provides a platform for developing, testing, and deploying applications, without requiring the users to manage the underlying infrastructure2. An internally developed payroll application is an application that is created and maintained by the organization itself, rather than by a third-party vendor, and that is used to process and manage the payroll data of the organization’s employees3. The owner of the data confidentiality risk is the person or entity that has the authority and accountability for the data and its protection, and that is responsible for identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risk. The owner of the data confidentiality risk related to an internally developed payroll application that leverages PaaS infrastructure from the cloud is the human resources head, as they are the person who oversees the human resources function and the payroll data of the organization. The human resources head has the best understanding of the sensitivity, value, and usage of the payroll data, and the potential impacts and implications of a data confidentiality breach. The human resources head also has the ability and responsibility to define and implement the policies, procedures, and controls that are necessary to protect the payroll data, and to monitor and report on the performance and compliance of the data confidentiality risk management. The IT infrastructure head, the supplier management head, and the application development head are not the best choices for owning the data confidentiality risk related to an internally developed payrollapplication that leverages PaaS infrastructure from the cloud, as they do not have the same level of authority and accountability as the human resources head. The IT infrastructure head is the person who oversees the IT infrastructure function and the PaaS infrastructure of the organization. The IT infrastructure head may be involved in providing input and feedback to the human resources head on the data confidentiality risk management, especially those related to the PaaS infrastructure, but they do not have the final say or the overall responsibility for the payroll data and its protection. The supplier management head is the person who oversees the supplier management function and the relationship with the cloud service provider that provides the PaaS infrastructure. The supplier management head may be involved in negotiating and enforcing the service level agreements and the security requirements with the cloud service provider, but they do not have the authority or the expertise to manage the data confidentiality risk of the payroll data. The application development head is the person who oversees the application development function and the development, testing, and deployment of the payroll application. The application development head may be involved in designing and implementing the security features and controls of the payroll application, but they do not have the perspective or the influence to manage the data confidentiality risk of the payroll data. References = 3: Payroll Software: What Is It & How Does It Work? | QuickBooks2: What is Platform as a Service (PaaS)? | IBM1: Data Confidentiality: Identifyingand Protecting Assets Against Data … : [Risk Ownership - Risk Management] : [Human Resources and Payroll Security Policy - University of …] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.1: IT Risk Concepts, pp. 17-19.] : [Risk andInformation Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.1: Risk Identification, pp. 57-59.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.1: Control Design, pp. 233-235.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.2: Control Implementation, pp. 243-245.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.3: Control Monitoring and Maintenance, pp. 251-253.]

The best approach to ensure the effectiveness of risk awareness training is to create modules for targeted audiences. This means that the risk awareness training should be customized and tailored to the specific needs, roles, and responsibilities of different groups of staff, such as business owners, process owners, IT staff, or external parties. Creating modules for targeted audiences helps to ensure that the risk awareness training is relevant, engaging, and applicable to the participants, and that it covers the appropriate level of detail and complexity. It also helps to enhance the learning outcomes and retention of the risk awareness training, and to foster aculture of risk awareness and responsibility within the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1, page 2491

A comparison of current risk levels with established tolerance is the most useful information for senior management when determining an appropriate risk response, as it shows the gap between the actual risk exposure and the desired risk exposure of the enterprise. This gap indicates the need and urgency for risk response actions, and helps senior management to prioritize and allocate resources for risk mitigation. A comparison of current risk levels with established tolerance also reflects the effectiveness of the existing risk management process and controls, and enables senior management to monitor and adjust the risk strategy and objectives accordingly. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 234. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 234. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 234.

The relationship owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for managing the relationship with the service provider. The relationship owner should be accountable for ensuring that risk responses are implemented, as they are the primary point of contact and communication with the service provider. The relationship owner can also monitor and evaluate the performance and compliance of the service provider, and enforce the contractual obligations and service level agreements. The other options are not as accountable as the relationship owner, as they are related to the assessment, security, or legal aspects of the service provider, not the management or oversight of the service provider. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

The best recommendation to address recent IT risk trends that indicate social engineering attempts are increasing in the organization is to conduct a simulated phishing attack, as it tests the awareness and behavior of the employees in responding to a realistic and targeted email scam, and identifies the areas and individuals that need improvement or training. Updating spam filters, revising the acceptable use policy, and strengthening disciplinary procedures are not the best recommendations, as they may not address the human factor of the risk, or may be too reactive or punitive, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 155.

Periodically reviewing big data strategies is the best option to minimize the risk of inaccurate data, because it allows the organization to assess the quality, validity, and reliability of the data sources and the analytics methods. It also enables the organization to identify and address any gaps, errors, or inconsistencies in the data and the results. By reviewing the big data strategies, the organization can ensure that the data analytics are aligned with the business objectives and the risk appetite.

Establishing an intellectual property agreement is not relevant to the risk of inaccurate data, as it is a legal measure to protect the ownership and use of the data, not its quality or accuracy.

Evaluating each of the data sources for vulnerabilities is a good practice, but it is not sufficient to minimize the risk of inaccurate data, as it only focuses on the security aspect of the data, not the validity or reliability of the data itself.

Benchmarking to industry best practice is a useful way to compare the performance and results of the data analytics, but it does not directly address the risk of inaccurate data, as it assumes that the data and the methods are already valid and reliable. References = Risk IT Framework, 2nd Edition, ISACA, 2019, page 62-63.

 Performing a post-implementation review is the best way to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system, as it helps to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and its controls after they have been deployed and operationalized. A post-implementation review is a process of assessing and validating the system and its controls against the predefined criteria and objectives, such as functionality, performance, security, compliance, and user satisfaction. A post-implementation review can help to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system by providing the following benefits:

It verifies that the system and its controls meet the design specifications and standards, and comply with the relevant laws, regulations, and contractual obligations.

It identifies and measures the actual or potential benefits and value of the system and its controls, such as improved efficiency, reliability, or quality.

It detects and analyzes any issues, gaps, or weaknesses in the system and its controls, such as errors, inconsistencies, or vulnerabilities.

It provides recommendations and action plans to address the identified issues, gaps, or weaknesses, and to improve or enhance the system and its controls.

It communicates and reports the results and findings of the review to the relevant stakeholders, and solicits their feedback and suggestions.

The other options are not the best ways to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system. Conducting user acceptance testing is an important step to ensure that the system and its controls meet the user requirements and expectations, but it is usually performed before the system is implemented and operationalized, and it may not cover all aspects of the system and its controls. Reviewing the key performance indicators (KPIs) is a useful method to measure and monitor the performance of the system and its controls, but it may not provide a comprehensive or objective evaluation of the system and its controls. Interviewing process owners is a possible technique to collect and analyze information on the system and its controls, but it may not provide sufficient or reliable evidence to confirm the appropriateness of the system and its controls. References = Post-Implementation Review: The Key to a Successful Project, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Post Implementation Review (PIR) - Project Management Knowledge

Configuration management is a process that establishes and maintains the consistency and integrity of the IT systems and applications throughout their lifecycle. Configuration management involves identifying, documenting, controlling, and auditing the configuration items, such as hardware, software, data, or services, that comprise the IT systems and applications. Configuration management also involves establishing and enforcing the configuration baselines, which are the approved and authorized states of the configuration items. Implementing configuration management will best help ensure that systems comply with an established baseline before deployment, as it will enable the enterprise to verify that the systems meet the specified requirements, standards, and policies, and to detect and correct any deviations or discrepancies. The other options are not as effective as configuration management, as they involve different aspects or outcomes of the IT systems and applications:

Vulnerability scanning is a process that identifies and analyzes the weaknesses or gaps in the IT systems and applications that could be exploited by threats. Vulnerability scanning helps to assessthe security and compliance of the systems, but it does not ensure that the systems comply with an established baseline before deployment, as it may not cover all the aspects or components of the systems, or may not reflect the latest changes or updates of the systems.

Continuous monitoring and alerting is a process that tracks and reports the performance and status of the IT systems and applications on an ongoing basis. Continuous monitoring and alerting helps to identify and respond to any issues or incidents that affect the availability, integrity, or confidentiality of the systems, but it does not ensure that the systems comply with an established baseline before deployment, as it may not prevent or detect the unauthorized or unintended changes or modifications of the systems, or may not provide sufficient information or evidence to verify the compliance of the systems.

Access controls and active logging are processes that restrict and record the access and activities of the users or entities on the IT systems and applications. Access controls and active logging help to protect and audit the IT systems and applications, but they do not ensure that the systems comply with an established baseline before deployment, as they may not address the configuration or quality issues of the systems, or may not be consistent or comprehensive across the systems. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.1, pp. 156-157.

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, the risk register is a tool that records the results of risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment. It should be updated whenever there is a change in the risk profile, such as when a vulnerability is closed or a new threat is identified. Updating the risk register allows the organization to monitor the current status of risks and the effectiveness of risk responses. Therefore, the next course of action after implementing changes to close an identifiedvulnerability is to update the risk register with the new information. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 191.

 Enterprise Risk Management (ERM):

ERM involves a comprehensive approach to identifying, assessing, managing, and monitoring risks across an organization. Effective governance of organizational assets is a key component.

 Importance of a Risk Profile:

Developing a detailed risk profile is the first step in supporting ERM implementation. It provides a clear understanding of the organization's risk landscape, including the types of risks, their potential impact, and likelihood.

A risk profile helps in prioritizing risks, allocating resources, and establishing appropriate risk management strategies.

 Steps to Develop a Risk Profile:

Identify all organizational assets and their importance to business operations.

Assess the vulnerabilities and threats associated with each asset.

Determine the potential impact and likelihood of risk events.

Document the findings to create a comprehensive risk profile.

 Supporting Implementation:

A detailed risk profile informs decision-makers and supports the development of policies, controls, and procedures to mitigate identified risks.

It serves as a foundation for continuous monitoring and improvement of the risk management program.

 Other Options:

Hiring experienced resources, scheduling internal audits, and conducting risk assessments are essential actions but come after establishing a detailed risk profile. The risk profile provides the necessary information to guide these activities effectively.

 References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes the importance of developing a detailed risk profile as a foundational step in the ERM process (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 1: Governance, Section 1.6.5 Asset Valuation)​​.

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 importantaspect 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

 A role-based user access model is a type of technology control that assigns access rights and permissions to users based on their roles and responsibilities within the organization. A role-based user access model can reduce the likelihood of fraudulent payments committed internally, because it can help to:

Enforce the principle of least privilege, which means that users only have the minimum level of access required to perform their duties

Implement segregation of duties, which means that users cannot perform conflicting or incompatible functions, such as initiating and approving payments

Prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to sensitive data or systems, such as payment information or applications

Detect and deter fraud attempts by creating audit trails and logs of user activities and transactions

Simplify and streamline the management and maintenance of user access rights and permissions, such as adding, modifying, or deleting users or roles12

The other options are not as important as a role-based user access model for reducing the likelihood of fraudulent payments committed internally. Automated access revocation is a technology control that automatically revokes or suspends user access rights and permissions when certain conditions are met, such as termination of employment, change of role, or expiration of password. Automated access revocation can help to prevent fraud by former or inactive users, but it does not address the risk of fraud by current oractive users3. Daily transaction reconciliation is a technology control that compares and verifies the transactions recorded in different systems or sources, such as bank statements and accounting records. Daily transaction reconciliation can help to detect fraud by identifying discrepancies or anomalies in the transactions, but it does not prevent fraud from occurring in the first place4. Rule-based data analytics is a technology control that applies predefined rules or criteria to analyze data and identify patterns, trends, or outliers. Rule-based data analytics can help to monitor fraud by generating alerts or reports of suspicious or unusual transactions, but it does not prevent fraud from happening or being attempted5. References =

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) - ISACA

Role-Based Access Control: What It Is and How It Works

Automated Access Revocation - ISACA

Reconciliation - ISACA

Rule-Based Data Analytics - ISACA

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the best way to validate the results of a vulnerability assessment is to perform a penetration test, which is a type of security testing that simulates an attack on the IT assets and processes to exploit the identified vulnerabilities and evaluate the potential impact and severity of the attack. Performing a penetration test helps to:

Confirm the existence and exploitability of the vulnerabilities detected by the vulnerability assessment

Measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing security controls and countermeasures

Identify and prioritize the risks and gaps in the security posture of the IT assets and processes

Recommend and implement appropriate remediation and mitigation actions to address the vulnerabilities and risks

Enhance the security awareness and resilience of the organization

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.5: IT Risk Identification Methods and Techniques, pp. 36-371

Implementing a data masking process is the best method to mitigate the risk of an unauthorized employee viewing confidential data in a database. Data masking is the process of replacing sensitive data with fictitious but realistic data, such as changing names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. Data masking protects the privacy and confidentiality of the data, while still allowing for testing, analysis, or training purposes. Implementing role-based access control, including sanctions in NDAs, and installing a DLP tool are also useful methods to reduce the risk of data exposure, but they are not as effective as data masking, which prevents the data from being accessed in the first place. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1, page 3-21.

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that measures the changes in the level of risk exposure, such as by monitoring the risk drivers, triggers, or events. A KRI indicates a reduction in the percentage of appropriately patched servers means that the enterprise is not applying the latest security updates or fixes to its servers, which could expose them to vulnerabilities or threats. The best course of action for the risk practitioner when a KRI indicates a reduction in the percentage of appropriately patched servers is to determine changes in the risk level. The risk level is the measure of the impact and likelihood of the risk, and it should be consistent and comparable across the enterprise and over time. By determining changes in the risklevel, the risk practitioner can assess the current or emerging risks, and decide on the appropriate risk response strategy and actions. The other options are not the best course of action, as they involve different aspects or outcomes of the risk management process:

Outsource the vulnerability management process means that the enterprise transfers the responsibility or burden of identifying, analyzing, prioritizing, and remediating the vulnerabilities in the IT systems and applications to a third party, such as a vendor or a contractor. This may not be a feasible or effective way to address the risk of unpatched servers, as it may not reduce the exposure or impact of the risk, or may introduce new risks, such as contractual disputes, quality issues, or intellectual property rights.

Review the patch management process means that the enterprise evaluates the existing procedures and practices for applying the security updates or fixes to the servers, and identifies the gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. This may be a useful step in the risk management process, but it is not the best course of action, as it may not provide immediate or sufficient information or action to address the risk of unpatched servers, or may not account for the uncertainties or complexities of the risk.

Add agenda item to the next risk committee meeting means that the enterprise communicates the risk of unpatched servers to the senior executives who oversee the enterprise-wide risk management program, and provide guidance and direction to the risk owners and practitioners. This may be a helpful step in the risk management process, but it is not the best course of action, as it may not provide timely or adequate information or action to address the risk of unpatched servers, or may not reflect the urgency or priority of the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.1, pp. 171-172.

 The greatest concern with the situation of combining the second and third lines of defense in a new department that reports to a recently appointed C-level executive is that the independence of the internal third line of defense may be compromised. The second line of defense is the function that oversees and supports the risk management activities of the first line of defense, which is the function that owns and manages the risks. The third line of defense is the function that provides independent assurance of the risk management activities, such as the internal audit function. Combining the second and third lines of defense in a new department may compromise the independence of the internal third line of defense, as it may create a conflict of interest, bias, or influence among the functions, and impair the objectivity, credibility, and quality of the assurance activities. The independence of the internal third line of defense is essential for ensuring that the risk management activities are performed in a consistent and effective manner, and that the issues and gaps are identified and reported without fear or favor. The risk governanceapproach of the second and third lines of defense may differ, cost reductions may negatively impact the productivity of other departments, and the new structure may not be aligned to the organization’s internal control framework are also concerns, but they are not as great as the compromise of the independence of the internal third line of defense, as they do not directly affect the assurance and accountability of the risk management activities. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

User acceptance testing (UAT) is a type of validation testing that ensures that the product meets the needs and expectations of the end users and the business stakeholders. UAT is usually conducted by the actual or representative users of the product, who perform various scenarios and tasks to verify that the product functions correctly and satisfies the business requirements. UAT is an important step in the software development life cycle, as it helps to identify and resolve any issues or gaps between the product and the requirements before the product is released.

If UAT is not conducted when implementing a new application, the greatest concern is that the application could fail to meet the defined business requirements, which could result in user dissatisfaction, loss of trust,reduced productivity, increased costs, and missed opportunities. The application may have technical defects, security vulnerabilities, or redundant processes, but these are not the primary purpose of UAT. UAT is focused on validating the business value and usability of the product, not the technical quality or security of the product. Therefore, the lack ofUAT could have a significant impact on the alignment of the product with the business objectives and user needs.

When updating a risk register with the results of an IT risk assessment, the risk practitioner should log the known risk scenarios, because they are the risk scenarios that have been identified and assessed in the IT risk assessment process. The risk register should document and track the known risk scenarios, their characteristics, their status, and their responses. The other options are not the ones that should be logged, because:

Option A: High impact scenarios are the risk scenarios that have a high potential impact on the business objectives and processes, but they are not the only ones that should be logged. The risk register should include all the known risk scenarios, regardless of their impact level.

Option B: High likelihood scenarios are the risk scenarios that have a high probability of occurrence, but they are not the only ones that should be logged. The risk register should include all the known risk scenarios, regardless of their likelihood level.

Option C: Treated risk scenarios are the risk scenarios that have been addressed by the risk response actions, but they are not the only ones that should be logged. The risk register shouldinclude all the known risk scenarios, regardless of their treatment status. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 108.

Emphasizing individual responsibility ensures that every employee understands their role in managing risk, which is fundamental to cultivating a risk-aware culture.

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 intosignificant 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 analyzingtrends 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

Scanning the Internet for unauthorized usage of the enterprise's brand proactively identifies fraudulent activities and enables timely response. This aligns withBrand Protection and Risk Mitigationstrategies.

Assigning a data owner would best facilitate the implementation of data classification requirements. A data owner is responsible for defining the classification of the data, ensuring that the data is properly labeled, and approving access requests. Implementing technical control over the assets, implementing a data loss prevention (DLP) solution, and scheduling periodic audits are important activities, but they are not as effective as assigning a data owner. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 8; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 97.

 The next step after determining that a key control does not meet design expectations is to document the finding in the risk register, because this helps to record and track the information about the identified risk, such as its description, likelihood, impact, response, and status. A key control is a control that addresses a significant risk or supports a critical business process or objective. A control design expectation is a criterion or requirement that defines how the control should operate or perform to achieve its objective. If a key control does not meet its design expectation, it means that there is a gap, weakness, or deficiency in the control that may compromise its effectiveness or efficiency, and increase the risk exposure or impact. By documenting the finding in the risk register, the risk practitioner can communicate and report the risk issue to the relevant stakeholders, such as the risk owner, the management, or the auditor, and initiate the appropriate risk response actions, such as modifying the design of the control, implementing a compensating control, or accepting the risk. The other options are not the best next steps after determining that a key control does not meet design expectations. Invoking the incident response plan is a reactive measure that is triggered when a risk event occurs or is imminent, and requires immediate action to contain, mitigate, or recover from the incident. However, in this case, the risk event has not occurred yet, and there may be time to prevent or reduce it by improving the control design. Re-evaluating key risk indicators is a monitoring activity that measures and evaluates the level and impact of risks, and provides timely signals that something may be going wrong or needs urgent attention. However, in this case, the risk practitioner has already identified the risk issue, and needs to document and address it, rather than re-evaluate it. Modifying the design of the control is a possible risk response action that may be taken to improve the control and reduce the risk, but it is not the next step after determining that the key control does not meet design expectations. The next step is to document the finding in the risk register, and then decide on the best risk response action, which may or may not be modifying the design of the control, depending on the cost-benefit analysis, the risk assessment, and the risk response strategy. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 13

The greatest concern when assessing the risk profile of an organization is that the risk profile was last reviewed two years ago. A risk profile is a snapshot of the current risk exposure and appetite of the organization, based on the identification, analysis, and evaluation of the risks that could affect the achievement of the organization’s objectives. A risk profile should be reviewed and updated regularly, atleast annually, or whenever there are significant changes in the internal or external environment, such as new projects, strategies, regulations, or incidents. A risk profile that was last reviewed two years ago may not reflect the current risk situation and status of the organization, and may lead to inaccurate or incomplete risk assessment and response. The risk profile not being updated after a recent incident, the risk profile being developed without using industry standards, and the risk profile not containing historical loss data are also concerns, but they are not as critical as the risk profile being outdated. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 48.

The potential impact of events is the estimated magnitude and likelihood of the consequences that may result from a risk scenario. The potential impact of events can help key stakeholders understand the severity and urgency of the risk, and prioritize the appropriate response actions. The potential impact of events can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, such as financial loss, operational disruption, reputational damage, legal liability, etc. The potential impact of events is the most important information to include when reporting on an increasing trend of ransomware attacks in the industry, as it can help stakeholders assess the level of risk exposure and the adequacy of the existing controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.3: Risk Analysis, p. 87-89.

The primary objective of collecting information and reviewing documentation when performing periodic risk analysis is to identify new or emerging risk issues that may affect the enterprise’s objectives, processes, or resources. This helps to update the risk profile and prioritize the risk responses accordingly. Satisfying audit requirements, surveying and analyzing historical risk data, and understanding internal and external threat agents are secondary objectives that support the primary objective of risk identification. References = Risk IT Framework, 2nd Edition, page 22; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 64.