ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps - PECB ISO 27001 Questions and Answers

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.2 requires an organization to determine the needs and expectations of interested parties that are relevant to its ISMS1. This includes identifying the legal, regulatory, contractual and other requirements that apply to its information security activities1. Therefore, collecting more evidence on what the service requirements of healthcare monitoring are may not be relevant to verifying the information security incident management process, as it is not directly related to the audit objective or criteria. This option will not be in the audit trail.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control A.7.2 requires an organization to implement appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas1. The organization should define and document the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, and should monitor and record the use of such access rights1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control A.7.2, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should raise a nonconformity against control A.7.2, as the secure area is not adequately protected from unauthorized access. The auditor should provide the following evidence and justification for the nonconformity:

• Evidence: The auditor observed two external contractors using a swipe card and combination number provided by the centre’s reception desk to gain access to a client’s suite to carry out authorized electrical repairs. The auditor checked the door access record for the client’s suite and found that only one card was swiped. The auditor asked the receptionist and was told that it was a common problem that contractors tend to swipe one card and tailgate their way in, but they were known from the reception sign-in.
• Justification: This evidence indicates that the organization has not implemented appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas, as required by control A.7.2. The organization has not defined and documented the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, as there is no verification or authorization process for providing swipe cards and combination numbers to external contractors. The organization has not monitored and recorded the use of access rights to secure areas, as there is no mechanism to ensure that each individual swipes their card and enters their combination number before entering a secure area. The organization has relied on the reception sign-in as a means of identification, which is not sufficient or reliable for ensuring information security.

The other options are not valid actions for auditing control A.7.2, as they are not related to the control or its requirements, or they are not appropriate or effective for addressing the nonconformity. For example:

• Take no action: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformity, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.5.20 ‘addressing information security in supplier relationships’ as information security requirements have not been agreed upon with the supplier: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not supplier relationships. Control A.5.20 requires an organization to agree on information security requirements with suppliers that may access, process, store, communicate or provide IT infrastructure components for its information assets1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security in supplier relationships, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ as security measures for working in secure areas have not been defined: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not working in secure areas. Control A.7.6 requires an organization to define and apply security measures for working in secure areas1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security when working in secure areas, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas e.g. CCTV: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather attempts to find alternative or compensating controls that may mitigate its impact or likelihood. While additional arrangements such as CCTV may be useful for verifying individual access to secure areas, they do not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement that contractors must be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may prevent or reduce its recurrence or severity. While accompanying contractors at all times when accessing secure facilities may be a good practice for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement to have a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may increase awareness or compliance with the existing controls. While having a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times may be a helpful reminder for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Tell the organisation they must write to their contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather instructs the organization to take a corrective action that may not be effective or sufficient for ensuring information security. While writing to contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately may be a communication measure for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to the ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam preparation guide1, audit evidence can be in various formats, such as records, statements of fact, or other information that is relevant and verifiable. Audit evidence can be collected by means of interviews, observation, sampling, testing, or other techniques. However, not all formats of audit evidence are acceptable or reliable. For example, unsigned hand written changes to test results (A) are not verifiable and may indicate tampering or falsification. Statements by a system engineer that cannot be verified (D) are also not reliable and may be biased or inaccurate. An audio recording of a dialog between the IT manager and a system engineer (F) may not be relevant to the audit criteria or may violate the confidentiality or consent of the parties involved. A statement of facts by the IT manager (B) may be relevant and verifiable, but it is not sufficient as audit evidence unless it is supported by other sources of information. Therefore, the two acceptable formats of audit evidence are documented information on results of IT audits © and observation of a previously recorded video demonstrating the performance of a hazardous activity (E), as they are relevant to the audit criteria and can be verified by other means. References: 1: https://pecb.com/pdf/exam-preparation-guides/pecb-iso-iec-27001-lead-auditor-exam-preparation-guide.pdf (page 9)

The difference between a restricted and confidential document is that a restricted document is to be shared among named individuals, while a confidential document is to be shared among an authorized group. Restricted and confidential are examples of information classification levels that indicate the sensitivity and value of information and the degree of protection required for it. Restricted documents contain information that could cause serious damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders if disclosed to unauthorized persons. Therefore, they should only be accessed by specific individuals who have a legitimate need to know and are authorized by the information owner. Confidential documents contain information that could cause damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders if disclosed to unauthorized persons. Therefore, they should only be accessed by a defined group of people who have a legitimate need to know and are authorized by the information owner. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to classify information in terms of legal requirements, value, criticality and sensitivity to unauthorized disclosure or modification (see clause A.8.2.1). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Information Classification?

Auditors have the authority to object or even refuse an audit mandate if they believe that the audit duration proposed by the auditee is not sufficient to thoroughly assess the ISMS. It is crucial for the audit to be comprehensive enough to cover all necessary aspects of the system, ensuring its effectiveness and compliance.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

These three characteristics are the fundamental properties of information security, as defined by the ISO/IEC 27000 standard, which provides the overview and vocabulary of information security, cybersecurity, and privacy protection12. They are also the basis for the information security objectives and controls of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system34. The definitions of these characteristics are as follows12:

•Availability: The property of being accessible and usable upon demand by an authorized entity.

•Confidentiality: The property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes.

•Integrity: The property of safeguarding the accuracy and completeness of information and processing methods.

The other characteristics listed in the question, such as clarity, accessibility, completeness, importance, and efficiency, are not directly related to information security, although they may be relevant for other aspects of information management, such as quality, usability, or performance.

References: = 1: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary, clause 32: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary13: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.24: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements1

Leadership and commitment is a key requirement of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, as it establishes the top management’s role and responsibility in establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving the ISMS. Without assessing this aspect, the audit team cannot conclude that the ISMS is effective and conforms to the standard. Therefore, the audit team leader should advise the auditee and audit client that it is not possible to make a positive recommendation at this point, and explain the reason and the implications. The audit team leader should also consult with the certification body and the audit programme manager on the next steps, such as extending the audit duration, conducting a follow-up audit, or issuing a conditional certification, depending on the certification body’s policy and the audit client’s agreement. References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 5, Leadership
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19, Audit Process
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 22, Audit Report
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 23, Audit Conclusion and Recommendation

Jack collected mathematical evidence when he identified nonconformities by comparing the number of purchased invoices for software licenses with the software inventory. This type of evidence involves numerical, quantifiable data that highlights discrepancies and supports findings of compliance or non-compliance.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, general guidelines on auditing

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 requires the audit team leader to conduct a follow-up audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified during a previous audit1. The follow-up audit should be conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and should result in a conclusion on the status of the nonconformities and any remaining issues1. Therefore, when conducting a follow-up audit, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

• Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.
• Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.
• Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.
• Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.