CRISC Isaca Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Automated data indicating that risk has been reduced provides the most tenable evidence that a business process control is effective, because it shows the actual impact and outcome of thecontrol on the risk level. A demonstration that the control is operating as designed, a successful walk-through of the associated risk assessment, and a management attestation that the control is operating effectively are not the most tenable evidence, because they are based on subjective judgments, assumptions, or expectations, not on objective facts or results. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

 The most important consideration when implementing ethical remote work monitoring is to inform the employees of how they are being monitored, because this respects their privacy rights and expectations, and ensures their consent and compliance with the monitoring policy. Informing the employees of how they are being monitored also helps to build trust and transparency between the employer and the employees, and reduces the potential legal or ethical issues that may arise from the monitoring activities. The other options are not the most important considerations, although they may also be relevant for ethical remote work monitoring. Monitoring only during official hours of business, reporting on nonproductive employees to management, and integrating multiple data monitoring sources into security incident response procedures are examples of operational or technical aspects of remote work monitoring,notethical aspects. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

According to the ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control study guide and handbook, the information owner is the official with statutory or operational authority for specified information and responsibility for establishing the controls for its generation, collection, processing, dissemination, and disposal. The information owner is also responsible for authorizing access to the information within their domain, based on the principle of least privilege and the need toknow. Therefore, the information owner should be accountable for authorizing information system access to internal users12

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

The best risk response for an identified high probability risk scenario involving a critical, proprietary business function with an annualized cost of control higher than the annual loss expectancy is to accept the risk. Accepting the risk means acknowledging the risk but choosing not to take any specific action to address it. This strategy is suitable when the cost of implementing controls exceeds the potential loss, as in this scenario. The organization recognizes the risk, but the cost-benefit analysis suggests that the potential loss is acceptable given the higher cost of control. The other options are not the best risk responses, as they may not befeasible, practical, or cost-effective in this scenario. Mitigating the risk means reducing the risk by implementing controls or measures to minimize its potential impact, but this would increase the cost of control, which is already higher than the annual loss expectancy. Transferring the risk means shifting the risk to another party, typically through insurance or contracts, but this may not be possible or advisable for a critical, proprietary business function, and it may also increase the overall cost burden. Avoiding the risk means eliminating the risk entirely by not engaging in the activity that poses the risk, but this may disrupt essential business operations and potentially result in other adverse consequences. References = CRISC Exam:Best Risk Response for High Probability Risk Scenario; Risk Response Plan in Project Management: Key Strategies & Tips; Chapter 19: Summarizing Risk Management Concepts

Training employees to recognize and respond to social engineering tactics is the most effective way to mitigate these attacks. It empowers staff to act as the first line of defense, aligning withRisk Awareness and Organizational Trainingpractices.

Engaging key stakeholders in risk management practices is the best way to embed risk management within the organization. This means that the risk practitioner involves andcommunicates with the people who have an interest or influence in the organization’s objectives, activities, and risks, such as senior management, business unit managers, employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, etc.

Engaging key stakeholders in risk management practices helps to create a risk-aware culture, align risk management with the organization’s strategy and vision, ensure the ownership and accountability of risks and controls, obtain the support and commitment for risk management initiatives, and improve the risk management performance and outcomes.

The other options are not the best ways to embed risk management within the organization. They are either secondary or not essential for risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 17

Information Technology & Security, page 11

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 9

The best representation of the desired risk posture for an organization is when the residual risk is lower than the risk tolerance. Residual risk is the remaining risk after the implementation of risk responses or controls. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of risk that the organization is willing to take or bear. Thedesired risk posture is when the organization has reduced the residual risk to a level that is equal to or lower than the risk tolerance, which means that the organization has achieved its risk objectives and is comfortable with the remaining risk exposure. The other options are not the best representation of the desired risk posture, as they indicate that the organization has not effectively managed its risk. Inherent risk is lower than risk tolerance means that the organization has not identified or assessed its risk properly, as inherent risk is the risk before any controls or responses are applied. Operational risk is higher than risk tolerance means that the organization has not implemented or monitored its risk responses or controls adequately, as operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes,people, and systems. Accepted risk is higher than risk tolerance means that the organization has not aligned its risk appetite and risk tolerance, as accepted risk is the risk that the organization chooses to retain or take without any further action. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 2-23.

Key Control Indicators (KCIs) measure the performance and effectiveness of controls. When regulatory objectives are tied to technical controls (like firewalls or SIEM), KCIs can detect when those controls are failing or operating outside of thresholds. This allows proactive remediation before compliance violations occur.

This KPI measures how well the server patch management process meets the agreed-upon standards and expectations for timeliness, quality, and security. It reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of the patch deployment and the compliance with the patch policy. It also helps to identify and address any issues or delays that may affect the patching performance.

References

•Patch Management KPI Metrics - Motadata

•KPI Examples for Patch and Vulnerability Management - Heimdal Security

•Measuring the Effectiveness of Your Patch Management Strategy - Automox

The most important factor for a risk practitioner to consider when determining the control requirements for data privacy arising from emerging technologies is the laws and regulations that apply to the organization and the technologies. Laws and regulations are the legal and ethical obligations that the organization must comply with when collecting, processing, storing, and sharing personal data. Laws and regulations can vary depending on the jurisdiction, sector, and type of data involved, and they can impose different requirements and restrictions on the use of emerging technologies that may affect data privacy. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States, and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in Singapore are some of the laws and regulations that govern data privacy and protection in different regions and contexts123. A riskpractitioner should consider the laws and regulations when determining the control requirements for data privacy arising from emerging technologies, because they can help to ensure that the organization respects the rights and interests of the data subjects, avoids legal and reputational risks, and maintains trust and accountability. The other options are not the mostimportant factor, although they may be relevant or influential to the control requirements for data privacy arising from emerging technologies. Internal audit recommendations are the suggestions and feedback from the internal audit function, which evaluates and improves the effectiveness of the governance, risk management, and control systems of the organization, but they do not supersede or replace the laws and regulations. Policies and procedures are the rules and guidelines that define how the organization operates and conducts its activities, but they should be aligned and consistent with the laws and regulations. Standards and frameworks are the best practices and benchmarks that are adopted by the organization to guide and support its processes and performance, but they should be compatible and compliant with the laws and regulations. References = Emerging privacy-enhancing technologies: Current regulatory and policy approaches | en | OECD, Data and Cybersecurity: 2023 Regulatory Challenges - KPMG, Ethical Dilemmas and Privacy Issues in Emerging Technologies: A … - MDPI

The main goal of the risk analysis process is to determine the frequency and magnitude of loss, because this will help to measure the level of risk exposure and the need for risk mitigation controls. Frequency refers to how often a risk event may occur, while magnitude refers to how much harm or damage a risk event may cause. By determining the frequency and magnitude of loss, the risk analysis process can quantify the impact and likelihood of the risks, and assign a risk rating and priority. The other options are not the main goal of the risk analysis process, because they are either inputs or outputs of the process, as explained below:

A. Potential severity of impact is an output of the risk analysis process, as it is the result of estimating the consequences of a risk event on the organization’s objectives, assets, or processes. The potential severity of impact is influenced by the magnitude of loss, but also by other factors, such as the timing, duration, and scope of the risk event.

C. Control deficiencies are an input of the risk analysis process, as they are the gaps or weaknesses in the existing controls that may increase the risk exposure or reduce the risk mitigation effectiveness. Control deficiencies are identified by comparing the current control environment with the desired control environment, and by evaluating the design and operation of the controls.

D. Threats and vulnerabilities are inputs of the risk analysis process, as they are the sources and causes of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, assets, or processes. Threats are external or internal factors that have the potential to exploit the vulnerabilities, while vulnerabilitiesare internal or external weaknesses that increase the susceptibility to the threats. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, page 45. What is Risk Analysis? Process, Types, Examples & Methods, Risk Analysis Tutorial - The Process | solver, What is the goal of a risk assessment? - Creative Safety Supply

A risk treatment plan is a document that outlines the approach and actions to be taken to address the unacceptable risks identified in the risk assessment process1. A risk treatment plan should include the following components2:

The risk identification number and description

The risk treatment option chosen (e.g., avoid, reduce, share, or accept)

The risk treatment owner, who is responsible for implementing and monitoring the risk treatment

The risk treatment actions, which are the specific tasks or steps to be performed to execute the risk treatment

The risk treatment resources, which are the human, financial, or technical resources required to support the risk treatment

The risk treatment target date, which is the deadline for completing the risk treatment

The risk treatment performance indicators, which are the measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk treatment

The risk treatment status, which is the current progress or outcome of the risk treatment

Among the four options given, the most important component in a risk treatment plan is the treatment plan ownership. This is because the treatment plan ownership defines theaccountability and authority for the risk treatment, and ensures that the risk treatment actions are carried out as planned and reported as required3. The treatment plan ownership also facilitates the communication and coordination among the stakeholders involved in the risk treatment, and enables the escalation and resolution of any issues or challenges that may arise during the risk treatment process4.

References = Risk Treatment (With Examples), ISO 27001 Risk Assessment & Risk Treatment: The Complete Guide, Risk Management Framework - Treat Risks, Risk Management Plan Components

 According to the 10 Tips for Secure Online Transactions - SmartAsset article, multi-factor authentication is a security measure that requires users to provide more than one piece of evidence to verify their identity when logging in to an online account. For example, users may need to enter a password and a code sent to their phone or email, or use a biometric feature such as a fingerprint or a face scan. Multi-factor authentication can help secure online financial transactions from improper users, as it makes it harder for hackers to access the account even if they have the password. Multi-factor authentication can also alertusers to any suspicious login attempts and prevent unauthorized transactions. References = 10 Tips for Secure Online Transactions - SmartAsset

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 byvarious 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 technicalvulnerability. 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 thenature 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

The most useful input to the parent company’s risk practitioner when developing risk scenarios for the post-acquisition phase is the risk registers of both companies. The risk register is a document that records the details of the risks, such as their sources, causes, consequences, likelihood, impact, and responses. By reviewing the risk registers of both companies, the risk practitioner can identify the existing and potential risks that may affect the post-acquisition integration, performance, and value. The risk management framework, the IT balancedscorecard, and the most recent internal audit findings are other possible inputs, but they are not as useful as the risk registers. 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 important factor for the organization to consider before implementing a new in-house developed artificial intelligence (AI) solution is the expected algorithm outputs, as they define the desired outcomes and objectives of the AI solution, and guide the design, testing, and validation of the AI algorithm. The other options are not the most important factors, as they are more related to the research, input, or monitoring of the AI solution, respectively, rather than the output of the AI solution. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 153.

According to the LDR514: Security Strategic Planning, Policy, and Leadership Course, after mapping generic risk scenarios to organizational security policies, the next course of action should be to validate the risk scenarios for business applicability. This is because generic risk scenarios are not specific to the organization’s context, objectives, and environment, and they may not capture the unique threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts that the organization faces. Therefore, validating the risk scenarios for business applicability will help to ensure that the risk scenarios are relevant, realistic, and consistent with the organization’s security policies. Validating the risk scenarios will also help to identify any gaps, overlaps, or conflicts between the risk scenarios and the security policies, and to resolve themaccordingly. References = LDR514: Security Strategic Planning, Policy, and Leadership Course, Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

An IT risk register is a document that records and tracks the significant IT risks that an organization faces across its various functions, processes, and activities. An IT risk register can help to provide a comprehensive and consistent view of the organization’s IT risk profile, and to support the decision making and reporting of the IT risk management function1.

One of the data that must be updated to maintain an IT risk register is the expected frequency and potential impact of each IT risk. The expected frequency is the probability or likelihood of the IT risk occurring, based on historical data, statistical analysis, expert judgment, or other methods. The potential impact is the magnitude or severity of the consequences or outcomes of the IT risk, measured in terms of cost, time, quality, reputation, or other criteria2.

Updating the expected frequency and potential impact of each IT risk is essential for maintaining an IT risk register, because it can help to:

Evaluate and prioritize the IT risks based on their risk level, which is calculated by multiplying the frequency and impact

Monitor and track the changes or trends in the IT risk exposure and performance over time

Identify and implement the appropriate risk response strategies and controls, based on the risk level and the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization

Report and communicate the IT risk status and progress to the stakeholders, using risk indicators, dashboards, or matrices3

The other options are not the data that must be updated to maintain an IT risk register, but rather the data that are used as inputs or outputs of the IT risk management process. Risk tolerance is the acceptable variation in the outcomes related to specific objectives or risks. Risk tolerance is used to measure the IT risk analysis and to guide the IT risk response. Enterprise-wide IT risk assessment is a process that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the IT risks across theorganization. Enterprise-wide IT risk assessment is used topopulate the IT risk register and to inform the IT risk response. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in order to achieve its objectives. Risk appetite is used to guide the IT risk analysis and to align the IT risk response. References =

Risk Register - ISACA

Risk Analysis - ISACA

Risk Register 2021-2022 - UNECE

[How To Conduct Business Impact Analysis in 8 Easy Steps - G2]

[Risk Appetite and Risk Tolerance - ISACA]

[Enterprise Risk Assessment - ISACA]

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

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.

The greatest concern for a risk practitioner when reviewing the findings of a security awareness program assessment is that the program uses non-customized training modules. Non-customizedtraining modules are generic and may not address the specific security needs, issues, and challenges of the organization. They may also fail to engage and motivate the employees to follow the security policies and procedures, and to enhance their security knowledge and skills. The program not decreasing threat counts, not considering business impact, or being significantly revised are other possible findings, but they are not as concerning as the program using non-customized training modules. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 7; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 202.

Implementing internal controls to address inadequate third-party controls is a risk mitigation strategy. It reduces risk by enhancing control effectiveness.

 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 best way to mitigate the high cost of retrieving electronic evidence associated with potential litigation is to implement policies and procedures for data retention and destruction. Data retention and destruction policies and procedures define the criteria, methods, and schedules for retaining and disposing of electronic data. They help to ensure that the electronic data is stored, managed, and deleted in a consistent, secure, and compliant manner. They also help to reduce the volume, complexity, and cost of retrieving electronic evidence, as they limit the scope, duration, and frequency of the data preservation and discovery process. The other options are not as effective as data retention and destruction policies and procedures, as they are related to the collection, analysis, or classification of electronic data, not the retention or destruction of electronic data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

Managing cyber risk according to the organization’s risk management framework is the best recommendation to help ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile, as it helps to integrate and align the cybersecurity risk management (CSRM) and the enterprise risk management (ERM) processes. A risk management framework is a set of principles, policies, and practices that guide and support the risk management activities within an organization. A risk management framework helps to establish a consistent, comprehensive, and coordinated approach to risk management across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

Managing cyber risk according to the organization’s risk management framework helps to ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile by providing the following benefits:

It enables a holistic and comprehensive view of the cyber risk landscape and its interdependencies with the business processes and functions.

It facilitates the communication and collaboration among the business and IT stakeholders and enhances their understanding and awareness of the cyber risk exposure and control environment.

It supports the development and implementation of effective and efficient cyber risk response and mitigation strategies and actions that are aligned with the business risk appetite and objectives.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the cyber risk management and control processes and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best recommendations to help ensure cyber risk is assessed and reflected in the enterprise-level risk profile. Defining cyber roles and responsibilities across the organization is a good practice to clarify and assign the duties and accountabilities for the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not directly address the cyber risk assessment and integration with the enterprise-level risk profile. Conducting cyber risk awareness training tailored specifically for senior management is a useful method to educate and engage the senior management in the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not provide asystematic or consistent way to assess and reflect the cyber risk in the enterprise-level risk profile. Implementing a cyber risk program based on industry best practices is a possible action to improve and enhance the cyber risk management and control processes, but it does not ensure the alignment or integration with the organization’s risk management framework or the enterprise-level risk profile. References = Integrating Cybersecurity and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) - NIST, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Identifying and Estimating Cybersecurity Risk for Enterprise Risk …

Providing assurance on risk management processes is the activity that should only be performed by the third line of defense, because it is the role and responsibility of the independent andobjective assurance function, such as internal audit or external audit, to evaluate and report on the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and controls. The third line of defense is the last layer of the three lines of defense model, which is a framework that defines the roles and responsibilities of different functions and levels within the organization for risk management and control. The first line of defense is the operational management and staff, who are responsible for identifying, assessing, and managing the risks and controls within their areas of responsibility. The second line of defense is the oversight and support functions, such as risk management, compliance, or legal, who are responsible for establishing and monitoring the risk policies, standards, and frameworks, and providing guidance and advice to the first line of defense. The third line of defense is the assurance function, who are responsible for providing independent and objective assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the risk management processes and controls, and reporting to the senior management and the board of directors. Operating controls for risk mitigation, testing the effectiveness and efficiency of internal controls, and recommending risk treatment options are all activities that can be performed by the first or second line of defense, but not by the third line of defense, as they are not part of the assurance function. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1, page 59

The most important factor to have in place to ensure the effectiveness of risk and security metrics reporting is an organizational reporting process. An organizational reporting process is a set of procedures that defines the roles, responsibilities, frequency, format, and distribution of the risk and security metrics reports. An organizational reporting process helps to ensure that the risk and security metrics are relevant, accurate, consistent, and timely, and that they provide useful information for decision making and performance improvement. An organizational reporting process also helps to align the risk and security metrics reporting with the enterprise’s objectives, strategies, and policies, and to communicate the risk and security status and issues to the appropriate stakeholders. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 2421

The control environment is the set of internal and external factors and conditions that influence and shape the organization’s governance, risk management, and control functions. It includes the organization’s culture, values, ethics, structure, roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, etc.

Uncontrolled changes are changes or modifications to the control environment that are not planned, authorized, documented, or monitored, and that may have unintended or adverse consequences for the organization. Uncontrolled changes may be caused by various drivers or events, such as technological innovations, market trends, regulatory changes, customer preferences, competitor actions, environmental issues, etc.

The greatest concern when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment is an increase in the level of residual risk, which is the amount and type of risk that remains after the implementation and execution of the risk responses or controls. An increase in the level of residual risk means that the risk responses or controls are not effective or sufficient to mitigate or prevent the risks, and that the organization may face unacceptable or intolerable consequences if the risks materialize.

An increase in the level of residual risk is the greatest concern when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment, because it indicates that the organization’s risk profile and performance have deteriorated, and that the organization may not be able to achieve its objectives or protect its value. It also indicates that the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance have been violated, and that the organization may need to take corrective or compensating actions to restore the balance between risk and return.

The other options are not the greatest concerns when uncontrolled changes are made to the control environment, because they do not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and they may not be relevant or actionable for the organization.

A decrease in control layering effectiveness means a decrease in the extent or degree to which the organization uses multiple or overlapping controls to address the same or related risks, and to provide redundancy or backup in case of failure or compromise of one or more controls. A decrease in control layering effectiveness may indicate a weakness or gap in the organization’s control design or implementation, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact oroutcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the control layering is required or recommended by the organization’s policies or standards.

An increase in inherent risk means an increase in the amount and type of risk that exists in the absence of any risk responses or controls, and that is inherent to the nature or characteristics of the risk source, event, cause, or impact. An increase in inherent risk may indicate a change or variation in the organization’s risk exposure or level, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the inherent risk exceeds the organization’s risk appetite or tolerance.

An increase in control vulnerabilities means an increase in the number or severity of the weaknesses or flaws in the organization’s risk responses or controls that can be exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. An increase in control vulnerabilities may indicate a weakness or gap in the organization’s control design or implementation, but it does not indicate the actual or potential impact or outcome of the risks, and it may not be relevant or actionable for the organization, unless the control vulnerabilities are exploited or compromised by the threats or sources of harm. 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 174

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

A KRI is a measure used by an organization to measure the health of a particular risk. In this case, the risk practitioner is developing a metric to measure the risk associated with security threats that were not identified by antivirus software12.

References

1Standardized Scoring for Security and Risk Metrics - ISACA

2Key Performance Indicators for Security Governance, Part 1 - ISACA

A vulnerability management process is a process that identifies, analyzes, prioritizes, and remediates the vulnerabilities in the IT systems and applications. The effectiveness of a vulnerability management process can be measured by the key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the achievement of the process objectives and the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. The best KPI to measure the effectiveness of a vulnerability management process is the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level. This KPI indicates how well the process is able to address the vulnerabilities in a timely and efficient manner, and reduce the exposure and impact of the risks associated with the vulnerabilities. The other options are not as good as the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level, as they may not reflect the quality or timeliness of the remediation actions, or the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.1, pp. 171-172.

The first course of action for a risk practitioner when discovering a deficiency in a critical system that cannot be patched is to conduct a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that could affect the achievement of the objectives of the system or the organization. A risk assessment helps to determine the level and nature of the risk exposure, and to prioritize and respond to the risks. Conducting a risk assessment is the first course of action, as it helps to understand the source, cause, and impact of the deficiency, and to estimate the likelihood and consequences of the risk events that could exploit the deficiency. Conducting a risk assessment also helps to identify and evaluate the existing or potential controls or mitigations that could address the deficiency, and to recommend the appropriate risk treatment options. Reporting the issue to internal audit, submitting a request to change management, and reviewing the business impact assessment are not the first courses ofaction, as they are either the outputs or the inputs of the risk assessment process, and they do not address the primary need of assessing the risk situation and status. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 49.

A risk profile report is a document that summarizes the current status and trends of the risks that an organization faces, as well as the actions taken or planned to manage them1. A risk profile report is a useful tool for senior management to monitor and oversee the organization’s risk management performance and to make informed decisions and adjustments as needed2. One of the key components ofa risk profile report is the key performance indicators (KPIs), which are metrics used to measure andevaluate the achievement of the organization’s objectives and strategies3. KPIs are aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and they have specific targets or benchmarks that indicate the desired level of performance4. Therefore, if the KPIs are outside of targets, it means that the organization is not meeting its objectives and strategies, and that there may be gaps or issues in the risk management process or the risk response actions. This is a cause for further action by senior management, as they need to investigate the root causes of the deviation, assess the impact and implications of the underperformance, and take corrective or preventive measures to improve the situation and bringthe KPIs back to the targets. Incomplete KPI trend data, new KRIs, and lagging KRIs are not the most critical statements in a risk profile report that require further action by senior management, as they do not directly indicate a failure or a problem in the risk management performance or the achievement of the objectives and strategies. Incomplete KPI trend data means that there is missing or insufficient information on the historical or projected changes in the KPIs over time. This may affect the accuracy and reliability of the risk profile report, but it does not necessarily mean that the KPIs are outside of targets or that the objectives and strategies are not met. Senior management may need to request or obtain the complete KPI trend data, but this is not as urgent or important as addressing the KPIs that are outside of targets. New KRIs means that there are additional or revised metrics used to measure and monitor the level of risk associated with a particular process, activity, or system within the organization. This may reflect the changes or updates in the risk environment, the risk appetite and tolerance, or the risk assessment methodology. However, new KRIs do not directly indicate a failure or a problem inthe risk management performance or the achievement of the objectives and strategies. Senior management may need to review and approve the new KRIs, but this is not as urgent or important as addressing the KPIs that are outside of targets. Lagging KRIs means that there are metrics that measure and monitor the level of risk after a risk event has occurred or a risk response has been implemented. This may provide useful feedback and lessons learned for the risk management process, but it does not directly indicate a failure or a problem in the risk management performance or the achievement of the objectives and strategies. Senior management may need to analyze and evaluate the lagging KRIs, but this is not as urgent or important as addressing the KPIs that are outside of targets. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.3: Risk Reporting, pp. 201-205.

The risk practitioner’s best recommendation after recovery steps have been completed is B. Perform a root cause analysis. A root cause analysis is a process of identifying and assessing the underlying causes of a problem or an incident. By performing a root cause analysis, the risk practitioner can help the organization to understand how and why the cyber attack happened, what vulnerabilities and gaps were exploited, and what actions and controls can be implemented to prevent or mitigate similar incidents in the future12

A root cause analysis can also help the organization to improve its incident response plan, which is a set of instructions to help IT staff detect, respond to, and recover from network security incidents3 A root cause analysis can provide valuable feedback and lessons learned from the cyber attack, and help the organization to update and test its incident response plan accordingly45

Developing new key risk indicators, recommending the purchase of cyber insurance, and reviewing the incident response plan are all possible actions that the risk practitioner can take after a cyber attack, but they are not the best recommendation. Developing new key risk indicators can help the organization to monitor and measure its risk exposure and performance, but it does not address the root causes of the cyber attack12 Recommending the purchase of cyber insurance can help the organization to hedge against the financial losses caused by cyber incidents, but it does not prevent or solve the underlying issues67 Reviewing the incident response plan can help the organization to evaluate its effectiveness and identify areas for improvement, but it does not explain how and why the cyber attack occurred345

Therefore, the best recommendation is to perform a root cause analysis, as it can help the organization to understand, resolve, and prevent the cyber attack and its consequences12

Assessing the impact of applying the patches on the production environment is the most important task to be performed prior to implementation, because it helps to identify and mitigate any potential risks or issues that may arise from the patching process. Patching is a process ofapplying updates or fixes to software or hardware to address vulnerabilities, bugs, or performance issues. Patching is essential for maintaining the security and functionality of IT systems, but it also introduces the risk of introducing new problems or breaking existing features. Therefore, before applying patches, the organization should assess the impact of the patches on the production environment, such as compatibility, performance, availability, functionality, and security. Surveying other enterprises regarding their experiences with applying these patches, seeking information from the software vendor to enable effective application of the patches, and determining in advance an off-peak period to apply the patches are all helpful tasks to be performed prior to implementation, but they are not the most important task, as they do not directly address the impact of the patches on the production environment. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2, page 211

 A RACI chart is a matrix that defines the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in relation to the IT risk management process. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. A RACI chart would be most helpful when communicating roles associated with the IT risk management process, as it clarifies who is responsible for performing the tasks, who is accountable for the outcomes, who is consulted for input and feedback, and who is informed of the progress and results. A RACI chart can help to avoid confusion, duplication, and conflict among the stakeholders, and to ensure that the IT risk management process is executed effectively and efficiently. A skills matrix, job descriptions, and an organizational chart are not as helpful as a RACI chart, as they do not specify the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in relation to the IT risk management process, and may not reflect the actual involvement and contribution of the stakeholders. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 35.

The best approach to identify relevant risk scenarios is to engage line management in risk assessment workshops. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe how a risk event could occur and what the consequences could be1. Identifying risk scenarios can help to understand and communicate the nature and impact of the risks, and to design and evaluate the risk responses2. To identify relevant risk scenarios, it is important to involve the people who are responsible for or affected by the risks, such as the line managers. Line managers are the managers who oversee the operational activities and processes of the organization, and whoreport to the senior or executive management3. By engaging line managers in risk assessment workshops, the organization can:

Leverage the line managers’ knowledge and experience of the operational environment, the business objectives, the stakeholder expectations, and the potential threats and opportunities4.

Encourage the line managers’ participation and collaboration in the risk identification and analysis process, and foster a risk-aware culture and mindset5.

Enhance the line managers’ ownership and accountability of the risks and the risk responses, and ensure their alignment and commitment to the risk management strategy and objectives6.

The other options are not the best approaches to identify relevant risk scenarios, because:

Escalating the situation to risk leadership is not an effective or efficient way to identify risk scenarios, as it may bypass or undermine the line managers’ role and responsibility in the risk management process. Risk leadership is the function or role that provides the vision, direction, andguidance for the risk management activities and initiatives of the organization7. Escalating the situation to risk leadership may imply that the line managers are not capable or willing to identify and manage the risks, or that the risk leadership is not aware or involved in the riskmanagement process. This may create confusion, conflict, or distrust among the risk management stakeholders, and reduce the quality and credibility of the risk scenarios.

Engaging internal audit for risk assessment workshops is not a suitable or appropriate way to identify risk scenarios, as it may violate the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function. Internal audit is an independent and objective assurance and consulting activity that evaluates and improves the effectiveness of the organization’s governance, risk management, and control processes8. Engaging internal audit for risk assessment workshops may compromise the internal audit’s role and mandate, as it may create a conflict of interest or a self-review threat. Internal auditshould not be involved in the risk identification and analysis process, but rather provide assurance or advice on the adequacy and reliability of the process.

Reviewing system and process documentation is not a sufficient or comprehensive way to identify risk scenarios, as it may overlook or miss some important or emerging risks. System and process documentation are the records or artifacts that describe the structure, functions, features, and requirements of the organization’s systems and processes. Reviewing system and process documentation can help to identify some risks that are related to the design, implementation, or operation of the systems and processes, but it cannot capture all the risks that may affect the organization. Some risks may arise from external or internal factors that are not reflected or updated in the system and process documentation, such as changes in the market, technology, regulation, or stakeholder expectations.

References =

Risk Scenarios Toolkit - ISACA

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack - ISACA

Line Manager - CIO Wiki

Engaging Line Managers in Risk Management - IRM

Risk Culture - CIO Wiki

Risk Ownership - CIO Wiki

Risk Leadership - CIO Wiki

Internal Audit - CIO Wiki

[System Documentation - CIO Wiki]

The first thing that should be done from a governance perspective to secure the information assets of a newly incorporated enterprise is to establish an inventory of information assets. An inventory of information assets is a document that lists and categorizes all the information assets that the organization owns, uses, or manages, such as data, documents, systems, applications, and devices. An inventory of information assets helps to identify and classify the information assets based on their value, sensitivity, and criticality, and to determine the appropriate level of protection and control for each asset. An inventory of information assets also helps to support the development and implementation of other information security activities, such as risk assessment, policy formulation, awareness training, and incident response. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, although they may be important steps or components of the information security governance. Defining information retention requirements and policies, providing information security awareness training, and establishing security management processes and procedures are all activities that can help to secure the information assets, but theyrequire the prior knowledge and understanding of the information assets. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1, page 3-3.

•Risk acceptance is a status quo risk response, where the risk owner acknowledges the risk exists but accepts it with minimal response1. Risk acceptance may be appropriate when the cost of other risk responses exceeds the value that would be gained, or when the risk is below the risk acceptance criteria2.

•Risk acceptance criteria are the criteria used as a basis for decisions about acceptable risk2. They should be established before conducting a risk assessment, and they may be influenced by factors such as utility, equality, technology, and risk perception2. Different organizations and countries may have different risk acceptance criteria, depending on their context and values3.

•In this scenario, the organization has conducted a risk assessment for regulatory compliance, and has identified only one possible mitigating control. However, the cost of the control is higher than the penalty of noncompliance, which implies that the risk is below the risk acceptancecriteria. Therefore, the best recommendation is to accept the risk with management sign-off, which means that the management agrees to take the risk and is accountable for the consequences.

•Ignoring the risk until the regulatory body conducts a compliance check (option B) is not a good recommendation, as it may expose the organization to legal, financial, or reputational damage. Moreover, ignoring the risk may violate the principle of risk reduction, which states that risks should be reduced wherever practicable2.

•Mitigating the risk with the identified control (option C) is not a good recommendation, as it may not be cost-effective or efficient for the organization. The cost of the control is higher than the penalty ofnoncompliance, which means that the organization would spend more resources than necessary to reduce the risk. Moreover, mitigating the risk may not be aligned with the principle of utility, which states that resources should be used as efficiently as possible for the society as a whole2.

•Transferring the risk by buying insurance (option D) is not a good recommendation, as it may not be feasible or beneficial for the organization. Transferring the risk means that the organization shifts the responsibility or burden of the risk to another party, such as an insurer, a contractor, or a partner1. However, transferring the risk does not eliminate the risk, and it may incur additional costs or complications for the organization. Moreover, transferring the risk may not be possible or acceptable for some types of regulatory compliance risks, such as those related to health, safety, or environmental standards3.

 The FIRST thing that should be done when a KRI has remained below its established trigger point for an extended period of time is to recommend a re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI, because it may indicate that the trigger point is set too high or too low, or that the KRI is not relevant or effective in measuring the risk exposure. A re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI may result in adjusting the trigger point, changing the KRI, or removing the KRI. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, because:

Option B: Notifying management that KRIs are being effectively managed is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not reflect the true risk status and performance. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not be a valid or reliable indicator of the risk exposure, and it may not capture the changes or trends in the risk environment.

Option C: Updating the risk rating associated with the KRI in the risk register is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be accurate or consistent. A risk rating is based on the likelihood and impact of the risk, and it should be derived from a comprehensive risk analysis, not just from a single KRI. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not reflect the actual likelihood and impact of the risk, and it may not be aligned with the other risk indicators and assessments.

Option D: Updating the risk tolerance and risk appetite to better align to the KRI is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be appropriate or feasible. Risk tolerance and risk appetite are the acceptable level of risk exposure and variation that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, and they are determined by the executive management and the board of directors, based on the enterprise’s strategy and goals. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not represent the desired or optimal level of risk exposure and variation, and it may not be aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and goals. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 121.

 The best method to identify unnecessary controls is reviewing system functionalities associated with business processes, because this can help to determine whether the controls are relevant, effective, and efficient for the current business needs and objectives. System functionalities are the capabilities and features of IT systems that support the execution and performance of business processes. Business processes are the set of interrelated activities that transform inputs into outputs to deliver value to customers or stakeholders. By reviewing system functionalities associated with business processes, an organization can assess whether the controls are aligned with the process requirements, expectations, and outcomes, and whether they add value or create waste. The review can also identify any gaps, overlaps, redundancies, or conflicts among the controls, and any changes or improvements that are needed to optimize the controls. The other options are less effective methods to identify unnecessary controls. Evaluating the impact of removing existing controls can help to measure the benefits and costs of the controls, but it does not address the root causes or sources of the unnecessary controls. Evaluating existing controls against audit requirements can help to ensure compliance and assurance, but it does not considerthe business context or purpose of the controls. Monitoring existing key risk indicators (KRIs) can help to measure the level and impact of risks, but it does not evaluate the suitability oradequacy of the controls. References = Surveying Staff to Identify Unnecessary Internal Controls - Methodology and Results 

Risk owner approval ensures accountability and alignment of the changes with the enterprise’s risk management strategy. It reflects adherence to the principles ofRisk Ownership and Governance, critical for maintaining control over mitigation activities.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, enterprise architecture (EA) is a comprehensive framework that defines the structure and operation of an organization, including its business processes, information systems, technology infrastructure, organizational structure, and strategic objectives2. An EA program is a set of principles, policies, standards, and guidelines that govern the development and implementation of the EA3. By having an approved EA program, an organization can ensure that its risk management is aligned with its goals and objectives, as the EA provides a clear and consistent vision of the desired state and direction of the organization, as well as the means to achieve and measure it4. The EA also helps to identify and prioritize the risks and opportunities that may affect the organization’s performance and resilience. The other options are not as effective or relevant as option D, as they do not directly relate to the alignment of risk management with organizational goals and objectives. Option A, having approved policies that provide operational boundaries, is more related to the governance and compliance of risk management, not its alignment. Option B, having organizational controls to manage risk appetite, is more related to the implementation and monitoring of risk management, not its alignment. Option C, continually evaluating environmental changes that impact risk, is more related to the identification and assessment of risk management, not its alignment.

A risk owner is the individual who is accountable for the management of a specific risk. A risk owner can decide to accept a high-impact risk if the control that mitigates the risk is adversely affecting the process efficiency. However, before updating the risk register, which is a document that records and tracks the identified risks and their responses, it is most important for the risk practitioner to obtain approval from senior management. Senior management is the group of executives who have the authority and responsibility for the strategic direction and performance of the organization. Obtaining approval from senior management can help ensure that the risk acceptance decision is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and policies, and that the potential consequences of the high-impact risk are understood and accepted by the top-level decision makers. Obtaining approval from senior management can also help communicate and justify the risk acceptance decision to other stakeholders, such as regulators, auditors, customers, etc., and avoid any conflicts or misunderstandings that may arise from the risk acceptance decision. References = Why Assigning a Risk Owner is Important and How to Do It Right, Risk Ownership: A brief guide, Creating a Risk Register: All You Need to Know.

The project sponsor holds the ultimate accountability for the project's success and is typically responsible for approving significant decisions, including risk mitigation responses. Their role involves ensuring that the project aligns with business objectives and that risks are managed appropriately to achieve desired outcomes.

A risk register is a document that records and tracks the information and status of the identified risks and their responses. It includes the risk description, category, source, cause, impact, probability, priority, response, owner, action plan, status, etc.

A risk profile is a summary or representation of the organization’s exposure or level of risk, based on the results of the risk assessment and evaluation. A risk profile can show the distribution and comparison of the risks based on various criteria, such as likelihood, impact, category, source, etc. A risk profile can also indicate the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and the gaps or opportunities for improvement.

The primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register is that it helps to build a risk profile for management review, because it provides the data and information that are necessary and relevant for creating and updating the risk profile, and for communicating and reporting the risk profile to the management. Maintaining an up-to-date risk register can help to build a risk profile for management review by providing the following benefits:

It can ensure that the risk profile reflects the current and accurate state and performance of the organization’s risk management function, and that it covers all the relevant and significant risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations.

It can provide useful references and benchmarks for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and communication of the risks and their responses, and for the alignment and integration of the risks and their responses with the organization’s strategy and culture.

It can support the decision making and planning for the risk management function, and for the allocation and optimization of the resources, time, and budget for the risk management function.

The other options are not the primary benefits of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of building a risk profile for management review, which is to summarize and represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and to communicate and report it to the management.

Implementing uniform controls for common risk scenarios means applying and enforcing the same or similar controls or countermeasures for the risks that have the same or similar characteristics or features, such as source, cause, impact, etc. Implementing uniform controls for common risk scenarios can help to ensure the consistency and efficiency of the risk management function, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because itdoes not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be relevant or appropriate for the organization’s objectives and needs.

Ensuring business unit risk is uniformly distributed means ensuring that the risks that are associated with the different business units or divisions of the organization are balanced or equalized, and that they do not exceed or fall below the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. Ensuring business unit risk is uniformly distributed can help to optimize the performance and profitability of the organization, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because it does not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be feasible or realistic for the organization.

Quantifying the organization’s risk appetite means measuring and expressing the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing and able to accept or take, in pursuit of its objectives and goals. Quantifying the organization’s risk appetite can help to establish and communicate the boundaries and expectations for the organization’s risk management function, but it is not the primary benefit of maintaining an up-to-date risk register, because it does not summarize or represent the organization’s exposure or level of risk, and it may not be consistent or compatible with the organization’s strategy and culture. 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 201

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

The greatest concern for a risk practitioner reviewing current key risk indicators (KRIs) is that the KRIs’ source data lacks integrity, as this means that the data is inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated, and therefore cannot provide reliable and valid information on the risk level and performance. The KRIs are metrics that measure and monitor the changes in the risk exposure and the effectiveness of the risk response over time. The KRIs’ source data should be collected and verified from credible and relevant sources, and should be updated and maintained regularly. The KRIs’ source data should also be aligned and integrated with the enterprise’s data governance and quality standards. The other options are not the greatest concerns for a risk practitioner reviewing current key risk indicators (KRIs), although they may pose some challenges or limitations. The KRIs are not automated is a concern for the efficiency and timeliness of the KRI reporting and analysis, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI sourcedata. The KRIs are not quantitative is a concern for the objectivity and comparability of the KRI measurement and prioritization, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI source data. The KRIs do not allow for trend analysis is a concern for the usefulness and relevance of the KRI communication and decision making, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI source data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, page 183.

Business impact analysis (BIA) is the most helpful tool in identifying loss magnitude during risk analysis of a new system, as it involves estimating the potential financial and operational losses resulting from the disruption or degradation of the system. Recovery time objective (RTO), cost-benefit analysis, and cyber insurance coverage are not the most helpful tools, as they are more related to the recovery, evaluation, andtransfer of the risk, respectively, rather than the identification of the loss magnitude. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 108.

A risk register is a tool that records and tracks the identified risks, their causes, impacts, likelihood, responses, and owners. The owner for each risk scenario is the person or group whohas the authority and accountability to manage the risk and its response. The best way to identify the owner for each risk scenario in a risk register is to map the identified risk factors tospecific business processes. Risk factors are the internal and external variables that influence the occurrence and impact of risks. Business processes are the activities that produce value for the enterprise, such as sales, marketing, production, or delivery. By mapping the risk factors to the business processes, the risk practitioner can determine which business process is affected by or contributes to the risk, and who is responsible for the business process. The owner for each risk scenario should be the person or group who is responsible for the business process that is associated with the risk. The other options are not the best way to identify the owner for each risk scenario, as they involve different criteria or methods:

Determining which departments contribute most to risk means that the risk practitioner evaluates the degree of involvement or exposure of each department to the risk. This may not be a reliable or consistent way to identify the owner for each risk scenario, as the risk may span across multiple departments, or the department may not have the authority or accountability to manage the risk.

Allocating responsibility for risk factors equally to asset owners means that the risk practitioner assigns the same level of responsibility to each person or group who owns an asset that is affected by or contributes to the risk. An asset is a resource that has value for the enterprise, such as hardware, software, data, or people. This may not be a fair or effective way to identify the owner for each risk scenario, as the asset owners may have different levels of involvement or exposure to the risk, or may not have the authority or accountability to manage the risk.

Determining resource dependency of assets means that the risk practitioner analyzes the relationship and interdependence of the assets that are affected by or contribute to the risk. This may help to identify the potential impact or likelihood of the risk, but it does not directly help to identify the owner for each risk scenario, as the resource dependency may not reflect the authority or accountability to manage the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.1, pp. 95-96.

When preparing a risk status report for periodic review by senior management, it is most important to ensure the report includes risk exposure in business terms. Risk exposure is the potential loss or harm that may result from a risk event. Expressing risk exposure in business terms can help senior management to understand the impact and significance of the risk on the organization’s objectives, performance, and value. A detailed view of individual risk exposures, a summary of incidents that have impacted the organization, and recommendations by an independent risk assessor are other possible contents of the report, but they are not as important as risk exposure in business terms. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 10; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 140.

The HR manager is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility to collect, process, and protect the personal data of the employees in the organization. The HR managerhelps to manage the employee personal data, because they help to establish and enforce the data policies and standards for the employees, and to comply with the legal and regulatory requirements, such as the GDPR. The HR manager also helps to monitor and report on the data performance and compliance for the employees, and to identify and address any issues or gaps in the data management activities. The other options are not the best person to manage the employee personal data, although they may be involved in the process. System administrator, data privacy manager, and compliance manager are all examples of roles or functions that can help to support or implement the data management activities, but they do not necessarily have the authority or responsibility to collect, process, or protect the employee personal data

When establishing leading indicators for the information security incident response process, it is most important to consider the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the service levelagreement (SLA). A leading indicator is a metric that can predict or influence the future performance or outcome of a process or activity. A leading indicator for the information security incident response process should measure how well the process is achieving its objectives, such as minimizing the impact of incidents, restoring normal operations as quickly as possible, and preventing recurrence of incidents. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is a leading indicator that reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of the information security incident response process. It shows how well the process is meeting the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders, such as the business units, customers, and regulators. It also shows how well the process is managing the resources, such as time, budget, and personnel, that are allocated for incident response. A high percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is performing well and delivering value to the organization. A low percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA indicates that the information security incident response process is facing challenges and needs improvement. The percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA can also help identify the root causes of incidents, the gaps in the process, and the areas for improvement. For example, if the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is low, it may indicate that the process has issues with the following aspects: - Incident detection and reporting: The process may not have adequate tools, techniques, or procedures to detect and report incidents in a timely and accurate manner. - Incident prioritization and classification: The process may not have clear and consistent criteria to prioritize and classify incidents based on their severity, impact, and urgency. - Incident analysis and investigation: The process may not have sufficient skills, knowledge, or evidence to analyze and investigate the incidents and determine their root causes, scope, and consequences. - Incident containment and eradication: The process may not have effective methods or measures to contain and eradicate the incidents and prevent them from spreading or escalating. - Incidentrecovery and restoration: The process may not have reliable backup and recovery plans or systems to restore the normal operations and functionality of the affected systems or services. - Incident communication and escalation: The process may not have proper communication and escalation channels or protocols to inform and involve the relevant stakeholders, such as the management, the users, the vendors, or the authorities. - Incident documentation and closure:The process may not have adequate documentation and closure procedures to record and report the incidents and their resolution. - Incident review and improvement: The process may not have regular review and improvement activities to evaluate and enhance the process and its performance. Therefore, the percentage of reported incidents that are resolved within the SLA is the most important leading indicator for the information security incident response process, as it can provide valuable insights and feedback for the process and its improvement. References = Information Security Incident Response | Process Street1, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response2, 7 Incident Response Metrics and How to Use Them3

The best way to ensure the implementation of corrective action plans is to assign accountability to risk owners. Corrective action plans are the plans that describe the actions and resources that are needed to correct or improve the performance or compliance of the processes or controls. Risk owners are the persons who have the authority and responsibility for managing the risks and their responses. By assigning accountability to risk owners, the implementation of corrective action plans can be monitored, evaluated, and enforced, and the results and outcomes can be reported and communicated. The other options are not as effective as assigning accountability to risk owners, as they are related to the training, scheduling, or outsourcing of the corrective action plans, not the oversight or governance of the corrective action plans. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.4: Key Control Indicators, page 211.

The primary benefit of conducting continuous monitoring of access controls is the ability to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure. Continuous monitoring of access controls is a process that involves collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance and effectiveness of the access controls on a regular basis. Continuous monitoring of access controls helps to detect and prevent any unauthorized or inappropriate access to information assets, and to ensure that the access controls arealigned with the enterprise’s security policies and standards. Continuous monitoring of access controls also helps to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure, such as data leakage, data theft, data tampering, or data breach. By identifying these activities, the enterprise can take timely and appropriate actions to mitigate the risk and protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, page 1411

Scheduling periodic audits is the best way to facilitate the maintenance of data classification requirements, because it helps to verify and validate that the data are classified and handled according to the established policies, standards, and guidelines, and that the data classification requirements are updated and aligned with the changes in the data environment or regulations. Data classification is a process of categorizing data according to their sensitivity, confidentiality, and value to the organization, and specifying the appropriate handling and protection measures for each category. Data classification requirements are the rules or criteria that define how data should be classified and treated. Scheduling periodic audits is the best way to ensure that the data classification requirements are followed and maintained, and that any issues or gaps are identified and addressed. Assigning a data custodian, implementing technical controls over theassets, and establishing a data loss prevention (DLP) solution are all useful ways to facilitate the maintenance of data classification requirements, but they are not the best way, as they do not provide a comprehensive and independent review and assessment of the data classification process and outcomes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 158

The best answer is C. real-time monitoring of risk events and control exceptions. Real-time monitoring is a process of continuously collecting and analyzing data and information on the occurrence and impact of risk events and control exceptions, using automated tools and techniques, such as dashboards, alerts, or analytics12. Real-time monitoring can help to identify and respond to the risks and the issues as soon as they happen, and to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences. Real-time monitoring can also help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the risk management process, and to provide timely and accurate reporting and communication to the stakeholders. Real-time monitoring is the best answer, because itrepresents a leading-edge practice in risk monitoring, as it leverages the latest technology and innovation, and it enables a proactive and agile approach to risk management. The other options are not the best answer, although they may be useful or necessary for risk monitoring. Procedures to monitor the operation of controls are a part of the risk monitoring process, but they are not the same as or a substitute for real-time monitoring, as they may not be able to capture and address the risks and the issues in a timely manner, and they may rely on manual or periodic methods, rather than automated or continuous ones. A tool for monitoring critical activities and controls is a resource or a device that supports the risk monitoring process, but it is not the same as or a substitute for real-time monitoring, as it may not be able to collect and analyze the data and information in real time, and it may depend on the quality and reliability of the tool. Monitoring activities for all critical assets is a scope or a coverage of the risk monitoring process, but it is not the same as or a substitute for real-time monitoring, as it may not be able to identify and respond to the risks and the issues as soon as they happen, and it may require a lot of resources and efforts. Performing a controls assessment is a process of evaluating and testing the design and operation of the controls, but it is not the same as or a substitute for real-time monitoring, as it may not be able to detect and report the risks and the issues in real time, and it may follow a predefined or scheduled plan, ratherthan a dynamic or adaptive one. References = Real-Time Risk Monitoring - ISACA, Real-Time Risk Monitoring: A Case Study - ISACA

In the event of a data breach or misuse of confidential information, the first step is to activate the incident response plan. This ensures immediate containment, impact analysis, and communication protocols are followed.

The main purpose of reviewing a control after implementation is to validate that the control operates as intended, as this can help to ensure that the control is effective and efficient in mitigating the risk, and that it meets the control objectives and requirements. Reviewing a control after implementation can also help to identify and address any issues or gaps that may arise during the control operation, and to monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of the control. Reviewing a control after implementation can also provide feedback and information to the control owners and stakeholders, and enable them to adjust the control design and implementation accordingly. References = Most Asked CRISC Exam Questions andAnswers. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question254. ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 254. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

 In order to efficiently execute a risk response action plan, it is most important for the emergency response team members to understand their defined roles and responsibilities. This can help to ensure that the team members know what they are expected to do, how they should coordinate and communicate with each other, and how they should report the progress and outcome of therisk response. The system architecture in target areas, IT management policies and procedures, and business objectives of the organization are other important factors, but they arenot as important as the defined roles and responsibilities. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 12; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 215.

When using a third party to perform penetration testing, the most important control to minimize operational impact is to clearly define the project scope. This means specifying the objectives,boundaries, methods, and deliverables of the testing, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. A clear project scope helps to avoid misunderstandings, conflicts, and disruptions that could compromise the security, availability, or integrity of the systems undertest. It also helps to ensure that the testing is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and compliance requirements. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2, Page 137.

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 howefficiently the IAM process prevents or resolves them. References = Top Identity and Access Management Metrics