ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 2022 Lead Auditor exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

This is a minor nonconformity. The backup frequency not adhering to the company's procedure of daily backups but occurring once a month represents a deviation from established processes, yet it might not immediately impact the effectiveness of the information security management system.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing) requires auditors to consider all relevant evidence before making a final recommendation.

Clastus has the right to present additional evidence if they disagree with findings.

A. Incorrect:

Certification recommendations should remain open to valid new evidence until officially finalized.

C. Incorrect:

Auditors must consider revisions if they provide relevant clarification or evidence.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.3 (Handling Disputes and Additional Evidence in Audits)

The correct answer is A, because peer review or independent review of audit working documents is an accepted and recommended auditing practice when performed by a qualified and authorized individual. ISO/IEC 17021-1 requires certification bodies to maintain quality assurance mechanisms, including review of audit documentation, to ensure audit consistency, impartiality, and technical validity.

Reviewing working documents before audit conclusions are finalized helps identify gaps, inconsistencies, or errors while corrective action is still possible. This strengthens the reliability of the audit outcome and supports sound certification decisions.

Option B is incorrect because limiting review to after conclusions are finalized reduces the effectiveness of quality control and may require rework. Option C is incorrect because auditors should not review their own work exclusively; independent review is a key safeguard against bias and oversight.

Therefore, a qualified auditor appointed by the certification body reviewing working documents prior to final conclusions is fully aligned with good auditing practice and accreditation requirements.

According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:

A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.

An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.

The organisation’s marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.

The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:

The organisation’s malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.

A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.

The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.

An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.

The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.

The integrity principle of information security has been affected in this case. The chatbot’s inability to provide accurate answers and its unintended behavior (sending random files) due to insufficient testing and lack of proper training samples compromised the integrity of the system.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

Audit plans must remain flexible to adapt to unforeseen findings and risks.

ISO 19011:2018 specifies that audit planning should allow dynamic adjustments.

A. Incorrect:

Audit procedures are part of execution, not planning.

C. Incorrect:

The audit team, not top management, prepares the audit plan.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.4 (Audit Planning Flexibility)

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer: When an organization refuses to share sensitive information off-site, the auditor can resolve the situation by reviewing the information on-site while ensuring auditor confidentiality. This maintains transparency and compliance with ISO 19011 auditing guidelines.

B. Incorrect: The auditor cannot immediately refuse the mandate. Instead, an attempt to reach an agreement should be made first.

C. Incorrect: While audit leaders define audit access, they must also respect confidentiality agreements.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 9.2 (Internal Audit)

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.5 (Audit Information Availability and Access)

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Preventive Control – Correct Answer. Access control software is designed to prevent unauthorized access by enforcing authentication and authorization mechanisms. This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.18 (Access Rights).

B. Detective controls identify and log unauthorized access attempts, but do not prevent them.

C. Corrective controls take action after a security event has occurred.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 9.3 requires top management to review the organization’s ISMS at planned intervals to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness1. Clause 9.2 requires the organization to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and is effectively implemented and maintained1. Therefore, when reviewing the audit process and audit findings as a final check before the external certification body arrives, an internal ISMS auditor should verify that these clauses are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Six of the following statements would cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

The audit programme shows management reviews taking place at irregular intervals during the year: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not conducting management reviews at planned intervals, as required by clause 9.3. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the ISMS.

The audit programme does not take into account the relative importance of information security processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not applying a risk-based approach to determine the audit frequency, methods, scope and criteria, as recommended by ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems2. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address the most significant risks and opportunities for its ISMS.

Although the scope for each internal audit has been defined, there are no audit criteria defined for the audits carried out to date: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not establishing audit criteria for each internal audit, as required by clause 9.2. Audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared2. Without audit criteria, it is not possible to determine whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

Audit reports to date have used key performance indicator information to focus solely on the efficiency of ISMS processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not evaluating the effectiveness of ISMS processes, as required by clause 9.1. Effectiveness is the extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved2. Efficiency is the relationship between the result achieved and the resources used2. Both aspects are important for measuring and evaluating ISMS performance and improvement.

The audit programme does not take into account the results of previous audits: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not using the results of previous audits as an input for planning and conducting subsequent audits, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address any recurring or unresolved issues or nonconformities related to its ISMS.

Top management commitment to the ISMS will not be audited before the certification visit, according to the audit programme: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not verifying that top management demonstrates leadership and commitment with respect to its ISMS, as required by clause 5.1. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure that the ISMS policy and objectives are established and compatible with the strategic direction of the organization; that roles, responsibilities and authorities for relevant roles are assigned and communicated; that resources needed for the ISMS are available; that communication about information security matters is established; that continual improvement of the ISMS is promoted; that other relevant management reviews are aligned with those of information security; and that support is provided to other relevant roles1.

The other statements would not cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

Audit reports are not held in hardcopy (i.e. on paper). They are only stored as ".POF documents on the organisation’s intranet: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific format or media for documenting or storing audit reports, as long as they are controlled according to clause 7.5.

The audit programme mandates auditors must be independent of the areas they audit in order to satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for auditor independence, as long as the audit is conducted objectively and impartially, in accordance with ISO 19011:20182.

The audit programme does not reference audit methods or audit responsibilities: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for referencing audit methods or audit responsibilities in the audit programme, as long as they are defined and documented according to ISO 19011:20182.

The audit process states the results of audits will be made available to ‘relevant’ managers, not top management: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for communicating the results of audits to top management, as long as they are reported to the relevant parties and used as an input for management review, according to clause 9.3.

Step 1 = Incident logging Step 2 = Incident categorisation Step 3 = Incident prioritisation Step 4 = Incident assignment Step 5 = Task creation and management Step 6 = SLA management and escalation Step 7 = Incident resolution Step 8 = Incident closure

The order of the stages in the information security incident management process should follow a logical sequence that ensures a quick, effective, and orderly response to the incidents, events, and weaknesses. The order should also be consistent with the best practices and guidance provided by ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27035:2022. Therefore, the following order is suggested:

Step 1 = Incident logging: This step involves recording the details of the potential incident, event, or weakness, such as the date, time, source, description, impact, and reporter. This step is important to provide a traceable record of the incident and to facilitate the subsequent analysis and response. This step is related to control A.16.1.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to establish responsibilities and procedures for the management of information security incidents, events, and weaknesses. This step is also related to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to log the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 2 = Incident categorisation: This step involves determining the type and nature of the incident, event, or weakness, such as whether it is a hardware issue, network issue, or software issue. This step is important to classify the incident and to assign it to the appropriate resolver or team. This step is related to control A.16.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to report information security events and weaknesses as quickly as possible through appropriate management channels. This step is also related to clause 6.3 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to categorize the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 3 = Incident prioritisation: This step involves assessing the severity and urgency of the incident, event, or weakness, and classifying it as critical, high, medium, or low. This step is important to prioritize the incident and to allocate the necessary resources and time for the response. This step is related to control A.16.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to assess and prioritize information security events and weaknesses in accordance with the defined criteria. This step is also related to clause 6.4 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to prioritize the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 4 = Incident assignment: This step involves passing the incident, event, or weakness to the individual or team who is best suited to resolve it, based on their skills, knowledge, and availability. This step is important to ensure that the incident is handled by the right person or team and to avoid delays or confusion. This step is related to control A.16.1.4 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to respond to information security events and weaknesses in a timely manner, according to the agreed procedures. This step is also related to clause 6.5 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to assign the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 5 = Task creation and management: This step involves identifying and coordinating the work needed to resolve the incident, event, or weakness, such as performing root cause analysis, testing solutions, implementing changes, and documenting actions. This step is important to ensure that the incident is resolved effectively and efficiently, and that the actions are tracked and controlled. This step is related to control A.16.1.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to apply lessons learned from information security events and weaknesses to take corrective and preventive actions. This step is also related to clause 6.6 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to create and manage the tasks for the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 6 = SLA management and escalation: This step involves ensuring that any service level agreements (SLAs) are adhered to while the resolution is being implemented, and that the incident is escalated to a higher level of authority or support if a breach looks likely or occurs. This step is important to ensure that the incident is resolved within the agreed time frame and quality, and that any deviations or issues are communicated and addressed. This step is related to control A.16.1.6 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to communicate information security events and weaknesses to the relevant internal and external parties, as appropriate. This step is also related to clause 6.7 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to manage the SLAs and escalations for the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 7 = Incident resolution: This step involves applying a temporary workaround or a permanent solution to resolve the incident, event, or weakness, and restoring the normal operation of the information and information processing facilities. This step is important to ensure that the incident is resolved completely and satisfactorily, and that the information security is restored to the desired level. This step is related to control A.16.1.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to identify the cause of information security events and weaknesses, and to take actions to prevent their recurrence or occurrence. This step is also related to clause 6.8 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to resolve the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

Step 8 = Incident closure: This step involves closing the incident, event, or weakness, after verifying that it has been resolved satisfactorily, and that all the actions have been completed and documented. This step is important to ensure that the incident is formally closed and that no further actions are required. This step is related to control A.16.1.8 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which requires the organization to collect evidence and document the information security events and weaknesses, and the actions taken. This step is also related to clause 6.9 of ISO/IEC 27035:2022, which provides guidance on how to close the incidents, events, and weaknesses.

It is acceptable and often necessary for auditors to test technical controls such as firewalls to validate the operation and effectiveness of these processes during an ISMS audit. This hands-on testing provides concrete, technical evidence of the security measures' performance.

Top management requests auditors from the organisation’s compliance department to audit the production process in order to ensure the final product meets quality requirements = First-party audit

Auditors from the buyer’s organisation audit their raw material supplier to ensure the supply fulfils the order and contract = Second-party audit

Auditors from an independent certification body conduct an audit of the organisation to verify conformity with an ISO Standard for certification purposes = Third-party audit

The organisation has been audited against two management system standards in one audit = Combined audit

According to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, there are three main categories of audits: internal, external, and certification1. An internal audit, also known as a first-party audit, is an audit conducted by the organisation itself, or by an external party on its behalf, for management review and other internal purposes12. An external audit, also known as a second-party audit, is an audit conducted by a customer or other interested party on a supplier or contractor to verify compliance with contractual or other requirements12. A certification audit, also known as a third-party audit, is an audit conducted by an independent certification body to verify conformity with an ISO standard for certification purposes12. A combined audit is an audit where two or more management system standards are audited together3.

 1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 192: ISO 27001 Audit Types and How They are Conducted23: The Four ISO 27001 Audit Categories, Explained4

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Correct Answer:

Materiality helps auditors identify significant areas for audit focus and is used to set audit objectives appropriately.

Materiality determines which processes, risks, or controls are critical for achieving effective ISMS implementation.

A. Incorrect:

Materiality affects audit scope but does not directly determine duration.

B. Incorrect:

Team roles are assigned based on expertise, not materiality considerations.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.2.3 (Determining Feasibility of Audit)

The Statement of Applicability (SoA) is a core document within an ISMS that outlines the security controls an organization implements. When a new control, such as the SSH protocol, is implemented, it should be included in the SoA to reflect the current state of the ISMS. The SoA should be updated to justify the inclusion of the new control and to document how it is implemented within the organization12. References: = This guidance is based on the best practices for maintaining the SoA as per ISO/IEC 27001, which requires the SoA to be a living document that accurately reflects the security controls in use by the organization

The mail sent by the CEO giving his views on the status of the company and the company’s future strategy and the CEO’s vision and the employee’s part in it should be classified as internal mail. Internal mail is a type of classification that indicates that the information is intended for internal use only, and should not be disclosed to external parties without authorization. The mail sent by the CEO contains information that is relevant and important for the employees of the company, but may not be suitable for public disclosure, as it may contain sensitive or confidential information about the company’s performance, goals, or plans. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

The three options that will not be in your audit trail are A, C, and H. These options are either not relevant to the information security of ABC’s healthcare mobile app development, support, and lifecycle process, or not within the scope of your audit. The amount of money that residents’ family members pay to install the app (A) and the number of users of the app © are not related to the information security aspects or objectives of the ISMS1. The verification of the developer’s certifications (H) is not your responsibility as an ISMS auditor, as you should rely on the competence and impartiality of the certification bodies that issued them2. The other options are relevant and within the scope of your audit, as they relate to the security functions, testing, policies, and procedures of the mobile app development, support, and lifecycle process13. References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 4.2 \n2: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 4.1 \n3: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

According to the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, the following actions should be taken when a nonconformity identified for completion before the follow-up audit is still outstanding:

A. Report the failure to address the corrective action for the outstanding nonconformity to the organisation’s top management. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to communicate the audit results and ensure that the audit objectives are met12.

C. If the delay is justified agree on a revised date for clearing the nonconformity with the auditee/audit client. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to verify the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee and to close the nonconformity when the evidence is satisfactory12.

E. Decide whether the delay in addressing the nonconformity is justified. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to evaluate the evidence presented by the auditee and to use professional judgement and objectivity to determine the validity of the reasons for the delay12.

G. Note the nonconformity is still outstanding and follow audit trails to determine why. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to collect and verify audit evidence and to identify the root causes of the nonconformity12.