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

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, a certification body should establish criteria for determining audit time and audit team composition based on factors such as the scope of certification, size and complexity of the organization, risks associated with its activities, etc2. Therefore, if an auditee requests to extend the audit scope to include two additional sites after completing Stage 1 of an initial certification audit, the audit team leader should obtain information about the additional sites to inform the certification body, so that they can review and approve the change in scope and adjust the audit time and audit team accordingly2. The other options are not appropriate actions for the audit team leader to take in this situation. For example, increasing the length of the Stage 2 audit to include the extra sites without informing the certification body may violate their procedures and policies; arranging to complete a remote Stage 1 audit of the two sites using a video conferencing platform may not be feasible or effective depending on the nature and location of the sites; and informing the auditee that the request can be accepted but a full Stage 1 audit must be repeated may not be necessary or reasonable if there are no significant changes in the auditee’s ISMS since Stage 12. References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 - Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems – Part 1: Requirements

Confidentiality is one of the principles of audit conduct that auditors should adhere to when performing audits. Confidentiality means that auditors should exercise discretion in the use and protection of information acquired in the course of their duties3. Auditors should respect the intellectual property rights of the auditee and other parties involved in the audit, and should not disclose any information that is sensitive, proprietary, or confidential without prior approval from the auditee or other authorized parties3. Auditors should also obtain the auditee’s permission before using a camera or recording equipment during an audit, as these devices may capture confidential information or infringe on the privacy of individuals3. Therefore, these two options correctly state the function of confidentiality in an audit. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant to confidentiality. For example, auditors are not forced by regulatory requirements to maintain confidentiality in an audit, but rather by ethical obligations and contractual agreements3. Observers in an audit team can access confidential information if they have signed a confidentiality agreement and have been authorized by the auditee3. Audit information can be used for improving personal competence by the auditor only if it does not compromise confidentiality or conflict with other interests3. As an auditor is always accompanied by a guide, there is still a risk to the auditee’s sensitive information if the guide is not trustworthy or authorized to access such information3. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

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

Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.

Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.

Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.

Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.

The word that best completes the sentence is “demonstrate”. According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Clause 7.5, the organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the performance of the processes and the conformity of the products and services with the requirements1. The purpose of retaining documented information is to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of the management system standard, not to maintain, audit, or certify it. References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 7.5

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control 5.7 requires an organization to establish and maintain a threat intelligence process to identify and evaluate information security threats that are relevant to its ISMS scope and objectives1. The organization should use internal and external sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that can be used to support risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control 5.7, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Three options that represent valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7 are:

I will review the organisation’s threat intelligence process and will ensure that this is fully documented: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process that is consistent with its ISMS scope and objectives. It can also verify that the process is documented according to clause 7.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organisation’s information assets: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used threat intelligence to support its risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities, such as incident response, awareness, or monitoring. It can also verify that the organization has achieved its information security objectives according to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used various sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that is relevant and reliable. It can also verify that the organization has complied with the requirement of control 5.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

The other options are not valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:

I will speak to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding information security awareness or communication, but not specifically to control 5.7.

I will ensure that the task of producing threat intelligence is assigned to the organisation s internal audit team: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also contradict the requirement for auditor independence and objectivity, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.

I will ensure that the organisation’s risk assessment process begins with effective threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also imply a prescriptive approach to risk assessment that is not consistent with ISO/IEC 27005:20183, which provides guidelines for information security risk management.

I will review how information relating to information security threats is collected and evaluated to produce threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also be too vague or broad to be an effective audit trail, as it does not specify what criteria or methods are used for collecting and evaluating information.

I will ensure that appropriate measures have been introduced to inform top management as to the effectiveness of current threat intelligence arrangements: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding management review or performance evaluation, but not specifically to control 5.7.

The purpose of a Stage 2 audit is to evaluate the implementation of the management system, in this case, the ISMS, according to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and the organisation’s own policies and procedures. The Stage 2 audit involves collecting evidence of the effectiveness and performance of the ISMS, as well as verifying the conformity and suitability of the organisation’s controls. The Stage 2 audit also assesses the organisation’s ability to achieve its information security objectives and to manage information security risks. References: = ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.2; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 28.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

The organization is focusing on direct costs associated with running specific processes.

"Personnel, third-party services, and general fees" refer to operational costs of specific processes, not overall business operations.

A. Incorrect:

Cost of operations refers to the total business expenses, not individual processes.

C. Incorrect:

Potential cost of errors relates to risk assessment and impact analysis, not direct expenses.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.3.2 (Audit Planning and Materiality Considerations)

The correct answer is Detailed descriptions of all audit findings with corrective actions, because this information is not a required element of a quality review documentation template. Quality review documentation focuses on verifying the adequacy, consistency, and compliance of the audit process itself, not on managing corrective actions.

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1 and ISO 19011, quality review records typically include identification of the reviewer and preparer, confirmation that required audit steps were completed, dates of review activities, and confirmation that conclusions are supported by evidence. These elements ensure traceability, accountability, and procedural compliance.

Option A is required because identifying both the preparer and reviewer supports independence and accountability in the review process. Option C is also required because recording completion dates provides evidence that reviews were performed at the appropriate stage of the audit process.

Option B is incorrect because detailed audit findings and corrective actions belong in audit reports and corrective action tracking systems, not in the quality review template. Including corrective actions in quality review documentation would blur the distinction between audit execution and audit oversight.

Therefore, detailed descriptions of audit findings with corrective actions are not a required element of quality review documentation.

The IRT’s finding that FTP transmits authentication credentials in clear text represents a vulnerability in information security terms. A vulnerability is defined as a weakness in an asset, system, or control that can be exploited by a threat. In this scenario, FTP itself is not a threat, nor is it the risk; rather, it is the technical weakness that enabled the attackers to succeed.

The attackers (hackers) are the threat, and the potential loss of proprietary information is the impact. The risk arises from the combination of the threat exploiting the vulnerability and causing harm. However, the question specifically asks what the IRT’s finding about FTP represents, and that finding is the identification of a weakness in the system design. The use of clear-text authentication is a well-known security weakness, making it easier for attackers to capture credentials through network traffic interception.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 risk assessment logic requires organizations to distinguish clearly between threats, vulnerabilities, and risks during incident analysis. The IRT did exactly this by identifying that the protocol itself lacked encryption, which is a vulnerability. This is further supported by the corrective action taken: replacing FTP with SSH. SSH provides encrypted communication, which directly addresses the vulnerability by removing the weakness that allowed credential exposure.

Therefore, the IRT’s findings correctly identify FTP as a vulnerability, making option A the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Correct Answer:

Professional skepticism involves challenging evidence, verifying claims, and avoiding assumptions.

The auditors critically assessed the validity of evidence, ensuring claims made by Techvology were backed by concrete proof.

A. Incorrect:

Risk-based auditing prioritizes high-risk areas, but the paragraph focuses on verifying claims and evidence.

B. Incorrect:

Fair presentation ensures accurate reporting of findings, but the paragraph focuses on questioning evidence, not reporting.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 4 (Principles of Auditing: Professional Skepticism)

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer:

ISO 19011:2018 allows auditors to report significant issues that impact the audit scope, even if they arise outside the predefined scope.

Security Training Department nonconformities directly affected CloudWebvue's ISMS, justifying its inclusion in the audit report.

B. Incorrect:

Transparency is crucial in audits, and Keith correctly informed the auditee before reporting.

C. Incorrect:

Issues affecting ISMS implementation must be reported, as they pose risks to the certification scope.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.1 (Audit Reporting on Nonconformities Outside Scope but with Impact)

Corrective action is a process of identifying and eliminating the root causes of nonconformities or incidents that have occurred or could potentially occur, in order to prevent their recurrence or occurrence. Corrective action is part of the improvement requirement of ISO 27001 and follows a standard workflow of identification, evaluation, implementation, review and documentation of corrections and corrective actions. References: Procedure for Corrective Action, Nonconformity & Corrective Action For ISO 27001 Requirement 10.1, PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor (page 12)

The best response to the email from the IT support team asking for personal details is to not respond to the email and report it to your supervisor. The email is likely a phishing attempt, which is a form of social engineering that uses deceptive emails or other messages to trick recipients into revealing sensitive information, such as passwords, credit card numbers, bank account details, etc. Phishing emails often impersonate legitimate organizations or individuals and create a sense of urgency or curiosity to lure the victims into clicking on malicious links, opening malicious attachments or providing personal information. The IT support team should never ask for your password or other personal details via email, as this is a violation of information security policies and best practices. Ignoring the email or responding to it by saying that one should not share the password with anyone are not sufficient responses, as they do not alert the IT support team or your supervisor about the phishing attempt, which could affect other users as well. Reporting the email to your supervisor is a responsible action that could help prevent further damage or compromise of information. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to implement awareness and training programs to make users aware of the risks of social engineering attacks, such as phishing, and how to avoid them (see clause A.7.2.2). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Phishing?

The best practice in acceptable use of information assets is A: access to information and communication systems are provided for business purpose only. This means that the organization grants access to its information and communication systems only to authorized users who need to use them for legitimate and approved business activities. The organization does not allow or tolerate any unauthorized, inappropriate or personal use of its information and communication systems, as this could compromise information security, violate policies or laws, or cause damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders. The other options are not best practices in acceptable use of information assets, as they could violate information security policies and procedures, as well as ethical or legal standards. Interfering with or denying service to any user other than the employee’s host (B) is a malicious act that could disrupt the availability or performance of the information systems or services of another user or organization. Playing any computer games during office hours © is a personal and unprofessional use of the information and communication systems that could distract the employee from their work duties, waste resources and bandwidth, or expose the systems to malware or other risks. Accessing phone or network transmissions, including wireless or wifi transmissions (D) is a potential breach of confidentiality or privacy that could intercept, monitor or modify the information transmitted by another user or organization without their consent or authorization. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to implement rules for acceptable use of assets (see clause A.8.1.3). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Acceptable Use?

In the Act phase of the PDCA cycle, the process is reviewed and evaluated based on the results from the Check phase. The actions taken in this phase aim to continually improve the process performance by addressing the root causes of problems, implementing corrective and preventive actions, and updating the process documentation1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Yes, it is acceptable for the work documents of the audit team leader to be reviewed by another auditor after reaching audit conclusions. This is part of the quality control and assurance processes within the audit to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the audit conclusions.

This situation is unacceptable because UpNet should have requested and been granted an extension audit prior to announcing that the ISMS certification scope encompasses the whole company, including the new department. Proper procedures need to be followed to extend the certification to additional departments or processes.

If an organization like OrgXY informs the certification body that it is not ready to conduct the surveillance audit as scheduled, the certification may be suspended. This is because the surveillance audit is a critical part of the ongoing certification maintenance, required to ensure continued compliance with the standard.