CISM Exam Dumps - Certified Information Security Manager

User access log files contain records of user activities and actions on the system, which can be used for auditing, monitoring, and investigating purposes. System administrators should not be able to modify or delete these files to ensure their integrity and availability. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2.11

 The information security manager should first evaluate the information security laws that apply to the acquired company, as they may differ from the laws of the parent organization. This will help the information security manager to understand the legal and regulatory requirements, risks, and challenges that the acquired company faces in its operating environment. The information security manager can then determine the best approach to align the information security programs of the two entities, taking into account the different laws and regulations, as well as the business objectives and strategies of the acquisition. References = : CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, page 32.

Incident impact is the primary factor for classification and categorization. It ensures incidents are addressed based on their potential to disrupt the organization.

“Incident impact should be the primary factor in defining categorization levels to ensure appropriate prioritization and response.”

— CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 4: Incident Management, Section: Incident Classification and Prioritization*

ISACA practice database stresses that focusing on impact ensures incidents receive the proper response priority.

Senior leadership needs to understand how Zero Trust supports risk reduction and business needs. Communicating the impact on risk reduction and user experience aligns security initiatives with business goals.

“Communicating how security initiatives support business objectives and risk reduction is critical for gaining senior management support.”

— CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 1: Information Security Governance, Section: Business Alignment*

Average return on investment (ROI) associated with security initiatives is the best metric to provide evidence of alignment of information security governance with corporate governance because it demonstrates the value and benefits of security investments to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. Average number of security incidents across business units is not a good metric because it does not measure the effectiveness or efficiency of security initiatives or their alignment with corporate governance. Mean time to resolution (MTTR) for enterprise-wide security incidents is not a good metric because it does not measure the impact or outcome of security initiatives or their alignment with corporate governance. Number of vulnerabilities identified for high-risk information assets is not a good metric because it does not measure the performance or improvement of security initiatives or their alignment with corporate governance. References: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2015/volume-6/measuring-the-value-of-information-security-investments https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2015/volume-1/how-to-measure-the-effectiveness-of-information-security-governance

The ultimate goal of an anti-phishing campaign is to reduce the risk and impact of phishing attacks on the organization. Therefore, the most relevant and reliable indicator of the effectiveness of an anti-phishing campaign is the decreased number of incidents that have occurred as a result of phishing. This metric shows how well the employees have learned to recognize and report phishing emails, and how well the security controls have prevented or mitigated the damage caused by phishing.

References = Five Ways to Achieve a Successful Anti-Phishing Campaign; Don’t click: towards an effective anti-phishing training. A comparative literature review; CISA, NSA, FBI, MS-ISAC Publish Guide on Preventing Phishing Intrusions

 The best way to proceed when an independent penetration test results show a high-rated vulnerability in a cloud-based application that is close to going live is to assess whether the vulnerability is within the organization’s risk tolerance levels. This is because the organization should not implement the application without understanding the potential impact and likelihood of the vulnerability being exploited, and the cost and benefit of fixing or mitigating the vulnerability. The organization should also consider the contractual and legal obligations, service level agreements, and performance expectations of the cloud service provider and the application users. By assessing the risk tolerance levels, the organization can make an informed and rational decision on whether to accept, transfer, avoid, or reduce the risk, and how to allocate the resources and responsibilities for managing the risk.

Implementing the application and requesting the cloud service provider to fix the vulnerability is not the best way to proceed, because it exposes the organization to unnecessary and unacceptable risk, and it may violate the terms and conditions of the cloud service contract. The organization should not rely on the cloud service provider to fix the vulnerability, as the provider may not have the same level of urgency, accountability, or capability as the organization. The organization should also not assume that the vulnerability will not be exploited, as cyberattackers may target the cloud-based application due to its high visibility, accessibility, and value.

Commissioning further penetration tests to validate initial test results is not the best way to proceed, because it may delay the implementation of the application, and it may not provide any additional or useful information. The organization should trust the results of the independent penetration test, as it is conducted by a qualified and objective third party. The organization should also not waste time and resources on conducting redundant or unnecessary tests, as it may affect the budget, schedule, and quality of the project.

Postponing the implementation until the vulnerability has been fixed is not the best way to proceed, because it may not be feasible or desirable for the organization. The organization should consider the business impact and opportunity cost of postponing the implementation, as it may affect the organization’s reputation, revenue, and customer satisfaction. The organization should also consider the technical feasibility and complexity of fixing the vulnerability, as it may require significant changes or modifications to the application or the cloud environment. The organization should not adopt a zero-risk or risk-averse approach, as it may hinder the organization’s innovation and competitiveness. References =

ISACA, CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, 2020, pages 97-98, 101-102, 105-106, 109-110.

ISACA, CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 12th Edition, 2020, question ID 1025.

Leadership support reinforces the importance of security awareness and motivates employees to engage with training.

“Security awareness programs are most effective when they have visible support from senior management, reinforcing their importance.”

— CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 3: Information Security Program Development and Management, Section: Security Awareness and Training*