CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics used by organizations to monitor and assess potential risks that may impact their objectives and performance. KRIs also provide early warning signals that help organizations identify, analyze, and address risks before they escalate into significant issues1. Effective KRIs are thosethat are relevant, measurable, predictable, comparable, and informational2. The most important factor for developing effective KRIs is including input from risk and business unit management, as they are the persons who have the best understanding of the risk environment, the risk appetite and tolerance, and the risk factors and impacts of the organization. By including input from risk and business unit management, the organization can ensure that the KRIs are aligned with the organization’s strategy, vision, and mission, and that they reflect the current and emerging risks and their potential consequences. Engaging sponsorship by senior management, utilizing data and resources internal to the organization, and developing in collaboration with internal audit are not the most important factors for developing effective KRIs, as they do not provide the same level of insight and relevance as including input from risk and business unit management. Engaging sponsorship by senior management is a factor that involves obtaining the support and approval of the senior leaders who have the authority and accountability for the organization’s performance and governance. Engaging sponsorship by senior management can help to promote the importance and value of KRIs, and to ensure their communication and implementation across the organization, but it does not ensure that the KRIs are appropriate and accurate for the organization’s risk profile. Utilizing data and resources internal to the organization is a factor that involves using the information and assets that are available within the organization to support or enable the development of KRIs. Utilizing data and resources internal to the organization can help to enhance the quality and reliability of KRIs, and to reduce the cost and complexity of obtaining external data and resources, but it does not ensure that the KRIs are comprehensive and consistent with the organization’s risk environment. Developing in collaboration with internal audit is a factor that involves working with the internal audit function that provides independent and objective assurance and advice on the adequacy and effectiveness of the organization’s risk management. Developing in collaboration with internal audit can help to improve the validity and compliance of KRIs, and to provide feedback and recommendations for improvement, but it does not ensure that the KRIs are relevant and realistic for the organization’s risk objectives and strategies. References = 1: Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide | SafetyCulture2: KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva3: [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: Key Risk Indicators, pp. 181-185.]

The business owner should own the risk if the ERP and payroll system fail to operate as expected, because the business owner is ultimately responsible for the business processes and objectives that depend on the systems. The other options are not the risk owners, because:

Option B: The ERP administrator is responsible for the technical aspects of the ERP system, but not the payroll system or the business outcomes.

Option C: The project steering committee is responsible for overseeing the project of replacing the ERP system, but not the ongoing operation and maintenance of the systems or the business risks.

Option D: The IT project manager is responsible for managing the project of replacing the ERP system, but not the payroll system or the business risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 90.

The main purpose of a risk register is to enable well-informed risk management decisions by providing a comprehensive and up-to-date record of all the identified risks, their analysis, and their responses. A risk register is a tool that helps to document, monitor, and communicate the status and outcome of risk management activities. A risk register also facilitates the review and evaluation of the effectiveness of risk management processes and controls. Documenting the risk universe, promoting an understanding of risk,and identifying stakeholders are possible benefits of a risk register, but they are not the main purpose. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1.3, page 531

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 640.

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 efficientmanner, 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 most effective key risk indicator (KRI) for monitoring risk related to a bring your own device (BYOD) program is the number of incidents originating from BYOD devices, as it directly measures the impact and frequency of the potential threats and vulnerabilities associated with the use of personal devices for accessing company data and systems. A BYOD program can pose various risks to an organization, such as data loss or breach, malware infection, unauthorized access, compliance violation, or device theft or loss12. The number of incidents originating from BYOD devices can help to identify and quantify these risks, and to trigger appropriate risk response actions when the incidents exceed the acceptable thresholds. The other options are not the most effective KRIs, as they do not directly measure the risk level or impact of the BYOD program. The number of users who have signed a BYOD acceptable use policy may indicate the awareness and compliance of the users, but not the actual risk exposure or mitigation. The budget allocated to the BYOD program security controls may indicate the investment and efficiency of the risk management, but not the effectiveness or necessity. The number of devices enrolled in the BYOD program may indicate the scope and scale of the risk, but not the severity or likelihood. References = Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide; KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics used to measure and evaluate the achievement of the organization’s objectives and strategies1. KPIs for critical IT assets are KPIs that focus onthe performance and value of the IT assets that are essential for the organization’s operations and functions2. KPIs for critical IT assets may include metrics such as availability, reliability, utilization, cost, and security of the IT assets3. The need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets may be driven by various factors, such as changes in the business environment, customer expectations, or regulatory requirements. However, the most likely factor that would drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets is the outcomes of periodic risk assessments. A risk assessment is a process that involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks and their potential impacts on the organization’s objectives and performance4. A periodic risk assessment is a risk assessment that is performed at regular intervals, such as monthly, quarterly, or annually, to capture the changes and updates in the risk environment and the risk profile5. The outcomes of periodic risk assessments would most likely drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets, as they would provide insights into the current and emerging risks that may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the existingand planned controls and responses. By reviewing and updating the KPIs for critical IT assets based on the outcomes of periodic risk assessments, the organization can ensure that the KPIs are relevant, realistic, and aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and that they provide accurate and timely information for decision making and reporting. The outsourcing of related IT processes, changes in service level objectives, and findings from continuous monitoring are not the most likely factors that would drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets, as they do not provide the same level of information and impact as the outcomes of periodic risk assessments. The outsourcing of related IT processes is a decision that involves transferring some or all of the IT processes that support or enable the critical IT assets to an external service provider. The outsourcing of related IT processes may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but it does not necessarily require a review and update of the KPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be valid and applicable for the outsourced IT processes. Changes in service level objectives are changes in the expected or agreed level of quality or performance of the IT services that support or enable the critical IT assets. Changes in service level objectives may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but they do not necessarily require a review and update of the KPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be consistent and compatible with the changed service level objectives. Findings from continuous monitoring are the results or outcomes of the ongoing observation and measurement of the performance and compliance of the IT processes and systems that support or enable the critical IT assets. Findings from continuous monitoring may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but they do not necessarily require a review and update of the KPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be relevant and reliable for the continuously monitored IT processes and systems. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.

Quantifying the value of a single asset helps the organization to understand the consequences of risk materializing, as it indicates how much impact or loss the organization would suffer if the asset is compromised, damaged, or destroyed by a threat. The value of an asset can be determined by various methods, such as the cost of acquisition, replacement, or restoration, the market value, the income or revenue generated, or the impact on the business objectives or reputation. The other options are not the best description of what quantifying the value of a single asset helps the organization to understand, as they are either too broad (overall effectiveness of risk management, necessity of developing a risk strategy) or not directly related to the asset value (organization’s risk threshold). References = IT Asset Valuation, Risk Assessment and Control Implementation Model; How to quantify assets?; Asset Valuation - Definition, Methods, and Importance

Robotics process automation (RPA) is the use of software robots to perform repetitive, rules-based tasks that interact with multiple applications. RPA can help internal audit departments automate certain continuous auditing tasks, such as data extraction, validation, analysis, and reporting. RPA can improve the efficiency, quality, and coverage of internal audit activities, and provide greater insight and value to the business. However, RPA also involves certain risks, such as errors, failures, security breaches, or compliance issues, that need to be identified, assessed, and managed. The risk associated with ineffective design of the software bots is the possibility and impact of the bots not functioning as intended, or producing inaccurate or unreliable results. The risk owner of this risk is the person or entity who has the authority and responsibility for managing the risk. The risk owner should be able to define the risk appetite, assess the risk level, select and implement the risk response, monitor and report the risk status, and ensure the risk alignment with the project objectives and strategy. The risk owner of the risk associated with ineffective design of the software bots is the project manager, who is the person in charge of planning, executing, monitoring, and closing the RPA project. The project manager understands the project scope, requirements, budget, timeline, and deliverables, and the potential consequences of ineffective design of the software bots. The project manager also has the resources and incentives to address the risk effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the project manager is the most appropriate risk owner of the risk associated with ineffective design of the software bots. References = Robotic Process Automation for Internal Audit, p. 3-4, Adopting robotic process automation in Internal Audit, Robotic Process Automation (RPA) – Internal Audit Use and Risks.