CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

 Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk is the best recommendation to senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated, as it helps to balance the costs and benefits of the risk management and control processes, and to align them with the organizational strategy and objectives. A risk and control assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks and controls associated with a specific activity, process, or objective. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could cause harm or loss to the organization or its stakeholders. A risk scenario can only be partially mitigated when the existing or proposed controls are not sufficient or effective to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. A risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. A residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or risk treatments.

Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk helps to provide the following benefits:

It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to risk management and reporting, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of measuring and communicating risk levels and exposure across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

It supports the development and implementation of effective and efficient 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 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 senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated. Implementing a key performance indicator (KPI) to monitor the existing control performance is a useful method to measure and monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, but it does not address the residual risk or the risk appetite. Accepting the residual risk in its entirety andobtaining executive management approval is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk, and it may not comply with the legal or regulatory obligations or requirements. Separating the risk into multiple components and avoiding the risk components that cannot be mitigated is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may not be feasible or practical, and it may create new or additional risks or challenges. References = Risk and Control Self-Assessment (RCSA) - Management Study Guide, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Risk Mitigation: What It Is and How to Implement It (Free Templates …

Implementing mock phishing exercises is the most effective way to validate organizational awareness of cybersecurity risk, because it helps to measure and test the knowledge and behavior of the employees regarding the detection and prevention of phishing attacks, which are one of the most common and dangerous forms of cybersecurity risk. A phishing attack is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive or confidential information, such as usernames, passwords, or credit card details, by impersonating a legitimate or trusted entity, such as a bank, a government agency, or a colleague, through email, phone, or other communication channels. A mock phishing exercise is a simulated phishing attack that is conducted by the organization or a thirdparty to assess the level of awareness and readiness of the employees to recognize and respond to phishing attacks, and to provide feedback and training to improve their skills andknowledge. Implementing mock phishing exercises is the most effective way, as it helps to validate the actual and practical awareness of cybersecurity risk, and to identify and address the gaps or weaknesses in the employees’ awareness and behavior. Conducting security awareness training, updating the information security policy, and requiring two-factor authentication are all useful ways to enhance organizational awareness of cybersecurity risk, but they are not the most effective way, as they do not directly validate the awareness and behavior of the employees regarding phishing attacks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 158

The primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan should be that the risk response reduces risk to an acceptable level. A risk response action plan is a document that describes the actions or measures that are taken or planned to modify the risk, such as reducing, avoiding, transferring, or accepting the risk1. Validating a risk response action plan means verifying whether the plan is feasible, effective, and efficient in addressing the risk2. The main objective of validating a risk response action plan is to ensure that the risk response reduces risk to an acceptable level, which is the level of risk that the organization is willing to tolerate or bear, based on its risk appetite and risk criteria3. Reducing risk to an acceptable level means that the risk response actions can lower the likelihood or impact of the risk to a point where the risk does not pose a significant threat or challenge to the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance. Reducing risk to an acceptable level also means that the risk response actions can balance the benefits and costs of the risk response, and that they can provide a reasonable assurance of the risk management effectiveness and efficiency4. The other options are not the primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as they are either less relevant or less specific than reducing risk to an acceptable level. Quantifying risk impact is a component or element of validating a risk response action plan, notafocus of it. Quantifying risk impact means measuring or estimating the potential effects or consequences of the risk on the organization5. Quantifying risk impact can help to evaluate the severity and priority of the risk, as well as to compare the risk against the risk criteria and the risk appetite. However, quantifying risk impact is not the primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not address the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. Aligning with business strategy is a secondary or incidental benefit of validating a risk response action plan, not a primary or essential focus of it. Aligning with business strategy means ensuring that the risk response actions are consistent and coherent with the organization’s goals and values6. Aligning with business strategy can help to integrate the risk response actions with the organization’s culture and governance, as well as to support and enable the achievement of the organization’s mission and vision. However, aligning with business strategy is not the main focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not indicate the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. Advancing business objectives is a tertiary or indirect outcome of validating a risk response action plan, not a primary or direct focus of it. Advancing business objectives means contributing to the improvement and enhancement of the organization’s performance and results7. Advancing business objectives can help to create value and deliver benefits for the organization and its stakeholders, as well as to optimize the use of the organization’s resources and capabilities. However, advancing business objectives is not the main focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not address the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.8, Page 61.

Senior management interviews would offer the MOST insight with regard to an organization’s risk culture, because they can reveal the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the seniormanagement towards risk management, and how they influence and support the risk management process and activities in the organization. Senior management interviews can also provide information on the risk appetite, tolerance, and objectives of the organization, and how they are communicated and implemented across the organization. The other options are not as insightful as senior management interviews, because:

Option A: Risk management procedures are the steps and methods that define how the risk management process and activities are performed in the organization, but they do not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the human and behavioral aspects of risk management.

Option C: Benchmark analyses are the comparisons of the performance and practices of the organization with those of similar or successful organizations, but they do not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the internal and unique aspects of risk management.

Option D: Risk management framework is the set of rules and standards that guide and support the risk management process and activities in the organization, but it does not necessarily reflect the risk culture of the organization, which is more about the leadership and commitment aspects of risk management. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 82.

 The best control to help reduce the risk of fraudulent internal transactions in several business applications is the segregation of duties. Segregation of duties is the principle of dividing the roles and responsibilities of different individuals or groups involved in a business process or an IT service, so that no one person or group has complete control over the entire process or service. Segregation of duties can help to prevent or detect fraud, errors, conflicts of interest, or misuse of resources, by ensuring that there are checks and balances, and that there is adequate oversight and accountability. Segregation of duties can also help to reduce the risk of collusion, compromise, or coercion among the internal staff, by limiting their access and authority to thebusiness applications and data. Periodic user privileges review, log monitoring, and periodic internal audits are also useful controls, but they are not as effective as segregation of duties, as they are reactive and detective measures, rather than proactive and preventive measures. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 217.

Change management is the best way to prevent an unscheduled application of a patch, because it ensures that any changes to the IT environment are planned, approved, tested, and documented. Change management is a process that controls the implementation of changes to IT systems, applications, infrastructure, or processes. It aims to minimize the risk of disruption, errors, or failures caused by changes. Applying a patch is a type of change that may affect the security, functionality, or performance of an IT system or application. Therefore, applying a patch shouldfollow the change management process and schedule, and avoid any unscheduled or unauthorized patching. Network-based access controls, compensating controls, and segregation of duties are all useful controls to protect the IT environment from unauthorized or malicious access, but they do not prevent an unscheduled application of a patch, as they do not address the change management process. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2, page 211

Sensitivity and reliability are the most important criteria for selecting KRIs, as they indicate how well the KRIs reflect the changes in the risk level and how consistent and accurate the KRIs are in measuring the risk.Sensitivity means that the KRIs should respond quickly and proportionally to the variations in the risk exposure, and provide early warning signals of potential risk events. Reliability means that the KRIs should be based on valid and verifiable data sources, and produce consistent and comparable results over time and across different units or functions. Historical data availability, implementation and reporting effort, and ability to display trends are also useful criteria, but they are not as critical as sensitivity and reliability.