CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

An IT risk assessment is a process that involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the IT-related risks and their potential impacts on the organization’s objectives and performance1. Identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment is the process of determining and engaging the persons or entities that have an interest or influence in the IT risk management, such as the IT users, owners, managers, orproviders2. The primary benefit of identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment is to define the risk assessment scope, which is theboundary or extent of the IT risk assessment, such as the IT systems, processes, or functions that are included or excluded from the assessment3. By identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment, the organization can ensure that the risk assessment scope is relevant, realistic, and aligned with the organization’s strategy, vision, and mission, and that it reflects the current and emerging IT risks and their potential consequences. Identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment can also help to establish and communicate the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders, and to enforce the accountability and performance of the IT risk management. Obtaining funding support, selecting the risk assessment framework, and establishing inherent risk are not the primary benefits of identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment, as they do not provide the same level of insight and relevance as defining the risk assessment scope. Obtaining funding support is the process of securing and providing the necessary funds or resources that are required to support or enable the IT risk assessment4. Obtaining funding support can enhance the quality and performance of the IT risk assessment, but it is not the primary benefit of identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment, as it does not determine or influence the boundary or extent of the IT risk assessment. Selecting the risk assessment framework is the process of choosing or developing a set of principles, methods, and tools that guide and facilitate the IT risk assessment5. Selecting the risk assessment framework can improve the reliability and consistency of the IT risk assessment, but it is not the primary benefit of identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment, as it does not define or affect the scope or coverage of the IT risk assessment. Establishing inherent risk is the process of assessing the level of risk that exists before any controls or mitigating factors are considered. Establishing inherent risk can help to understand and prioritize the IT risks and their impacts, but it is not the primary benefit of identifying and communicating with stakeholders at the onset of an IT risk assessment, as it does not specify or limit the scope or range of the IT risk assessment. References = 1: IT Risk Assessment - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics2: Stakeholder Requirements - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics3: Risk Assessment Scope - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics4: Funding Support - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics5: Risk Assessment Framework - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics : [Inherent Risk - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.1: Risk Identification, pp. 57-59.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.2: Risk Analysis, pp. 67-69.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.3: Risk Evaluation, pp. 77-79.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response, Section 3.1: RiskResponse Options, pp. 113-115.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: Key Risk Indicators, pp. 181-185.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and ControlMonitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.1: Control Design, pp. 233-235.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.2: Control Implementation, pp. 243-245.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.3: Control Monitoring and Maintenance, pp. 251-253.]

 A risk practitioner’s best course of action when a business manager wants to leverage an existing approved vendor solution from another area within the organization is to assess the risk associated with the new use case. This is because the new use case may introduce different or additional risks that were not considered or addressed in the original approval. For example, the new use case may involve different data types, volumes, or sensitivities; different business processes, functions, or objectives; different regulatory or contractual requirements; or different technical or operational dependencies. Therefore, the risk practitioner should perform a vendor risk assessment (VRA) to identify, evaluate, and mitigate the potential risks of the new use case and ensure that the vendor solution meets the organization’s riskappetite and tolerance12. Recommending allowing the new usage based on prior approval is not the best course of action, as it may overlook or underestimate the risks of the new use case and expose the organization to unacceptable levels of risk. Requesting a new third-party review is not the best course of action, as it may be unnecessary or redundant if the vendor solution has already been reviewed and approved for another use case within the organization. Requesting revalidation of the original use case is not the best course of action, as it may not address the specific risks of the new use case and may also delay or disrupt the existing use case. References = Risk and Information SystemsControl Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, impact analysis is the process of estimating and evaluating the potential effects of a risk event on the organization’s objectives, processes, resources, and risks. Impact analysis helps to quantify and qualify the severity and likelihood of the risk, and to identify the possible consequences and implications for the organization. Impact analysis is the first step that should be done when a risk practitioner learns about a new threat, as it helps to assess the current level of risk exposure and the urgency of the risk response. Impact analysis also helps to communicate and report the risk to the relevant stakeholders, and to facilitate risk-based decision making and action planning. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 208.

 Changes in methods used to calculate probability present the greatest challenge for an IT risk practitioner who wants to report on trends in historical IT risk levels, as they may introduce inconsistency and incomparability in the risk assessment results over time. Probability is a key factor in determining the level and priority of IT risks, and different methods may produce different values for the same risk scenario. For example, some methods may use historical data, expert judgment, or simulation techniques to estimate the likelihood of a risk event. If the methods used to calculate probability change frequently or vary across different business units or processes, the IT risk practitioner may face difficulty in aggregating, normalizing, and reporting the risk levels and trends. The other options are not the greatest challenges for reporting on trends in historical IT risk levels, although they may pose some difficulties or limitations. Qualitative measures for potential loss events are subjective and imprecise, but they can still provide a relative ranking of risks and their impacts. Changes in owners for identified IT risk scenarios may affect the accountability and responsibility for managing the risks, but they do not necessarily affect the risk levels or trends. Frequent use of risk acceptance as a treatment option may indicate a high risk appetite ortolerance, but it does not prevent the IT risk practitioner from reporting on the risk levels or trends. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, page 181.

The primary reason for logging is to provide evidence of activities, ensuring accountability and traceability. This supports investigations, audits, and compliance requirements, aligning withControl Monitoring and Reportingstandards.

The first step in selecting a risk response after a penetration test reveals several vulnerabilities in a web-facing application is to assess the level of risk associated with the vulnerabilities, as it involves evaluating the likelihood and impact of the vulnerabilities being exploited, and comparing them with the risk tolerance and appetite of the organization. Correcting the vulnerabilities, developing a risk response action plan, and communicating the vulnerabilities are possible steps in selecting a risk response, but they are not the first step, as they require the prior knowledge of the risk level and the optimal risk response. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 108.

 Following a significant change to a business process, the risk practitioner should advise the risk owner to first conduct a risk analysis to evaluate the current level of risk exposure and compare it with the previous level. This will help to verify whether the change has indeed reduced the risk, and by how much. The risk analysis will also help to identify any new or residual risks that may have emerged as a result of the change. The other options are not the first actions to take, but rather the subsequent steps after conducting a risk analysis. Reviewing the key risk indicators, updating the risk register, and reallocating risk response resources are all important activities, but they depend on the outcome of the risk analysis. References = CRISC EXAM TOPIC 2 LONG; CRISC Q&A Domain 1; Managing Change Risk - Oliver Wyman

Mitigating technology risk to acceptable levels means that the organization implements and maintains appropriate controls to reduce the likelihood and impact of potential threats or losses that may arise from the use of technology, such as IT systems, applications, networks, devices, etc.

The primary factor that should guide the mitigation of technology risk is the organizational risk appetite. This means that the organization defines and communicates the amount and type of risk that it is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives and strategy.

The organizational risk appetite helps to determine the risk tolerance and thresholds for different risk categories and scenarios, prioritize the risks, select the most suitable risk responses, allocate the resources and budget for risk management, and monitor and report the risk performance and outcomes.

The other options are not the primary factors that should guide the mitigation of technology risk. They are either secondary or not essential for risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 25

Information Technology & Security, page 19

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 17