CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

 The most important consideration when communicating the risk associated with technology end-of-life to business owners is the cost and benefit of the risk response options. Technology end-of-life is the situation when a technology product or service is no longer supported by the vendor or manufacturer, and may pose security, compatibility, or performance issues. The risk practitioner should communicate the cost and benefit of the possible risk responses, such as replacing, upgrading, or maintaining the technology, to the business owners, and help them to make informed and rational decisions. Security and availability, maintainability and reliability, and performance and productivity are other possible considerations, but they are not as important as the cost and benefit. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 8; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 97.

The integrity of data should be the greatest concern for a risk practitioner upon learning of failures in a data migration activity, because it affects the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of the data that are transferred from one system or format to another. Data integrity is a property of data that ensures that the data are valid, reliable, and trustworthy, and that they have not been altered or corrupted by unauthorized or accidental means. Data migration is a process of moving or copying data from one system or format to another, usually as part of a system upgrade, consolidation, or transformation. Data migration can pose risks to the integrity of data, such as data loss, duplication, inconsistency, or corruption, due to factors such as incompatible formats, human errors, technical glitches, or malicious attacks. Therefore, the integrity of data should be the greatest concern, as it impacts the quality and usability of the data, and the performance and functionality of the system. The availability of test data, the cost overruns, and the system performance are all possible concerns for a risk practitioner, but they are not the greatest concern, as they do not directly affect the integrity of data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, page 158

Root cause analysis helps identify the fundamental reason for an incident, allowing the enterprise to implement controls that reduce the probability of recurrence.

The second line of defense provides oversight functions, ensuring that risks and controls are effectively managed. This includes policy enforcement, compliance monitoring, and risk program evaluation, aligning with the organizational risk governance structure as described in the CRISC framework.

Control effectiveness is the degree to which a control achieves its intended objective and mitigates the risk that it is designed to address. It is measured by comparing the actual performance and outcome of the control with the expected or desired performance and outcome.

The best method for assessing control effectiveness is continuous monitoring, which is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance and outcome of the controls on an ongoing basis. Continuous monitoring provides timely and accurate information on the status and results of the controls, and enables the identification and correction of any issues or gaps in the control environment.

Continuous monitoring can be performed using various techniques, such as automated tools, dashboards, indicators, metrics, logs, audits, reviews, etc. Continuous monitoring can also be integrated with the risk management process, and aligned with the organization’s objectives and risk appetite.

The other options are not the best methods for assessing control effectiveness, because they do not provide the same level of timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of information on the performance and outcome of the controls.

Ad hoc control reporting is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance and outcome of the controls on an irregular or occasional basis. Ad hoc control reporting may be triggered by specific events, requests, or incidents, and it may not cover all the relevant or critical controls. Ad hoc control reporting may not provide sufficient or consistentinformation on the control effectiveness, and it may not enable the timely and proactive identification and correction of any issues or gaps in the control environment.

Control self-assessment is the process of allowing the control owners or operators to evaluate and report on the performance and outcome of their own controls. Control self-assessment can provide useful insights and feedback from the control owners or operators, and it can enhance their awareness and accountability for the control effectiveness. However, control self-assessment may not be objective, reliable, or independent, and it may not cover all the relevant or critical controls. Control self-assessment may not provide sufficient or consistent information on the control effectiveness, and it may not enable the timely and proactive identification and correction of any issues or gaps in the control environment.

Predictive analytics is the process of using statistical techniques and models to analyze historical and current data, and to make predictions or forecasts about future events or outcomes. Predictive analytics can provide useful insights and trends on the potential performance and outcome of the controls, and it can support the decision making and planning for the control effectiveness. However, predictive analytics may not be accurate, valid, or reliable, and it may not reflect the actual or current performance and outcome of the controls. Predictive analytics may not provide sufficient or consistent information on the control effectiveness, and it may not enable the timely and proactive identification and correction of any issues or gaps in the control environment. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 150

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

New regulatory requirements impacting IT are those that impose new obligations, restrictions, or standards on how an organization uses, manages, or secures its IT systems, data, or services1. Examples of such regulations include the GDPR, the CCPA, the HIPAA, or the PCI-DSS2. New regulatory requirements impacting IT can pose significant challenges and risks for an organization, such as:

Compliance costs and efforts, such as updating policies, procedures, and systems, training staff, or hiring experts

Noncompliance penalties and consequences, such as fines, lawsuits, sanctions, or reputational damages

Operational disruptions or inefficiencies, such as system changes, data migrations, or service interruptions

Competitive disadvantages or opportunities, such as losing or gaining customers, partners, or markets3

The first step that should be done when a company is made aware of new regulatory requirements impacting IT is to review the risk tolerance and appetite. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation that an organization is willing to accept around its risk appetite. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to take in order to meet its strategic objectives. By reviewing the risk tolerance and appetite, the company can:

Establish a clear and consistent understanding of the organization’s goals, values, and expectations regarding the new regulatory requirements impacting IT

Assess the current and potential impacts of the new regulatory requirements impacting IT on the organization’s performance, operations, or assets

Determine the level of risk exposure and acceptance that the organization is comfortable with, and identify the risk thresholds or limits that should not be exceeded

Align the risk management strategies and actions with the organization’s risk tolerance and appetite, and prioritize the most critical and urgent risks to be addressed

Communicate and report the risk tolerance and appetite to the stakeholders and regulators, and ensure transparency and accountability

References = Regulating emerging technology | Deloitte Insights, Ten Key Regulatory Challenges of 2024 - kpmg.com, The Risks of Non-Compliance with Data Protection Laws, [Risk Tolerance - COSO], [Risk Appetite - COSO], [Risk Appetite and Tolerance - IRM]

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that helps organizations monitor and assess potential risks that may impact their operations, objectives, or performance. A good KRI should have certain characteristics that make it effective for risk management. One of these characteristics is repeatability, which means that the KRI can be measured consistently over time and across different situations. A repeatable KRI ensures that the risk data is reliable, comparable, and meaningful, and that the risk trends and patterns can be identified and analyzed. A repeatable KRI also supports the decision-making process by providing timely and accurate information on the risk level and status. Therefore, repeatability is the most important attribute of a KRI. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 441

The greatest challenge for a risk practitioner during a merger of two organizations is the variances between organizational risk appetites, as they may indicate a significant difference in the risk culture, strategy, and objectives of the two organizations, and may require a complex and lengthy process of alignment and integration. Different taxonomies to categorize risk scenarios, disparate platforms for governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) systems, and dissimilar organizational risk acceptance protocols are not the greatest challenges, as they are more related to the technical, operational, or procedural aspects of risk management, rather than the strategicor cultural aspects of risk management. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 109.