CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

A consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is a comprehensive and integrated representation of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation12.

The most helpful material to provide a consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is the IT risk register, which is a document that records and tracks the IT-related risks, their sources, impacts, likelihoods, responses, owners, and statuses within the organization34.

The IT risk register is the most helpful material because it provides a complete and consistent overview of the IT risk landscape, and enables the identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring, and communication of IT risks across the organization34.

The IT risk register is also the most helpful material because it supports the project prioritization and resource allocation decisions, by highlighting the most significant and relevant IT risks, and by showing the alignment of the IT risk responses with the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and objectives34.

The other options are not the most helpful materials, but rather possible inputs or outputs of the IT risk register. For example:

A list of key risk indicators (KRIs) is a set of metrics that measure the occurrence or status of IT risks, and provide timely and relevant information and feedback to the organization56. However, a list of KRIs is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a snapshot or a trend of selected IT risks56.

Internal audit reports are documents that present the findings and recommendations of the internal audit function, which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the IT risk management and control processes within the organization78. However, internal audit reports are not the most helpful material because they do not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a periodic and independent assessment of specific IT risk areas78.

A list of approved projects is a document that records and tracks the IT projects that have been authorized and funded by the organization, and their objectives, scope, schedule, budget, and status . However, a list of approved projects is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a summary of the IT project portfolio . References =

1: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

2: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

3: IT Risk Register Template, ISACA, 2019

4: IT Risk Register Toolkit, ISACA, 2019

5: KPIs for Security Operations & Incident Response, SecurityScorecard Blog, June 7, 2021

6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response, DFLabs White Paper, 2018

7: IT Audit and Assurance Standards, ISACA, 2014

8: IT Audit and Assurance Guidelines, ISACA, 2014

IT Project Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

IT Project Management Best Practices, ISACA Journal, Volume 1, 2018

 The MOST important consideration when performing a risk assessment of a fire suppression system within a data center is the maintenance procedures, because they ensure that the fire suppression system is functioning properly and reliably, and that it can prevent or minimize the damage caused by fire incidents. The maintenance procedures should include regular testing, inspection, and servicing of the fire suppression system components, such as sprinklers, detectors, alarms, and extinguishers. The other options are not as important as the maintenance procedures, because:

Option A: Insurance coverage is a financial measure that can compensate for the loss or damage caused by fire incidents, but it does not prevent or reduce the likelihood or impact of the fire incidents. Insurance coverage is also dependent on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which may not cover all the scenarios or costs of the fire incidents.

Option B: Onsite replacement availability is a contingency measure that can facilitate the recovery or restoration of the fire suppression system after a fire incident, but it does not prevent or reduce the likelihood or impact of the fire incidents. Onsite replacement availability is alsodependent on the availability and compatibility of the replacement parts, which may not match the original fire suppression system specifications or requirements.

Option D: Installation manuals are a reference source that can provide guidance on how to install or configure the fire suppression system, but they do not ensure that the fire suppression system is functioning properly and reliably. Installation manuals are also static documents that may not reflect the current or updated fire suppression system standards or practices. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 211.

Conducting interviews with senior management is the best method for determining an enterprise’s current appetite for risk, because it helps to obtain the direct and qualitative input and feedback from the senior management on their expectations and preferences regarding thelevel and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept or pursue, in relation to its objectives and strategy. Risk appetite is the amount and nature of risk that an enterprise is willing to take in order to achieve its objectives and create value. Risk appetite is influenced by factors such as the enterprise’s culture, values, vision, mission, and strategy, as well as the externalenvironment and stakeholders. Risk appetite may vary depending on the context and situation, and may change over time. Conducting interviews with senior management is the best method, as it helps to understand and capture the current and explicit risk appetite of the enterprise, and to align the risk management process and activities with the senior management’s risk vision and direction. Conducting comparative analysis of peer companies, reviewing brokerage firm assessments, and performing trend analysis using prior annual reports are all possible methods for determining an enterprise’s current appetite for risk, but they are not the best method, as they may provide only indirect, quantitative, or historical information, and may not reflect the current and specific risk appetite of the enterprise. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 45

Data leakage is the unauthorized or accidental disclosure of sensitive or confidential data to unauthorized parties. Data leakage can cause serious damages or losses to the organization, such as data breaches, fines, lawsuits, reputational harm, or loss of customer trust. Data leakage can occur due to various reasons, such as human errors, malicious attacks, or inadequate controls1.

An organization that uses a vendor to destroy hard drives faces a risk of data leakage, as the vendor may not properly or securely destroy the hard drives, or may access or misuse the data stored on them. The best way to reduce this risk is to use an accredited vendor to dispose of the hard drives, because it means that the vendor:

Has been certified or verified by a reputable or recognized authority or organization, such as ISACA, NAID, or R2, to provide hard drive destruction services

Follows the industry standards and best practices for hard drive destruction, such as NIST 800-88 or DoD 5220.22-M, and ensures the compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements, such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, or GDPR

Provides a secure and transparent process for hard drive destruction, such as using a specialized shredder, issuing a certificate of destruction, or allowing the customer to witness the destruction

Maintains a high level of professionalism and integrity, and does not compromise the confidentiality or security of the customer’s data234

The other options are not the best ways to reduce the risk of data leakage, but rather some of the steps or aspects of hard drive destruction. Require the vendor to degauss the hard drives is a step that can help to erase the data on the hard drives by using a strong magnetic field. However,degaussing may not be effective or reliable for some types of hard drives, such as solid state drives (SSDs), and it may not prevent the vendor from accessing or misusing the data before degaussing5. Implement an encryption policy for the hard drives is an aspect that can help to protect the data on the hard drives by using a cryptographic algorithm to make it unreadable without a key. However, encryption may not be sufficient or applicable for some types of data, such as metadata, and it may not prevent the vendor from accessing or misusing the key or the encrypted data6. Require confirmation of destruction from the IT manager is a step that can help to verify that the hard drives have been destroyed by the vendor, and to document the process and the outcome. However, confirmation of destruction may not be accurate or authentic, and it may not prevent the vendor from accessing or misusing the data before destruction7. References =

Data Leakage - ISACA

Hard Drive Shredding Services | Hard Drive Destruction & Disposal

Hard Drive Shredding and Destruction Service | CompuCycle

Electronic Destruction & Recycling | Shred Nations

Degaussing - ISACA

Encryption - ISACA

Certificate of Destruction - ISACA

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

A risk profile is a summary of the nature and level of risk that an organization faces. It includes information such as the sources, causes, and consequences of the risks, their likelihood and impact, their interrelationships and dependencies, and their alignment with the risk appetite and tolerance. A risk profile is influenced by various factors, such as the organization’s objectives, strategies, activities, processes, resources, capabilities, culture, etc. When defining a risk profile during the selection process for a new third party application, the stakeholder that is most important to include is the business process owner, who is the person who has the authority and responsibility for the design, execution, and performance of a business process. The business process owner can provide valuable input and insight into the requirements, expectations, and dependencies of the business process that will use the new third party application, and the potential risks and opportunities that may arise from the selection of the application. The business process owner can also help to prioritize and address the risks, and ensure that the risk profile is aligned with the business objectives and strategies. References = 5

A risk register is the primary tool for communicating progress: it consolidates risk scenarios, mitigation plans, current status, and residual risk in a structured format. Senior management relies on it to make informed decisions.

 The best course of action for the risk practitioner who has identified that the agreed RTO with a SaaS provider is longer than the business expectation is to document the gap in the risk register and report to senior management. The risk register is the document that records the details of all identified risks, including their sources, causes, impacts, likelihood, and responses. The risk register should be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the risk environment or the risk status. Reporting to senior management is also important, because senior management is the highest level of authority and responsibility in the organization, and they are responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization. Senior management should also oversee the risk management process, and ensure that the risks are aligned with the organization’s goals and values. By documenting the gap in the risk register and reporting to senior management, the risk practitioner can communicate the issue clearly and effectively, and seek guidance and support for resolving the problem. Collaborating with the risk owner, including a right to audit clause, or advising the risk owner to accept the risk are not the best courses of action, because they may not be feasible, effective, or desirable in some situations, or they may require senior management approval or involvement. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 4-13.

The programming project leader solely reviewing test results before approving the transfer to production would be a weakness in procedures for controlling the migration of changes to production libraries, because it violates the principle of segregation of duties, and it exposes the production libraries to the risk of unauthorized or erroneous changes. The programming project leader is responsible for developing and testing the changes, but not for approving and deploying them. The approval and deployment of the changes should be done by an independent and authorized party, such as the change control board or the operations manager. The other options are not weaknesses, but rather good practices, because:

Option B: Test and production programs being in distinct libraries is a good practice, because it prevents the accidental or intentional overwriting or mixing of the test and production programs, and it ensures the integrity and security of the production libraries.

Option C: Only operations personnel being authorized to access production libraries is a good practice, because it restricts the access and modification of the production libraries to the qualified and accountable staff, and it prevents the unauthorized or inappropriate access or modification of the production libraries by other parties.

Option D: A synchronized migration of executable and source code from the test environment to the production environment being allowed is a good practice, because it ensures the consistency and completeness of the changes, and it avoids the potential errors or discrepancies that may arise from the manual or partial migration of the changes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 215.