CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Automation of control monitoring is the application of technology to allow continuous or high-frequency, automated monitoring of controls to validate the effectiveness of controls designed to mitigate risk1.

Automation of control monitoring can provide benefits such as increased test coverage, improved timeliness, reduced risk velocity, greater visibility, improved consistency, and the ability to identify trends23.

However, automation of control monitoring also involves costs such as the acquisition, implementation, maintenance, and updating of the technology, as well as the training and support of the staff who use it45.

Therefore, the primary consideration when assessing the automation of control monitoring is the cost-benefit analysis of automation, which compares the expected benefits and costs of automation and determines whether the benefits outweigh the costs or vice versa45.

The other options are not the primary consideration, but rather secondary or tertiary factors that may influence the decision to automate or not. For example, the impact due to failure of controland the frequency of failure of control are aspects of the risk assessment that may indicatethe need for automation, but they do not provide the basis for evaluating the feasibility and desirability of automation45. Similarly, the contingency plan for residual risk is a component of the risk response that may include automation as a risk mitigation strategy, but it does not measure the effectiveness and efficiency of automation45. References =

2: A Practical Approach to Continuous Control Monitoring, ISACA Journal, Volume 2, 2015

3: Continuous Controls Monitoring: The Next Generation Of Controls Testing, Forbes Technology Council, June 2, 2022

1: Making Continuous Controls Monitoring Work for Everyone, ISACA Now Blog, June 13, 2022

4: Controls Automation - Monitoring vs. Operation - Part 3, Turnkey Consulting, July 29, 2021

5: What’s Continuous Control Monitoring and Why Is It Important?, MetricStream Blog, October 15, 2019

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), establishing an organizational code of conduct is an example of a directive control, which is a type of control that guides or steers the behavior of individuals or processes to achieve desired outcomes. A directive control aims toinfluence or encourage compliance with the organization’s policies, standards, procedures, and guidelines. A directive control can also communicate the organization’s values, ethics, and expectations to its stakeholders. A directive control can take various forms, such as:

Codes of conduct or ethics

Policies or manuals

Training or awareness programs

Job descriptions or roles and responsibilities

Performance appraisals or incentives

Supervision or oversight

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Scenarios, pp. 105-1061

Compensating controls are additional or alternative controls that are implemented when the existing controls are found to be ineffective or do not meet the required standards. Compensating controls are designed to reduce the risk exposure to an acceptable level and ensure that the organization can still comply with the relevant regulations and industry best practices. For an organization that processes credit cards, compensating controls may include enhanced encryption, monitoring, auditing, or authentication mechanisms. By having compensating controls in place, the organization can maintain an effective overall control environment despitethe deficiencies in the existing controls. The other options are not correct because they do not ensure that the overall control environment is effective. A control mitigation plan is a document that outlines the actions and resources needed to address the control deficiencies, but it does not guarantee that the compensating controls will be implemented or effective. Risk management is a process that involves identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating risks, but it does not directly affect the control environment. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the risk treatment, and it may or may not be acceptable depending on the risk appetite of the organization. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 153-1541; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 632

Enterprise architecture (EA) documentation provides the most useful information to trace the impact of aggregated risk across the organization’s technical environment, because it describesthe structure and behavior of the organization’s IT systems, applications, infrastructure, and processes, and how they support and enable the organization’s strategy and objectives. EA documentation also defines the principles, standards, and guidelines that govern the design and implementation of the IT solutions and services. Aggregated risk is the total or combined level of risk that the organization faces from multiple or interrelated sources or scenarios. Aggregated risk may have a greater impact than the sum of the individual risks, due to the synergistic or compounding effects of the risks. The technical environment is the set of IT components and capabilities that support the organization’s business functions and processes. Tracing the impact of aggregated risk across the technical environment is a process of identifying and assessing the potential or actual consequences of the aggregated risk on the performance, functionality, or security of the IT systems, applications, infrastructure, or processes. EA documentation provides the most useful information, as it helps to understand and analyze the interdependencies and relationships of the IT components and capabilities, andto evaluate the effect of the aggregated risk on the alignment and integration of IT with the organization’s strategy and objectives. Business case documentation, organizational risk appetite statement, and organizational hierarchy are all possible sources of information to trace the impact of aggregated risk, but they are not the most useful information, as they do not provide a comprehensive and detailed view of the technical environment and its architecture. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, page 183

According to the CRISC Review Manual, the greatest benefit of analyzing logs collected from different systems is to detect developing threats earlier, because it helps to identify and correlate the patterns, trends, and anomalies that may indicate a potential attack or compromise. Log analysis is the process of examining and interpreting the log data generated by various systems, such as firewalls, servers, routers, and applications. Log analysis can provide valuable insights into the activities and events that occur on the systems, and can enable the timely detection and response to the emerging threats. The other options are not the greatest benefits of analyzing logs, as they are less proactive or less strategic than detecting developing threats earlier. Maintaining a record of incidents is a benefit of logging, but not of analyzing logs, as it involves storing and preserving the log data for future reference. Facilitating forensic investigations is a benefit of analyzing logs, but it is a reactive and tactical activity that occurs after an incident has happened. Identifying security violations is a benefit of analyzing logs, but it is a specific and operational activity that focuses on the compliance and enforcement of the security policies and standards. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 263.

The internal auditor is the best suited to provide objective input when updating residual risk to reflect the results of control effectiveness. The internal auditor is an independent and impartial function that evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal controls and reports on the findings and recommendations. The internal auditor can provide an unbiased and reliable assessment of the residual risk, which is the risk that remains after the controls are applied. The other options are not as objective as the internal auditor, as they may have vested interests orconflicts of interest in the control environment. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.4: IT Risk Response, page 87.

Risk tolerance defines the boundaries for acceptable risk levels and directly impacts decision-making for mitigation strategies. A well-defined tolerance helps prioritize actions and allocate resources effectively, emphasizing its central role in theRisk Responsedomain.

Risk appetite is defined as "the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, before action is deemed necessary to reduce the risk."1 It represents a balance between the potential benefits of innovation and the threats that change inevitably brings. Risk appetite reflects the organization’s risk attitude and its willingness to accept risk in specific scenarios, with a governance model in place for risk oversight. Risk appetite helps to guide the organization’s approach to risk and risk management, and to align its risk decisions with its business objectives and context. The other options are not the best descriptions of risk appetite, as they are either too vague (the effective management of risk and internal control environments), too narrow (acceptable variation between risk thresholds and business objectives), or confusing (the acceptable variation relative to the achievement of objectives). References = Risk Appetite vs. Risk Tolerance: What is the Difference?