CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

The best indicator that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment is when risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance or outcomes relative to the achievement of objectives. Risk events and losses are the negative consequences of risk that have occurred or are expected to occur. When risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance, it means that the existing controls are not sufficient or effective to prevent or mitigate the risk, and that the organization is exposed to unacceptable levels of risk that could impair its ability to achieve its objectives. Therefore, additional or improved controls are needed to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Management decreasing organizational risk appetite, the risk register and portfolio not including all risk scenarios, and emerging risk scenarios being identified are not as clear and direct indicators that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment, as they do not necessarily reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the risk management process. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 41.

The first activity that should be performed when the time required to complete daily processing for a legacy application is approaching a risk threshold is to conduct a root-cause analysis. This will help to identify the source of the problem and the factors that are contributing to the increased processing time. By conducting a root-cause analysis, the enterprise can determine the most appropriate and effective solution to address the problem and prevent it from recurring. Temporarily increasing the risk threshold, suspending processing to investigate the problem, and initiating a feasibility study for a new application are not the first activities that should be performed, as they may not resolve the underlying issue and may introduce additional risks or costs. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.2, page 193.

The risk practitioner’s best course of action when the residual risk is now within the organization’s defined appetite and tolerance levels is to verify the adequacy of risk monitoring plans. Risk monitoring is the process of tracking and reviewing the risk status and performance, and ensuring that the risk responses are effective and efficient1. Risk monitoring plans are the documents that specify the objectives, scope, methods, roles, and responsibilities for the riskmonitoring activities2. By verifying the adequacy of risk monitoring plans, the risk practitioner can:

Ensure that the risk monitoring plans are aligned with the organization’s risk strategy, objectives, and policies, and that they comply with the relevant standards and regulations3.

Evaluate whether the risk monitoring plans are comprehensive and consistent, and that they cover all the key aspects and indicators of the risks and the risk responses4.

Identify and address any gaps, issues, or challenges that may affect the implementation or outcome of the risk monitoring plans, and recommend and implement appropriate improvement actions5.

The other options are not the best course of action, because:

Identifying new risk entries to include in ERM is not a relevant or necessary course of action, as it is not directly related to the residual risk or the risk responses. ERM is the process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and managing the risks that may affect the organization’s strategic, operational, financial, or reputational objectives6. Identifying new risk entries is a part of the risk identification process, which is the first step in ERM. It should be performedperiodically or when there are significant changes in the internal or external environment, not when the residual risk is within the appetite and tolerance levels7.

Removing the risk entries from the ERM register is not a valid or advisable course of action, as it may create a false sense of security or complacency. The ERM register is a tool that records and summarizes the key information and data about the identified risks and the risk responses. Removing the risk entries from the ERM register may imply that the risks no longer exist or matter, which is not true. The risks may still occur or change, and the risk responses may still fail or become obsolete. Therefore, the risk entries should be kept and updated in the ERM register, unless the risks are completely eliminated or transferred.

Re-performing the risk assessment to confirm results is not an efficient or effective course of action, as it may be redundant or unnecessary. Risk assessment is the process of estimating the probability and impact of the risks, and prioritizing the risks based on their significance and urgency. Re-performing the risk assessment may not provide any new or useful information or insights, and may waste time and resources. Instead, the risk practitioner should verify and validate the risk assessment results, and ensure that they are accurate and reliable.

References =

Risk Monitoring - CIO Wiki

Risk Monitoring Plan - CIO Wiki

Risk Monitoring and Reporting - ISACA

Risk Monitoring and Control - Project Management Institute

Risk Monitoring and Review - The National Academies Press

Enterprise Risk Management - CIO Wiki

Risk Identification - CIO Wiki

[Risk Register - CIO Wiki]

[Risk Register: How to Use It in Project Management - ProjectManager.com]

[Risk Assessment - CIO Wiki]

[Risk Assessment Process - ISACA]

 Cross-site scripting (XSS) and SQL injection are two common types of web application attacks that can compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and systems. XSS allows an attacker to inject malicious code into a web page that is viewed by other users, while SQL injection allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on a database server by manipulating the input parameters of a web application. Both attacks can result in data theft, unauthorized access, defacement, denial of service, and more.

To mitigate these attacks, the best option is to require the software vendor to remediate the vulnerabilities by applying secure coding practices, such as input validation, output encoding, parameterized queries, and HTML sanitization. These techniques can prevent or limit the impact of XSS and SQL injection by ensuring that user input is not interpreted as code or commands by the web browser or the database server. The software vendor should also provide regular updates and patches to fix any known or newly discovered vulnerabilities.

The other options are not effective or acceptable ways to mitigate these attacks. Monitoring the databases for abnormal activity can help detect and respond to SQL injection attacks, but it does not prevent them from happening or address the root cause of the vulnerability. Approving an exception to allow the software to continue operating can expose the organization to unnecessary risks and liabilities, as well as violate compliance requirements and standards. Accepting the risk and letting the vendor run the software as is can also have serious consequences for the organization, as it implies that the potential impact and likelihood of the attacks are low or acceptable, which may not be the case. References =

IT Risk Resources | ISACA

CRISC Certification | Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control | ISACA

Cross Site Scripting Prevention Cheat Sheet - OWASP

A novel technique to prevent SQL injection and cross-site scripting attacks using Knuth-Morris-Pratt string match algorithm | EURASIP Journal on Information Security | Full Text

Difference Between XSS and SQL Injection - GeeksforGeeks

When selecting a risk response, the following should be considered:

B. Risk response costs

It’s important to evaluate the costs associated with implementing a risk response to ensure that they are justified by the benefits of mitigating the risk. This helps in making cost-effective decisions that align with the organization’s risk management objectives.

There is no definitive answer to this question, as different factors may be more or less important depending on the context and the nature of the risk. However, based on some web search results, one possible factor that could be considered essential for managing risk in a highly dynamic environment is D. Implementing detection and response measures.

Detection and response measures are the practices and procedures that enable an organization to identify and mitigate any potential or actual cybersecurity events that could compromise its network, systems, data, or assets. Detection and response measures can help an organization to reduce the impact and duration of a cyberattack, as well as to learn from the incident and improve its security posture and resilience. Detection and response measures can also help an organization to comply with regulatory and legal requirements, as well as to maintain its reputation and trust among its stakeholders.

Some examples of detection and response measures include:

•Using threat intelligence, user behavior analytics, and attacker behavior analytics to monitor and analyze the network activity and identify any anomalies or signs of compromise 12

•Implementing security continuous monitoring, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and antivirus and antimalware software to detect and block malicious traffic and malware 3

•Establishing incident response plans, teams, and tools to contain, eradicate, and recover from a cyberattack, as well as to communicate and coordinate with internal and external parties 45

•Conducting regular audits, assessments, and tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the detection and response measures and to identify any gaps or weaknesses 6

Therefore, implementing detection and response measures could be seen as an essential factor for managing risk in a highly dynamic environment, as it can help an organization to protect its critical assets and functions, and to respond quickly and effectively to any emerging or evolving threats.

The result of a significant increase in the motivation of a malicious threat actor would be an increase in risk event likelihood. The likelihood of a risk event is influenced by the factors of threat, vulnerability, and exposure. The motivation of a threat actor is a key component of the threat factor, as it reflects the intent and capability of the actor to exploit a vulnerability. Therefore, a higher motivation would imply a higher probability of an attack. An increase in mitigating control costs, risk event impact, or cybersecurity premium are possible consequences of a risk event, but they are not directly affected by the motivation of the threat actor. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC)Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 6; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 67.

Residual riskrefers to the risk that remains after mitigation measures have been applied. It represents the exposure that an organization decides to accept, transfer, or further address, aligning with its risk appetite and tolerance.