CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Performing a threat assessment is the best course of action for a risk practitioner upon learning that regulatory authorities have concerns with an emerging technology that the organization is considering, because it helps to identify and analyze the sources and types of threats that may exploit the vulnerabilities or weaknesses of the technology, and to estimate their likelihood and impact. A threat is a potential event or action that may cause harm or damage to the organization or its objectives, such as a natural disaster, a cyberattack, or a human error. A threat assessment is a process of systematically identifying and assessing the threats that an organization faces, and estimating their probability and severity. An emerging technology is a new or innovative technology that has the potential to disrupt or transform the existing markets, industries, or practices, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, or biotechnology. An emerging technology may offer benefits such as competitive advantage, efficiency, or creativity, but it may also pose risks such as technical complexity, interoperability issues, regulatory uncertainty, or ethicaldilemmas. Therefore, performing a threat assessment is the best course of action, as it helps to understand and evaluate the threats and their consequences, and to determine the appropriate controls or mitigating factors to reduce or eliminate them. Redesigning key riskindicators (KRIs), updating risk responses, and conducting a SWOT analysis are all possiblecourses of action to perform after performing a threat assessment, but they are not the best course of action, as they depend on the results and recommendations of the threat assessment. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, page 87

KPIs provide metrics that show whether processes and controls are meeting performance targets. CRISC explains that KPIs help identify how efficiently controls or processes are operating. They provide a leading view of performance, enabling early identification of inefficiencies that may lead to increased risk. KPIs do not measure cost effectiveness, ROI, or changes in risk tolerance—those belong to financial or strategic measurement systems. Control efficiency aligns directly with KPI use because KPIs measure operational results against objectives.

 The best course of action for a risk practitioner upon learning that a control under internal review may no longer be necessary is to obtain approval to retire the control. This will help to ensure that the control is removed in a controlled and documented manner, and that the relevant stakeholders are informed and agree with the decision. Retiring unnecessary controls can also help to optimize the control environment, reduce costs and complexity, and improve efficiency and performance. Updating the status of the control as obsolete, consulting the internal auditor for a second opinion, and verifying the effectiveness of the original mitigation plan are not the best courses of action, as they may not address the root cause of the control’s obsolescence, and may delay or complicate the control retirement process. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.2, page 1071

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 649.

Lack of common understanding of the organization’s risk culture is the greatest barrier to achieving the initiative’s objectives, because it hinders the alignment and integration of risk management across the organization. Risk culture is the set of shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that influence how risk is perceived and managed in an organization. A risk universe is a comprehensive and structured representation of all the sources and types of risk that an organization faces. Developing a risk universe requires a common understanding of the organization’s risk culture, as it affects the risk appetite, tolerance, and strategy of the organization. Lack of cross-functional risk assessment workshops, lack of quantitative methods to aggregate the total risk exposure, and lack of an integrated risk management system are all challenges that may affect thedevelopment of a risk universe, but they are not the greatest barrier, as they can be overcome with appropriate tools and techniques. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 44

Risk tolerance and appetite are the expressions of the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation that the organization is willing to allow for the outcome of its risk decisions. Riskappetite is the broad-based amount of risk that the organization is willing to accept in its activities. The primary objective of establishing an organization’s risk tolerance and appetite is to assist management in decision making, as they provide guidance and boundaries for the risk management activities and decisions. By establishing the risk tolerance and appetite, the organization can align its risk exposure with its strategic goals, optimize its risk-return trade-off, and enhance its risk culture and performance. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 61.

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

The lack of integrity of data is the greatest concern when replication of a critical database used by two business units failed. Data integrity means that the data is accurate, complete, consistent, and reliable. If the replication failed, it means that the data in the primary and secondary databases may not be synchronized and may have discrepancies or errors. This could affect the quality and reliability of the data and the business processes that depend on it. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of integrity of data, as they are related to the efficiency, cost, or confidentiality of the data, which are less critical than the accuracy and reliability of the data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Performance Indicators, page 183.

 The best way to measure the effectiveness of the subsidiary’s IT systems controls is to review metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs), as they provide quantitative and qualitative measures of the performance and outcomes of the IT systems and processes, and how well they meet the predefined standards and expectations. Metrics and KPIs can help to evaluate the efficiency, reliability, security, and quality of the IT systems and controls, and to identify any gaps, weaknesses, or issues that need to be addressed. Metrics and KPIs can also help to compare and benchmark the subsidiary’s IT systems and controls with those of the parent organization or other similar entities. The other options are not the best ways to measure the effectiveness of the subsidiary’s IT systems controls, although they may be useful or complementary methods. Implementing IT systems in alignment with business objectives is a good practice, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it focuses on the alignment andintegration of the IT systems with the business strategy and goals. Reviewing design documentation of IT systems can provide some information on the specifications and requirements of the IT systems, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it does not reflect the actual implementation and operation of the IT systems. Evaluating compliance with legal and regulatory requirements can ensure that the subsidiary’s IT systems and controls meet the minimum standards and obligations of the foreign country, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the IT systems controls, as it does not consider the performance and outcomes of the IT systems and processes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, page 187.