CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Qualitative measures are methods of expressing risk levels using descriptive terms, such as high, medium, or low, based on subjective criteria, such as likelihood, impact, or severity. Qualitative measures are often used to identify and prioritize risks, and to communicate risk information to stakeholders1.

Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the risk response has been implemented. Residual risk reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response, and the need for further action or monitoring2.

Emerging threats are new or evolving sources or causes of risk that have the potential to adversely affect the organization’s objectives, assets, or operations. Emerging threats are oftencharacterized by uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, and may require innovative or adaptive risk responses3.

The best reason to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats is that qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment. Expert judgment is the opinion or advice of a person or a group of people who have specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a particular domain or field. Expert judgment can help to:

Provide insights and perspectives on the nature and characteristics of the emerging threats, and their possible causes and consequences

Assess the likelihood and impact of the emerging threats, and their interactions and dependencies with other risks

Evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the risk responses, and their alignment with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance

Identify and recommend the best practices and lessons learned for managing the emerging threats, and for improving the risk management process45

Qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment than quantitative measures, which are methods of expressing risk levels using numerical or measurable values, such as percentages, probabilities, or monetary amounts. Quantitative measures are often used to estimate and analyze risks, and to support risk decision making1. However, quantitative measures may not be suitable or feasible for expressing residual risk levels related to emerging threats, because:

Quantitative measures require reliable and sufficient data and information, which may not be available or accessible for the emerging threats

Quantitative measures rely on mathematical models and techniques, which may not be able to capture or reflect the complexity and uncertainty of the emerging threats

Quantitative measures may create a false sense of precision or accuracy, which may not be justified or warranted for the emerging threats

Quantitative measures may be influenced or manipulated by biases or assumptions, which may not be valid or appropriate for the emerging threats67

Therefore, qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment, which can enhance the understanding and management of the residual risk levels related to emerging threats.

The other options are not the best reasons to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats, but rather some of the advantages or disadvantages of qualitative measures. Qualitative measures require less ongoing monitoring than quantitative measures, because they are simpler and easier to apply and update. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can eliminate or reduce the need for monitoring, which is an essential part of the risk management process. Qualitative measures are better aligned to regulatory requirements than quantitative measures, because they are more consistent and comparable across different domains and contexts. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can satisfy or comply with all the regulatory requirements, which may vary depending on theindustry or sector. Qualitative measures are easier to update than quantitative measures, because they do not depend on complex calculations or formulas. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can always reflect the current or accurate risk levels, which may change over time or due to external factors. References =

Qualitative Risk Analysis vs. Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA

Residual Risk - ISACA

Emerging Threats - ISACA

Expert Judgment - ISACA

Expert Judgment in Project Management: Narrowing the Theory-Practice Gap

Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA

Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Critical Review

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

A threat and vulnerability assessment is a process that identifies and evaluates the potential sources and impacts of risk events on an organization’s assets, processes, and objectives. It also estimates the probability of occurrence and the severity of consequences for each risk event. A threat and vulnerability assessment is the best way to quantify the likelihood of risk materialization, as it provides a numerical or qualitative measure of the risk exposure and the level of uncertainty associated with the risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2, p. 68-69

Disaster recovery plans are essential for ensuring the continuity and resilience of business operations in the event of a disruption or disaster. However, creating and maintaining separate disaster recovery plans for each business unit may not be cost-effective or efficient, as it may result in duplication, inconsistency, or gaps in the plans. Therefore, the best course of action would be to evaluate opportunities to combine disaster recovery plans across the business units, where possible and appropriate. This would help to achieve economies of scale, standardization, and alignment of the plans, as well as reduce complexity and costs. However, this does not mean that all disaster recovery plans should be identical or centralized, as different business units may have different risk profiles, recovery objectives, and requirements. Therefore, the combined disaster recovery plans should still be tailored and customized to suit the specific needs and characteristics of each business unit. References = ISACA CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, page 71.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, performing the assessment as it would normally be done is the best approach when a risk practitioner has been asked by a business unit manager for special consideration during a risk assessment of a system, because it ensures that the risk practitioner maintains their objectivity, integrity, and professionalism. The risk practitioner should not compromise the quality or accuracy of the risk assessment, regardless of any external pressure or influence. The risk practitioner should follow the established risk assessment methodology and standards, and report the risk results and recommendations based on the facts and evidence. The other options are not the best approaches, because they may affect the credibility or reliability of the risk assessment. Conducting an abbreviated version of the assessment may result in incomplete or insufficient risk information, which may lead to poor risk decisions or actions. Reporting the business unit manager for a possible ethics violation may escalate the situation or create a conflict of interest, which may hinder the risk assessment process or outcome. Recommending an internal auditor perform the review may transfer the responsibility or accountability of the risk practitioner, which may undermine their role or authority. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 74.

 Cost-benefit analysis is the most helpful tool to show risk reduction based on when developing risk treatment alternatives for a business case, because it compares the expected costs and benefits of each alternative and helps to select the most optimal and feasible one. Cost-benefit analysis also helps to justify the investment and resources required for the risk treatment plan and to demonstrate the value and return of the risk reduction. The other options are not the most helpful tools, although they may also be considered when developing risk treatment alternatives. Risk appetite, regulatory guidelines, and control efficiency are examples of factors or criteria that influence the selection of risk treatment alternatives, but they do not show the risk reduction based on the alternatives. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

An IT risk register is a document that records and tracks the significant IT risks that an organization faces across its various functions, processes, and activities. An IT risk register can help to provide a comprehensive and consistent view of the organization’s IT risk profile, and to support the decision making and reporting of the IT risk management function1.

One of the data that must be updated to maintain an IT risk register is the expected frequency and potential impact of each IT risk. The expected frequency is the probability or likelihood of the IT risk occurring, based on historical data, statistical analysis, expert judgment, or other methods. The potential impact is the magnitude or severity of the consequences or outcomes of the IT risk, measured in terms of cost, time, quality, reputation, or other criteria2.

Updating the expected frequency and potential impact of each IT risk is essential for maintaining an IT risk register, because it can help to:

Evaluate and prioritize the IT risks based on their risk level, which is calculated by multiplying the frequency and impact

Monitor and track the changes or trends in the IT risk exposure and performance over time

Identify and implement the appropriate risk response strategies and controls, based on the risk level and the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization

Report and communicate the IT risk status and progress to the stakeholders, using risk indicators, dashboards, or matrices3

The other options are not the data that must be updated to maintain an IT risk register, but rather the data that are used as inputs or outputs of the IT risk management process. Risk tolerance is the acceptable variation in the outcomes related to specific objectives or risks. Risk tolerance is used to measure the IT risk analysis and to guide the IT risk response. Enterprise-wide IT risk assessment is a process that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the IT risks across theorganization. Enterprise-wide IT risk assessment is used topopulate the IT risk register and to inform the IT risk response. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in order to achieve its objectives. Risk appetite is used to guide the IT risk analysis and to align the IT risk response. References =

Risk Register - ISACA

Risk Analysis - ISACA

Risk Register 2021-2022 - UNECE

[How To Conduct Business Impact Analysis in 8 Easy Steps - G2]

[Risk Appetite and Risk Tolerance - ISACA]

[Enterprise Risk Assessment - ISACA]

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

The average time between user transfers and access updates is a trend that would cause the greatest concern regarding the effectiveness of an organization’s user access control processes, as it indicates thedelay or inefficiency in updating the user access rights and privileges according to the user’s current role and responsibilities. This can result in unauthorized or excessive access to the organization’s information assets, and increase the risk of data leakage, fraud, or misuse. The user access control processes should ensure that the user access rights and privileges are reviewed and modified regularly, and especially when the user’s role or status changes, such as transfer, promotion, demotion, or termination. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question241. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 241. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 241.

An incident is an unplanned event that disrupts or degrades the normal operation or performance of an IT service, system, or network1. An incident can cause various negative impacts, such as service outages, data losses, security breaches, or customer dissatisfaction2. An incident can recur if the underlying cause or problem of the incident is not properly identified and resolved3.

The best course of action to help reduce the probability of an incident recurring is to perform root cause analysis. Root cause analysis is a systematic process of finding and eliminating the fundamental cause or problem that led to the incident4. Root cause analysis can help to:

Prevent or minimize the recurrence of the incident by addressing the source of the problem, not just the symptoms or effects

Identify and implement corrective or preventive actions that can effectively resolve or mitigate the problem

Learn from the incident and improve the IT service, system, or network quality and reliability

Enhance the incident management and problem management processes and capabilities5

References = What is an Incident?, Incident Management - Wikipedia, Problem Management - Wikipedia, Root Cause Analysis - Wikipedia, Root Cause Analysis: A Guide for Business Leaders