CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Residual risk exceeds acceptable limits, because it indicates that the risk level is higher than the organization’s risk appetite or tolerance, and that the risk responses and controls are insufficient or ineffective. Residual risk is the level of risk remaining in a process or procedure following the implementation of risk controls to limit or remove it. Escalation is a process that increases theawareness and involvement of higher-level stakeholders or authorities in a risk issue or situation. Escalation is appropriate when the risk issue or situation is outside the scope or authority of the current risk owner or manager, and requires the attention or action of the senior management or the board of directors. Residual risk exceeding acceptable limits is the best situation to justify escalation, as it implies that the current risk owner or manager cannot manage the risk within the predefined boundaries or expectations, and that the senior management or the board of directors need to intervene or approve the risk acceptance or transfer.

Residual risk being inadequately recorded, residual risk remaining after controls have been applied, and residual risk equaling current risk are all possible situations that may require escalation, but they are not the best situations, as they do not necessarily indicate that the risk level is higher than the acceptable limits, and that the senior management or the board of directors need to be involved.

The primary reason for prioritizing risk scenarios is to facilitate risk response decisions. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe the possible causes, events, and consequences of a risk. Prioritizing risk scenarios is the process of ranking the risk scenarios according to their level of importance, urgency, or impact. Prioritizing risk scenarios helps to facilitate risk response decisions, which are the choices made to address the risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risks. Prioritizing risk scenarios helps to allocate the resources and efforts to the most significant or critical risk scenarios, and to select the most appropriate and effective risk responses. Prioritizing risk scenarios also helps to communicate and justify the risk response decisions to the stakeholders, and to monitor and report the risk status and performance. Providing an enterprise-wide view of risk, supporting risk response tracking, and assigning risk ownership are not the primary reasons for prioritizing risk scenarios, as they are either theinputs or the outputs of the risk prioritization process, and they do not address the primary need of responding to the risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 50.

According to the definition of key control indicators (KCIs), they are metrics that provide information on the extent to which a given control is meeting its intended objectives in terms of loss prevention, reduction, etc.1 Therefore, option D is the correct answer, as it reflects the purpose and function of KCIs. The other options are not accurate descriptions of KCIs, as they do not directly relate to the performance or outcome of the control. Option A is more relevant to the efficiency or productivity of the control, not its effectiveness. Option B is more relevant to the role of key risk indicators (KRIs), which measure the level of risk exposure or potentialimpact of risk events2. Option C is also more related to KRIs, as they monitor changes in the likelihood or frequency of adverse events due to risk factors2.

A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses or gaps in an application that may expose it to potential threats or attacks.

When vulnerability assessment results identify a weakness in an application, the first thing that a risk practitioner should do is to assess the risk to determine mitigation needed. This means that the risk practitioner should analyze the likelihood and impact of the weakness being exploited, the existing controls that are in place to prevent or reduce the exploitation, and the residual risk that remains after applying the controls.

Assessing the risk to determine mitigation needed helps to prioritize the actions that are required to address the weakness, such as implementing new or additional controls, accepting the risk, transferring the risk, or avoiding the risk.

The other options are not the first things that a risk practitioner should do when vulnerability assessment results identify a weakness in an application. They are either secondary or not essential for risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 18

Information Technology & Security, page 12

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 10

 The best person to own the unmitigated risk of the technology is the IT system owner. The IT system owner is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility for the acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation of the IT system. The IT system owner is also responsible for ensuring that the IT system meets the business requirements, security standards, and compliance obligations of the enterprise. The IT system owner should own the unmitigated risk of the technology, as they are in the best position to understand the nature and impact of the risk, and to implement the appropriate risk responses to reduce the risk exposure to an acceptable level. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, page 251234

The application risk profile should be updated when reviewing functional requirements. This will help to identify and assess the potential risks that may arise from the changes to the application, and to plan and implement appropriate risk responses. Updating the application risk profile at this stage will also help to ensure that the changes are aligned with the organization’s objectives, policies, and standards, and that they meet the stakeholders’ expectations and needs. Updating the application risk profile after user acceptance testing, upon release to production, or during backlog scheduling are not the best points to update the risk profile, as they may be too late or too early to capture the relevant risks and their impacts. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1.1, page 511

1: ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC®) Exam Guide, Answer to Question 655.

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that provides information on the level of exposure to a given risk. Changes in risk trend data indicate that the likelihood or probability of a risk occurring has changed. Therefore, the frequency of risk occurrence should be updated in the risk register to reflect the current risk profile. The impact, cost, and legal aspects of risk realization are not directly affected by the changes in risk trend data, unless the nature or severity of the risk has also changed. (Risk and Information Systems Control Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 5th Edition, page 972

The best course of action for a system administrator who suspects a colleague may be intentionally weakening a system’s validation controls in order to pass through fraudulent transactions is B. Share the concern through a whistleblower communication channel1

According to the CRISC Review Manual, a whistleblower communication channel is a mechanism that allows employees to report suspected fraud or unethical behavior without fear of retaliation or reprisal. A whistleblower communication channel is part of an effective fraud detection and prevention framework, and it helps to promote a culture of integrity and accountability within the organization2

The other options are not as effective or appropriate as sharing the concern through a whistleblower communication channel, because:

•A. Implementing compensating controls to deter fraud attempts may not address the root cause of the problem, and it may also create additional complexity and cost for the system. Moreover, it may not prevent the colleague from finding other ways to bypass the controls or collude with external parties.

•C. Monitoring the activity to collect evidence may expose the system administrator to legal or ethical risks, especially if the monitoring is done without proper authorization or due process. Itmay also delay the reporting and resolution of the issue, and potentially allow more fraudulent transactions to occur.

•D. Determining whether the system environment has flaws that may motivate fraud attempts may be useful for understanding the context and the factors that contribute to the fraud risk, but it does not address the immediate concern of reporting the suspected fraud. It may also imply that the system administrator is trying to justify or rationalize the colleague’s behavior, rather than holding them accountable.

1: CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID: 100002 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 224