CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Risk transfer is a risk response strategy that involves shifting the responsibility or burden of a risk to another party, such as a third party, an insurance company, or a joint venture. Risk transfer does not eliminate the risk, but it reduces the exposure or impact of the risk to the enterprise. An example of risk transfer is engaging a third party to provide an Internet gateway encryption service that protects sensitive data uploaded to a cloud service. By doing so, the organization transfers the risk of data breach or loss to the third party, who is responsible for ensuring the security and availability of the data. The other options are not examples of risk transfer, as they involve different risk response strategies:

Risk mitigation is a risk response strategy that involves reducing the likelihood or impact of a risk to an acceptable level, such as by implementing controls, policies, or procedures.

Risk avoidance is a risk response strategy that involves eliminating the risk by not performing the activity that generates the risk, such as by discontinuing a product or service, or not entering a market.

Risk acceptance is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging the risk and taking no action to address it, such as by tolerating the risk, exploiting the risk, or sharing the risk. References =Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.1, pp. 107-108.

Residual risk is the remaining risk after implementing risk responses, such as controls or mitigation strategies. With the deployment of an IAM solution, the organization has addressed certain access-related risks. Updating the risk register to reflect the new residual risk levels ensures accurate tracking and informs future risk management decisions.

The MOST important stakeholders to include during the initial risk identification process for a business application are the business process owners, because they are the ones who have the authority and responsibility for the business processes that are supported or enabled by the business application. The business process owners can provide valuable input and feedback on the business objectives, requirements, and expectations of the business application, as well as thepotential risks, impacts, and opportunities that may affect the business processes and outcomes. The other options are not as important as the business process owners, because:

Option B: Business process consumers are the ones who use or benefit from the business processes that are supported or enabled by the business application, such as customers, employees, or partners. They can provide useful information and perspectives on the user needs, preferences, and satisfaction of the business application, but they are not as important as the business process owners, who have the ultimate accountability and authority for the business processes and outcomes.

Option C: Application architecture team is the one who designs and develops the technical architecture and components of the business application, such as the hardware, software, network, and data. They can provide technical expertise and guidance on the feasibility, functionality, and security of the business application, but they are not as important as the business process owners, who have the primary stake and interest in the business application and its alignment with the business processes and objectives.

Option D: Internal audit is the one who provides independent assurance and consulting services on the governance, risk management, and control processes of the organization, including the business application. They can provide objective and impartial evaluation and recommendation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the business application and its compliance with the internal and external standards and regulations, but they are not as important as the businessprocess owners, who have the direct involvement and influence on the business application and its performance and value. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 103.

The control evaluation phase of a risk assessment is the phase where the risk practitioner evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing or planned controls that mitigate the identified risks. Controls are the actions or measures that reduce the likelihood or impact of the risks to an acceptable level. The control evaluation phase involves testing, reviewing, and auditing the controls, and identifying any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. If the control evaluation phase reveals that multiple controls are ineffective, the risk practitioner’s first course of action should be to determine the root cause of the control failures. The root cause is the underlying or fundamental reason that leads to the problem or issue, such as the controlfailure. By determining the root cause of the control failures, the risk practitioner can understand why the controls are not working as intended, and what factors or variables are influencing the control performance. This will help the risk practitioner to identify and implement the most appropriate and effective risk response strategy and actions, such as recommending risk remediation, comparing the residual risk, or escalating the control failures. The other options are not the first course of action, as they involve different steps or outcomes of the risk management process:

Recommend risk remediation of the ineffective controls means that the risk practitioner suggests the actions or measures that can improve or restore the effectiveness of the controls, such as by modifying, replacing, or adding the controls. This may be a useful step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not address the root cause of the control failures, or may not be feasible or efficient for the enterprise’s needs.

Compare the residual risk to the current risk appetite means that the risk practitioner evaluates the level of risk that remains after considering the existing or planned controls, and compares it with the amount and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. This may be a helpful step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not reflect the true or current level of risk exposure, or may not account for the uncertainties or complexities of the risks or the controls.

Escalate the control failures to senior management means that the risk practitioner communicates the control failures to the senior leaders of the enterprise, who oversee the enterprise-wide risk management program, and provide guidance and direction to the risk owners and practitioners. This may be a necessary step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not provide sufficient or timely information or action to address the control failures, or may not reflect the urgency or priority of the control failures. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1, pp. 62-63.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics used to measure and evaluate the achievement of the organization’s objectives and strategies1. KPIs for critical IT assets are KPIs that focus onthe performance and value of the IT assets that are essential for the organization’s operations and functions2. KPIs for critical IT assets may include metrics such as availability, reliability, utilization, cost, and security of the IT assets3. The need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets may be driven by various factors, such as changes in the business environment, customer expectations, or regulatory requirements. However, the most likely factor that would drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets is the outcomes of periodic risk assessments. A risk assessment is a process that involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks and their potential impacts on the organization’s objectives and performance4. A periodic risk assessment is a risk assessment that is performed at regular intervals, such as monthly, quarterly, or annually, to capture the changes and updates in the risk environment and the risk profile5. The outcomes of periodic risk assessments would most likely drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets, as they would provide insights into the current and emerging risks that may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the existingand planned controls and responses. By reviewing and updating the KPIs for critical IT assets based on the outcomes of periodic risk assessments, the organization can ensure that the KPIs are relevant, realistic, and aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and that they provide accurate and timely information for decision making and reporting. The outsourcing of related IT processes, changes in service level objectives, and findings from continuous monitoring are not the most likely factors that would drive the need to review and update KPIs for critical IT assets, as they do not provide the same level of information and impact as the outcomes of periodic risk assessments. The outsourcing of related IT processes is a decision that involves transferring some or all of the IT processes that support or enable the critical IT assets to an external service provider. The outsourcing of related IT processes may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but it does not necessarily require a review and update of the KPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be valid and applicable for the outsourced IT processes. Changes in service level objectives are changes in the expected or agreed level of quality or performance of the IT services that support or enable the critical IT assets. Changes in service level objectives may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but they do not necessarily require a review and update of theKPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be consistent and compatible with the changed service level objectives. Findings from continuous monitoring are the results or outcomes of the ongoing observation and measurement of the performance and compliance of the IT processes and systems that support or enable the critical IT assets. Findings from continuous monitoring may affect the performance and value of the critical IT assets, but they do not necessarily require a review and update of the KPIs for critical IT assets, as the KPIs may still be relevant and reliable for the continuously monitored IT processes and systems. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.

 A cost-benefit analysis is a tool that compares the costs and benefits of different alternatives, such as updating software or continuing to use end-of-life software. A cost-benefit analysis can provide the mosthelpful information to justify investing in updated software, as it can show the potential savings, benefits, and risks of each option, and help the decision-makers choose the best course of action. A cost-benefit analysis can also include qualitative factors, such as security, compliance, performance, and customer satisfaction, that may be affected by the software update. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 231. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q & As, Question 8. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 231. CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question231.

The most useful information to determine mitigating controls when a core data center went offline abruptly for several hours affecting many transactions across multiple locations is the root cause analysis. Root cause analysis is a technique that identifies the underlying factors or reasons that caused the problem or incident. Root cause analysis can help to understand the nature, scope,and impact of the problem or incident, and to prevent or reduce the recurrence or severity of the problem or incident in the future. Root cause analysis can also help to identify and prioritize the appropriate mitigating controls that address the root causes of the problem or incident. The other options are not as useful as root cause analysis, as they are related to the investigation, evaluation, or measurement of the problem or incident, not the resolution or prevention of the problem or incident. References = Risk and Information Systems ControlStudy Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.4: Key Control Indicators, page 211.

Identifying risk events is essential for developing realistic and relevant risk scenarios. This step enables the creation of scenarios that reflect actual vulnerabilities and potential disruptions, adhering to the CRISC ' s focus onRisk Identification.