CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Performing scenario-based assessments is a proactive approach that allows organizations to anticipate potential future events and assess their impact. This method helps in identifying emerging risks by exploring hypothetical situations and their possible outcomes. It enables organizations to prepare for unforeseen events by understanding how different scenarios could affect their operations and objectives.​

 The primary accountability for a control owner is to ensure the control operates effectively, as they have the authority and responsibility to design, implement, monitor, and report on the performance and adequacy of the control, and to identify and address any control gaps or deficiencies. Communicating risk to senior management, owning the associated risk the control is mitigating, and identifying and assessing control weaknesses are not the primaryaccountabilities, as they are more related to the roles and responsibilities of the risk owner, the risk practitioner, or the auditor, respectively, rather than the control owner. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 101.

A three lines of defense structure is a model that defines the roles and responsibilities of different functions and levels within an organization for risk management and control. The first line of defense is the operational management, which is responsible for owning and managing the risks. The second line of defense is the risk management and compliance functions, which are responsible for overseeing and supporting the risk management processes. The third line of defense is the internal audit function, which is responsible for providing independent assurance on the effectiveness of the risk management and control systems. The greatest benefit of a three lines of defense structure is that it provides clear accountability for risk management processes, as it clarifies who is responsible for what, and how they interact and communicate with each other. This can help to avoid duplication, confusion, or gaps in the risk management activities, and ensure that the risks are properly identified, assessed, treated, monitored, and reported. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 107.

A risk map, also known as a risk heat map, is a visual tool that helps an enterprise prioritize risk scenarios by plotting them on a matrix based on their likelihood and impact. A risk map can help to compare and contrast different risk scenarios, as well as to identify the most critical and urgent risks that require attention. A risk map can also help to communicate and report the risk profile and status to the stakeholders and decision makers. Therefore, the placement on the risk map would best help an enterprise prioritize risk scenarios. The other options are not the best ways to help an enterprise prioritize risk scenarios, although they may be relevant and useful. Industry best practices are the standards or guidelines that are widely accepted and followed by the organizations in a specific industry or domain. Industry best practices can help to benchmark and improve the risk management process and performance, but they may not reflect the specific risk context and needs of the enterprise. Degree of variances in the risk is the measure of the variability or uncertainty of the risk, which may affect the accuracy or reliability of the risk assessment and response. Degree of variances in the risk can help to adjust and refine the risk analysis and treatment, but it may not indicate the priority or importance of the risk. Cost of risk mitigation is the amount of resources or expenses that are required or allocated to implement the risk response actions, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risk. Cost of risk mitigation can help to evaluate and optimize therisk response options, but it may not determine the priority or urgency of the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 38-391; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 892

 Establishing clear accountability for risk is the best way for an organization to enable risk treatment decisions, as it ensures that the risk owners and stakeholders have the authority and responsibility to manage and mitigate the risks that they are assigned to. Establishing clear accountability for risk also facilitates communication and collaboration among the risk owners and stakeholders, and enables them to monitor and report the risk status and performance. Establishing clear accountability for risk also supports the risk governance and culture of the organization, and aligns the risk management process with the organization’s strategy and objectives. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 250. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 250. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 250. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

 According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when an organization has determined a risk scenario is outside the defined risk tolerance level is to identify risk responses, which are the actions or measures taken to address the risk. Identifying risk responses helps to:

Reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the risk to an acceptable level

Align the risk response with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

Optimize the value and benefits of the risk response

Balance the costs and efforts of the risk response with the potential losses or damages caused by the risk

Coordinate and communicate the risk response with the relevant stakeholders

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 161-1621

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when there is a gap between the acceptable downtime and the actual recovery time of an application is to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of alternatives available to reduce the gap. The cost-benefit analysis should compare the costs of implementing different risk response options, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer or acceptance, with the benefits of reducing the impact and likelihood of the risk. The cost-benefit analysis should also consider the alignment of the risk response options with the enterprise’s risk appetite, business objectives and strategy. The cost-benefit analysis should help the application owner and the risk owner to select the most appropriate risk response option that optimizes the value of the application and minimizes the residual risk.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 162-1631

According to the CRISC Review Manual, the organization’s culture is the most critical element to maximize the potential for a successful security implementation, because it influences the behavior, attitude, and perception of the stakeholders towards security. The organization’s culture includes the values, beliefs, norms, and practices that are shared by the members of the organization. A positive and supportive culture can foster the awareness, commitment, and collaboration of the stakeholders in achieving the security objectives and complying with the security policies and standards. The other options are not the most critical elements, as they are less influential or less challenging than the organization’s culture. The organization’s knowledge is the collective understanding and expertise of the organization regardingsecurity, which can be enhanced through training and education. Ease of implementation is the degree of difficulty and complexity of implementing security, which can be reduced by using appropriate methods and tools. Industry-leading security tools are the best-in-class solutions and technologies that can provide effective and efficient security, which can be acquired through market research and evaluation. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, page 32.