CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), a contract associated with a cloud service provider must include ownership of responsibilities, as this defines the roles and obligations of both the cloudprovider and the customer in relation to the cloud services. The contract should specify who is responsible for:

Service delivery and performance

Data security and privacy

Compliance with regulations and standards

Incident management and reporting

Business continuity and disaster recovery

Change management and configuration control

Intellectual property rights and licensing

Termination and data egress

The contract should also include service level agreements (SLAs) that measure and monitor the quality and availability of the cloud services, as well as remedies and penalties for non-compliance. The contract should also address pricing and payment terms, dispute resolution mechanisms, and liability and indemnification clauses.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: Risk Response Options, pp. 173-1741

 Computer-enabled fraud is the use of information technology (IT) to commit or conceal fraudulent activities, such as theft, manipulation, or unauthorized access of data, systems, or networks. Computer-enabled fraud can pose significant risks to an organization, such as financial loss, reputational damage, legal liability, or regulatory sanctions. Therefore, an organization should establish a comprehensive and effective framework to prevent, detect, and respond to computer-enabled fraud. The framework should involve three lines of defense, which are theroles and responsibilities of different functions within theorganization to manage and control risks. The first line of defense consists of the business owners, whose role is to identify, assess, and manage risks, including computer-enabled fraud risks. The primary responsibility of the first line of defense related to computer-enabled fraud is to implement processes to detect and deter fraud. This means designing and executing controls that can prevent or reduce the occurrence of computer-enabled fraud, such as authentication, authorization, encryption, logging, orsegregation of duties. This also means monitoring and reporting any suspicious or anomalous activities or transactions that may indicate computer-enabled fraud, such as unusual patterns, volumes, or frequencies of data or system access or usage. Implementing processes to detect and deter fraud can help the first line of defense to protect the organization’s assets, data, and reputation from computer-enabled fraud, and to comply with the organization’s policies and regulations. References = Three Lines of Defence, Roles of Three Lines of Defense for Information Security and Governance, THE THREE LINES OF DEFENSE IN EFFECTIVE RISK MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, The Three Lines of Defense.

The most appropriate key risk indicator (KRI) for backup media that is recycled monthly is the percentage of failed restore tests. A KRI is a metric that measures the likelihood or impact of a risk, and provides an early warning signal of a potential risk event. The percentage of failed restore tests is a KRI that reflects the quality and reliability of the backup media, and indicates the possibility of data loss or corruption. A high percentage of failed restore tests would suggest that the backup media is not functioning properly, and that the risk of data unavailability is increasing. Therefore, this KRI would help the risk practitioner to monitor the risk and take corrective actions as needed. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2, page 235.

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, a third-party audit is an independent and objective examination of an organization’s security controls by an external auditor or organization. A third-party audit provides the most objective assessment of the effectiveness of an organization’s security controls, as it helps to avoid any conflicts of interest, biases, or assumptions that may affect the internal audit, review, or testing. A third-party audit also helps to ensure that the security controls comply with the relevant standards, regulations, and best practices, and that they meet the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders, such as customers, partners, or regulators. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 224.

According to the Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of risk responses. Residual risk is most commonly compared against the risk appetite, which is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept to achieve its objectives. By comparing the residual risk with the risk appetite, the organization can determine if the risk response is adequate and effective, or if additional actionsare needed to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Residual risk should be monitored and reported regularly to ensure that it stays within the risk appetite. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1, Page 222. A Comprehensive Guide to Risk Appetite and Risk Tolerance

Evaluating risk scenarios and assessing current controls is the most helpful in identifying gaps between the current and desired state of the IT risk environment, because it allows the risk practitioner to compare the actual and expected outcomes of the IT processes and activities under different situations. A risk scenario is a hypothetical situation that describes a possible event or sequence of events that may affect the IT objectives and performance. A risk scenario can be based on various factors, such as the sources of risk, the risk drivers, the risk events, the risk impacts, and the risk responses. A risk scenario can also include the likelihood and severity of the risk, as well as the assumptions and uncertainties involved. Evaluating risk scenarios helps the risk practitioner to understand the nature and extent of the IT risks, as well as the potential consequences and opportunities that may arise from them. Assessing current controls is the process of examining and testing the existing controls that are implemented to manage the IT risks. A control is a measure or action that reduces the likelihood or impact of a risk, or enhances the benefits or opportunities of a risk. Assessing current controls helps the risk practitioner to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, as well as their alignment with the IT objectives and requirements. By evaluating risk scenarios and assessing current controls, the risk practitioner can identify the gaps between the current and desired state of the IT risk environment. The gaps can be related to the following aspects: - The IT objectives and performance: The gaps can indicate the difference between the actual and expected results of theIT processes and activities, as well as the deviation from the IT goals and targets. - The IT risk exposure and appetite: The gaps can indicate the difference between the actualand acceptable level of risk that the organization faces or is willing to take in pursuit of the IT objectives. - The IT risk management process and practices: The gaps can indicate the difference between the actual and expected performance of the IT risk management process, as well as the compliance with the IT risk management policies and standards. - The IT risk culture and awareness: The gaps can indicate the difference between the actual and desired level of risk awareness,understanding, and communication among the IT stakeholders, as well as the alignment with the organizational values and culture. Identifying the gaps between the current and desired state of the IT risk environment is important for the risk practitioner, as it can help to prioritize and address the IT risks, as well as to improve and optimize the IT risk management process and practices. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.3: Risk Scenarios, pp. 63-681