CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

In the three lines model, the second line provides oversight and monitoring of risk and compliance. CRISC states that functions such as risk management, compliance monitoring, and policy oversight belong to the second line. Monitoring IT security policy compliance fits this role because it evaluates whether operational controls align with requirements. The first line (operations) configures systems like WAFs and calculates operational KRIs. The third line (internal audit) validates whether controls are functioning independently. Thus, the responsibility most aligned with the second line is monitoring compliance.

The first thing that should be done by IT governance to support the development of a new risk management plan to specifically address legal and regulatory risk scenarios is to establish IT-specific compliance objectives. Compliance objectives are the goals or targets that the organization sets to ensure that its IT activities and processes comply with the relevant laws, regulations, standards, and contracts. Compliance objectives help to define the scope, criteria, and expectations for the IT compliance program, and to align the IT compliance activities with the organization’s strategy, risk appetite, and performance measures. Compliance objectives also help to communicate and demonstrate the organization’s commitment and accountability for IT compliance to the internal and external stakeholders, such as the board, management, regulators, auditors, and customers. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, although they may be useful or necessary steps or components of the IT compliance program. Requesting a regulatory risk reporting methodology, requiring critical success factors (CSFs) for IT risks, and communicating IT key risk indicators (KRIs) and triggers are all activities that can help to implement and monitor the IT compliance program, but they require the prior definition and agreement of the IT compliance objectives. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1, page 2-37.

A vulnerability management process is a process that identifies, analyzes, prioritizes, and remediates the vulnerabilities in the IT systems and applications. The effectiveness of a vulnerability management process can be measured by the key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the achievement of the process objectives and the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. The best KPI to measure the effectiveness of a vulnerability management process is the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level. This KPI indicates how well the process is able to address the vulnerabilities in a timely and efficientmanner, and reduce the exposure and impact of the risks associated with the vulnerabilities. The other options are not as good as the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within the agreed service level, as they may not reflect the quality or timeliness of the remediation actions, or the alignment with the enterprise’s risk appetite and tolerance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.1, pp. 171-172.

 The most concerning issue found during the review of a newly created disaster recovery plan (DRP) is that some critical business applications are not included in the plan. This means that the DRP is incomplete and does not cover all the essential IT systems and services that support the business continuity. This could result in significant losses and damages in the event of a disaster. The other issues are not as critical, as they can be addressed by ensuring proper contracts, standards, and approvals are in place for the outsourced activities, the framework, and the CISO. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.3: IT Risk Response Implementation, page 145.

Senior management requires high-level, decision-relevant information. CRISC guidance states that the most valuable elements to communicate are areas of elevated risk, because these represent conditions that may exceed risk appetite or require immediate action. Changes in mitigation plans and audit findings are important operational details but do not provide a clear picture of current exposure. Industry benchmarks offer context but do not describe the organization’s actual risk posture. Highlighting elevated risks helps executives prioritize resources, make treatment decisions, and determine whether escalations are required.

According to the What Is Risk Management & Why Is It Important? article, risk management is the systematic process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating threats or uncertainties that can affect your organization. The primary goal of a risk management program is to help ensure objectives are met, by aligning the risk management process with the organization’s strategy, vision, mission, values, and objectives. By having a risk management program, an organization can identify potential problems before they occur and have a plan for addressing them, as well as monitor and report on the effectiveness of the risk responses. This can help the organization to achieve its desired outcomes and create value for its stakeholders. References = What Is Risk Management & Why Is It Important?

An external audit is the most reliable input to evaluate residual risk in the vendor’s control environment, as it provides an independent and objective assessment of the vendor’s financial systems and processes. An external audit is conducted by a third party, such as a certified public accountant (CPA) or a professional auditing firm, that follows the generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). An external audit can help to verify the accuracy and completeness of the vendor’s financial statements, identify any material misstatements or errors, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the vendor’s internal controls. An external audit can also provide assurance and confidence to the organization and other stakeholders that the vendor is complying with the relevant laws, regulations, and contractual obligations.

The other options are not the most reliable inputs to evaluate residual risk in the vendor’s control environment. An internal audit is conducted by the vendor itself, which may introduce bias or conflict of interest. An internal audit may also have a different scope, methodology, or quality than an external audit. A vendor performance scorecard is completed by the organization, which may not have the sufficient access, expertise, or authority to assess the vendor’s control environment. A vendor performance scorecard may also focus more on the service level agreement (SLA) compliance, rather than the financial systems and processes. A regulatory examination is conducted by a regulator, such as a government agency or a standard-settingbody, which may have a different purpose, criteria, or perspective than the organization. A regulatory examination may also have a limited scope, frequency, or transparency. References = Guide to VendorRisk Assessment | Smartsheet, Understanding Inherent Vs. Residual Risk Assessments - Resolver, Assessing Internal Controls over Compliance - HCCA Official Site

 Inaccurate risk ratings would most likely cause management to unknowingly accept excessive risk, as they may not reflect the true level of risk exposure and impact, and may lead to inappropriate risk responses or decisions. Satisfactory audit results, risk tolerance being set too low, and lack of preventive controls are not the most likely causes, as they may indicate a different risk management issue, such as over-reliance on audit assurance, misalignment of risk tolerance and appetite, or insufficient risk mitigation, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 109.