CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

The risk practitioner’s first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls should be A. Determine whether the impact is outside the risk appetite1

According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite reflects the organization’s risk culture, strategy, and values2

When an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, it means that the controls are not providing the expected level of protection or assurance for the information assets or processes. This may result in increased exposure or vulnerability to threats, or reduced ability to achieve objectives. Therefore, the risk practitioner should first determine whether the impact of the ineffective controls is outside the risk appetite, as this would indicate the need for urgent action or escalation3

The other options are not the first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, because:

•B. Requesting a formal acceptance of risk from senior management may be appropriate if the impact of the ineffective controls is within the risk appetite, and the organization decides to accept the risk as it is. However, this should not be the first course of action, as it may not address the root cause of the ineffective controls, or the potential consequences or opportunities for improvement4

•C. Reporting the ineffective control for inclusion in the next audit report may be part of the risk communication and reporting process, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may delay the resolution or mitigation of the issue, or the implementation of corrective actions. Moreover, the next audit report may not be timely or relevant for the decision-makers or stakeholders who need to be informed of the ineffective controls5

•D. Deploying a compensating control to address the identified deficiencies may be a possible risk response option, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may require further analysis, evaluation, and approval. Moreover, deploying a compensating control may not be the most effective or efficient solution, as it may introduce additional complexity, cost, or risk.

1: CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID: 100003 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 28 3: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 223 4: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 224 5: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 225 : CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 226

Payroll system risk mitigation plans are the actions that are taken to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with payroll processing. When a migration from an in-house developed system to an external cloud-based solution is affecting a previously rated key risk scenario related to payroll processing, the first part of the risk register that should be updated is the payroll system risk mitigation plans. This is because the migration may introduce new risks or change the existing risks, and the risk mitigation plans may need to be revised or replaced accordingly. Updating the payroll system risk mitigation plans can help ensure that the risk level is acceptable and the payroll process is secure and reliable. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, one of the key risk treatment techniques is to update the risk action plan, which is a document that outlines the risk mitigation plans1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, updating the risk mitigation plans is the correct answer to this question2.

Payroll system risk factors, payroll process owner, and payroll administrative controls are not the first part of the risk register that should be updated when a migration is affecting a key risk scenario. Payroll system risk factors are the sources or causes of risk, such as threats, vulnerabilities, or uncertainties. Payroll process owner is the person who is responsible for the payroll process and its outcomes. Payroll administrative controls are the policies, procedures, or guidelines that govern the payroll process. These parts of the risk register may also need to be updated, but they are not as urgent or critical as the risk mitigation plans. Updating the risk factors, process owner, and administrative controls can help identify, assess, and monitor the risk, but they do not directly address the risk response. The risk response is the most important part of the risk management process, as it determines how the risk is handled and controlled.

The most important factors to consider when evaluating a number of potential controls for treating risk are the residual risk and the cost of control. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of the controls. Cost of control is the amount of resources and efforts required to implement and maintain the controls. By considering the residual risk and the cost of control, the organization can optimize the balance between the risk exposure and the control investment, and choose the most effective and efficient controls. Risk appetite and control efficiency, inherent risk and control effectiveness, and risk tolerance and control complexity are other possible factors, but they are not as important as residual risk and cost of control. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 8; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 97.

 The FIRST thing that should be done when a KRI has remained below its established trigger point for an extended period of time is to recommend a re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI, because it may indicate that the trigger point is set too high or too low, or that the KRI is not relevant or effective in measuring the risk exposure. A re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI may result in adjusting the trigger point, changing the KRI, or removing the KRI. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, because:

Option B: Notifying management that KRIs are being effectively managed is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not reflect the true risk status and performance. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not be a valid or reliable indicator of the risk exposure, and it may not capture the changes or trends in the risk environment.

Option C: Updating the risk rating associated with the KRI in the risk register is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be accurate or consistent. A risk rating is based on the likelihood and impact of the risk, and it should be derived from a comprehensive risk analysis, not just from a single KRI. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not reflect the actual likelihood and impact of the risk, and it may not be aligned with the other risk indicators and assessments.

Option D: Updating the risk tolerance and risk appetite to better align to the KRI is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be appropriate or feasible. Risk tolerance and risk appetite are the acceptable level of risk exposure and variation that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, and they are determined by the executive management and the board of directors, based on the enterprise’s strategy and goals. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not represent the desired or optimal level of risk exposure and variation, and it may not be aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and goals. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 121.

The most appropriate action when a tolerance threshold is exceeded is to communicate the potential impact to the decision makers. A tolerance threshold is the acceptable level of variation or deviation from the expected or planned performance or outcome of a risk response. When a tolerance threshold is exceeded, it means that the risk response is not effective or efficient enough to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and that the enterprise is exposed to unacceptable levels of risk that could impair its ability to achieve its objectives. Therefore, the potential impact of the risk should be communicated to the decision makers, such as senior management, risk owners, or risk committee, who have the authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate actions to address the risk situation. Communicating the potential impact can help to raise the awareness and urgency of the risk issue, and to facilitate the risk-based decision making process. Researching the root cause of similar incidents, verifying the response plan isadequate, and increasing human resources to respond in the interim are not as appropriate as communicating the potential impact, as they do not address the primary need of informing and involving the decision makers, and may not be feasible or effective in resolving the risk issue. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 41.

In the event of a data breach or misuse of confidential information, the first step is to activate the incident response plan. This ensures immediate containment, impact analysis, and communication protocols are followed.