CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Risk assessments are most effective when performed at each stage of the system development life cycle (SDLC). The SDLC is a framework that defines the phases and activities of developing, implementing, and maintaining a system. The SDLC typically consists of the following stages: initiation, planning, analysis, design, development, testing, implementation, and maintenance. Performing risk assessments at each stage of the SDLC helps to identify, analyze, and evaluate the risks that could affect the system objectives, requirements, functionality, quality, or performance. Performing risk assessments at each stage of the SDLC also helps to select and implement the appropriate risk responses, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risks. Performing risk assessments at each stage of the SDLC also helps to monitor and report the risk status and performance, and to update and adjust the risk assessment and response as the system changes or evolves. Performing risk assessments before system development begins, at system development, or during the development of the business case are not as effective as performing risk assessments at each stage of the SDLC, as they are either too early or too late, and they do not capture the full scope and complexity of the system risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 49.

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.

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that provide information on the level of exposure to a given operational risk1. KRIs have upper and lower acceptable risk limits (warning thresholds) that trigger actions when exceeded2. These thresholds are based on the organization’s risk appetite or tolerance, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives3. Therefore, changes in risk appetite or tolerance would prompt changes in KRI thresholds, as the organization would need to adjust its risk monitoring and response accordingly. The other options are not the primary factors that would prompt changes in KRI thresholds, although they may have some influence on the risk management process. References = Risk IT Framework; IT Risk Resources; ISACA Risk Starter Kit; Key Risk Indicators; Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide

 Performing a post-implementation review is the best way to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system, as it helps to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and its controls after they have been deployed and operationalized. A post-implementation review is a process of assessing and validating the system and its controls against the predefined criteria and objectives, such as functionality, performance, security, compliance, and user satisfaction. A post-implementation review can help to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system by providing the following benefits:

It verifies that the system and its controls meet the design specifications and standards, and comply with the relevant laws, regulations, and contractual obligations.

It identifies and measures the actual or potential benefits and value of the system and its controls, such as improved efficiency, reliability, or quality.

It detects and analyzes any issues, gaps, or weaknesses in the system and its controls, such as errors, inconsistencies, or vulnerabilities.

It provides recommendations and action plans to address the identified issues, gaps, or weaknesses, and to improve or enhance the system and its controls.

It communicates and reports the results and findings of the review to the relevant stakeholders, and solicits their feedback and suggestions.

The other options are not the best ways to confirm whether appropriate automated controls are in place within a recently implemented system. Conducting user acceptance testing is an important step to ensure that the system and its controls meet the user requirements and expectations, but it is usually performed before the system is implemented and operationalized, and it may not cover all aspects of the system and its controls. Reviewing the key performance indicators (KPIs) is a useful method to measure and monitor the performance of the system and its controls, but it may not provide a comprehensive or objective evaluation of the system and its controls. Interviewing process owners is a possible technique to collect and analyze information on the system and its controls, but it may not provide sufficient or reliable evidence to confirm the appropriateness of the system and its controls. References = Post-Implementation Review: The Key to a Successful Project, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Post Implementation Review (PIR) - Project Management Knowledge

The most reliable evidence of the effectiveness of security controls implemented for a web application is penetration testing. Penetration testing is a process that simulates an attack on the web application by exploiting its vulnerabilities, using the same tools and techniques as real attackers. Penetration testing helps to evaluate the effectiveness of security controls, because it helps to verify that the security controls can prevent, detect, or mitigate the attack, and to measure the impact and severity of the attack. Penetration testing also helps to identify and address any weaknesses or gaps in the security controls, and to provide recommendations andsolutions for improving the security of the web application. The other options are not as reliable as penetration testing, although they may provide some evidence of the effectiveness of security controls. IT general controls audit, vulnerability assessment, and fault tree analysis are all examples of analytical or evaluative methods, which may help to assess or estimate the effectiveness of security controls, but they do not necessarily test or measure the effectiveness of security controls in a realistic scenario. References = 10