ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps - PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 2022 Lead Auditor exam

You are an experienced ISMS audit team leader providing guidance to an auditor in training.

The auditor in training appears to be confused about the interpretation of competence in ISO 27001:2022 and is seeking clarification from you that his understanding is correct. He sets out a series of mini scenarios and asks you which of these you would attribute to a lack of competence. Select four correct options.

Auditor competence is a combination of knowledge and skills. Which two of the following activities are predominately related to "knowledge"?

Which one of the following options best describes the main purpose of a Stage 2 third-party audit?

Scenario 6: Sinvestment is an insurance company that offers home, commercial, and life insurance. The company was founded in North Carolina, but have recently expanded in other locations, including Europe and Africa.

Sinvestment is committed to complying with laws and regulations applicable to their industry and preventing any information security incident. They have implemented an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 and have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification.

Two auditors were assigned by the certification body to conduct the audit. After signing a confidentiality agreement with Sinvestment. they started the audit activities. First, they reviewed the documentation required by the standard, including the declaration of the ISMS scope, information security policies, and internal audits reports. The review process was not easy because, although Sinvestment stated that they had a documentation procedure in place, not all documents had the same format.

Then, the audit team conducted several interviews with Sinvestment's top management to understand their role in the ISMS implementation. All activities of the stage 1 audit were performed remotely, except the review of documented information, which took place on-site, as requested by Sinvestment.

During this stage, the auditors found out that there was no documentation related to information security training and awareness program. When asked, Sinvestment's representatives stated that the company has provided information security training sessions to all employees. Stage 1 audit gave the audit team a general understanding of Sinvestment's operations and ISMS.

The stage 2 audit was conducted three weeks after stage 1 audit. The audit team observed that the marketing department (which was not included in the audit scope) had no procedures in place to control employees’ access rights. Since controlling employees' access rights is one of the ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and was included in the information security policy of the company, the issue was included in the audit report. In addition, during stage 2 audit, the audit team observed that Sinvestment did not record logs of user activities. The procedures of the company stated that "Logs recording user activities should be retained and regularly reviewed," yet the company did not present any evidence of the implementation of such procedure.

During all audit activities, the auditors used observation, interviews, documented information review, analysis, and technical verification to collect information and evidence. All the audit findings during stages 1 and 2 were analyzed and the audit team decided to issue a positive recommendation for certification.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

The audit team reviewed Sinvestment's documented information on-site, as requested by the company. Is this acceptable?

Scenario 2:

Clinic, founded in the 1990s, is a medical device company that specializes in treatments for heart-related conditions and complex surgical interventions. Based in Europe, it serves both patients and healthcare professionals. Clinic collects patient data to tailor treatments, monitor outcomes, and improve device functionality. To enhance data security and build trust, Clinic is implementing an information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001. This initiative demonstrates Clinic's commitment to securely managing sensitive patient information and proprietary technologies.

Clinic established the scope of its ISMS by solely considering internal issues, interfaces, dependencies between internal and outsourced activities, and the expectations of interested parties. This scope was carefully documented and made accessible. In defining its ISMS, Clinic chose to focus specifically on key processes within critical departments such as Research and Development, Patient Data Management, and Customer Support.

Despite initial challenges, Clinic remained committed to its ISMS implementation, tailoring security controls to its unique needs. The project team excluded certain Annex A controls from ISO/IEC 27001 while incorporating additional sector-specific controls to enhance security. The team evaluated the applicability of these controls against internal and external factors, culminating in the development of a comprehensive Statement of Applicability (SoA) detailing the rationale behind control selection and implementation.

As preparations for certification progressed, Brian, appointed as the team leader, adopted a self-directed risk assessment methodology to identify and evaluate the company’s strategic issues and security practices. This proactive approach ensured that Clinic’s risk assessment aligned with its objectives and mission.

Question:

Based on Scenario 2, which methodology did Brian choose to conduct a risk assessment?

Scenario 9: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

Techmanic has been ISO/IEC 27001 certified for a year and regards this certification with pride. During the certification audit, the auditor found some inconsistencies in its ISMS implementation. Since the observed situations did not affect the capability of its ISMS to achieve the intended results, Techmanic was certified after auditors followed up on the root cause analysis and corrective actions remotely During that year, the company added hosting to its list of services and requested to expand its certification scope to include that area The auditor in charge approved the request and notified Techmanic that the extension audit would be conducted during the surveillance audit

Techmanic underwent a surveillance audit to verify its iSMS's continued effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 27001. The surveillance audit aimed to ensure that Techmanic’s security practices, including the recent addition of hosting services, aligned seamlessly with the rigorous requirements of the certification

The auditor strategically utilized the findings from previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity with the purpose of replacing the need for additional recertification audits, specifically in the IT consultancy sector. Recognizing the value of continual improvement and learning from past assessments. Techmanic implemented a practice of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports. This proactive approach not only facilitated identifying and resolving potential nonconformities but also aimed to streamline the recertification process in the IT consultancy sector.

During the surveillance audit, several nonconformities were found. The ISMS continued to fulfill the ISO/IEC 27001*s requirements, but Techmanic failed to resolve the nonconformities related to the hosting services, as reported by its internal auditor. In addition, the internal audit report had several inconsistencies, which questioned the independence of the internal auditor during the audit of hosting services. Based on this, the extension certification was not granted. As a result. Techmanic requested a transfer to another certification body. In the meantime, the company released a statement to its clients stating that the ISO/IEC 27001 certification covers the IT services, as well as the hosting services.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

Is questioning the independence of the internal auditor important given the inconsistencies found in the internal audit report?

Scenario 5

CyberShielding Systems Inc. provides security services spanning the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. CyberShielding Systems Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks for two decades through advanced products and services. Having achieved a reputation in the information and network security sector, CyberShielding Systems Inc. decided to implement a security information management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and obtain a certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain a competitive advantage.

The certification body initiated the process by selecting the audit team for CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s ISO/IEC 27001 certification. They provided the company with the name and background information of each audit member. However, upon review, CyberShielding Systems Inc. discovered that one of the auditors did not hold the security clearance required by them. Consequently, the company objected to the appointment of this auditor. Upon review, the certification body replaced the auditor in response to CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s objection.

As part of the audit process, CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s approach to risk and opportunity determination was assessed as a standalone activity. This involved examining the organization’s methods for identifying and managing risks and opportunities. The audit team’s core objectives encompassed providing assurance on the effectiveness of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity identification mechanisms and reviewing the organization's strategies for addressing these determined risks and opportunities. During this, the audit team also identified a risk due to a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval, potentially exposing the company to vulnerabilities. This finding highlighted the need for stronger internal controls to prevent such issues.

The audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts to understand the main business processes and controls. They performed a limited analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was limited by third-party service provider restrictions. However, the audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in CyberShielding’s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by questioning CyberShielding representatives on IT responsibilities, control effectiveness, and anti-malware measures. CyberShielding’s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

Despite the agreement signed before the audit, which outlined the audit scope, criteria, and objectives, the audit was primarily focused on assessing conformity with established criteria and ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Question

What kind of audit risk did the audit team identify? Refer to Scenario 5.

Question:

Which option below is correct about the audit plan?