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

No, the auditor should uphold objectivity even when deciding whether to accept the audit mandate or not. Discussing previous audit reports with a friend who is an internal auditor at the auditee may compromise the external auditor's objectivity and independence.

The unfavorable recommendation for certification is best justified by the major nonconformity related to storing sensitive information in removable media, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 27001 certification decisions are heavily influenced by the presence and effective resolution of major nonconformities, particularly those that expose the organization to significant information security risks.

In this scenario, sensitive information was stored on removable media in violation of Trustingo’s own information classification scheme. This represents a serious breakdown in control implementation and creates a high risk of data leakage, loss, or unauthorized disclosure. Such a condition is typically classified as a major nonconformity because it demonstrates a failure to effectively implement and enforce ISMS controls related to information handling and protection.

While the lack of an information labeling procedure is a valid nonconformity, it is generally considered minor when viewed in isolation. Option B therefore does not sufficiently justify an unfavorable certification recommendation on its own. Option C is also incorrect because submitting the action plan earlier than the agreed timeline is not a negative factor and does not breach certification requirements.

Even though Trustingo submitted an action plan, its lack of sufficient detail prevented the certification body from confirming that the major nonconformity would be effectively corrected and prevented from recurring. Therefore, the unresolved major nonconformity related to sensitive information on removable media is the primary justification for the unfavorable certification recommendation.

The four statements that are true are:

•Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

•The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities

•Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

•Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance

According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are:

•A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5.

•A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5.

The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution.

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually.

The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example:

•Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’ are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3.

•Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement.

•Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics.

•Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Security controls can be classified by type (administrative, technical, physical) and function (preventive, detective, corrective).

A. Detective and administrative – Correct Answer. Reviewing access rights is an administrative control because it involves procedural security measures (such as policy enforcement and auditing). It is also a detective control because it helps identify inappropriate or unauthorized access by auditing and verifying user permissions.

B. Corrective and managerial – Incorrect because reviewing user access rights does not correct an issue but rather detects potential unauthorized access. It is also administrative, not managerial.

C. Legal and technical – Incorrect because reviewing user access rights is an administrative policy-based action, not a legal or technical control.

This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.18 (Access Rights), which mandates regular review of user access to prevent unauthorized access and enforce security policies.

The correct action to take in this situation is to raise it as an opportunity for improvement. This is because the auditee is not violating any requirement of the standard, but rather using outdated terminology that does not reflect the current version of the standard. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the ISMS1. It is not a nonconformity, which is a failure to fulfil a requirement2. Therefore, option B is incorrect. Option A is also incorrect, because noting the issue in the audit report without raising it as an opportunity for improvement would not provide any value or feedback to the auditee. Option D is also incorrect, because bringing the matter up at the closing meeting without documenting it as an opportunity for improvement would not ensure that the auditee takes any action to address it. References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 11; 2: ISO/IEC 27000:2022, 3.28; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : ISO/IEC 27000:2022