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

The correct options for how the auditor should respond are:

A. Advise the MSR that an extension of the scope may be incorporated but will have to go through established procedures

D. Determine whether the Management System covers the processes at the new site and, if so, proceed with the audit

These options are consistent with the ISO/IEC 27006:2015 standard, which states that any changes to the scope of certification should be notified by the client to the certification body, and that the certification body should evaluate and decide on these changes in accordance with its procedures1. The auditor should also verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at all sites included in the scope of certification1.

The other options are not appropriate for how the auditor should respond, because:

B. Advise the MSR that the audit scope has been determined based on their initial application so the audit has to proceed as planned: This option is too rigid and does not allow for any flexibility or adaptation to the client’s situation. The auditor should be open to consider any changes to the scope of certification that may have occurred since the initial application, as long as they are properly notified and evaluated by the certification body.

C. Suggest that the MSR cancels the audit contract and reapplies for the new situation: This option is too drastic and unnecessary, as it would cause delays and costs for both the client and the certification body. The auditor should not suggest that the client cancels the audit contract, but rather that they follow the established procedures for requesting and approving an extension of the scope of certification.

E. Advise the MSR that, within the existing scope, the new work area can be included without any problem: This option is too lenient and does not ensure that the new work area meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and the ISMS. The auditor should not assume that the new work area can be included within the existing scope without any problem, but rather that they need to verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at the new site, and that any changes to the scope of certification are approved by the certification body.

F. Confirm that the auditor will advise the auditee that the audit scope will be revised to include the new work area: This option is too presumptuous and does not respect the authority of the certification body. The auditor should not confirm that they will revise the audit scope to include the new work area, but rather that they will advise the certification body of the client’s request for an extension of the scope of certification, and wait for their decision.

A. I will check the other data centres are treated as external providers, even though they are part of the same telecommunication group. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. Externally provided processes, products or services are those that are provided by any external party, regardless of the degree of its relationship with the organisation. Therefore, the other data centres within the same telecommunication group should be treated as external providers and subject to the same controls as any other external provider12

B. I will ensure external providers have a documented process in place to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security with external providers. One of the contractual requirements could be the obligation of the external provider to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services, such as security incidents, vulnerabilities, or changes that could affect the information security of the organisation. The external provider should have a documented process in place to ensure that such notification is timely, accurate, and complete12

E. I will ensure the organisation is regularly monitoring, reviewing and evaluating external provider performance. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to monitor, review and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the externally provided processes, products or services. The organisation should have a process in place to measure and verify the conformity and suitability of the external provider’s deliverables and activities, and to provide feedback and improvement actions as necessary. The organisation should also maintain records of the monitoring, review and evaluation results12

F. I will ensure the organisation has determined the need to communicate with external providers regarding the ISMS. This is appropriate because clause 7.4.2 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to determine the need for internal and external communications relevant to the information security management system, including the communication with external providers. The organisation should define the purpose, content, frequency, methods, and responsibilities for such communication, and ensure that it is consistent with the information security policy and objectives. The organisation should also retain documented information of the communication as evidence of its implementation12

The following activities are not appropriate for the assessment of external providers according to ISO 27001:2022:

C. I will ensure that the organisation has a reserve external provider for each process it has identified as critical to preservation of the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of its information. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to have a reserve external provider for each critical process. The organisation may choose to have a contingency plan or a backup solution in case of failure or disruption of the external provider, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should assess the risks and opportunities associated with the external provider and determine the appropriate treatment options, which may or may not include having a reserve external provider12

D. I will limit my audit activity to externally provided processes as there is no need to audit externally provided products or services. This is not appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to control the externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system. Externally provided products or services may include software, hardware, data, or cloud services that could affect the information security of the organisation. Therefore, the audit activity should cover both externally provided processes and products or services, as applicable12

G. I will ensure that top management have assigned roles and responsibilities for those providing external ISMS processes as well as internal ISMS processes. This is not appropriate because clause 5.3 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the top management to assign the roles and responsibilities for the information security management system within the organisation, not for the external providers. The external providers are responsible for assigning their own roles and responsibilities for the processes, products or services they provide to the organisation. The organisation should ensure that the external providers have adequate competence and awareness for their roles and responsibilities, and that they are contractually bound to comply with the information security requirements of the organisation12

H. I will ensure that the organisation ranks its external providers and allocates the majority of its work to those providers who are rated the highest. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to rank its external providers or to allocate its work based on such ranking. The organisation may choose to evaluate and compare the performance and effectiveness of its external providers, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should select and use its external providers based on the information security criteria and objectives that are relevant to the organisation12

The four options for the actions you could take are A, C, F, and G. These options are consistent with the guidance and requirements of ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. You could agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified (A), and document the agreement in the audit report1. You could close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised ©, and report the outcome to the audit client and other relevant parties1. You could note the progress made but hold the audit open until all corrective action has been cleared (F), and determine the need for another follow-up audit or other actions1. You could also advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity (G), as they are responsible for the overall management and coordination of the audit programme3. The other options are either not appropriate or not necessary for the situation. You should not recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit (B), as this may compromise the audit objectives and the audit programme1. You should not recommend suspension of the organisation’s certification as they have failed to implement the agreed corrections and corrective actions within the agreed timescale (D), as this is not within your role or authority as an ISMS auditor4. You should not advise the auditee that you will arrange for the next audit to be an online audit to deal with the outstanding nonconformity (E), as this may not be feasible or effective depending on the nature and complexity of the nonconformity1. You should not conduct an unannounced follow-up audit on-site to review the one outstanding minor nonconformity once it has been cleared (H), as this may not be in accordance with the audit agreement or the audit programme1. References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6: Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit \n3: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 5.3 \n4: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 9.6

The use of clear text passwords for authentication in FTP is a vulnerability because it is a weakness that can be exploited by threat actors. Clear text passwords can be intercepted easily by network sniffers or through man-in-the-middle attacks, making them a significant security risk1. References: = This explanation is consistent with the understanding of vulnerabilities within the field of information security, particularly as it relates to network protocols like FTP and their associated risks

A threat in information security is any circumstance or event with the potential to cause harm to an information system through unauthorized access, destruction, disclosure, modification of data, and/or denial of service. The situation where hackers compromise an administrator’s account by cracking the password represents a direct threat to the security of the information system. References: = This explanation is based on general information security principles and the typical content covered in ISMS ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor training and certification programs. It aligns with the knowledge expected of a professional with an ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor certification

An audit finding is the result of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria.

From Exact Extract:

1. Definition of control types (ISO-aligned understanding)

In information security management:

Preventive controls are designed to prevent an incident from occurring.

Detective controls are designed to identify and detect incidents or anomalies after or as they occur.

Corrective controls are designed to correct issues after detection.

2. Analysis of the controls implemented by Fintive

The scenario explicitly states that Fintive implemented the following controls:

Comprehensive audit logging

Automated alert systems to flag unusual activities

Periodic access reviews

Monitoring system behavior for anomalies

All of these controls are designed to:

Detect unauthorized access

Detect errors

Detect suspicious activities

Enable investigation after detection

This aligns directly with detective controls, not preventive or corrective.

3. ISO/IEC 27002:2022 – Exact control alignment

The controls implemented correspond to Annex A technological and organisational detective controls, including:

A.8.15 – Logging

Logging enables the detection and investigation of security events.

A.8.16 – Monitoring activities

Monitoring is used to detect anomalous behaviour and potential security incidents.

A.5.18 – Access rights (periodic reviews)

Access reviews detect inappropriate or excessive access.

These controls do not prevent the chatbot from malfunctioning, nor do they directly fix it — they detect issues so that action can be taken.

4. Why the other options are incorrect

A. Preventive – IncorrectPreventive controls would include secure coding practices, input validation, sandboxing, or improved testing before release. These were not the controls described.

C. Corrective – IncorrectCorrective controls would involve fixing the chatbot logic, retraining the model, or disabling unsafe features. The scenario explicitly focuses on detection and monitoring, not correction.

Auditor Conclusion

Fintive implemented detective controls to identify unauthorized access, errors, and suspicious activity arising from the chatbot’s behaviour. This is consistent with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 risk treatment and monitoring requirements.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control 5.7 requires an organization to establish and maintain a threat intelligence process to identify and evaluate information security threats that are relevant to its ISMS scope and objectives1. The organization should use internal and external sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that can be used to support risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control 5.7, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Three options that represent valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7 are:

I will review the organisation’s threat intelligence process and will ensure that this is fully documented: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process that is consistent with its ISMS scope and objectives. It can also verify that the process is documented according to clause 7.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organisation’s information assets: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used threat intelligence to support its risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities, such as incident response, awareness, or monitoring. It can also verify that the organization has achieved its information security objectives according to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used various sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that is relevant and reliable. It can also verify that the organization has complied with the requirement of control 5.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

The other options are not valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:

I will speak to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding information security awareness or communication, but not specifically to control 5.7.

I will ensure that the task of producing threat intelligence is assigned to the organisation s internal audit team: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also contradict the requirement for auditor independence and objectivity, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.

I will ensure that the organisation’s risk assessment process begins with effective threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also imply a prescriptive approach to risk assessment that is not consistent with ISO/IEC 27005:20183, which provides guidelines for information security risk management.

I will review how information relating to information security threats is collected and evaluated to produce threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also be too vague or broad to be an effective audit trail, as it does not specify what criteria or methods are used for collecting and evaluating information.

I will ensure that appropriate measures have been introduced to inform top management as to the effectiveness of current threat intelligence arrangements: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding management review or performance evaluation, but not specifically to control 5.7.