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

A checklist is a tool that helps auditors to collect and verify information relevant to the audit objectives and scope. It can provide the following advantages:

• Ensuring relevant audit trails are followed: A checklist can help auditors to identify and trace the sources of evidence that support the conformity or nonconformity of the audited criteria. It can also help auditors to avoid missing or overlooking any important aspects of the audit.
• Ensuring the audit plan is implemented: A checklist can help auditors to follow and fulfil the audit plan, which describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. It can also help auditors to manage their time and resources effectively and efficiently.

The other options are not advantages of using a checklist, but rather:

• Using the same checklist for every audit without review: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can lead to a rigid and ineffective audit approach. A checklist should be tailored and adapted to each specific audit, taking into account the context, risks, and changes of the auditee and the audit criteria. A checklist should also be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure its validity and relevance.
• Restricting interviews to nominated parties: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can limit the scope and depth of the audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from interviewing other relevant parties or sources of information that may provide valuable evidence or insights for the audit. A checklist should be used as a guide, not as a constraint.
• Reducing audit duration: This is not necessarily an advantage of using a checklist, as it depends on various factors, such as the complexity, size, and maturity of the auditee’s ISMS, the availability and quality of evidence, the competence and experience of the auditors, and the level of cooperation and communication between the auditors and the auditee. A checklist may help reduce audit duration by improving efficiency and organization, but it may also increase audit duration by requiring more evidence or verification.
• Not varying from the checklist when necessary: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can result in a superficial or incomplete audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from exploring or investigating any issues or concerns that arise during the audit, even if they are not included in the checklist. A checklist should be used as a support, not as a substitute.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems [Section 6.2.2]

The context of the organisation is the business environment in which the organisation operates and defines its information security management system (ISMS). It includes the internal and external factors and conditions that can influence the organisation’s information security objectives, strategies, and policies. The context of the organisation helps the organisation to identify the scope, boundaries, and requirements of the ISMS, as well as the interested parties and their expectations. The context of the organisation is determined by considering both internal and external issues, such as the organisational structure, culture, values, mission, vision, objectives, strategies, resources, capabilities, processes, activities, products, services, markets, customers, competitors, suppliers, partners, regulators, laws, regulations, standards, guidelines, best practices, risks, opportunities, threats, vulnerabilities, etc. References: ISO 27001:2022 Clause 4 Context of the organization, ISO 27001 Requirement 4.1 – Understanding the Context of the Organisation, ISO 27001 context of the organization – How to define it - Advisera

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.

Based on the provided scenario, the auditors’ request for documentary evidence regarding the monitoring process of outsourced operations indicates that the auditors demonstrated professional skepticism. This is because professional skepticism involves a critical assessment of audit evidence and includes a questioning mind and a careful evaluation of the information provided by the auditee123.

Professional skepticism is an essential part of the auditing process, especially in the context of ISO/IEC 27001, which requires auditors to systematically examine an organization’s information security risks, including the management of outsourced processes4. The auditors’ request for evidence suggests that they were not satisfied with verbal assurances alone and sought to verify that SendPay had a formal, documented process for monitoring outsourced activities, which is a requirement for maintaining an effective Information Security Management System (ISMS)5.

Therefore, the correct answer is: A. The auditors demonstrated professional skepticism.

These two options are not required for audit planning of a certification audit, as they are not relevant to the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods. The working experience of the management system representative is not a requirement of ISO/IEC 27001, nor does it affect the conformity or effectiveness of the ISMS. The organisation’s financial statement is not part of the ISMS documentation, nor does it provide evidence of the ISMS performance or improvement. The other options are required for audit planning, as they help to determine the audit activities, resources, schedule, and sampling strategy. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 19-20; ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on2, page 1-2; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)3, clause 9.2.

According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:

• A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.
• An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.
• The organisation’s marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.

The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:

• The organisation’s malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.
• A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.
• The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.
• An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.
• The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.

References: ISO/IEC 27000:2018 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Overview and vocabulary

The Act phase of the PDCA cycle is where the organisation takes actions to improve its processes and performance based on the results of the Check phase. This may involve resetting objectives to make them more realistic, achievable or challenging, or implementing changes to address the root causes of problems and achieve the desired outcomes. The Act phase is also where the organisation monitors the effects of the actions taken and evaluates their effectiveness and efficiency. The Act phase is important because it enables the organisation to learn from its experience and continually improve its ISMS. References: What is ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’? A framework for continuous improvement, PDCA in ISO27001 - Free guide to learn | Dr. Erdal Ozkaya, PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor (page 12)

A certification body cannot certify an organization if it has provided consultancy services to that organization. This situation presents a conflict of interest, as the certification body is required to maintain impartiality and objectivity. The ISO/IEC 17021-1 standard, which sets out requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies that providing both services to the same client is incompatible.

References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

• Review is the third stage of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, which is a four-step model for implementing and improving an information security management system (ISMS) according to ISO/IEC 27001:202212. Review involves assessing and measuring the performance of the ISMS against the established policies, objectives, and criteria12.
• Assess is the verb that describes the action of reviewing the ISMS. Assess means to evaluate, analyze, or measure something in a systematic and objective manner3. Assessing the ISMS involves collecting and verifying audit evidence, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and determining the degree of conformity or nonconformity12.
• Regular is the adjective that describes the frequency or interval of reviewing the ISMS. Regular means occurring or done at fixed or uniform intervals4. Reviewing the ISMS at regular intervals means conducting internal audits and management reviews periodically, such as annually, quarterly, or monthly, depending on the needs and risks of the organization12.
• Suitability is one of the attributes that describes the quality or outcome of reviewing the ISMS. Suitability means being appropriate or fitting for a particular purpose, person, or situation5. Reviewing the ISMS for suitability means ensuring that it is aligned with the organization’s strategic direction, business objectives, and information security requirements12.

References :=

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27003:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Guidance
• Assess | Definition of Assess by Merriam-Webster
• Regular | Definition of Regular by Merriam-Webster
• Suitability | Definition of Suitability by Merriam-Webster

This scenario represents a conformity because ABC Inc. has implemented procedures for managing removable storage media that align with the classification scheme of the information stored. When information is classified as "confidential," more stringent procedures apply, whereas for "public" information, the procedures focus only on integrity and availability, following the organization's defined information classification policy.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.8.2 (Information classification)

The purpose of a Stage 2 audit is to evaluate the implementation of the management system, in this case, the ISMS, according to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and the organisation’s own policies and procedures. The Stage 2 audit involves collecting evidence of the effectiveness and performance of the ISMS, as well as verifying the conformity and suitability of the organisation’s controls. The Stage 2 audit also assesses the organisation’s ability to achieve its information security objectives and to manage information security risks. References: = ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.2; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 28.

The three Annex A controls that you would expect the auditee to have implemented when you conduct the follow-up audit are:

• B. 5.13 Labelling of information
• E. 5.34 Privacy and protection of personal identifiable information (PII)
• G. 6.3 Information security awareness, education, and training

• B. This control requires the organisation to label information assets in accordance with the information classification scheme, and to handle them accordingly12. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to avoid misaddressing labels and sending parcels to wrong destinations, which could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. By labelling the information assets correctly, the auditee could also ensure that they are delivered to the intended recipients and that they are protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.
• E. This control requires the organisation to protect the privacy and the rights of individuals whose personal identifiable information (PII) is processed by the organisation, and to comply with the applicable legal and contractual obligations13. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to prevent the unauthorized use of residents’ personal data by a supplier, which could violate the privacy and the rights of the residents and their family members, and expose the auditee to legal and reputational risks. By protecting the PII of the residents and their family members, the auditee could also enhance their trust and satisfaction, and avoid complaints and disputes.
• G. This control requires the organisation to ensure that all employees and contractors are aware of the information security policy, their roles and responsibilities, and the relevant information security procedures and controls14. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to improve the information security culture and behaviour of their staff, and to reduce the human errors and negligence that could lead to information security incidents. By providing information security awareness, education, and training to their staff, the auditee could also increase their competence and performance, and ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the information security processes and controls.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A 2: ISO/IEC 27002:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls, clause 8.2.1 3: ISO/IEC 27002:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls, clause 18.1.4 4: ISO/IEC 27002:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls, clause 7.2.2

Yes, the audit team should obtain approval from Lawsy before photocopying documents. This is a best practice to ensure that the auditee agrees to the duplication of documents, which might contain sensitive or confidential information. Although auditors can observe and note down information, copying documents typically requires explicit permission to maintain trust and ensure compliance with confidentiality agreements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

• Determine source of information
• Collect by means of appropriate sampling
• Reviewing
• Audit evidence
• Evaluating against audit criteria
• Audit findings
• Audit conclusions

The reviewing step involves checking the accuracy, completeness, and relevance of the collected information. The audit evidence step involves documenting the information in a verifiable and traceable manner. The evaluating against audit criteria step involves comparing the audit evidence with the requirements of the ISO 27001 standard and the organization’s own policies and objectives. The audit findings step involves identifying any nonconformities, weaknesses, or opportunities for improvement in the ISMS. The audit conclusions step involves summarizing the audit results and providing recommendations for corrective actions or enhancements.

The purpose of including access rights in an information management system to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is to provide, review, modify and remove these permissions in accordance with the organisation’s policy and rules for access control. 

Access rights are the permissions granted to users or groups of users to access, use, modify, or delete information assets. Access rights should be aligned with the organisation’s access control policy, which defines the objectives, principles, roles, and responsibilities for managing access to information systems. Access rights should also follow the organisation’s rules for access control, which specify the criteria, procedures, and controls for granting, reviewing, modifying, and revoking access rights. The purpose of including access rights in an information management system is to ensure that only authorised users can access information assets according to their business needs and roles, and to prevent unauthorised or inappropriate access that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information assets. References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control 5.181
• ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Control 5.182
• CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Training Course3

The major nonconformity related to storing sensitive information in removable media justifies the unfavorable recommendation for certification. This issue directly contradicts the information classification scheme's stipulations, indicating a significant oversight in enforcing the ISMS policies.

This statement encapsulates the relationship between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets within the context of information security. Threats are potential causes of an unwanted incident, which may result in harm to a system or organization. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses that can be exploited by threats to cause harm. Assets are valuable resources to an organization that need protection. Therefore, when threats exploit vulnerabilities, they can damage or destroy assets. References: = The explanation is based on the foundational concepts of information security as outlined in ISO/IEC 27001, which includes understanding the interplay between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets as part of an information security management system (ISMS)

The conclusion in the audit report that is not required by the certification body when deciding to grant certification is that the organisation fully complies with all legal and other requirements applicable to the ISMS. This is because the certification body does not have the authority or the responsibility to verify the legal compliance of the organisation, as this is outside the scope of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. The certification body only evaluates the conformity of the organisation’s ISMS with the requirements of the standard, which include the establishment of a process to identify and evaluate the legal and other requirements that are relevant to the ISMS. The organisation is responsible for ensuring its own legal compliance and for providing evidence of such compliance to the certification body if requested. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3; ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.4; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 29.

Based on the understanding of follow-up audits, especially in the context of Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) and the guidelines provided by ISO 19011:2018, here are the four questions from your list that the auditor in training has answered correctly:

B. Q: Should follow-up audits seek to ensure nonconformities have been effectively addressed? A: YES This is correct. The primary purpose of follow-up audits is to verify that nonconformities identified in previous audits have been effectively addressed and the corrective actions taken are suitable and effective.

D. Q: Is the purpose of a follow-up audit to verify the completion of corrections, corrective actions, and opportunities for improvement? A: YES Yes, the follow-up audit aims to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrections and corrective actions. It may also consider the implementation of opportunities for improvement identified during the initial audit.

E. Q: Are follow-up audits required for all audits? A: NO This is correct. Follow-up audits are not automatically required for all audits. They are typically conducted when nonconformities or other significant issues were identified in an earlier audit and there's a need to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions.

H. Q: Could an outcome from a follow-up audit be another follow-up audit if required? A: YES Yes, this is a possible outcome. If the follow-up audit finds that the corrective actions have not been fully effective, or if new issues are identified, it may be necessary to conduct another follow-up audit.

The other responses provided by the auditor in training require some clarification or correction. For instance, while a follow-up audit primarily focuses on previously identified nonconformities and corrective actions, it can still identify new nonconformities if observed (A). Opportunities for improvement are generally considered in the scope of regular audits more so than in follow-up audits, which are more narrowly focused on corrective actions (C). Also, the outcomes of follow-up audits should typically be reported to both the audit team leader and the audit client (F and G), ensuring transparency and accountability.

 The four questions that the auditor in training has answered correctly are B, D, E, and H. These questions and answers are consistent with the definition and purpose of a follow-up audit as specified in ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. A follow-up audit is conducted to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken as a result of a previous audit (B, D). Follow-up audits are not mandatory for all audits, but they may be required by the audit program, the audit client, or other interested parties (E). The outcome of a follow-up audit may be another follow-up audit if the corrective actions are not satisfactory or not completed within the agreed time frame (H). The other questions and answers are either incorrect or irrelevant. A follow-up audit should not seek to identify new nonconformities, as this is not its objective (A). Follow-up audits should consider agreed opportunities for improvement as well as corrective actions, as they are both outputs of a previous audit ©. The outcome of a follow-up audit should be reported to the audit client, as well as to other relevant parties, such as the audit team leader who carried out the previous audit (F, G). 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

According to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 8.30, the organisation shall ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. This includes developing and entering into licensing agreements that cover code ownership and intellectual property rights, and implementing appropriate contractual requirements related to secure design and coding in accordance with Annex A 8.25 and 8.2912

In this case, the organisation and the developer have performed security tests that failed, which indicates that the secure design and coding requirements of Annex A 8.29 were not met. The IT Manager explains that the encryption and pseudonymization functions failed because they slowed down the system and service performance, and that an extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. However, this does not justify the acceptance of the test results by the Service Manager, who is not authorised to approve the test according to the software security management procedure. The Service Manager should have consulted with the IT Manager, who is the owner of the process, and followed the procedure for handling nonconformities and corrective actions. The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service based on access control alone exposes the organisation to the risk of compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal data processed by the mobile app. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1, control A.8.30.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Clause 8.1, the organisation shall plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet information security requirements, and to implement the actions determined in Clause 6.1. The organisation shall also control planned changes and review the consequences of unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary12

In this case, the organisation has not controlled the planned change of the mobile app from version 1.0 to version 1.01, which was a minor update provided by the outsourced developer in response to frequent ransomware attacks. The IT Manager explains that the developer performed an emergency release of the updated software, and gave a verbal guarantee that there will be no impact on any security functions. However, this is not sufficient to ensure that the change is properly assessed, tested, documented, and approved before deployment. The IT Manager should have followed the change management process and procedure, and verified that the updated software meets the security requirements and does not introduce any new vulnerabilities or risks. The IT Manager’s reliance on his 20 years of information security experience and the developer’s verbal guarantee is not a valid basis for skipping the re-testing of the software. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

The following statements are true:

• The role of a certification body auditor involves evaluating the organization’s processes for ensuring compliance with their legal requirements. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to assess the effectiveness and conformity of the organization’s ISMS against the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard and the applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
• During a third-party audit, the auditor evaluates how the organization ensures that they are made aware of changes to the legal requirements. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to verify that the organization has established and maintained a process for identifying and updating their legal and other requirements related to information security. The following statement is false:
• As part of a certification body audit, the auditor is responsible for verifying the organization’s legal compliance status. This is not true, as the auditor is not authorized or qualified to provide legal advice or judgment on the organization’s compliance status. The auditor can only report on the evidence of compliance or noncompliance observed during the audit, but the ultimate responsibility for ensuring legal compliance lies with the organization. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 66. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 67. : ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB, page 22.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.2 requires an organization to determine the needs and expectations of interested parties that are relevant to its ISMS1. This includes identifying the legal, regulatory, contractual and other requirements that apply to its information security activities1. Therefore, collecting more evidence on what the service requirements of healthcare monitoring are may not be relevant to verifying the information security incident management process, as it is not directly related to the audit objective or criteria. This option will not be in the audit trail.

The use of new technologies such as big data presents new challenges in auditing, particularly the issue of combining structured and unstructured data. Big data environments often include diverse data sets that auditors need to understand and interpret, which requires new skills and approaches to ensure effective and comprehensive audit coverage.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standards and supplementary literature on the impact of technology on auditing practices

According to ISO/IEC 27001 standards, if the auditee decides to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions for a nonconformity, this decision should be justified and documented. Documenting such decisions is essential for maintaining the integrity of the ISMS and for demonstrating that the decision was made based on informed judgment.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 6.1 (Actions to address risks and opportunities)

The benefits of implementing an ISMS are not limited to a reduction in information security risks, but also include improved business performance, customer satisfaction, legal compliance, and stakeholder confidence. The benefit of certifying an ISMS is not only to obtain contracts from governmental institutions, but also to demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to information security to other potential customers, partners, and regulators. The purpose of an ISMS is to apply a risk management process for preserving information security, which means identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and reviewing the information security risks that the organisation faces. The purpose of an ISMS is not to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements, but rather to ensure that the organisation meets its own information security objectives and obligations.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements [Section 0.1] and [Section 1]

The technical expert can communicate their audit findings to the auditee only through one of the audit team members. This ensures that communications remain coordinated and that the audit team maintains control over the audit process.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

ISO/IEC 27001 does not mandate the use of a specific risk assessment methodology. Organizations are free to choose their own approach as long as it is systematic, consistent, and capable of producing valid and comparable results. This allows organizations, such as the marketing agency in the question, to adapt the methodology to suit their specific needs and business context, provided it complies with the requirements set out in the standard.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Materials; ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 6.1.2.

The number of days assigned to a third-party audit is not determined by the auditee’s availability, but by the audit program, which considers the audit scope, objectives, criteria, risks, and resources12. The auditee’s availability is only one factor that affects the audit planning and scheduling, but not the audit duration3. Auditors approved for conducting onsite audits do require additional training for virtual audits, as there are significant differences in the skillset required. Virtual audits pose different challenges and opportunities than onsite audits, such as communication, technology, security, and evidence collection4 . Auditors need to be familiar with the tools and techniques for conducting remote audits, as well as the ethical and professional behavior expected in a virtual environment . References:

• PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 18
• ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 5.3.2
• ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.3.1
• Deloitte - Conducting a Virtual Internal Audit, page 1
• [A Guide to Conducting Effective and Efficient Remote Audits], page 1
• [ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems], clause 7.2.3
• [Remote Auditing Best Practices & Checklist for Regulatory Compliance], page 1

The options that represent valid audit trails for assessing the organisation's application of control 5.7 - Threat Intelligence, according to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, are:

Option A: I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence. This is relevant because effective threat intelligence typically requires gathering information from multiple sources to be comprehensive.

Option D: I will check that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process. Proper documentation is a core requirement in ISO standards to ensure processes are defined, implemented, and maintained consistently.

Option E: I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organisation's information assets. This verifies that the output of threat intelligence is being used effectively within the organisation's information security practices.

Knowledge is the understanding of facts, concepts, principles, theories and practices related to a specific subject or discipline. Skills are the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. According to ISO 19011:2018, the knowledge and skills of an auditor include the following:

• Knowledge of audit principles, procedures and methods
• Knowledge of management system standards and reference documents
• Knowledge of the organization’s context, scope, processes and objectives
• Knowledge of relevant legal, regulatory and contractual requirements
• Knowledge of applicable industry, sector or technical disciplines
• Knowledge of risk management and risk-based thinking
• Skill in collecting and verifying information
• Skill in evaluating conformity and effectiveness of management systems
• Skill in reporting and communicating audit results
• Skill in managing audit activities and teams

Based on this, the activities that are predominately related to knowledge are designing a checklist and determining what evidence to gather, as they require the auditor to understand the audit criteria, scope, objectives and methods, as well as the organization’s context, processes and risks. The other activities are more related to skills, as they involve applying knowledge and using know-how to perform tasks and solve problems during the audit.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clauses 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3
• PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 9-10 and 16-17
• ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Auditing Competence, pages 2-3 and 8

Yes, according to ISO/IEC 27001, the company needs to provide evidence of the implementation of procedures regarding the logging of user activities. This requirement is essential to ensure that events are recorded and regularly reviewed, supporting the detection and prevention of security incidents.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.4 (Logging and monitoring)

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, one of the professional behaviours expected from an audit team leader is to be decisive, which means to “reach timely conclusions based on logical reasoning and analysis” (page 8). Being open minded, ethical, and perceptive are also desirable qualities for an audit team leader, but they do not match the description given in the question. References: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 8.

According to the ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam preparation guide1, audit evidence can be in various formats, such as records, statements of fact, or other information that is relevant and verifiable. Audit evidence can be collected by means of interviews, observation, sampling, testing, or other techniques. However, not all formats of audit evidence are acceptable or reliable. For example, unsigned hand written changes to test results (A) are not verifiable and may indicate tampering or falsification. Statements by a system engineer that cannot be verified (D) are also not reliable and may be biased or inaccurate. An audio recording of a dialog between the IT manager and a system engineer (F) may not be relevant to the audit criteria or may violate the confidentiality or consent of the parties involved. A statement of facts by the IT manager (B) may be relevant and verifiable, but it is not sufficient as audit evidence unless it is supported by other sources of information. Therefore, the two acceptable formats of audit evidence are documented information on results of IT audits © and observation of a previously recorded video demonstrating the performance of a hazardous activity (E), as they are relevant to the audit criteria and can be verified by other means. References: 1: https://pecb.com/pdf/exam-preparation-guides/pecb-iso-iec-27001-lead-auditor-exam-preparation-guide.pdf (page 9)

A first-party audit is an internal audit in which the organization’s own staff or contractors check the conformity and effectiveness of the ISMS. A certification body auditor and an audit team from an accreditation body are external auditors who conduct audits for the purpose of certification or accreditation. They do not participate in a first-party audit, but rather in a third-party audit. References: First & Second Party Audits - operational services, The ISO 27001 Audit Process | Blog | OneTrust, The ISO 27001 Audit Process | A Beginner’s Guide - IAS USA

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, the audit objectives are defined by the audit client and may include determining the extent of conformity or nonconformity of the audited management system against the audit criteria, evaluating the ability of the audited management system to ensure that the organization meets applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements, identifying potential improvement opportunities for the audited management system, and facilitating continual improvement of the audited management system1. Therefore, these three phrases are examples of objectives in relation to an audit. The other options are not objectives, but rather elements or factors that may influence or affect an audit. For example, an international standard is a source of audit criteria, a management policy is a part of the audited management system, and completing an audit on time is a requirement for an effective audit. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.1, the organisation shall determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its information security management system (ISMS)12

External issues are factors outside the organisation that it cannot control, but can influence or adapt to. They include political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors that may affect the organisation’s information security objectives, risks, and opportunities12

Internal issues are factors within the organisation that it can control or change. They include the organisation’s structure, culture, values, policies, objectives, strategies, capabilities, resources, processes, activities, relationships, and performance that may affect the organisation’s information security management system12

Therefore, the following issues are considered ‘internal’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

• Poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of developing and maintaining the competence of its personnel involved in the ISMS. The organisation can control or change its training expenditure and its impact on staff competence12
• Poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s culture, value, and relationship with its employees. The organisation can control or change its staff holiday policy and its impact on staff morale12
• Increased absenteeism as a result of poor management: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s performance, structure, and accountability of its management. The organisation can control or change its management practices and its impact on staff absenteeism12
• A fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of ensuring the availability and suitability of its production equipment. The organisation can control or change its equipment maintenance and upgrade and its impact on productivity12

The following issues are considered ‘external’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

• Higher labour costs as a result of an aging population: This is an external issue because it relates to the social and demographic factor that affects the availability and cost of labour in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the aging population, but can influence or adapt to its impact on labour costs12
• A rise in interest rates in response to high inflation: This is an external issue because it relates to the economic and monetary factor that affects the cost and availability of capital in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the interest rates or inflation, but can influence or adapt to its impact on capital costs12
• A reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and conditions of public funding for the organisation. The organisation cannot control or change the government policy, but can influence or adapt to its impact on grants12
• Inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and cost of raw materials in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the government sanctions, but can influence or adapt to its impact on raw materials12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

Information security is a matter of building and maintaining trust. Trust is the confidence that information and information processing facilities are protected from unauthorized or malicious actions that could compromise their confidentiality, integrity or availability. Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, employees and other stakeholders who rely on the organization’s information and services. Trust is also a key factor for achieving compliance with legal, regulatory and contractual obligations, as well as meeting the organization’s own information security objectives and policies. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines information security as “preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information” (see clause 3.28) and states that “the purpose of an information security management system is to provide a framework for managing activities that influence the trustworthiness of information” (see Introduction). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Trust?

Yes, this action is acceptable. The internal audits being outsourced ensure independence and objectivity and allow the audit function to serve its advisory role effectively, in line with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. The independence enhances the credibility and reliability of the audit results.

The correct responsibility with each participant of a second-party audit is:

• Prepares the audit report: Audit Team Leader. The audit team leader is responsible for coordinating the audit activities, communicating with the auditee and the customer, and preparing and delivering the audit report that summarizes the audit findings and conclusions1.
• Prepares audit checklists for use during the audit: Auditor. The auditor is responsible for collecting and verifying objective evidence during the audit, using audit checklists as a tool to guide the audit process and ensure that all relevant aspects of the audit criteria are covered1.
• Supports an auditor and provides feedback on their experience: Auditor in training. The auditor in training is a person who is learning how to perform audits under the supervision of an experienced auditor. The auditor in training supports the auditor by observing and participating in the audit activities, and provides feedback on their experience to improve their skills and competence1.
• Follows-up on audit findings within an agreed timeframe: Auditee. The auditee is the organisation that is being audited by the customer or a third party on behalf of the customer. The auditee is responsible for providing access and cooperation to the auditors, and for following up on the audit findings within an agreed timeframe, by implementing corrective actions or improvement measures as needed1.
• Provides an independent account of the audit but does not participate in the audit: Observer. The observer is a person who accompanies the audit team but does not participate in the audit activities. The observer may be a representative of the customer, a regulatory body, or another interested party. The observer provides an independent account of the audit but does not interfere with or influence the audit process or outcome1.
• Escorts the auditors but does not participate in the audit: Guide. The guide is a person who is appointed by the auditee to assist the audit team during the audit. The guide may escort the auditors to different locations, facilitate access to information and personnel, or provide clarification or explanation as requested by the auditors. The guide does not participate in the audit or influence its results1.

The three audit findings that would prompt you to raise a nonconformity report are:

•The organisation is treating information security risks in the order in which they are identified

•The organisation’s risk assessment criteria have not been reviewed and approved by top management

•The organisation’s information security risk assessment process is based solely on an assessment of the impact of each risk

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.2, the organisation must establish and maintain an information security risk management process that is consistent with the organisation’s context and aligned with its overall risk management approach1. This process must include the following steps:

•Establishing the risk assessment criteria, which must be approved by top management and reflect the organisation’s risk appetite and objectives2

•Identifying the information security risks, which must consider the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, and likelihoods3

•Analysing the information security risks, which must determine the levels of risk and compare them with the risk criteria4

•Evaluating the information security risks, which must prioritise the risks and decide whether they need treatment or not5

Therefore, the audit findings B, E, and F indicate that the organisation is not following the required steps of the information security risk management process, and thus are nonconformities with the standard.

The other audit findings are not necessarily nonconformities, as they may be acceptable depending on the organisation’s context and justification. For example:

•Audit finding A may be acceptable if the organisation has identified and treated the additional information security risks that are relevant to its scope and objectives, and has documented the rationale for doing so6

•Audit finding C may be acceptable if the organisation has assigned clear roles and responsibilities for the information security risk management process, and has ensured that the risk owners have the authority and competence to manage the risks7

•Audit finding D may be acceptable if the organisation has defined and communicated the meaning and implications of the emoji-based risk classification, and has ensured that it is consistent with the risk criteria and the risk treatment process8

•Audit finding G may be acceptable if the organisation has justified the use of discrete values for the probability of the information security risks, and has ensured that they are realistic and consistent with the risk criteria and the risk analysis method9

•Audit finding H may be acceptable if the organisation has established and maintained different systems for assessing operational and strategic information security risks, and has ensured that they are integrated and aligned with the overall risk management approach and the ISMS objectives10

References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a); 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 b); 4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 c); 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 d); 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.0.2; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.3; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a) 2); 9: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 c) 2); 10: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a) 1); : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause 8.1, the organization must plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet the information security requirements, and to implement the actions determined in clause 6.1. The organization must also ensure that the outsourced processes are controlled or influenced. According to control A.5.24, the organization must establish and maintain an information security incident management process that includes reporting information security events and weaknesses. Therefore, the use of lower grade machines for the secure disposal of confidential documents and media could pose a significant information security risk and a potential breach of contract with the clients. The auditor should respond to this information by:

• A. Advising the individual managing the audit programme of any recommendation by you to conduct a further audit prior to certification. This is in accordance with ISO/IEC 27006:2022 clause 7.4.3, which states that the audit team leader shall report to the certification body any situation that may significantly affect the audit conclusions or the certification decision, and propose any necessary changes to the audit plan.
• C. Considering the need for a subsequent audit within 4 weeks based on the additional information that has come to light. This is in accordance with ISO/IEC 27006:2022 clause 7.5.2, which states that the audit team leader shall review the audit findings and any other appropriate information collected during the audit to determine the audit conclusions, and to identify any need for a subsequent audit.
• G. Verifying with the auditee that lower grade machines are used in certain circumstances. This is in accordance with ISO/IEC 27006:2022 clause 7.4.2, which states that the audit team leader shall ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with the audit plan, and that any changes to the plan are agreed upon and documented.

The other options are not appropriate responses, as they either ignore the information, exceed the scope of the audit, or prematurely raise a nonconformity without sufficient evidence. For example:

• B. Cancelling the production of the audit report and instead reviewing the organization’s contracts with its clients to determine whether they have permitted the use of lower grade machines. This is not a suitable response, as it would delay the audit process and the certification decision, and it would involve reviewing documents that are outside the scope of the ISMS audit. The auditor should focus on verifying the information security risk assessment and treatment process, and the information security incident management process, as they relate to the use of lower grade machines.
• D. Doing nothing. All audits are based on a sample and the sample you took did not include a planned review of the lower grade machines. This is not a suitable response, as it would disregard a significant information security risk and a potential nonconformity that could affect the audit conclusions and the certification decision. The auditor should follow up on the information provided by the employee and verify its validity and impact.
• E. Extending the certification audit duration to create additional time to audit the use of the lower grade machines. This is not a suitable response, as it would disrupt the audit schedule and the availability of the audit team and the auditee. The auditor should report the situation to the certification body and propose any necessary changes to the audit plan, such as conducting a subsequent audit.
• F. Raising a nonconformity against 8.1 Operational Planning and Control as the organization has not been open about its processes. This is not a suitable response, as it would be based on a single source of information that has not been verified or corroborated. The auditor should collect sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support any nonconformity, and should also consider the root cause and the severity of the nonconformity.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clauses 8.1 and Annex A control A.5.24
• ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clauses 7.4.2, 7.4.3, and 7.5.2
• [PECB Candidate Handbook ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor], pages 18-19, 23-24
• A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit
• ISO 27001 – Annex A.16: Information Security Incident Management

The two standards that are used as ISMS third-party certification audit criteria are ISO/IEC 27001 and relevant legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements. ISO/IEC 27001 specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS)1. Relevant legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements are those that apply to the organization’s information security aspects and objectives2. The other options are either not standards (E) or not directly related to the ISMS certification audit criteria (A, B, C, F). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 1 \n2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 4.2

Third-party accredited certification of information security management systems to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 provides assurance to organisations and interested parties that the organisation’s management system is maintained and effective, meaning that it conforms to the requirements of the standard, meets the organisation’s objectives and policies, and addresses the risks and opportunities related to information security. Third-party accredited certification also demonstrates that the organisation’s management system adopted a systematic approach to information security, meaning that it follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, applies the risk-based thinking principle, and considers the context and needs of the organisation and its stakeholders

Corrective action is a process of identifying and eliminating the root causes of nonconformities or incidents that have occurred or could potentially occur, in order to prevent their recurrence or occurrence. Corrective action is part of the improvement requirement of ISO 27001 and follows a standard workflow of identification, evaluation, implementation, review and documentation of corrections and corrective actions. References: Procedure for Corrective Action, Nonconformity & Corrective Action For ISO 27001 Requirement 10.1, PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor (page 12)

The three options of the corrections and corrective actions listed that you would expect ABC to make in response to the nonconformity are:

• B. ABC cancels the service agreement with WeCare.
• E. ABC introduces background checks on information security performance for all suppliers.
• F. ABC periodically monitors compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties.

• B. This option is a possible correction and corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. A correction is the action taken to eliminate a detected nonconformity, while a corrective action is the action taken to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent its recurrence1. By cancelling the service agreement with WeCare, ABC could stop the unauthorized use of residents’ personal data and protect their privacy and rights. This could also prevent further complaints and legal issues from the residents and their family members. However, this option may also have some drawbacks, such as the loss of a service provider, the need to find an alternative solution, and the potential impact on the residents’ well-being.
• E. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By introducing background checks on information security performance for all suppliers, ABC could ensure that they select and work with reliable and trustworthy partners who respect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information they handle. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.15.1.1 (Information security policy for supplier relationships), which requires the organisation to agree and document information security requirements for mitigating the risks associated with supplier access to the organisation’s assets2.
• F. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By periodically monitoring compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties, ABC could verify that the suppliers are fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities regarding information security. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.18.1.1 (Identification of applicable legislation and contractual requirements), which requires the organisation to identify, document, and keep up to date the relevant legislative, regulatory, contractual, and other requirements to which the organisation is subject3.

References:

1: ISO 27000:2018 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Overview and vocabulary, clause 3.9 and 3.10 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.15.1.1 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.18.1.1

In the Act phase of the PDCA cycle, the process is reviewed and evaluated based on the results from the Check phase. The actions taken in this phase aim to continually improve the process performance by addressing the root causes of problems, implementing corrective and preventive actions, and updating the process documentation1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

The appropriate actions to take next are to investigate whether pest infestation is an identified risk and if so, what risk treatment is to be applied, to determine whether the high levels of rainfall have had other impacts on data centre operations, and to check with the guide that they intend to initiate the organisation’s information security incident process. These actions are relevant to the ISMS audit objectives and criteria, as they relate to the organisation’s risk assessment and treatment, security performance, and incident management processes. The other actions are either not within the scope of the ISMS audit, not required by the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, or not the responsibility of the auditor. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 21-22; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)2, clauses 6.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.2.

The three options for findings that are justified in the scenario are:

•Nonconformity (NC) - The information for the acceptance of residual information security risks should be updated after the risk treatment is implemented. Clause 6.1.3.f

•Nonconformity (NC) - The IT security manager should be aware of and understand his authority and area of responsibility. Clause 7.3

•Nonconformity (NC) - The risk treatment plan No. 123 should be approved by the risk owner, the Facility Manager in this case. Clause 6.1.3.f

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.f, the organisation must retain documented information that includes the information for the acceptance of residual information security risks, and the approval of the risk treatment plan by the risk owner1. Therefore, option A and G are justified as nonconformities, because the organisation failed to update the information for the acceptance of residual risks, and the risk treatment plan was approved by the IT security manager, who is not the risk owner.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.3, the organisation must ensure that the persons assigned to perform the roles and responsibilities for the ISMS are competent, and are aware of the consequences of not conforming to the ISMS requirements2. Therefore, option E is justified as a nonconformity, because the IT security manager, who is responsible for the information security risk management process, was not aware of his authority and area of responsibility.

The other options are not justified as findings, because they are either irrelevant or incorrect. For example:

•Option B is irrelevant, because it is not related to the information security risk treatment plan No. 123, which is the focus of the audit.

•Option C is incorrect, because it is not an opportunity for improvement, but rather a benefit of the risk treatment plan No. 123, which is already implemented.

•Option D is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.

•Option F is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the continual improvement of the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.

•Option H is irrelevant, because it is not a finding, but rather a good practice, which is not the objective of the audit.

References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3.f; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.3; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

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

A sampling plan for the audit is a method of selecting a representative subset of the audit evidence to evaluate the conformity of the ISMS1. The advantages of using a sampling plan are:

• It reduces the audit duration by focusing on the most relevant and significant aspects of the ISMS2.
• It gives confidence in the audit results by ensuring that the sample is sufficient, reliable, and unbiased3.

References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 9; 2: Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; 3: A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit, Step 4; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; : A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit

A third-party audit is an independent assessment of an organisation’s management system by an external auditor, who is not affiliated with the organisation or its customers. The auditor verifies that the management system meets the requirements of a specific standard, such as ISO 27001, and evaluates its effectiveness and performance. The auditor also identifies any strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or risks of the management system, and provides recommendations for improvement. The purpose of a third-party audit is to provide an objective and impartial evaluation of the organisation’s management system, and to inform a certification decision by a certification body. A certification body is an organisation that grants a certificate of conformity to the organisation, after reviewing the audit report and evidence, and confirming that the management system meets the certification criteria. A certification decision is the outcome of the certification process, which can be positive (granting, maintaining, renewing, or expanding the scope of certification) or negative (suspending, withdrawing, or reducing the scope of certification). References:

• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-25
• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• The ISO 27001 audit process | ISMS.online

The three options that will not be in your audit trail are A, C, and H. These options are either not relevant to the information security of ABC’s healthcare mobile app development, support, and lifecycle process, or not within the scope of your audit. The amount of money that residents’ family members pay to install the app (A) and the number of users of the app © are not related to the information security aspects or objectives of the ISMS1. The verification of the developer’s certifications (H) is not your responsibility as an ISMS auditor, as you should rely on the competence and impartiality of the certification bodies that issued them2. The other options are relevant and within the scope of your audit, as they relate to the security functions, testing, policies, and procedures of the mobile app development, support, and lifecycle process13. References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 4.2 \n2: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 4.1 \n3: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

Audit objectives are the specific purposes or goals that the customer or the certification body wants to achieve through the audit. They define what the audit intends to accomplish and provide the basis for planning and conducting the audit. Audit objectives may vary depending on the type, scope, and criteria of the audit, but they should be clear, measurable, and achievable.

Some examples of audit objectives for a third-party ISMS audit are:

• Assess conformity with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements: This objective means that the audit aims to verify that the organisation’s ISMS meets the requirements of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which specifies the best practices for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and improving an information security management system. The audit will evaluate the organisation’s ISMS documentation, processes, controls, and performance against the standard’s clauses and annex A controls.
• Confirm sites operating the ISMS: This objective means that the audit aims to confirm that the organisation’s ISMS covers all the relevant sites or locations where the organisation operates or provides its services. The audit will verify that the scope of the ISMS is accurate and consistent with the organisation’s context, objectives, and risks.

The other phrases are not audit objectives, but rather:

• Evaluate customer processes and functions: This is not an audit objective, but rather a possible audit criterion or a requirement that the organisation’s processes and functions should meet. The audit criterion is the reference against which the audit evidence is compared to determine conformity or nonconformity. The audit criterion may include ISO/IEC 27001 requirements, customer requirements, or other applicable standards or regulations.
• Fulfil the audit plan: This is not an audit objective, but rather a task or an activity that the auditor performs during the audit. The audit plan is a document that describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. The auditor should follow and fulfil the audit plan to ensure that the audit is conducted effectively and efficiently.
• Determine the scope of the ISMS: This is not an audit objective, but rather a prerequisite or an input for conducting the audit. The scope of the ISMS is the extent and boundaries of the information security management system within the organisation. It defines what processes, activities, locations, assets, and stakeholders are included or excluded from the ISMS. The scope of the ISMS should be determined by the organisation before applying for certification or undergoing an audit.
• Review organisation efficiency: This is not an audit objective, but rather a possible outcome or a result of conducting an audit. The organisation efficiency is a measure of how well the organisation uses its resources to achieve its goals and objectives. The audit may help review and improve the organisation efficiency by identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in its information security management system.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems [Section 5.3.1]

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

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.3, the organisation shall determine the scope of the information security management system (ISMS) by considering the internal and external issues, the requirements of interested parties, and the interfaces and dependencies with other organisations12

In this case, the ISMS scope covers an outsourced data center that hosts the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server for healthcare monitoring and analysis of the residents’ data. Therefore, the audit evidence you need to find to verify the scope of the ISMS should include:

• The auditee has identified the governmental authorities’ needs and expectations on healthcare services and patient data handling. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to comply with the relevant laws and regulations regarding the quality, safety, and privacy of healthcare services and patient data12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on how they should protect the resident’s personal data. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident’s personal data that is collected, processed, and stored by the electronic wristband and the AI cloud server12
• The IT service agreement with the data center where the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server is located. This is an interface and dependency with another organisation that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to control the externally provided processes, products, and services that are relevant to the ISMS, and to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security12

The following options are not relevant or sufficient for verifying the scope of the ISMS:

• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the facility and environmental safety. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement, but it does not affect the ISMS scope, as it is not related to information security12
• The auditee has ISO 9001 certification. This is an indication of the auditee’s quality management system, but it does not verify the scope of the ISMS, as it is not related to information security12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the comfort facility, medical professional’s competence, and clean environment. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not affect the ISMS scope, as they are not related to information security12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on healthcare medical treatment services. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not verify the scope of the ISMS, as they are not specific to information security12
• The auditee is considering the purchase of a healthcare monitoring app from an external software company. This is a potential change that may affect the ISMS scope in the future, but it does not verify the current scope of the ISMS, as it is not yet implemented or controlled12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.6 requires the audit team leader to conduct a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at the end of the audit to present the audit conclusions and any findings1. The closing meeting should also provide an opportunity for the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1. Therefore, when preparing for the closing meeting, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

• I will advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate our findings. It is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to collecting and evaluating audit evidence and reaching audit conclusions. The auditor should advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate their findings, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also explain that it is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these findings, as they have already been discussed and confirmed during the audit. However, the auditor should also invite the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1.
• I will schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a planned and agreed audit programme and schedule. The auditor should schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented, in accordance with clause 6.6 of ISO 19011:20181. The auditor should also ensure that the closing meeting is attended by those responsible for managing or implementing the ISMS, as well as any other relevant parties1.
• I will discuss any follow-up required with my audit team: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a risk-based approach to determining and reporting any follow-up actions required by the auditee or the certification body. The auditor should discuss any follow-up required with their audit team, such as verifying corrective actions for nonconformities or conducting a subsequent audit1. The auditor should also document any follow-up actions in the audit report1.
• I will review and, as appropriate, approve my teams audit conclusions: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a rigorous and professional process to reaching and reporting audit conclusions. The auditor should review and, as appropriate, approve their teams audit conclusions, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also ensure that their teams audit conclusions are consistent with the audit objectives and scope, and reflect the overall performance and conformity of the ISMS1.

This scenario represents an "audit finding." An audit finding refers to results that indicate a deviation from the expected performance or standards. Discovering that two employees have not received the required training is an audit finding indicating noncompliance with the organization's training requirements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 8.2.1, the organization shall ensure that access to information and information processing facilities is limited to authorized users based on the access control policy and in accordance with the business requirements of access control2. Therefore, only employees with a business need-to-know are allowed to access highly confidential files, and not contractors, non-employees or employees with signed NDA. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

• Establishing the audit programme objectives, scope and criteria
• Determining the resources necessary for the audit programme, such as the audit team members, the budget, the time, the tools, etc.
• Selecting and appointing the audit team leaders and auditors
• Reviewing and approving the audit plans and arrangements
• Ensuring the effective communication and coordination among the audit programme stakeholders, such as the auditors, the auditees, the certification bodies, the accreditation bodies, etc.
• Keeping informed the accreditation body on the progress of the audit programme, especially in case of any significant changes, issues, or nonconformities
• Monitoring and reviewing the performance and results of the audit programme and the audit teams
• Evaluating the feedback and satisfaction of the auditees and other interested parties
• Identifying and implementing the opportunities for improvement of the audit programme

The individual(s) managing the audit programme are not responsible for the following tasks, which are delegated to the audit team leaders or the auditors12:

• Communicating with the auditee during the audit, such as conducting the opening and closing meetings, resolving any audit-related problems, reporting any audit findings, etc.
• Determining the legal requirements applicable to each audit, such as the confidentiality, the impartiality, the consent, the liability, etc.
• Defining the objectives, scope and criteria for an individual audit, which are derived from the audit programme and agreed with the auditee
• Defining the plan of an individual audit, which includes the audit schedule, the audit activities, the audit methods, the audit documents, etc.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-20

Audit methods are techniques used by auditors to obtain audit evidence. Audit methods can be classified into two categories: those that involve human interaction and those that do not2. Audit methods that involve human interaction require direct communication between the auditor and the auditee or other relevant parties, such as interviews, questionnaires, surveys, meetings, etc. Audit methods that do not involve human interaction rely on observation, inspection, measurement, testing, sampling, analysis, etc., without requiring any verbal or written exchange2. Therefore, performing an independent review of procedures in preparation for an audit and reviewing the auditee’s response to an audit finding are examples of audit methods that involve human interaction, as they require reading and evaluating documents provided by the auditee or other sources. On the other hand, analysing data by remotely accessing the auditee’s server and observing work performed by remote surveillance are examples of audit methods that do not involve human interaction, as they do not require any direct communication with the auditee or other parties. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

No, a general action plan is not acceptable in this context because it lacks specific details on systems, controls, or operations impacted by the nonconformities. An effective action plan should detail the specific corrective actions for each nonconformity to ensure comprehensive resolution and prevent recurrence.

The two statements that are valid audit conclusions are:

•The ISMS policy has been effectively communicated to the organisation

•The organisation’s ISMS objectives meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, an audit conclusion is the outcome of an audit, provided by the audit team after considering the audit objectives and all audit findings1. An audit conclusion can be positive or negative, depending on whether the audit criteria are fulfilled or not. An audit conclusion can also include recommendations for improvement or recognition of good practices.

The statements D and E are valid audit conclusions, because they express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. For example:

•Statement D is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 5.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the ISMS policy must be communicated within the organisation and to relevant interested parties2. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of communication, awareness activities, feedback, etc.

•Statement E is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must establish ISMS objectives that are consistent with the ISMS policy and relevant to the information security risks3. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of objective setting, risk assessment, alignment with policy, etc.

The other statements are not valid audit conclusions, because they do not express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. They are rather examples of audit findings, which are the results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against the audit criteria4. Audit findings can indicate either conformity or nonconformity with the audit criteria, or opportunities for improvement. For example:

•Statement A is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 7.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must provide information security awareness education and training to persons under its control5. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement B is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must maintain and review the information security risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur6. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement C is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must take action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities and prevent recurrence7. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement F is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must determine the controls that are necessary to implement the risk treatment plan, and document them in the statement of applicability8. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.15; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.2.2; 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.2.2; 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 10.1; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, an auditor conducting a certification audit should prepare for an audit by reviewing relevant information about the auditee’s context and processes1. This may include reviewing documented information related to the audited management system (such as policies, procedures, manuals), previous audit reports and records (such as findings, nonconformities, corrective actions), relevant legal and regulatory requirements (such as laws, standards), relevant risks and opportunities (such as internal and external issues), relevant performance indicators (such as objectives, targets), etc1. Therefore, an auditor may need work documents such as an audit plan (which defines what will be done during an audit), a sample plan (which defines how many samples will be taken from a population), and a checklist (which helps to ensure that all relevant aspects are covered during an audit)1. However, an auditor does not need work documents such as an organisation’s financial statement (which is not directly related to information security management), a career history of the IT manager (which is not relevant to assessing conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022), or a list of external providers (which is not necessary for planning an audit)1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

The purpose of a management system audit is to evaluate the performance of an organization’s management system.

A management system audit is an independent and systematic analysis and evaluation of a company’s overall activities and performances1. It is a valuable tool used to determine the efficiency, functions, accomplishments and achievements of the company1. A management system audit can be conducted against a range of audit criteria, including (but not limited to) requirements set of in existing ISO standards2.

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, the purpose of an audit is to enable the auditor to provide an audit conclusion that is related to the audit objectives2. The audit objectives are defined by the audit client and may include determining the extent of conformity or nonconformity of the audited management system against the audit criteria, evaluating the ability of the audited management system to ensure that the organization meets applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements, identifying potential improvement opportunities for the audited management system, and facilitating continual improvement of the audited management system2.

Therefore, the correct answer is evaluate, as it best describes the purpose of a management system audit. The other options are not correct because they are not specific enough or do not reflect the intended outcome of an audit. For example, improve implies that the audit itself will enhance the performance of the management system, which is not necessarily true. Manage implies that the audit will control or direct the management system, which is not its role. Research implies that the audit will generate new knowledge or information about the management system, which is not its primary aim.

These three options represent valid audit trails for control 5.7, as they are aligned with the control’s requirements and objectives. According to the web search results from my predefined tool, control 5.7 requires organisations to collect and analyse information relating to information security threats and use that information to take mitigation actions12. The control also specifies that threat intelligence should be relevant, perceptive, contextual, and actionable, and that it should be used to prevent, detect, or respond to threats34. Therefore, the auditor should verify how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, how it uses threat intelligence to protect its information assets, and how it monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its threat intelligence arrangements. The other options are not valid audit trails, as they are either irrelevant, incorrect, or incomplete. For example:

•The task of producing threat intelligence is not assigned to the organisation’s internal audit team, but to the person or team responsible for the ISMS, such as the information security manager or the information security committee5 .

•The organisation’s risk assessment process does not begin with effective threat intelligence, but with the identification of the context, scope, and objectives of the ISMS . Threat intelligence is an input for the risk identification and analysis, but not the starting point of the risk assessment process.

•Speaking to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats is not sufficient to audit the control, as it does not address how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, nor how it uses it to take mitigation actions. The auditor should also speak to the staff involved in the threat intelligence process, and review the relevant documents and records.

•Checking that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process is not enough to audit the control, as it does not verify the implementation and effectiveness of the process. The auditor should also observe the process in action, and examine the outputs and outcomes of the process.

•Determining whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence is a partial audit trail, as it only covers one aspect of the control. The auditor should also assess the quality, reliability, and relevance of the sources, and how the information is analysed and used.

References: = 1: ISO 27001:2022 Annex A 5.7 – Threat Intelligence - ISMS.online12: ISO 27001 Annex A 5.7 Threat Intelligence - High Table23: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause A.5.74: ISO 27002 Emphasizes Need For Threat Intelligence - Rapid745: ISO/IEC 27007:2011 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing, clause 6.3.2. : ISO 27001 Statement of Applicability [Updated 2024] - Sprinto3 : ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.1.1. : ISO 27001 Requirement 6.1.1 – Actions to address risks and opportunities | ISMS.online1

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause 7.2, the organization must ensure that the persons doing work under its control are aware of the information security policy, their contribution to the effectiveness of the ISMS, the implications of not conforming to the ISMS requirements, and the benefits of improved information security performance. The organization must also provide information security awareness education and training to its personnel and relevant interested parties. According to control A.6.3, the organization must ensure that all employees and contractors are made aware of the information security incident management procedures and their expected roles and responsibilities. Therefore, an opportunity for improvement (OFI) can be identified if the information security incident training effectiveness can be improved, as evidenced by the differences in the understanding of the meaning of “weakness, event, and incident” among the staff.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause 9.1, the organization must monitor, measure, analyze and evaluate the information security performance and the effectiveness of the ISMS. The organization must also retain appropriate documented information as evidence of the monitoring and measurement results. According to control A.5.24, the organization must establish and maintain an information security incident management process that includes the following activities:

•reporting information security events and weaknesses;

•assessing and deciding on information security events;

•responding to information security incidents;

•learning from information security incidents;

•collecting evidence and disclosing information.

Therefore, a nonconformity (NC) can be identified if the terminology of the incident management reporting process is unclear, as evidenced by the staff misunderstanding of the meaning of “weakness, event, and incident”. This could lead to inconsistent or inaccurate reporting, assessment, response, learning, and disclosure of information security incidents, which could affect the information security performance and the effectiveness of the ISMS.

References:

•ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clauses 7.2, 9.1, and Annex A controls A.5.24 and A.6.3

•[PECB Candidate Handbook ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor], pages 15-16, 18-19, 22-23

•ISO/IEC 27035-1:2016, clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

•ISO 27001 – Annex A.16: Information Security Incident Management

•ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 5.24 - What’s New?

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.1 requires an organization to determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of its ISMS2. External issues are those that originate from outside the organization, such as legal, regulatory, cultural, social, political, economic, natural and competitive factors2. Internal issues are those that originate from within the organization, such as governance, structure, roles and responsibilities, policies, objectives, culture, capabilities, resources and information systems2. Therefore, based on this definition, four examples of external issues in the context of a management system to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are a rise in interest rates in response to high inflation (which affects the economic environment of the organization), a reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy (which affects the political and legal environment of the organization), higher labour costs as a result of an aging population (which affects the social and demographic environment of the organization), and inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions (which affects the trade and supply environment of the organization)2. The other options are examples of internal issues, as they originate from within the organization or its activities. For example, poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure (which affects the capabilities and resources of the organization), increased absenteeism as a result of poor management (which affects the culture and performance of the organization), poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced (which affects the motivation and satisfaction of the organization’s personnel), and a fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment (which affects the efficiency and quality of the organization’s processes)2. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 9.3 requires top management to review the organization’s ISMS at planned intervals to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness1. Clause 9.2 requires the organization to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and is effectively implemented and maintained1. Therefore, when reviewing the audit process and audit findings as a final check before the external certification body arrives, an internal ISMS auditor should verify that these clauses are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Six of the following statements would cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

• The audit programme shows management reviews taking place at irregular intervals during the year: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not conducting management reviews at planned intervals, as required by clause 9.3. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the ISMS.
• The audit programme does not take into account the relative importance of information security processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not applying a risk-based approach to determine the audit frequency, methods, scope and criteria, as recommended by ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems2. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address the most significant risks and opportunities for its ISMS.
• Although the scope for each internal audit has been defined, there are no audit criteria defined for the audits carried out to date: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not establishing audit criteria for each internal audit, as required by clause 9.2. Audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared2. Without audit criteria, it is not possible to determine whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
• Audit reports to date have used key performance indicator information to focus solely on the efficiency of ISMS processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not evaluating the effectiveness of ISMS processes, as required by clause 9.1. Effectiveness is the extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved2. Efficiency is the relationship between the result achieved and the resources used2. Both aspects are important for measuring and evaluating ISMS performance and improvement.
• The audit programme does not take into account the results of previous audits: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not using the results of previous audits as an input for planning and conducting subsequent audits, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address any recurring or unresolved issues or nonconformities related to its ISMS.
• Top management commitment to the ISMS will not be audited before the certification visit, according to the audit programme: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not verifying that top management demonstrates leadership and commitment with respect to its ISMS, as required by clause 5.1. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure that the ISMS policy and objectives are established and compatible with the strategic direction of the organization; that roles, responsibilities and authorities for relevant roles are assigned and communicated; that resources needed for the ISMS are available; that communication about information security matters is established; that continual improvement of the ISMS is promoted; that other relevant management reviews are aligned with those of information security; and that support is provided to other relevant roles1.

The other statements would not cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

• Audit reports are not held in hardcopy (i.e. on paper). They are only stored as ".POF documents on the organisation’s intranet: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific format or media for documenting or storing audit reports, as long as they are controlled according to clause 7.5.
• The audit programme mandates auditors must be independent of the areas they audit in order to satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for auditor independence, as long as the audit is conducted objectively and impartially, in accordance with ISO 19011:20182.
• The audit programme does not reference audit methods or audit responsibilities: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for referencing audit methods or audit responsibilities in the audit programme, as long as they are defined and documented according to ISO 19011:20182.
• The audit process states the results of audits will be made available to ‘relevant’ managers, not top management: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for communicating the results of audits to top management, as long as they are reported to the relevant parties and used as an input for management review, according to clause 9.3.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

The audit report is a confidential document that contains sensitive information about the auditee’s ISMS and its performance. The audit team has a duty to protect the confidentiality of the audit report and only disclose it to authorized parties, such as the audit client, the certification body, and the accreditation body. Therefore, the following responses are false:

• A: The audit team cannot decide to release the report to third parties without the consent of the audit client, as this would breach the confidentiality agreement and the audit code of conduct. The audit team should always inform the audit client before disclosing the report to any third party, and obtain their explicit, prior approval.
• F: Not every auditor employed by the auditing organization can access the audit report, as this would violate the principle of need-to-know. Only auditors who are involved in the audit process, such as the audit team leader, the audit team members, the audit programme manager, and the certification decision maker, can access the audit report. Other auditors who are not related to the audit have no legitimate reason to access the report, and should be prevented from doing so by appropriate security measures.
• G: The duty of confidentiality does not expire after a certain period of time, as this would compromise the trust and integrity of the audit process. The audit report remains confidential indefinitely, unless there is a legal or contractual obligation to disclose it, or the audit client agrees to release it. Third parties cannot access the audit report by making a subject access request, as this would infringe the privacy and data protection rights of the audit client and the auditee.
• H: Subcontracted auditors are not considered to be third parties regarding confidentiality, as they are part of the audit team and have a contractual relationship with the auditing organization. Subcontracted auditors are typically bound by the same confidentiality agreement and audit code of conduct as the employed auditors, and have the same rights and responsibilities to access and protect the audit report.

References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 9.2, Internal audit
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015, clause 7.2.3, Confidentiality
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 22, Audit Report
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, Audit Code of Conduct

The following are guidelines to protect your password, except for easy recall use the same password for company and personal accounts; do not share passwords with anyone. Using the same password for company and personal accounts is not a guideline to protect your password, as it increases the risk of compromising your password if one of your accounts is hacked or breached. You should use different and unique passwords for each account, and change them regularly. Sharing passwords with anyone is not a guideline to protect your password, as it reduces the security and accountability of your password. You should keep your password confidential and never disclose it to anyone, even if they claim to be authorized or trustworthy. Don’t use the same password for various company system security access is a guideline to protect your password, as it prevents unauthorized access or misuse of your password if one of the systems is compromised or breached. You should use different and complex passwords for each system, and follow the password policies and standards of the organization. Change a temporary password on first log-on is a guideline to protect your password, as it prevents unauthorized access or misuse of your password if the temporary password is intercepted or leaked. You should change the temporary password to a personal and secure password as soon as possible, and avoid using default or predictable passwords. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 43. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 15.

The four controls from the list that are related to PHYSICAL aspects of the ISMS are:

•Access to and from the loading bay

•How power and data cables enter the building

•The operation of the site CCTV and door control systems

•The organisation’s arrangements for maintaining equipment

These controls are derived from the ISO 27001 Annex A, which provides a comprehensive list of information security controls that can be applied to an ISMS1. The other controls in the list are more related to ORGANIZATIONAL, LEGAL, or HUMAN aspects of the ISMS, which are also important, but not the focus of this question.

According to the ISMS Auditing Guideline2, the auditor in training should review the PHYSICAL controls by:

•Checking the SoA to identify the applicable controls and their implementation status

•Interviewing the relevant staff and management to verify their understanding and involvement in the controls

•Observing the physical and environmental conditions to confirm the existence and effectiveness of the controls

•Examining the relevant documents and records to validate the compliance and performance of the controls

I hope this helps you prepare for the exam. 😊

References: 1: What Are ISO 27001 Controls? A Guide to Annex A | Secureframe; 2: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000

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

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.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, which emphasizes the need for auditors to maintain impartiality and confidentiality.

The correct option is D. There is a nonconformity (NC). The Service Manager does not comply with the software security management procedure. (Relevant to clause 8.1, control A.8.30). The IT Manager should have approved the test results according to the software security management procedure, not the Service Manager. The Service Manager’s decision to accept the failed security tests also violates the “security-by-design” and “security-by-default” principles that the organization adopted. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant. The organization and developer did perform acceptance tests, but they failed (B, C). The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service does not justify the nonconformity (A). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 8.1 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

The following four statements are true according to ISO/IEC 27001’s risk management requirements: 12

• The results of risk assessments must be maintained. This is true because clause 8.2.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to retain documented information of the information security risk assessment process and the results12
• ISO/IEC 27001 provides an outline approach for the management of risk. This is true because clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 specifies the general steps for the information security risk management process, which include establishing the risk criteria, assessing the risks, treating the risks, and monitoring and reviewing the risks12
• The organisation must produce a risk treatment plan for every business risk identified. This is true because clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to produce a risk treatment plan that defines the actions to be taken to address the unacceptable risks, the responsibilities, the expected dates, and the resources required12
• Risk assessments should be undertaken following significant changes. This is true because clause 8.2.4 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to review and update the risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur12

The following four statements are false according to ISO/IEC 27001’s risk management requirements:

• Risk identification is used to determine the severity of an information security risk. This is false because risk identification is used to identify the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, and existing controls that are relevant to the information security risk management process. The severity of an information security risk is determined by the risk analysis, which evaluates the likelihood and impact of the risk scenarios12
• The organisation must operate a risk treatment process to eliminate its information security risks. This is false because the organisation can choose from four options to treat its information security risks: avoid, transfer, mitigate, or accept. The organisation does not have to eliminate all its information security risks, but only those that are unacceptable according to its risk criteria12
• The initial phase in an organisation’s risk management process should be information security risk assessment. This is false because the initial phase in an organisation’s risk management process should be establishing the risk management framework, which includes defining the risk management policy, objectives, scope, roles, responsibilities, and criteria. The information security risk assessment is the second phase in the risk management process12
• Risks assessments should be undertaken at monthly intervals. This is false because there is no fixed frequency for conducting risk assessments in ISO/IEC 27001. The organisation should determine the appropriate intervals for reviewing and updating the risk assessment based on its risk appetite, risk profile, and operational context12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

The option that best describes how Information Security Management System (ISMS) audits should be conducted, aligning with best practices and standards like ISO/IEC 27001:2022, is:

D. Audit methods should be used to assess objective evidence in order to generate audit findings. Then, the audit conclusion should be created and presented to the auditee at the closing meeting.

This option accurately reflects the audit process, emphasizing the use of systematic audit methods to assess objective evidence, which is crucial for impartiality and accuracy in auditing. Audit findings are the results derived from evaluating the objective evidence against the audit criteria. The conclusion, based on the audit findings, provides a comprehensive summary of the audit's outcomes, indicating whether the audited ISMS meets the established criteria. Presenting these conclusions to the auditee during the closing meeting ensures transparency and provides an opportunity for immediate clarification and discussion of the results and potential next steps.

The purpose of a management system audit is to? Select 1

A.Evaluate the performance of an organisation's management system

B.Improve the performance of an organisation's management system

C.Manage the performance of an organisation's management system

D.Research the performance of an organisation's management system

Answer: A

A management system audit is a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining objective evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled. The audit criteria are a set of requirements that may include policies, procedures, standards, regulations, etc. The purpose of a management system audit is to evaluate the performance of an organisation’s management system in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, compliance, and improvement. A management system audit can also identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks of the management system and provide recommendations for improvement.

When preparing for an audit, which of the following statements is false?

A.Each auditor creates their own audit checklist for use during the audit

B.The audit checklists are shared and agreed with the auditee in advance of the audit

C.The audit plan is shared with the auditee in advance of the audit

D.The audit plan may be changed during the audit

Answer: B

According to ISO/IEC 27001, the scope of an ISMS must be defined and documented. This documentation should include the boundaries and applicability of the information security management system, which helps in defining what information, locations, and assets are covered under the ISMS.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 4.3 (Determining the scope of the information security management system)