CISM Exam Dumps - Certified Information Security Manager

 The organization’s vision and mission should be the PRIMARY basis for an information security strategy, as they define the purpose and direction of the organization and its information security needs. A comprehensive gap analysis is a tool to identify the current state and desired state of information security, and the actions needed to close the gap. Information security policies are the high-level statements of management’s intent and expectations for information security, and are derived from the information security strategy. Audit and regulatory requirements are external factors that influence the information security strategy, but are not the primary basis for it. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, pages 17-181; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, page 782

The primary basis for an information security strategy should be the organization's vision and mission. The organization's vision and mission should be the foundation for the security strategy, and should inform and guide the security policies, procedures, and practices that are implemented. The results of a comprehensive gap analysis, information security policies, and audit and regulatory requirements should all be taken into consideration when developing the security strategy, but should not be the primary basis.

The primary purpose for continuous monitoring of security controls is to ensure the effectiveness of controls. This involves regularly assessing the controls to ensure that they are meeting their intended objectives, and that any potential weaknesses are identified and addressed. Continuous monitoring also helps to ensure that control gaps are minimized, and that systems are available and aligned with compliance requirements.

The primary purpose of continuous monitoring of security controls is to ensure that the controls are operating effectively and providing adequate protection for the information assets. Continuous monitoring can also help to identify control gaps, ensure system availability, and support compliance requirements, but these are secondary benefits12 References = 1: SP 800-137, Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, page 1-12: A Practical Approach to Continuous Control Monitoring, ISACA Journal, Volume 2, 2015, page 1.

Annualized loss resulting from security incidents is the most appropriate metric to demonstrate the effectiveness of information security controls to senior management, as it quantifies the financial impact of security breaches on the organization’s assets, operations, and reputation. This metric helps to communicate the value of security investments, justify the security budget, and prioritize the security initiatives based on the potential loss reduction. Annualized loss resulting from security incidents can be calculated by multiplying the annualized rate of occurrence (ARO) of an incident by the single loss expectancy (SLE) of an incident. ARO is the estimated frequency of an incident occurring in a year, and SLE is the estimated cost of an incident. For example, if an organization estimates that a ransomware attack may occur once every two years, and that each attack may cost $100,000 to recover, then the annualized loss resulting from ransomware attacks is $50,000 ($100,000 / 2).

References = CISM Review Manual 2022, page 3171; CISM Exam Content Outline, Domain 4, Knowledge Statement 4.112; Key Performance Indicators for Security Governance, Part 1; Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security

The information security manager’s PRIMARY focus in this situation should be establishing a strong ongoing risk monitoring process, which is the process of tracking and evaluating the changes in the risk environment, the effectiveness of the risk responses, and the impact of the residual risk on the organization. A strong ongoing risk monitoring process can help the information security manager to identify any deviations from the expected risk level, to report any significant changes or issues to the risk owner and other stakeholders, and to recommend any adjustments or improvements to the risk management strategy. Presenting the risk profile for approval by the risk owner is not the primary focus in this situation, as it is a step that should be done before the risk owner accepts the risk, not after. Conducting an independent review of risk responses is not the primary focus in this situation, as it is a quality assurance activity that can be performed by an external auditor or a third-party expert, not by the information security manager. Updating the information security standards to include the accepted risk is not the primary focus in this situation, as it is a documentation activity that does not address the ongoing monitoring and reporting of the risk. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, page 2281; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, page 1022

Initiating incident response is the best course of action after a server has been attacked because it activates the incident response plan or process, which defines the roles and responsibilities, procedures and protocols, tools and techniques for responding to and managing a security incident effectively and efficiently. Reviewing vulnerability assessment is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather evaluates the potential weaknesses or exposures of the server. Conducting a security audit is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather verifies and validates the compliance or performance of the server’s security controls or systems. Isolating the system is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather stops or limits any communication or interaction with the server. References: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-5/incident-response-lessons-learned https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-3/incident-response-lessons-learned

An information security dashboard is the most effective way to present quarterly reports to the board on the status of the information security program, because it provides a concise, visual, and high-level overview of the key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics, and trends of the information security program. An information security dashboard can help the board to quickly and easily understand the current state, progress, and performance of the information security program, and to identify any gaps, issues, or areas of improvement. An information security dashboard can also help the board to align the information security program with the organization’s business goals and strategies, and to support the decision-making and oversight functions of the board.

A capability and maturity assessment is a way of measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the information security program, and of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the program. However, a capability and maturity assessment is not the most effective way to present quarterly reports to the board, because it may not provide a clear and timely picture of the status of the information security program, and it may not reflect the changes and dynamics of the information security environment. A capability and maturity assessment is more suitable for periodic or annual reviews, rather than quarterly reports.

A detailed analysis of security program KPIs is a way of evaluating the performance and progress of the information security program, and of determining the extent to which the program meets the predefined objectives and targets. However, a detailed analysis of security program KPIs is not the most effective way to present quarterly reports to the board, because it may be too technical, complex, or lengthy for the board to comprehend and appreciate. A detailed analysis of security program KPIs is more suitable for operational or tactical level reporting, rather than strategic level reporting.

An information security risk register is a tool for recording and tracking the information security risks that affect the organization, and for documenting the risk assessment, treatment, and monitoring activities. However, an information security risk register is not the most effective way to present quarterly reports to the board, because it may not provide a comprehensive and balanced view of the information security program, and it may not highlight the achievements and benefits of the program. An information security risk register is more suitable for risk management or audit purposes, rather than performance reporting. References =

ISACA, CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, 2020, pages 47-48, 59-60, 63-64, 67-68.

ISACA, CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 12th Edition, 2020, question ID 1019.

An information security dashboard is an effective way to present quarterly reports to the board on the status of the information security program. It allows the board to quickly view key metrics and trends at a glance and to drill down into more detailed information as needed. The dashboard should include metrics such as total incidents, patching compliance, vulnerability scanning results, and more. It should also include high-level overviews of the security program and its components, such as the security policy, security architecture, and security controls.