CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

A vendor risk assessment is a process of evaluating and managing the risks associated with outsourcing IT services or functions to a third-party provider, such as a cloud service provider.

One of the most important documents to request from a cloud service provider during a vendor risk assessment is an independent audit report. This is a report that provides an objective and reliable assurance on the quality, security, and performance of the cloud service provider’s operations, processes, and controls, based on the standards and criteria established by an independent auditor or a recognized authority, such as ISACA, ISO, NIST, etc.

An independent audit report helps to verify the compliance and effectiveness of the cloud service provider’s risk management practices, identify any gaps or issues that may affect the service delivery or security, and recommend improvements or corrective actions.

The other options are not the most important documents to request from a cloud service provider during a vendor risk assessment. They are either secondary or not essential for vendor risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 22

Information Technology & Security, page 16

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 14

 First-hand direct observation of the controls in operation is the best way to confirm the existence and operating effectiveness of information systems controls because it provides the most reliable and persuasive evidence. Direct observation involves inspecting the physical and logical aspects of the controls, such as the hardware, software, network, data, procedures, and personnel involved in the information systems. Direct observation also allows the auditor to verify that the controls are functioning as intended, and to identify any deviations or weaknesses that may affect the reliability of the information systems. Direct observation can be performed by using various techniques, such as walkthroughs, inquiries, inspections, reperformance, and analytical procedures1. References = Auditing Standard No. 13, The Auditor’s Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement, PCAOB, 2010

The most important factor to identify when developing top-down risk scenarios is B. Business objectives12

Top-down risk scenarios are based on the organization’s strategic goals, objectives, and key performance indicators (KPIs), and they aim to identify the potential events or situations that could prevent or hinder the achievement of those goals and objectives12

By identifying the business objectives, the risk practitioner can align the risk scenarios with the organization’s mission, vision, and values, and ensure that the risk scenarios are relevant, realistic, and meaningful for the senior management and other stakeholders12

The other factors are not as important as the business objectives when developing top-down risk scenarios, because they are either more relevant for bottom-up risk scenarios (A and D), or they are derived from the business objectives and the risk scenarios ©12

An organization may rely on third-party vendors to provide some of its IT systems, applications, or services, such as cloud computing, software development, or data processing. The organization should evaluate the control environment of the third-party vendors, which is the set of policies, procedures, and practices that establish the tone and culture of the vendor’s risk management and control activities. The best way to evaluate the control environment of several third-party vendors is to obtain independent control reports from high-risk vendors. Independent control reports are the documents that attest to the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the vendor’s controls, based on the standards or frameworks that are relevant and applicable for the vendor’s services, such as the ISAE 3402 or the SOC 2. Independent control reports are prepared by independent and qualified auditors, who provide an objective and reliable assessment of the vendor’s controls. High-risk vendors are the vendors that pose the highest level of risk to the organization, such as by having access to sensitive or confidential data, or by providing critical or complex services. By obtaining independent control reports from high-risk vendors, the organization can verify that the vendor’s controls are adequate and appropriate for the organization’s needs, and that the vendor complies with the contractual and regulatory requirements. The other options are not as good as obtaining independent control reports from high-risk vendors, as they may not provide sufficient or consistent information or evidence on the vendor’s control environment:

Review vendors’ internal risk assessments covering key risk and controls means that the organization examines the vendor’s own evaluation of its risks and controls, such as by reviewing the vendor’s risk register, risk matrix, or risk report. This may provide some information or insight on the vendor’s control environment, but it may not be as reliable or objective as obtaining independent control reports, as the vendor’s internal risk assessments may have biases, conflicts, or gaps in their methodology, scope, or quality.

Review vendors performance metrics on quality and delivery of processes means that the organization measures and monitors the vendor’s performance and outcomes, such as by using key performance indicators (KPIs), service level agreements (SLAs), or customer satisfaction surveys. This may provide some information or feedback on the vendor’s control environment, but it may not be as comprehensive or relevant as obtaining independent control reports, as the vendor’s performance metrics may not cover all the aspects or components of the vendor’s controls, or may not reflect the latest or updated status or results of the vendor’s controls.

Obtain vendor references from third parties means that the organization collects and verifies the testimonials or recommendations of the vendor’s services from other customers or stakeholders, such as by contacting them directly or by reading their reviews or ratings. This may provide some information or evidence on the vendor’s control environment, but it may not be as accurate or consistent as obtaining independent control reports, as the vendor’s references from third parties may have biases, conflicts, or variations in their expectations, experiences, or opinions of the vendor’s services. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2.1, pp. 147-148.

The greatest concern for a risk practitioner reviewing current key risk indicators (KRIs) is that the KRIs’ source data lacks integrity, as this means that the data is inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated, and therefore cannot provide reliable and valid information on the risk level and performance. The KRIs are metrics that measure and monitor the changes in the risk exposure and the effectiveness of the risk response over time. The KRIs’ source data should be collected and verified from credible and relevant sources, and should be updated and maintained regularly. The KRIs’ source data should also be aligned and integrated with the enterprise’s data governance and quality standards. The other options are not the greatest concerns for a risk practitioner reviewing current key risk indicators (KRIs), although they may pose some challenges or limitations. The KRIs are not automated is a concern for the efficiency and timeliness of the KRI reporting and analysis, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI source data. The KRIs are not quantitative is a concern for the objectivity and comparability of the KRI measurement and prioritization, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI source data. The KRIs do not allow for trend analysis is a concern for the usefulness and relevance of the KRI communication and decision making, but it does not affect the integrity of the KRI source data. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, page 183.

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that helps organizations monitor and assess potential risks that may impact their operations, objectives, or performance. A good KRI should have certain characteristics that make it effective for risk management. One of these characteristics is repeatability, which means that the KRI can be measured consistently over time and across different situations. A repeatable KRI ensures that the risk data is reliable, comparable, and meaningful, and that the risk trends and patterns can be identified and analyzed. A repeatable KRI also supports the decision-making process by providing timely and accurate information on the risk level and status. Therefore, repeatability is the most important attribute of a KRI. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 441

Conducting phishing exercises would best help minimize the risk associated with social engineering threats, because they can help to raise awareness and educate employees about the common techniques and tactics used by social engineers, such as sending deceptive emails or text messages that ask for sensitive information or direct users to malicious websites. Phishing exercises are simulated attacks that test the employees’ ability to recognize and respond to social engineering attempts, and provide feedback and guidance on how to improve their security behavior. By conducting phishing exercises, the organization can measure and improve the employees’ level of security awareness and resilience, and reduce the likelihood and impact of falling victim to social engineering attacks. The other options are less effective ways to minimize the risk associated with social engineering threats. Enforcing employees’ sanctions can help to deter and punish employees who violate the security policies or procedures, but it may not prevent or reduce the occurrence of social engineering attacks, as they may target employees who are unaware, careless, or coerced by the attackers. Enforcing segregation of duties can help to prevent or limit the damage caused by social engineering attacks, by restricting the access and authority of employees to perform certain tasks or functions, but it may not address the root cause or source of the attacks, which is the human factor. Reviewing the organization’s risk appetite can help to define and communicate the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, but it may not directly affect or influence the employees’ behavior or attitude toward social engineering threats, which may depend on their individual or situational factors. References = How to Prevent and Mitigate Social Engineering Attacks 1

A risk response is the action or plan that is taken to address a specific risk that has been identified, analyzed, and evaluated. It can be one of the following types: mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept.

The highest priority when developing a risk response is to ensure that it aligns with the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its goals. The risk appetite is usually expressed as a range or a threshold, and it is aligned with the organization’s strategy and culture.

Aligning the risk response with the organization’s risk appetite ensures that the risk response is consistent, appropriate, and proportional to the level and nature of the risk, and that it supports the organization’s objectives and values. It also helps to optimize the balance between risk and return, and to create and protect value for the organization and its stakeholders.

The other options are not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because they do not address the fundamental question of whether the risk response is suitable and acceptable for the organization.

The risk response addresses the risk with a holistic view means that the risk response considers the interrelationships and dependencies among the risk sources, events, impacts, and responses, and the potential secondary and residual effects of the risk response. This is important to ensure that the risk response is comprehensive and effective, and that it does not create new or unintended risks, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite.

The risk response is based on a cost-benefit analysis means that the risk response compares the expected costs and benefits of implementing the risk response, and selects the risk response that provides the most favorable net outcome. This is important to ensure that the risk response is efficient and economical, and that it maximizes the return on investment, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite.

The risk response is accounted for in the budget means that the risk response is included in the financial plan and allocation of resources for the organization or the project. This is important to ensure that the risk response is feasible and realistic, and that it has the necessary funding and support, but it is not the highest priority when developing a risk response, because it does not indicate whether the risk response is aligned with the organization’s risk appetite. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 29-30, 34-35, 38-39, 44-45, 50-51, 54-55

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 147