CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

A primary benefit of engaging the risk owner during the risk assessment process is prioritization of risk action plans across departments, because this helps to ensure that the most critical and relevant risks are addressed first, and that the resources and efforts are allocated and coordinated efficiently and effectively. A risk owner is the person or group who is responsible for the day-to-day management and mitigation of a specific risk, and who has the authority and accountability to make risk-related decisions. A risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, or value. A risk action plan is the set of actions and tasks that are designed and implemented to reduce the likelihood and impact of a risk, or to exploit the opportunities that a risk may create. By engaging the risk owner during the risk assessment process, the organization can benefit from the following advantages:

The risk owner can provide valuable input and feedback on the risk identification, analysis, and evaluation, based on their knowledge, experience, and perspective of the risk and its context.

The risk owner can help to develop and implement the risk action plan, based on their understanding of the risk objectives, expectations, and outcomes, and their ability to influence and control the risk factors and sources.

The risk owner can help to prioritize the risk action plan, based on their assessment of the risk severity, urgency, and importance, and their consideration of the costs, benefits, and feasibility of the risk actions.

The risk owner can help to coordinate the risk action plan across departments, by communicating and collaborating with other risk owners, stakeholders, and resources, and by aligning and integrating the risk actions with the organization’s strategy, processes, and culture. References = Risk Owners — What Do They Do1

Detailed Explanation:A cost-benefit analysis evaluates the financial implications of acquiring cyber insurance versus the potential loss exposure. This approach enables informed decision-making by comparing the insurance cost with the potential savings from covered risks.

A technical vulnerability is a weakness or flaw in the design or implementation of an information system or resource that can be exploited or compromised by a threat or source of harm that may affect the organization’s objectives or operations. A technical vulnerability may be caused by various factors, such as human error, system failure, process inefficiency, resource limitation, etc.

A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the technical vulnerabilities that exist or may arise in the organization’s information systems or resources, and determining their severity and impact. A vulnerability assessment can help the organization to assess and prioritize the risks, and to design and implement appropriate controls or countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the risks.

The best response to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited is to conduct a vulnerability assessment, because it can help the organization to address the following questions:

What is the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how does it affect the functionality or security of the information system or resource?

How is the technical vulnerability being exploited or compromised, and by whom or what?

What are the potential consequences or impacts of the exploitation or compromise of the technical vulnerability for the organization and its stakeholders?

How can the technical vulnerability be detected and reported, and what are the available or feasible options or solutions to address or correct it?

Conducting a vulnerability assessment can help the organization to improve and optimize the information system or resource quality and performance, and to reduce or eliminate the technical vulnerability. It can also help the organization to align the information system or resource with the organization’s objectives and requirements, and to comply with the organization’s policies and standards.

The other options are not the best responses to the scenario of a recently discovered technical vulnerability being actively exploited, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of conducting a vulnerability assessment, which is to identify and evaluate the technical vulnerability, and to determine its severity and impact.

Assessing the vulnerability management process is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the process that is used to identify, analyze, evaluate, and communicate the technical vulnerabilities, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements. Assessing the vulnerability management process can help the organization to improve and optimize the process, and to reduce or eliminate the gaps or weaknesses in the process, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Conducting a control self-assessment is a process of evaluating and verifying the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls that are intended to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability of the information systems and resources, using the input and feedback from the individuals or groups that are involved or responsible for the information systems activities or functions. Conducting a control self-assessment can help the organization to identify and document the control deficiencies, and to align them with the organization’s objectives and requirements, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders.

Reassessing the inherent risk of the target is a process of reevaluating and recalculating the amount and type of risk that exists in the absence of any controls, and that is inherent to the nature or characteristics of the target, which is the information system or resource that is affected by the technical vulnerability. Reassessing the inherent risk of the target can help the organization to understand and document the risk exposure or level, and to align it with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, but it is not the best response to the scenario, because it does not indicate the nature and extent of the technical vulnerability, and how it affects the organization and its stakeholders. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 195

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

Detailed Explanation:A high number of exceptions often indicate misalignment between policies and business needs. Reviewing policies helps determine if they are overly restrictive or need adjustments to reduce exceptions while maintaining security.

An IT risk profile is a document that summarizes the IT-related risks that an organization faces, as well as the information and actions related to those risks, such as the risk description, assessment, response, status, and owner. An IT risk profile is a valuable tool for managing and communicating IT risks and their impact on the organization’s objectives and operations. The best description of the role of the IT risk profile in strategic IT-related decisions is that it helps assess the effects of IT decisions on risk exposure. This means that the IT risk profile can help to evaluate the potential consequences and implications of different IT choices or actions on the level and nature of the IT risks that the organization faces. The IT risk profile can also help to identify and address the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the IT risk management process and performance. The other options are not the best descriptions of the role of the IT risk profile in strategic IT-related decisions, although they may be related or beneficial. Comparing performance levels of IT assets to value delivered is a technique to measure and optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the IT resources and activities that support the organization’s goals and needs. However, this technique does not necessarily involve the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the output and outcome of the IT assets, not the input and impact of the IT risks. Facilitating the alignment of strategic IT objectives to business objectives is a technique to ensure that the IT strategy and plans are consistent and compatible with the organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and objectives. However, this technique does not depend on the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the direction and purpose of the IT objectives, not the probability and threat of the IT risks. Providing input to business managers when preparing a business case for new IT projects is a technique to support and justify the initiation and implementation of new IT initiatives that can create value or solve problems for the organization. However, this technique does not require the IT risk profile, as it focuses on the cost and benefit of the IT projects, not the risk and response of the IT risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 38-391; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 962; IT Risk Management Guide for 2022 | CIO Insight3; IT Risk Management Process, Frameworks & Templates4

A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses or gaps in an application that may expose it to potential threats or attacks.

When vulnerability assessment results identify a weakness in an application, the first thing that a risk practitioner should do is to assess the risk to determine mitigation needed. This means that the risk practitioner should analyze the likelihood and impact of the weakness being exploited, the existing controls that are in place to prevent or reduce the exploitation, and the residual risk that remains after applying the controls.

Assessing the risk to determine mitigation needed helps to prioritize the actions that are required to address the weakness, such as implementing new or additional controls, accepting the risk, transferring the risk, or avoiding the risk.

The other options are not the first things that a risk practitioner should do when vulnerability assessment results identify a weakness in an application. They are either secondary or not essential for risk management.

The references for this answer are:

Risk IT Framework, page 18

Information Technology & Security, page 12

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 10

The observation that would be of GREATEST concern to a risk practitioner reviewing the implementation status of management action plans is that management has not begun the implementation, because it indicates that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored, and that the risks are not being addressed or mitigated. The lack of implementation may also imply that the management action plans are not realistic, feasible, or aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and objectives. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of implementation, because:

Option A: Management has not determined a final implementation date is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may affect the timely completion and delivery of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored.

Option B: Management has not completed an early mitigation milestone is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may indicate a delay or deviation in the progress and performance of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored.

Option C: Management has not secured resources for mitigation activities is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may affect the quality and effectiveness of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 123.

The first activity that should be performed when the time required to complete daily processing for a legacy application is approaching a risk threshold is to conduct a root-cause analysis. This will help to identify the source of the problem and the factors that are contributing to the increased processing time. By conducting a root-cause analysis, the enterprise can determine the most appropriate and effective solution to address the problem and prevent it from recurring. Temporarily increasing the risk threshold, suspending processing to investigate the problem, and initiating a feasibility study for a new application are not the first activities that should be performed, as they may not resolve the underlying issue and may introduce additional risks or costs. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1.2, page 193.