CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Qualitative measures are methods of expressing risk levels using descriptive terms, such as high, medium, or low, based on subjective criteria, such as likelihood, impact, or severity. Qualitative measures are often used to identify and prioritize risks, and to communicate risk information to stakeholders1.

Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the risk response has been implemented. Residual risk reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response, and the need for further action or monitoring2.

Emerging threats are new or evolving sources or causes of risk that have the potential to adversely affect the organization’s objectives, assets, or operations. Emerging threats are oftencharacterized by uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, and may require innovative or adaptive risk responses3.

The best reason to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats is that qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment. Expert judgment is the opinion or advice of a person or a group of people who have specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a particular domain or field. Expert judgment can help to:

Provide insights and perspectives on the nature and characteristics of the emerging threats, and their possible causes and consequences

Assess the likelihood and impact of the emerging threats, and their interactions and dependencies with other risks

Evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the risk responses, and their alignment with the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance

Identify and recommend the best practices and lessons learned for managing the emerging threats, and for improving the risk management process45

Qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment than quantitative measures, which are methods of expressing risk levels using numerical or measurable values, such as percentages, probabilities, or monetary amounts. Quantitative measures are often used to estimate and analyze risks, and to support risk decision making1. However, quantitative measures may not be suitable or feasible for expressing residual risk levels related to emerging threats, because:

Quantitative measures require reliable and sufficient data and information, which may not be available or accessible for the emerging threats

Quantitative measures rely on mathematical models and techniques, which may not be able to capture or reflect the complexity and uncertainty of the emerging threats

Quantitative measures may create a false sense of precision or accuracy, which may not be justified or warranted for the emerging threats

Quantitative measures may be influenced or manipulated by biases or assumptions, which may not be valid or appropriate for the emerging threats67

Therefore, qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment, which can enhance the understanding and management of the residual risk levels related to emerging threats.

The other options are not the best reasons to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats, but rather some of the advantages or disadvantages of qualitative measures. Qualitative measures require less ongoing monitoring than quantitative measures, because they are simpler and easier to apply and update. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can eliminate or reduce the need for monitoring, which is an essential part of the risk management process. Qualitative measures are better aligned to regulatory requirements than quantitative measures, because they are more consistent and comparable across different domains and contexts. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can satisfy or comply with all the regulatory requirements, which may vary depending on theindustry or sector. Qualitative measures are easier to update than quantitative measures, because they do not depend on complex calculations or formulas. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can always reflect the current or accurate risk levels, which may change over time or due to external factors. References =

Qualitative Risk Analysis vs. Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA

Residual Risk - ISACA

Emerging Threats - ISACA

Expert Judgment - ISACA

Expert Judgment in Project Management: Narrowing the Theory-Practice Gap

Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA

Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Critical Review

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

Risk tolerance is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk tolerance is an important component of the corporate risk profile, as it defines the boundaries and limits of the acceptable risk exposure for the organization. Comparing the risk tolerance against the corporate risk profile can help to ensure that the organization’s risk strategy and objectives are aligned with its risk appetite and capacity, and that the organization is not taking on more risk than it can handle or afford. Comparing the risk tolerance against the corporate risk profile can also help to monitor and adjust the risk management process and controls, and to optimize the risk-return trade-off. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 249. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 249. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 249. CRISC by Isaca Actual Free Exam Q&As, Question 9.

Key Control Indicators (KCIs) measure the performance and effectiveness of controls. When regulatory objectives are tied to technical controls (like firewalls or SIEM), KCIs can detect when those controls are failing or operating outside of thresholds. This allows proactive remediation before compliance violations occur.

A cost-benefit analysis is the best method to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls, as it helps to compare and evaluate the costs and benefits of the investment and to determine its feasibility and profitability. A cost-benefit analysis is a process of identifying, measuring, and comparing the expected costs and benefits of a project or a decision, such asinvesting in automated controls. A cost-benefit analysis can help to justify an investment in automated controls by providing the following benefits:

It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to decision making, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of assessing and communicating the value and impact of the investment across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

It supports the alignment of the investment with the organizational strategy and objectives, and helps to evaluate the achievement of the desired outcomes.

It helps to identify and prioritize the opportunities and challenges of the investment, and to develop and implement appropriate strategies and actions to address them.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the investment and its outcomes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best methods to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls. Alignment of investment with risk appetite is an important aspect of risk management, but it does not directly address the costs and benefits of the investment. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Alignment of investment with risk appetite helps to ensure that the investment is consistent with the organizational risk tolerance and preferences,and does not expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk. Elimination of compensating controls is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to mitigate the risk when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective. Elimination of compensating controls can help to reduce the complexity and costs of the control environment, and to improve the efficiency and reliability of the controls. Reduction in personnel costs is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Personnel costs are the expenses related to the staff and employees involved in the processes or functions that are automated. Reduction in personnel costs can help to increase the profitability and productivity of the organization, and to allocate the resources more effectively and efficiently. References = Cost Benefit Analysis: An Expert Guide | Smartsheet, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Automation - Efficiency, Cost-Savings, Robotics | Britannica

The primary benefit of conducting continuous monitoring of access controls is the ability to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure. Continuous monitoring of access controls is a process that involves collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance and effectiveness of the access controls on a regular basis. Continuous monitoring of access controls helps to detect and prevent any unauthorized or inappropriate access to information assets, and to ensure that the access controls arealigned with the enterprise’s security policies and standards. Continuous monitoring of access controls also helps to identify possible noncompliant activities that lead to data disclosure, such as data leakage, data theft, data tampering, or data breach. By identifying these activities, the enterprise can take timely and appropriate actions to mitigate the risk and protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, page 1411

Risk management maturity level is the degree to which an organization has developed and implemented a systematic and proactive approach to managing the risks that it faces across its various functions, processes, and activities. Risk management maturity level reflects the organization’s risk culture and capability, and its alignment with its objectives and strategies1.

The best measurement of an organization’s risk management maturity level is the key risk indicators (KRIs), which are metrics or measures that provide information on the current or potential exposure and performance of the organization in relation to specific risks. KRIs can help to:

Monitor and track the changes or trends in the risk level and the risk response over time

Identify and alert the risk issues or events that require attention or action

Evaluate and report the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and practices

Support and inform the risk decision making and improvement23

KRIs can be classified into different types, such as:

Leading KRIs, which are forward-looking and predictive, and indicate the likelihood or probability of a risk event occurring in the future

Lagging KRIs, which are backward-looking and descriptive, and indicate the impact or consequence of a risk event that has already occurred

Quantitative KRIs, which are numerical or measurable, and indicate the magnitude or severity of a risk event or outcome

Qualitative KRIs, which are descriptive or subjective, and indicate the nature or characteristics of a risk event or outcome4

The other options are not the best measurements of an organization’s risk management maturity level, but rather some of the factors or outcomes of it. Level of residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the risk response has been implemented. Level of residual risk reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response, and the need for further action or monitoring. The results of a gap analysis are the differences between the current and the desired state of the risk management processes and practices. The results of a gap analysis reflect the completeness and coverage of the risk management activities, and the areas for improvement or enhancement. IT alignment to business objectives is the extent to which IT supports and enables the achievement of the organization’s goals and strategies. IT alignment to business objectives reflects the integration and coordination of the IT and business functions, and the optimization of the IT value and performance. References =

Risk Maturity Assessment Explained | Risk Maturity Model

Key Risk Indicators - ISACA

Key Risk Indicators: What They Are and How to Use Them

Key Risk Indicators: Types and Examples

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

Assessing risk scenarios is the starting point when performing a risk analysis for an asset. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could cause harm or loss to an asset. Assessing risk scenarios involves identifying the sources and causes of risk, the potential impacts and consequences of risk, and the likelihood and frequency of risk occurrence. Assessing risk scenarios can help establish the risk context, scope, and criteria for the asset, and provide the basis for further risk analysis steps, such as evaluating threats, assessing controls, and updating the risk register. According to the CRISC Review Manual 2022, assessing risk scenarios is thefirst step in the IT risk assessment process1. According to the CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2022, assessing risk scenarios is the correct answer to this question

The best course of action for the risk practitioner upon learning that the number of failed back-up attempts continually exceeds the current risk threshold is to inquire about the status of any planned corrective actions. This would help the risk practitioner to understand the root causes of the problem, the progress of the remediation efforts, and the expected timeline for resolution. It would also help the risk practitioner to provide guidance and support to the responsible parties, and to escalate the issue if necessary. Inquiring about the status of any planned corrective actions would demonstrate the risk practitioner’s proactive and collaborative approach to riskmanagement, and ensure that the risk exposure is reduced to an acceptable level as soon as possible. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3, page 2371