CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

 An IT risk appetite statement is a document that expresses the amount and type of IT risk that an organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives. An IT risk appetite statement can help guide the IT risk management process, by setting the boundaries, criteria, and targets for IT risk identification, assessment, response, and reporting. An IT risk appetite statement should be aligned with the organization’s overall risk appetite and strategy, and should be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect the changes in the internal and external environment. One of the factors that would most likely result in updates to an IT risk appetite statement is changes in senior management. Senior management is the group of executives who have the authority and responsibility for the strategic direction and performance of the organization. Changes in senior management can affect the IT risk appetite statement, as they may introduce new perspectives, priorities, expectations, or preferences for IT risk taking or avoidance. Changes in senior management can also affect the IT risk appetite statement, as they may require new or revised IT objectives, goals, or initiatives, which may entail different levels or types of IT risk. Therefore, changes in senior management should trigger a review and update of the IT risk appetite statement, to ensure that it is consistent and compatible with the new leadership and direction of the organization. References = Organisations must define their IT risk appetite and tolerance, Risk Appetite Statements - Institute of Risk Management, Develop Your Technology Risk Appetite - Gartner.

The control evaluation phase of a risk assessment is the phase where the risk practitioner evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing or planned controls that mitigate the identified risks. Controls are the actions or measures that reduce the likelihood or impact of the risks to an acceptable level. The control evaluation phase involves testing, reviewing, and auditing the controls, and identifying any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. If the control evaluation phase reveals that multiple controls are ineffective, the risk practitioner’s first course of action should be to determine the root cause of the control failures. The root cause is the underlying or fundamental reason that leads to the problem or issue, such as the control failure. By determining the root cause of the control failures, the risk practitioner can understand why the controls are not working as intended, and what factors or variables are influencing the control performance. This will help the risk practitioner to identify and implement the most appropriate and effective risk response strategy and actions, such as recommending risk remediation, comparing the residual risk, or escalating the control failures. The other options are not the first course of action, as they involve different steps or outcomes of the risk management process:

Recommend risk remediation of the ineffective controls means that the risk practitioner suggests the actions or measures that can improve or restore the effectiveness of the controls, such as by modifying, replacing, or adding the controls. This may be a useful step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not address the root cause of the control failures, or may not be feasible or efficient for the enterprise’s needs.

Compare the residual risk to the current risk appetite means that the risk practitioner evaluates the level of risk that remains after considering the existing or planned controls, and compares it with the amount and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. This may be a helpful step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not reflect the true or current level of risk exposure, or may not account for the uncertainties or complexities of the risks or the controls.

Escalate the control failures to senior management means that the risk practitioner communicates the control failures to the senior leaders of the enterprise, who oversee the enterprise-wide risk management program, and provide guidance and direction to the risk owners and practitioners. This may be a necessary step in the risk management process, but it is not the first course of action, as it may not provide sufficient or timely information or action to address the control failures, or may not reflect the urgency or priority of the control failures. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1, pp. 62-63.

IT risk scenarios are the descriptions or representations of the possible or hypothetical situations or events that may cause or result in an IT risk for the organization. IT risk scenarios usually consist of three elements: a threat or source of harm, a vulnerability or weakness, and an impact or consequence.

The best approach to use when creating a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios is to map scenarios to a recognized risk management framework, which is an established or recognized model or standard that provides the principles, guidelines, and best practices for the organization’s IT risk management function. Mapping scenarios to a recognized risk management framework can help the organization to create a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios by providing the following benefits:

It can ensure that the IT risk scenarios are relevant, appropriate, and proportional to the organization’s IT objectives and needs, and that they support the organization’s IT strategy and culture.

It can ensure that the IT risk scenarios are consistent and compatible with the organization’s IT governance, risk management, and control functions, and that they reflect the organization’s IT risk appetite and tolerance.

It can provide useful references and benchmarks for the identification, analysis, evaluation, and communication of the IT risk scenarios, and for the alignment and integration of the IT risk scenarios with the organization’s IT risk policies and standards.

The other options are not the best approaches to use when creating a comprehensive set of IT risk scenarios, because they do not provide the same level of detail and insight that mapping scenarios to a recognized risk management framework provides, and they may not be specific or applicable to the organization’s IT objectives and needs.

Deriving scenarios from IT risk policies and standards means creating or generating the IT risk scenarios based on the rules or guidelines that define and describe the organization’s IT risk management function, and that specify the expectations and requirements for the organization’s IT risk management function. Deriving scenarios from IT risk policies and standards can help the organization to create a consistent and compliant set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not cover all the relevant or significant IT risks that may affect the organization, and it may not support the organization’s IT strategy and culture.

Gathering scenarios from senior management means collecting or obtaining the IT risk scenarios from the senior management or executives that oversee or direct the organization’s IT activities or functions. Gathering scenarios from senior management can help the organization to create a high-level and strategic set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not reflect the operational or technical aspects of the IT risks, and it may not involve the input or feedback from the other stakeholders or parties that are involved or responsible for the IT activities or functions.

Benchmarking scenarios against industry peers means comparing and contrasting the IT risk scenarios with those of other organizations or industry standards, and identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats that may affect the organization’s IT objectives or operations. Benchmarking scenarios against industry peers can help the organization to create a competitive and innovative set of IT risk scenarios, but it is not the best approach, because it may not be relevant or appropriate for the organization’s IT objectives and needs, and it may not comply with the organization’s IT policies and standards. References =

ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63

ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 199

CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

 The most important element of a successful risk awareness training program is customizing content for the audience, because this ensures that the training is relevant, engaging, and effective for the learners. Customizing content for the audience means tailoring the training materials and methods to suit the specific needs, preferences, and characteristics of the target group, such as their roles, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and learning styles. Customizing content for the audience can help to achieve the following benefits:

Increase the motivation and interest of the learners, as they can see the value and applicability of the training to their work and goals.

Enhance the comprehension and retention of the learners, as they can relate the training content to their prior knowledge and experience, and use examples and scenarios that are familiar and realistic to them.

Improve the transfer and application of the learners, as they can practice and apply the training content to their actual work situations and challenges, and receive feedback and support that are relevant and useful to them. References = Implementing risk management training and awareness (part 1) 1

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the risk register is the most useful component of the review of the overall risk profile from the targeted organization, as it provides a comprehensive and up-to-date record of the identified risks, their likelihood and impact, their risk response actions, and their residual risk levels. The risk register helps to:

Understand the current and potential threats and vulnerabilities that may affect the targeted organization’s objectives and performance

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and controls implemented by the targeted organization

Identify the gaps or weaknesses in the risk management practices and capabilities of the targeted organization

Assess the compatibility and alignment of the risk appetite and risk tolerance of the targeted organization with the acquiring organization

Estimate the value and benefits of the acquisition and the potential risks and costs involved

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.5: IT Risk Identification Methods and Techniques, pp. 38-391

Unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator is a security risk that involves altering, deleting, or inserting data on a database without proper authorization or approval, by a person who has privileged access to the database, such as a database administrator12.

The best control to detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator is to review database activity logs, which are records that capture and store the details and history of the transactions or activities that are performed on the database, such as who, what, when, where, and how34.

Reviewing database activity logs is the best control because it provides evidence and visibility of the database operations, and enables the detection and reporting of any deviations, anomalies, or issues that may indicate unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator34.

Reviewing database activity logs is also the best control because it supports the accountability and auditability of the database operations, and facilitates the investigation and resolution of any unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator34.

The other options are not the best controls, but rather possible measures or techniques that may supplement or enhance the review of database activity logs. For example:

Reviewing database access rights is a measure that involves verifying and validating the permissions and privileges that are granted or revoked to the users or roles who can access or modify the data on the database56. However, this measure is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the database administrator has legitimate access rights to the data56.

Comparing data to input records is a technique that involves matching and reconciling the data on the database with the original or source data that are entered or imported into the database, and identifying and correcting any discrepancies or errors78. However, this technique is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the input records are also modified or compromised78.

Reviewing changes to edit checks is a technique that involves examining and evaluating the modifications or updates to the edit checks, which are rules or validations that are applied to the data on the database to ensure their accuracy, completeness, andconsistency9 . However, this technique is not the best control because it does not directly detect unauthorized modification of data by a database administrator, especially if the edit checks are bypassed or disabled9 . References =

1: Database Security: Attacks and Solutions | SpringerLink2

2: Unauthorised Modification of Data With Intent to Cause Impairment3

3: Database Activity Monitoring - Wikipedia4

4: Database Activity Monitoring (DAM) | Imperva5

5: Database Access Control - Wikipedia6

6: Database Access Control: Best Practices for Database Security7

7: Data Reconciliation - Wikipedia8

8: Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection9

9: Edit Check - Wikipedia

Edit Checks: A Data Quality Tool

The best way for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response is to assess risk against business objectives. This means comparing the level and nature of the risks with the goals and strategies of the organization, and determining which risks pose the most significant threat or opportunity to the achievement of those objectives. By assessing risk against business objectives, the risk practitioner can help management identify the most critical and relevant risks, and prioritize the risk response actions accordingly. The risk response actions should be aligned with the organization’s risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to take in order to meet its strategic goals1. The other options are not the best ways for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response, as they are either less effective or less specific than assessing risk against business objectives. Aligning business objectives to the risk profile is a way of ensuring that the organization’s objectives are realistic and achievable, given the current and potential risks that the organization faces. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not indicate which risks should be addressed first or how theyshould be managed. Implementing an organization-specific risk taxonomy is a way of creating a common language and classification system for describing and categorizing risks. This can help improve the consistency and clarity of risk communication and reporting across the organization. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not measure the likelihood and impact of the risks, or their relation to the organization’s objectives. Explaining risk details to management is a way of providing information and insight on the sources, drivers, consequences, and responses of the risks. This can help increase the awareness and understanding of the risks among the decision makers and stakeholders. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not suggest or recommend the best course of action for managing the risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.6, Page 57.

Detailed Explanation:Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)are metrics used to monitor changes in risk exposure, enabling proactive adjustments to keep risks within appetite. They provide early warnings of potential breaches in risk thresholds.