CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

A risk treatment plan typically includes the following elements2:

Risk description: A brief summary of the risk, its causes, and its consequences.

Risk owner: The person or entity who is responsible for managing the risk and implementing the risk treatment plan.

Risk response: The strategy or method chosen to deal with the risk, such as avoid, reduce, transfer, or accept.

Risk actions: The specific tasks or steps that need to be performed to execute the risk response.

Risk resources: The human, financial, technical, or other resources that are required or available to support the risk actions.

Risk timeline: The schedule or deadline for completing the risk actions and achieving the desired risk level.

By recommending a risk treatment plan, the risk practitioner can help the organization to:

Analyze and prioritize the vulnerabilities detected on the systems, and determine their impact and likelihood.

Evaluate and compare the possible risk responses, and select the most suitable and feasible one for each vulnerability.

Define and assign the roles and responsibilities for the risk treatment process, and ensure the accountability and collaboration of the stakeholders.

Monitor and measure the progress and effectiveness of the risk treatment process, and report the results and outcomes to the management.

The other options are not the best course of action, because:

Recommending the business change the application is not a realistic or practical option, as it may be costly, time-consuming, or technically challenging to modify the application to make it compatible with the updated servers. It may also create other issues or risks, such as compatibility problems with other systems, performance degradation, or user dissatisfaction.

Including the risk in the next quarterly update to management is not a proactive or timely option, as it may delay or defer the risk treatment process and increase the exposure or vulnerability of the systems. It may also indicate a lack of urgency or importance of the risk, and undermine the credibility or trust of the management.

Implementing compensating controls is not a sufficient or comprehensive option, as it may not address the root cause or the source of the risk. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective3. They may reduce the impact or likelihood of the risk, but they may not eliminate or resolve the risk.

References =

Risk Treatment Plan - CIO Wiki

Risk Treatment Plan Template - ISACA

Compensating Control - CIO Wiki

The best indicator that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment is when risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance or outcomes relative to the achievement of objectives. Risk events and losses are the negative consequences of risk that have occurred or are expected to occur. When risk events and losses exceed risk tolerance, it means that the existing controls are not sufficient or effective to prevent or mitigate the risk, and that the organization is exposed to unacceptable levels of risk that could impair its ability to achieve its objectives. Therefore, additional or improved controls are needed to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Management decreasing organizational risk appetite, the risk register and portfolio not including all risk scenarios, and emerging risk scenarios being identified are not as clear and direct indicators that additional or improved controls are needed in the environment, as they do not necessarily reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the risk management process. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 41.

The issue of greatest concern when evaluating existing controls during a risk assessment is the presence of successive assessments with the same recurring vulnerabilities. This indicates that the controls are ineffective or inadequate in addressing the identified risks, and that the risk management process is not functioning properly. Recurring vulnerabilities expose the enterprise to potential losses, breaches, or incidents that could harm its objectives, reputation, or compliance. Therefore, it is essential to identify the root causes of the recurring vulnerabilities, implement corrective actions, and monitor the effectiveness of the controls on a regular basis. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, page 183.

The most comprehensive input to the risk assessment process specific to the effects of system downtime is the business impact analysis (BIA). The BIA is a process of analyzing the potential impacts of disruptive events on the business processes, functions, and resources. The BIA identifies the criticality, dependencies, recovery priorities, and recovery objectives of the business processes, and quantifies the financial and non-financial impacts of system downtime. The BIA provides valuable information for the risk assessment process, as it helps to evaluate the likelihood and impact of the risks, and to determine the appropriate risk responses. Business continuity plan (BCP) testing results, recovery time objective (RTO), and recovery point objective (RPO) are not as comprehensive as the BIA, as they are derived from the BIA and focus on specific aspects of the business continuity and recovery strategies. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 130.

Ongoing availability of data is the most important consideration when selecting key risk indicators (KRIs) to monitor risk trends over time, as it ensures that the KRIs can provide timely and reliable information on the current and future risk status and performance. KRIs are metrics that measure the level of risk exposure and the effectiveness of risk response strategies, and they should be aligned with the enterprise’s risk appetite and objectives. Ongoing availability of data means that the data sources and collection methods for the KRIs are consistent, accessible, and sustainable, and that the data quality and integrity are maintained and verified. Ability to aggregate data, ability to predict trends, and availability of automated reporting systems are not the most important considerations, as they do not affect the validity and usefulness of the KRIs, but rather the presentation and analysis of the KRI data. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control – Question213; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 213.

The best way to facilitate the alignment of IT risk management with enterprise risk management (ERM) is to link IT risk scenarios to enterprise strategy, because this ensures that the IT risks are considered in the context of the enterprise’s mission, vision, and goals. Linking IT risk scenarios to enterprise strategy also helps to prioritize the IT risks based on their impact and relevance to the enterprise’s objectives, and to select the appropriate risk responses and resources. The other options are not the best ways to facilitate the alignment of IT risk management with ERM, because they do not address the integration or alignment of the IT and enterprise perspectives. Adopting qualitative or quantitative enterprise risk assessment methods, and linking IT risk scenarios to technology objectives are examples of techniques or tools that can be used to perform IT risk management or ERM, but they do not ensure the alignment or consistency of the two processes. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3, p. 22.

The greatest concern when assessing the risk profile of an organization is that the risk profile was last reviewed two years ago. A risk profile is a snapshot of the current risk exposure and appetite of the organization, based on the identification, analysis, and evaluation of the risks that could affect the achievement of the organization’s objectives. A risk profile should be reviewed and updated regularly, at least annually, or whenever there are significant changes in the internal or external environment, such as new projects, strategies, regulations, or incidents. A risk profile that was last reviewed two years ago may not reflect the current risk situation and status of the organization, and may lead to inaccurate or incomplete risk assessment and response. The risk profile not being updated after a recent incident, the risk profile being developed without using industry standards, and the risk profile not containing historical loss data are also concerns, but they are not as critical as the risk profile being outdated. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 48.

The best way to mitigate the risk of reputational damage from inappropriate use of social media sites by employees is to implement training and awareness programs that educate them on the acceptable and unacceptable use of social media, the potential consequences of violating the policy, and the best practices for protecting the organization’s reputation and information. Training and awareness programs can also help to foster a culture of risk awareness and responsibility among employees, and encourage them to report any incidents or issues related to social media use. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4, page 131.