CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

The primary reason for prioritizing risk scenarios is to facilitate risk response decisions. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe the possible causes, events, and consequences of a risk. Prioritizing risk scenarios is the process of ranking the risk scenarios according to their level of importance, urgency, or impact. Prioritizing risk scenarios helps to facilitate risk response decisions, which are the choices made to address the risks, such as avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risks. Prioritizing risk scenarios helps to allocate the resources and efforts to the most significant or critical risk scenarios, and to select the most appropriate and effective risk responses. Prioritizing risk scenarios also helps to communicate and justify the risk response decisions to the stakeholders, and to monitor and report the risk status and performance. Providing an enterprise-wide view of risk, supporting risk response tracking, and assigning risk ownership are not the primary reasons for prioritizing risk scenarios, as they are either the inputs or the outputs of the risk prioritization process, and they do not address the primary need of responding to the risks. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 50.

When selecting a risk response, the following should be considered:

B. Risk response costs

It’s important to evaluate the costs associated with implementing a risk response to ensure that they are justified by the benefits of mitigating the risk. This helps in making cost-effective decisions that align with the organization’s risk management objectives.

 A cost-benefit analysis of the control versus probable legal action is the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of a notice and consent control for the collection of personal information, as it quantifies the potential benefits and costs of implementing the control and compares them with the potential consequences of not implementing the control. This helps the decision-makers to evaluate the trade-offs and the return on investment of the control.

A comparison of the costs of notice and consent control options is not sufficient to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as it does not consider the benefits or the risks of the control.

Examples of regulatory fines incurred by industry peers for noncompliance are not the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as they are based on historical data and may not reflect the current or future situation of the enterprise.

A report of critical controls showing the importance of notice and consent is not the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as it does not provide any quantitative or comparative data to support the decision. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, page 140-1411

Information security metrics are quantitative or qualitative measures that indicate the performance and effectiveness of the information security processes, controls, and objectives. The primary goal of developing information security metrics is to enable continuous improvement of the information security program and to align it with the business goals and strategy. Information security metrics can help to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the security program, to monitor and report on the progress and outcomes of the security initiatives, to evaluate the return on investment and value of the security activities, and to provide feedback and guidance for improvement actions. Information security metrics should be relevant, reliable, consistent, and actionable. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, p. 116-117

The most appropriate key risk indicator (KRI) for backup media that is recycled monthly is the percentage of failed restore tests. A KRI is a metric that measures the likelihood or impact of a risk, and provides an early warning signal of a potential risk event. The percentage of failed restore tests is a KRI that reflects the quality and reliability of the backup media, and indicates the possibility of data loss or corruption. A high percentage of failed restore tests would suggest that the backup media is not functioning properly, and that the risk of data unavailability is increasing. Therefore, this KRI would help the risk practitioner to monitor the risk and take corrective actions as needed. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2, page 235.

 A risk treatment plan is a document that describes the actions and resources required to implement the chosen risk response for a specific risk scenario. A risk response can be to accept, avoid, transfer, or mitigate the risk. The effectiveness of a risk treatment plan can be measured by how well it reduces the risk exposure and achieves the desired outcomes. The best evidence that a selected risk treatment plan is effective is to evaluate the residual risk level, which is the remaining risk after the risk treatment plan has been implemented. The residual risk level should be within the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and should reflect the actual risk reduction and value creation of the risk treatment plan. Evaluating the residual risk level can also help to identify any gaps or issues that need to be addressed, and to monitor and report on the risk performance and improvement. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, p. 108-109

The best way to help an enterprise define and communicate its risk appetite is to use a risk register, which is a document that records and summarizes the key information and data about the identified risks and the risk responses1. A risk register can help to:

Define the risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives2. The risk register can include the risk appetite statement, which is a clear and concise expression of the enterprise’s risk preferences and boundaries3.

Communicate the risk appetite, which is the process of sharing and informing the risk appetite to the relevant stakeholders, such as the board, the management, the employees, or the customers4. The risk register can be used as a communication tool, which can provide a consistent and transparent view of the enterprise’s risk profile and performance5.

The other options are not the best ways to help an enterprise define and communicate its risk appetite, because:

Gap analysis is a technique that compares the current state and the desired state of a process, system, or organization, and identifies the gaps or differences between them6. Gap analysis can help to assess the alignment or misalignment of the enterprise’s risk appetite with its risk level, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

Risk assessment is a process that estimates the probability and impact of the risks, and prioritizes the risks based on their significance and urgency. Risk assessment can help to identify and analyze the risks that may affect the enterprise’s objectives, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

Heat map is a graphical representation that uses colors to indicate the level or intensity of a variable, such as risk. Heat map can help to visualize and compare the risks based on their probability and impact, but it does not help to define or communicate the risk appetite itself.

References =

Risk Register - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite Statement - CIO Wiki

Risk Communication - CIO Wiki

Risk Reporting - CIO Wiki

Gap Analysis - CIO Wiki

[Risk Assessment - CIO Wiki]

[Heat Map - CIO Wiki]

[Risk and Information Systems Control documents and learning resources by ISACA]

Encryption is a technique that transforms data into an unreadable format using a secret key, so that only authorized parties can access and decrypt the data. Encryption can help to protect sensitive data from unauthorized access or disclosure, especially when the data is stored or transmitted in the cloud1.

Ensuring the vendor does not know the encryption key is a control that will best reduce the risk associated with a data breach, because it can help to:

Prevent the vendor from accessing or disclosing the sensitive data, intentionally or unintentionally

Limit the exposure or impact of the data breach, even if the vendor’s systems or networks are compromised by hackers or malicious insiders

Maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the sensitive data, regardless of the vendor’s liability or responsibility

Enhance the trust and confidence of the customers and stakeholders, who may be concerned about the vendor’s refusal to accept liability for a data breach23

The other options are not as effective as ensuring the vendor does not know the encryption key for reducing the risk associated with a data breach. Engaging a third party to validate operational controls is a control that can help to verify and improve the vendor’s security practices and processes, but it does not guarantee that the vendor will prevent or respond to a data breach adequately or timely. Using the same cloud vendor as a competitor is not a control, but rather a business decision that may increase the risk associated with a data breach, as the vendor may have access to or disclose the sensitive data of both parties, or may favor one party over the other. Using field-level encryption with a vendor supplied key is a control that can help to encrypt specific fields or columns of data, such as names, addresses, or credit card numbers, but it does not prevent the vendor from accessing or disclosing the data, as the vendor has the encryption key4. References =

Encryption - ISACA

Cloud Encryption: Using Data Encryption in The Cloud

Cloud Encryption: Why You Need It and How to Do It Right

Field-Level Encryption - ISACA

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]