CRISC Exam Dumps - Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

Biased recommendations from AI models pose significant risks to decision-making and organizational ethics. Such biases can propagate systemic issues and impact regulatory compliance, emphasizing the need for robust controls in AI development and deployment underEmerging Technology Risks.

When proposing a risk acceptance framework for an organization, the most important consideration for the risk practitioner is to clearly define the individuals or roles authorized to approve risk acceptance. This ensures that the process is controlled, accountable, and aligned with the organization’s risk management policies.

Risk Acceptance Framework:

Purpose:A risk acceptance framework provides structured criteria and processes for deciding whether to accept a risk. This includes evaluating the risk against the organization's risk appetite and tolerance.

Authorization:Identifying who has the authority to accept risk is critical. This ensures that only those with the appropriate knowledge, experience, and understanding of the organization's risk appetite and strategic objectives can make these decisions.

Importance of Authorized Individuals:

Accountability:Clearly defined roles for risk acceptance ensure accountability. It is essential that those making the decisions are accountable for the outcomes and understand the potential impact of their decisions.

Consistency:By defining specific roles, the organization ensures consistency in risk acceptance decisions, reducing the likelihood of ad-hoc or inconsistent risk management practices.

Alignment with Strategy:Authorized individuals are typically those who understand the strategic objectives of the organization, ensuring that risk acceptance aligns with these goals.

References:

The CRISC Review Manual emphasizes that risk acceptance must be formally authorized by individuals with the appropriate level of authority and responsibility within the organization​​.

According to ISACA’s guidelines, effective risk management frameworks must include clear definitions of who can accept risks to ensure proper oversight and alignment with organizational goals .

The recovery time objective (RTO) is the planned recovery time for a process or system which should occur before reaching the business process’s maximum tolerable downtime (MTD) or maximum allowable outage (MAO). The RTO must be aligned with the MAO to ensure that the continuity of the business process is not compromised by a prolonged outage. The RTO is determined by the business impact analysis (BIA) based on the criticality and urgency of the business process and its dependencies. The RTO also helps to select and implement appropriate recovery methods and procedures for the process or system. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 6: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 6.2: IT Risk Reporting, Page 307; What is the difference between RPO, RTO, and MTD? - Tandem Blog.

The primary concern when IT decides to develop an in-house replacement application for a critical business application is that the business process owner is not an active participant. The business process owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for the business process that is supported by the application, and who understands the business requirements, objectives, and expectations of the application. The business process owner should be involved in all stages of the application development lifecycle, from planning, analysis, design, testing, implementation, to maintenance, to ensure that the application meets the business needs and delivers value. Without the active participation of the business process owner, the application development project may face risks such as scope creep, miscommunication, user dissatisfaction, poor quality, or failure.

References:

•ISACA, Auditing IT Risk Associated With Change Management and Application Development1

•ISACA, Auditing Applications, Part 12

A post-implementation RCSA is a process of verifying whether the risk treatment plan has been executed as intended and whether the residual risk is within the acceptable level. It involves testing the effectiveness of the controls that have been implemented to mitigate the risk and identifying any gaps or issues that need to be addressed. A BIA, the original risk response plan, and the training program and user awareness documentationare not sufficient to validate the effectiveness of the risk treatment plan, as they do not measure the actual performance of the controls or the residual risk.

References:

•ISACA, Risk IT Framework, 2nd Edition, 2019, p. 761

•ISACA, Risk and Information Systems Control Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2020, p. 2112

An independent review is typically sought to provide an objective assessment of the IT risk management program, ensuring that it aligns with the organization’s overall strategy and objectives. The reviewer can identify areas where the program may not be effectively addressing the organization’s strategic goals or where improvements can be made to better manage IT risks.

ï‚· Understanding Reputational Risk:

Reputational risk arises from negative public perception, which can be fueled by disinformation campaigns. These campaigns spread false or misleading information about an organization, potentially damaging its reputation.

ï‚· Mitigating Reputational Risk:

The best way to mitigate this risk is to actively counteract false information and restore public trust. This involves debunking false stories and correcting misinformation promptly and effectively.

ï‚· Role of Public Relations:

Engaging public relations (PR) personnel is crucial in managing the organization's reputation. PR professionals are skilled in crafting messages, dealing with media, and using communication strategies to address and correct false narratives.

PR personnel can issue press releases, organize press conferences, and leverage social media to reach a wide audience, ensuring the correct information is disseminated.

ï‚· Monitoring and Awareness Training:

While monitoring digital platforms and providing awareness training are important, they are more preventive measures. Monitoring helps in early detection, and training aids in internal management of such risks. However, they do not actively counteract the false information once it is in the public domain.

ï‚· Restricting Social Media:

Restricting social media usage on corporate networks does not address the core issue of disinformation campaigns. It may reduce internal risks but does not mitigate external reputational damage.

ï‚· References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses strategies for managing reputational risk and highlights the importance of proactive communication and public relations efforts (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 1: Governance, Section 1.3.4 The Value of Risk Communication)​​.