Isaca CCAK - Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge

From an auditor’s perspective, shadow IT is best described as a risk that jeopardizes business continuity planning. Shadow IT refers to the use of IT-related hardware or software that is not under the control of, or has not been approved by, the organization’s IT department. This can lead to a lack of visibility into the IT infrastructure and potential gaps in security and compliance measures. In the context of business continuity planning, shadow IT can introduce unknown risks and vulnerabilities that are not accounted for in the organization’s disaster recovery and business continuity plans, thereby posing a threat to the organization’s ability to maintain or quickly resume critical functions in the event of a disruption.

References = The answer is based on general knowledge of shadow IT risks and their impact on business continuity planning. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of shadow IT as a risk to business continuity is a recognized concern in IT governance and auditing practices1234.

 Effective operationalization of cloud security controls is highly dependent on the level of training and awareness among the staff who implement and manage these controls. Without proper understanding and awareness of security policies, procedures, and the specific controls in place, even the most sophisticated security measures can be rendered ineffective. Training ensures that the personnel are equipped with the necessary knowledge to perform their duties securely, while awareness programs help in maintaining a security-conscious culture within the organization.

References = This answer is supported by the CCAK materials which highlight the importance of training and awareness in cloud security. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) also emphasizes the need for security education and the role it plays in the successful implementation of security controls1234.

The most useful document for an auditor to review when seeking visibility into the cloud supply chain for a newly acquired Software as a Service (SaaS) solution is the SaaS provider contract. The contract is the legal agreement that defines the terms and conditions of the cloud service, including the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved1. The contract should also specify the service level agreements (SLAs), security and privacy requirements, data ownership and governance, incident response and reporting, audit rights and access, and subcontracting or outsourcing arrangements of the SaaS provider2. By reviewing the contract, the auditor can gain insight into the cloud supply chain and assess the risks, controls, and compliance of the SaaS solution.

The other options are not as useful as the SaaS provider contract. Payments made by the service owner are the financial transactions that reflect the fees or charges incurred by using the SaaS solution. They may indicate the usage or consumption of the cloud service, but they do not provide much information about the cloud supply chain or its security and compliance aspects3. SaaS vendor white papers are the marketing or educational materials that describe the features, benefits, or best practices of the SaaS solution. They may provide some general or technical information about the cloud service, but they are not legally binding or verifiable4. Cloud compliance obligations register is a tool that helps customers identify and track their compliance requirements and obligations for using cloud services. It may help customers understand their own responsibilities and risks in relation to the cloud service, but it does not necessarily reflect the compliance status or performance of the SaaS provider5.

References:

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center1, section on How to use the checklist

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au2, section on Contractual arrangements

Cloud Computing Pricing Models: A Comparison - DZone Cloud3, section on Pricing Models

What is a White Paper? Definition from WhatIs.com4, section on White Paper

Cloud Compliance Obligations Register | Cyber.gov.au5, section on Cloud Compliance Obligations Register

Reputation-based trust is a category of trust in cloud computing that relies on the feedback, ratings, reviews, or recommendations of other users or third parties who have used or evaluated the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust reflects the collective opinion and experience of the cloud community regarding the quality, reliability, security, and performance of the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust can help potential customers to make informed decisions about choosing a cloud service provider or a cloud service based on the reputation score or ranking of the provider or the service. Reputation-based trust can also motivate cloud service providers to improve their services and maintain their reputation by meeting or exceeding customer expectations.

Reputation-based trust is one of the most common and widely used forms of trust in cloud computing, as it is easy to access and understand. However, reputation-based trust also has some limitations and challenges, such as:

The accuracy and validity of the reputation data may depend on the source, method, and frequency of data collection and aggregation. For example, some reputation data may be outdated, incomplete, biased, manipulated, or falsified by malicious actors or competitors.

The interpretation and comparison of the reputation data may vary depending on the context, criteria, and preferences of the customers. For example, some customers may value different aspects of the cloud service more than others, such as security, availability, cost, or functionality.

The trustworthiness and accountability of the reputation system itself may be questionable. For example, some reputation systems may lack transparency, consistency, or standardization in their design, implementation, or operation.

Therefore, reputation-based trust should not be the only factor for trusting a cloud service provider or a cloud service. Customers should also consider other forms of trust in cloud computing, such as evidence-based trust, policy-based trust, or certification-based trust

According to the blog article “Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification” by the Cloud Security Alliance, a certification target helps in the formation of a continuous certification framework by incorporating the scope description and security attributes to be tested1 A certification target is a set of security objectives that a cloud service provider (CSP) defines and commits to fulfill as part of the continuous certification process1 Each security objective is associated with a policy that specifies the assessment frequency, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 A certification target also includes a set of tools that are capable of verifying that the security objectives are met, such as automated scripts, APIs, or third-party services1

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the service level objective (SLO) and service qualitative objective (SQO) are not part of the certification target, but rather part of the service level agreement (SLA) between the CSP and the cloud customer. An SLO is a measurable characteristic of the cloud service, such as availability, performance, or reliability. An SQO is a qualitative characteristic of the cloud service, such as security, privacy, or compliance2 The SLA defines the expected level of service and the consequences of not meeting it. The SLA may be used as an input for defining the certification target, but it is not equivalent or synonymous with it.

Option C is not correct because the frequency of evaluating security attributes is not the only component of the certification target, but rather one aspect of it. The frequency of evaluating security attributes is determined by the policy that is associated with each security objective in the certification target. The policy defines how often the security objective should be verified by the tools, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 However, the frequency alone does not define the certification target, as it also depends on the scope description and the security attributes to be tested.

Option D is not correct because CSA STAR level 2 attestation is not a component of the certification target, but rather a prerequisite for it. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is a third-party independent assessment of the CSP’s security posture based on ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)3 CSA STAR level 2 attestation provides a baseline assurance level for the CSP before they can define and implement their certification target for continuous certification. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is also required for CSA STAR level 3 certification, which is based on continuous auditing and continuous certification3

References: 1: Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification - Cloud Security Alliance 2: Service Level Agreement | CSA 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

When an organization is moving to the cloud, responsibilities are shared based upon the cloud service provider’s model and accountability is maintained. This means that the organization remains accountable for the security and compliance of its data and applications in the cloud, even if some of the security responsibilities are delegated to the cloud service provider (CSP). The organization cannot transfer or avoid its accountability to the CSP or any other third party, as it is ultimately responsible for its own business outcomes, legal obligations, and reputation. Therefore, the organization must understand the shared responsibility model and which security tasks are handled by the CSP and which tasks are handled by itself. The organization must also monitor and audit the CSP’s performance and security, and mitigate any risks or issues that may arise12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

The control audit frequency for an organization’s business continuity management and operational resilience strategy should be conducted annually. This frequency is considered appropriate for most organizations to ensure that their business continuity plans and operational resilience strategies remain effective and up-to-date with the current risk landscape. Conducting these audits annually aligns with the best practices of reviewing and updating business continuity plans to adapt to new threats, changes in the business environment, and lessons learned from past incidents. References = The annual audit frequency is supported by industry standards and guidelines that emphasize the importance of regular reviews to maintain operational resilience. These include resources from professional bodies and industry groups that outline the need for periodic assessments to ensure the effectiveness of business continuity and resilience strategies

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that can be used by cloud customers to build an operational cloud risk management program. The CCM provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by which actor within the cloud supply chain, and maps the controls to industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. The CCM can help cloud customers to assess the security posture of their cloud service providers, document their own responsibilities and requirements, and establish a baseline for cloud security assurance and compliance. References :=

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA1

What is the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)? - Cloud Security Alliance2

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Assurance Frameworks