Isaca CCAK - Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge

Traditional cloud compliance assurance approaches such as SOC2 attestations have the main limitation of providing a point-in-time snapshot of an organization’s compliance posture. This means that they only reflect the state of the organization’s security and compliance controls at a specific date or period, which may not be representative of the current or future state. Cloud environments are dynamic and constantly changing, and so are the threats and risks that affect them. Therefore, relying on traditional cloud compliance assurance approaches may not provide sufficient or timely assurance that the organization’s cloud services and data are adequately protected and compliant with the relevant requirements and standards.12

To overcome this limitation, some organizations adopt continuous cloud compliance assurance approaches, such as continuous monitoring, auditing, and reporting. These approaches enable the organization to collect, analyze, and report on the security and compliance status of its cloud environment in near real-time, using automated tools and processes. Continuous cloud compliance assurance approaches can help the organization to identify and respond to any changes, issues, or incidents that may affect its cloud security and compliance posture, and to maintain a high level of trust and transparency with its stakeholders, customers, and regulators.34

References := What is SOC 2? Complete Guide to SOC 2 Reports | CSA1; Guidance on cloud security assessment and authorization - ITSP.50.105 - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security2; Continuous Compliance: The Future of Cloud Security | CloudCheckr3; Continuous Compliance: How to Automate Cloud Security Compliance4

Attribute-based access control (ABAC) is a cloud-native solution that uses attributes (such as user role, location, or device) to dynamically control access. This method is highly flexible for the cloud, where user attributes and environmental factors vary, unlike traditional enterprise security models. ISACA’s CCAK emphasizes ABAC in cloud environments for its adaptability to multi-tenant architectures and complex access control requirements, aligning with CCM controls in Domain IAM-12 (Identity and Access Management) for flexible, secure access mechanisms.

=========================

According to the CSA website, the primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, trusted certification of cloud providers1 The OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework2 The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services, such as the lack of simple, cost effective ways to evaluate and compare providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy, and service portability2 The OCF also aims to promote industry transparency and reduce complexity and costs for both providers and customers3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because facilitating an effective relationship between the cloud service provider and cloud client is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential benefit or outcome of it. The OCF can help facilitate an effective relationship between the provider and the client by providing a common language and framework for assessing and communicating the security and compliance posture of the provider, as well as enabling trust and confidence in the provider’s capabilities and performance. However, this is not the main goal or objective of the OCF, but rather a means to achieve it.

Option B is not correct because ensuring understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a possible implication or consequence of it. The OCF can help ensure understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users by providing objective and verifiable information and evidence about the provider’s security and compliance level, as well as allowing comparison and benchmarking with other providers in the market. However, this is not the main aim or intention of the OCF, but rather a result or effect of it.

Option D is not correct because enabling the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential advantage or opportunity for it. The OCF can enable the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements by providing a flexible, incremental and multi-layered approach to certification and/or attestation that allows the provider to choose the level of assurance that suits their business needs and goals. However, this is not the main reason or motivation for the OCF, but rather a benefit or option for it.

References: 1: Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA 2: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 3: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

 Termination for convenience is a contractual provision that allows one party to unilaterally terminate the contract without the fault of the other party. This type of termination does not require the terminating party to prove that the other party has failed to meet their obligations or is at fault in any way. Instead, it is often used to end a contract when it is no longer in the best interest of the terminating party to continue, for reasons that may include changes in business strategy, financial considerations, or other external factors.

References = The concept of termination for convenience is commonly found in various contractual agreements and is a standard clause in government contracts, allowing the government to terminate a contract when it is deemed to be in the public interest. While the search did not yield specific CCAK documents detailing this type of termination, it is a well-established principle in contract law and is likely covered under the broader topic of contract management within the CCAK curriculum.

 A DDoS attack renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours, resulting in millions in lost sales is an example of financial business impact. Financial business impact refers to the extent of damage or harm that a threat can cause to the financial objectives and performance of the organization, such as revenue, profit, cash flow, or market share. A DDoS attack can cause a significant financial business impact by disrupting the normal operations and transactions of the organization, leading to loss of sales, customers, contracts, or opportunities. According to a report by Kaspersky, the average cost of a DDoS attack for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) was $123,000 in 2019, while for enterprises it was $2.3 million.1 Therefore, it is important for organizations to implement appropriate security measures and contingency plans to prevent or mitigate the effects of a DDoS attack. References := The Future of Finance and the Global Economy: Facing Global … - IMF2; Kaspersky: Cost of a DDoS Attack1

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

 The correct answer is C. Data input and output integrity routines (i.e., reconciliation and edit checks) are controls that can be implemented for application interfaces and databases to prevent manual or systematic processing errors, corruption of data, or misuse. This is stated in the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) control AIS-03: Data Integrity123, which is part of the Application & Interface Security domain. The 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 other options are not directly related to the question. Option A refers to the CCM control AIS-02: Customer Access Requirements2, which addresses the security, contractual, and regulatory requirements for customer access to data, assets, and information systems. Option B refers to the CCM control AIS-04: Data Security / Integrity2, which establishes policies and procedures to support data security across multiple system interfaces, jurisdictions, and business functions. Option D refers to the CCM control AIS-01: Application Security2, which requires applications and programming interfaces (APIs) to be designed, developed, deployed, and tested in accordance with leading industry standards (e.g., OWASP for web applications). References :=

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

What is the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)? - Cloud Security Alliance4

AIS-03: Data Integrity - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1

AIS: Application & Interface Security - CSF Tools - Identity Digital2

PR.DS-6: Integrity checking mechanisms are used to verify software … - CSF Tools - Identity Digital

This situation poses a significant concern for a cloud auditor because it indicates a potential gap in the technical team’s ability to effectively manage and secure the IaaS platform provided by the alternative vendor. Without proper training on the specific features, security practices, and operational procedures of the new platform, the organization may face increased risks of misconfiguration, security vulnerabilities, and inefficiencies in cloud operations. It is crucial for the technical team to have a comprehensive understanding of all platforms in use to ensure they can maintain the security and performance standards required for a robust cloud environment.

References = The concern is based on common cloud auditing challenges, such as controlling and monitoring user access, and ensuring the IT team is equipped to manage the cloud environment effectively12. Additionally, best practices suggest that network segmentation, user authentication, and access control are critical areas to address in a cloud audit3. These principles are widely recognized in the field of cloud security and compliance.