PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor - PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 2022 Lead Auditor exam

The main purpose of a Stage 1 third-party audit is to determine readiness for a Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit is a preliminary assessment that evaluates the organization’s ISMS documentation, scope, context, and objectives, and identifies any major gaps or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not introduce the audit team to the client, as this is done during the audit planning phase. A Stage 1 audit does not check for legal compliance by the organization, as this is done during the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not prepare an independent audit report, as this is done after the Stage 2 audit. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 70. : ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB, page 23.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer:

Due professional care refers to auditors carefully considering all relevant factors before initiating an audit.

In this scenario, the auditors assessed the auditee’s context, processes, and expectations, which aligns with ISO 19011:2018 Clause 4 (Principles of Auditing: Due Professional Care).

B. Incorrect:

Professional skepticism is about challenging evidence and avoiding assumptions, not about contextual planning.

C. Incorrect:

Integrity refers to acting honestly and ethically, which is not the focus here.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 4.5 (Due Professional Care)

B. 8.12 Data leakage protection. This is true because the auditee should have implemented measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, such as personal data, medical records, or official documents, that are contained in the parcels. Data leakage protection could include encryption, authentication, access control, logging, and monitoring of data transfers12.

D. 6.3 Information security awareness, education, and training. This is true because the auditee should have ensured that all employees and contractors involved in the shipping process are aware of the information security policies and procedures, and have received appropriate training on how to handle and protect the information assets in their custody. Information security awareness, education, and training could include induction programmes, periodic refreshers, awareness campaigns, e-learning modules, and feedback mechanisms13.

E. 7.10 Storage media. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to protect the storage media that contain information assets from unauthorized access, misuse, theft, loss, or damage. Storage media could include paper documents, optical disks, magnetic tapes, flash drives, or hard disks14. Storage media controls could include physical locks, encryption, backup, disposal, or destruction14.

F. 8.3 Information access restriction. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to restrict access to information assets based on the principle of least privilege and the need-to-know basis. Information access restriction could include identification, authentication, authorization, accountability, and auditability of users and systems that access information assets15.

I. 7.4 Physical security monitoring. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to monitor the physical security of the premises where information assets are stored or processed. Physical security monitoring could include CCTV cameras, alarms, sensors, guards, or patrols16. Physical security monitoring could help detect and deter unauthorized physical access or intrusion attempts16.

J. 5.13 Labelling of information. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to label information assets according to their classification level and handling instructions. Labelling of information could include markings, tags, stamps, stickers, or barcodes1 . Labelling of information could help identify and protect information assets from unauthorized disclosure or misuse1 .

References :=

ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements

ISO/IEC 27003:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Guidance

ISO/IEC 27004:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Monitoring measurement analysis and evaluation

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management

ISO/IEC 27006:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems

[ISO/IEC 27007:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing]

The two statements that are valid audit conclusions are:

•The ISMS policy has been effectively communicated to the organisation

•The organisation’s ISMS objectives meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, an audit conclusion is the outcome of an audit, provided by the audit team after considering the audit objectives and all audit findings1. An audit conclusion can be positive or negative, depending on whether the audit criteria are fulfilled or not. An audit conclusion can also include recommendations for improvement or recognition of good practices.

The statements D and E are valid audit conclusions, because they express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. For example:

•Statement D is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 5.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the ISMS policy must be communicated within the organisation and to relevant interested parties2. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of communication, awareness activities, feedback, etc.

•Statement E is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must establish ISMS objectives that are consistent with the ISMS policy and relevant to the information security risks3. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of objective setting, risk assessment, alignment with policy, etc.

The other statements are not valid audit conclusions, because they do not express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. They are rather examples of audit findings, which are the results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against the audit criteria4. Audit findings can indicate either conformity or nonconformity with the audit criteria, or opportunities for improvement. For example:

•Statement A is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 7.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must provide information security awareness education and training to persons under its control5. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement B is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must maintain and review the information security risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur6. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement C is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must take action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities and prevent recurrence7. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement F is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must determine the controls that are necessary to implement the risk treatment plan, and document them in the statement of applicability8. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

A checklist is a tool that helps auditors to collect and verify information relevant to the audit objectives and scope. It can provide the following advantages:

Ensuring relevant audit trails are followed: A checklist can help auditors to identify and trace the sources of evidence that support the conformity or nonconformity of the audited criteria. It can also help auditors to avoid missing or overlooking any important aspects of the audit.

Ensuring the audit plan is implemented: A checklist can help auditors to follow and fulfil the audit plan, which describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. It can also help auditors to manage their time and resources effectively and efficiently.

The other options are not advantages of using a checklist, but rather:

Using the same checklist for every audit without review: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can lead to a rigid and ineffective audit approach. A checklist should be tailored and adapted to each specific audit, taking into account the context, risks, and changes of the auditee and the audit criteria. A checklist should also be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure its validity and relevance.

Restricting interviews to nominated parties: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can limit the scope and depth of the audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from interviewing other relevant parties or sources of information that may provide valuable evidence or insights for the audit. A checklist should be used as a guide, not as a constraint.

Reducing audit duration: This is not necessarily an advantage of using a checklist, as it depends on various factors, such as the complexity, size, and maturity of the auditee’s ISMS, the availability and quality of evidence, the competence and experience of the auditors, and the level of cooperation and communication between the auditors and the auditee. A checklist may help reduce audit duration by improving efficiency and organization, but it may also increase audit duration by requiring more evidence or verification.

Not varying from the checklist when necessary: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can result in a superficial or incomplete audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from exploring or investigating any issues or concerns that arise during the audit, even if they are not included in the checklist. A checklist should be used as a support, not as a substitute.