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

Question:

Finnco, a subsidiary of a certification body, provided ISMS consultancy services to an organization. Considering this scenario, when can the certification body certify the organization?

Scenario 5

CyberShielding Systems Inc. provides security services spanning the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. CyberShielding Systems Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks for two decades through advanced products and services. Having achieved a reputation in the information and network security sector, CyberShielding Systems Inc. decided to implement a security information management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and obtain a certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain a competitive advantage.

The certification body initiated the process by selecting the audit team for CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s ISO/IEC 27001 certification. They provided the company with the name and background information of each audit member. However, upon review, CyberShielding Systems Inc. discovered that one of the auditors did not hold the security clearance required by them. Consequently, the company objected to the appointment of this auditor. Upon review, the certification body replaced the auditor in response to CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s objection.

As part of the audit process, CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s approach to risk and opportunity determination was assessed as a standalone activity. This involved examining the organization’s methods for identifying and managing risks and opportunities. The audit team’s core objectives encompassed providing assurance on the effectiveness of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity identification mechanisms and reviewing the organization's strategies for addressing these determined risks and opportunities. During this, the audit team also identified a risk due to a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval, potentially exposing the company to vulnerabilities. This finding highlighted the need for stronger internal controls to prevent such issues.

The audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts to understand the main business processes and controls. They performed a limited analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was limited by third-party service provider restrictions. However, the audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in CyberShielding’s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by questioning CyberShielding representatives on IT responsibilities, control effectiveness, and anti-malware measures. CyberShielding’s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

Despite the agreement signed before the audit, which outlined the audit scope, criteria, and objectives, the audit was primarily focused on assessing conformity with established criteria and ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Question

Was the audit team’s assessment of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity determination conducted in accordance with established auditing norms? Refer to Scenario 5.

Select the words that best complete the sentence to describe an audit finding.

You are an ISMS audit team leader tasked with conducting a follow-up audit at a client's data centre. Following two days on-site you conclude that of the original 12 minor and 1 major nonconformities that prompted the follow-up audit, only 1 minor nonconformity still remains outstanding.

Select four options for the actions you could take.

Scenario 6: Sinvestment is an insurance company that offers home, commercial, and life insurance. The company was founded in North Carolina, but have recently expanded in other locations, including Europe and Africa.

Sinvestment is committed to complying with laws and regulations applicable to their industry and preventing any information security incident. They have implemented an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 and have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification.

Two auditors were assigned by the certification body to conduct the audit. After signing a confidentiality agreement with Sinvestment. they started the audit activities. First, they reviewed the documentation required by the standard, including the declaration of the ISMS scope, information security policies, and internal audits reports. The review process was not easy because, although Sinvestment stated that they had a documentation procedure in place, not all documents had the same format.

Then, the audit team conducted several interviews with Sinvestment's top management to understand their role in the ISMS implementation. All activities of the stage 1 audit were performed remotely, except the review of documented information, which took place on-site, as requested by Sinvestment.

During this stage, the auditors found out that there was no documentation related to information security training and awareness program. When asked, Sinvestment's representatives stated that the company has provided information security training sessions to all employees. Stage 1 audit gave the audit team a general understanding of Sinvestment's operations and ISMS.

The stage 2 audit was conducted three weeks after stage 1 audit. The audit team observed that the marketing department (which was not included in the audit scope) had no procedures in place to control employees’ access rights. Since controlling employees' access rights is one of the ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and was included in the information security policy of the company, the issue was included in the audit report. In addition, during stage 2 audit, the audit team observed that Sinvestment did not record logs of user activities. The procedures of the company stated that "Logs recording user activities should be retained and regularly reviewed," yet the company did not present any evidence of the implementation of such procedure.

During all audit activities, the auditors used observation, interviews, documented information review, analysis, and technical verification to collect information and evidence. All the audit findings during stages 1 and 2 were analyzed and the audit team decided to issue a positive recommendation for certification.

Based on scenario 6, during stage 1 audit, the auditor found out that some documents regarding the ISMS had different format. What should the auditor do in this case?

Scenario 8: Tessa. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

Who is primarily responsible for the preparation and content of the audit report?

Which is an example of a qualitative evidence?

Scenario 4: Branding is a marketing company that works with some of the most famous companies in the US. To reduce internal costs. Branding has outsourced the software development and IT helpdesk operations to Techvology for over two years. Techvology. equipped with the necessary expertise, manages Branding's software, network, and hardware needs. Branding has implemented an information security management system (ISMS) and is certified against ISO/IEC 27001, demonstrating its commitment to maintaining high standards of information security. It actively conducts audits on Techvology to ensure that the security of its outsourced operations complies with ISO/IEC 27001 certification requirements.

During the last audit. Branding's audit team defined the processes to be audited and the audit schedule. They adopted an evidence based approach, particularly in light of two information security incidents reported by Techvology in the past year The focus was on evaluating how these incidents were addressed and ensuring compliance with the terms of the outsourcing agreement

The audit began with a comprehensive review of Techvology's methods for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, assessing whether the services provided met Branding's expectations and agreed-upon standards The auditors also verified whether Techvology complied with the contractual requirements established between the two entities This involved thoroughly examining the terms and conditions in the outsourcing agreement to guarantee that all aspects, including information security measures, are being adhered to.

Furthermore, the audit included a critical evaluation of the governance processes Techvology uses to manage its outsourced operations and other organizations. This step is crucial for Branding to verify that proper controls and oversight mechanisms are in place to mitigate potential risks associated with the outsourcing arrangement.

The auditors conducted interviews with various levels of Techvology's personnel and analyzed the incident resolution records. In addition, Techvology provided the records that served as evidence that they conducted awareness sessions for the staff regarding incident management. Based on the information gathered, they predicted that both information security incidents were caused by incompetent personnel. Therefore, auditors requested to see the personnel files of the employees involved in the incidents to review evidence of their competence, such as relevant experience, certificates, and records of attended trainings.

Branding's auditors performed a critical evaluation of the validity of the evidence obtained and remained alert for evidence that could contradict or question the reliability of the documented information received. During the audit at Techvology, the auditors upheld this approach by critically assessing the incident resolution records and conducting thorough interviews with employees at different levels and functions. They did not merely take the word of Techvology's representatives for facts; instead, they sought concrete evidence to support the representatives' claims about the incident management processes.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

Were the auditors diligent in adhering to the auditing process for outsourced operations?

Which two of the following options do not participate in a second-party audit to ISO/IEC 27001?

Question:

How does predictive analytics help auditors in identifying potential risks?