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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:A preventive control is a security measure implemented to prevent security incidents or risks from occurring. It proactively protects information systems and mitigates potential threats.

A. Using an application that prioritized orders based on its prior knowledge – This is an operational enhancement but not a security control. It improves efficiency but does not directly prevent security breaches or risks.

B. Signing a confidentiality agreement – This is a preventive control because it ensures that sensitive business information remains protected from unauthorized disclosure before transitioning to an outsourced service provider. It mitigates the risk of intellectual property theft or data misuse by legally binding the parties to confidentiality.

C. Expanding the capacity of the in-house data center – This is a corrective or operational control, as it addresses the issue of insufficient infrastructure but does not prevent security-related threats.

This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.6 (Contact with Special Interest Groups), which includes legal agreements and confidentiality measures to protect sensitive information.

The AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) method is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting data1. This type of control is considered preventive because it is implemented to prevent unauthorized access to confidential information by ensuring that the data is unreadable to anyone who does not have the key. References: = The explanation is based on the general understanding of encryption as a security control within the field of information security, particularly as it pertains to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard for information security management systems (ISMS), which includes encryption as a preventive control measure.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 8.30, the organisation shall ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. This includes developing and entering into licensing agreements that cover code ownership and intellectual property rights, and implementing appropriate contractual requirements related to secure design and coding in accordance with Annex A 8.25 and 8.2912

In this case, the organisation and the developer have performed security tests that failed, which indicates that the secure design and coding requirements of Annex A 8.29 were not met. The IT Manager explains that the encryption and pseudonymization functions failed because they slowed down the system and service performance, and that an extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. However, this does not justify the acceptance of the test results by the Service Manager, who is not authorised to approve the test according to the software security management procedure. The Service Manager should have consulted with the IT Manager, who is the owner of the process, and followed the procedure for handling nonconformities and corrective actions. The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service based on access control alone exposes the organisation to the risk of compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal data processed by the mobile app. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1, control A.8.30.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Clause 8.1, the organisation shall plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet information security requirements, and to implement the actions determined in Clause 6.1. The organisation shall also control planned changes and review the consequences of unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary12

In this case, the organisation has not controlled the planned change of the mobile app from version 1.0 to version 1.01, which was a minor update provided by the outsourced developer in response to frequent ransomware attacks. The IT Manager explains that the developer performed an emergency release of the updated software, and gave a verbal guarantee that there will be no impact on any security functions. However, this is not sufficient to ensure that the change is properly assessed, tested, documented, and approved before deployment. The IT Manager should have followed the change management process and procedure, and verified that the updated software meets the security requirements and does not introduce any new vulnerabilities or risks. The IT Manager’s reliance on his 20 years of information security experience and the developer’s verbal guarantee is not a valid basis for skipping the re-testing of the software. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.1 requires an organization to determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of its ISMS2. External issues are those that originate from outside the organization, such as legal, regulatory, cultural, social, political, economic, natural and competitive factors2. Internal issues are those that originate from within the organization, such as governance, structure, roles and responsibilities, policies, objectives, culture, capabilities, resources and information systems2. Therefore, based on this definition, four examples of external issues in the context of a management system to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are a rise in interest rates in response to high inflation (which affects the economic environment of the organization), a reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy (which affects the political and legal environment of the organization), higher labour costs as a result of an aging population (which affects the social and demographic environment of the organization), and inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions (which affects the trade and supply environment of the organization)2. The other options are examples of internal issues, as they originate from within the organization or its activities. For example, poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure (which affects the capabilities and resources of the organization), increased absenteeism as a result of poor management (which affects the culture and performance of the organization), poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced (which affects the motivation and satisfaction of the organization’s personnel), and a fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment (which affects the efficiency and quality of the organization’s processes)2. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 requires the audit team leader to conduct a follow-up audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified during a previous audit1. The follow-up audit should be conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and should result in a conclusion on the status of the nonconformities and any remaining issues1. Therefore, when conducting a follow-up audit, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.

Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.

Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.

Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer:

Statistical sampling follows probability theory and ensures objective selection.

ISO 19011:2018 supports statistical sampling for unbiased audit conclusions.

B. Incorrect:

Judgment-based sampling is subjective, not probability-based.

C. Incorrect:

Multi-site sampling applies to organizations with multiple locations.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.9 (Using Statistical Sampling for Audits)

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.2.2, the organization shall ensure that all persons who have access to information are aware of the information security policy and their contribution to the effectiveness of the ISMS, including the benefits of improved information security performance2. Therefore, awareness training on information security is a requirement for all persons, not just new hires. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Identifying the source of information (already given)

Gathering audit evidence: This involves collecting information from various sources such as documents, records, interviews, and observations.

Sampling the available data: Due to the vast amount of information available, auditors typically use sampling techniques to select representative data for closer scrutiny.

Verifying objective evidence: This involves checking the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the collected evidence.

Evaluating evidence against the audit criteria: Auditors compare the collected evidence to the established criteria (e.g., standards, policies, procedures) to assess compliance and effectiveness.

Recording audit findings: This involves documenting the results of the evaluation, including observations, conclusions, and recommendations.

Making audit conclusions: Based on the recorded findings, auditors formulate overall conclusions about the status of the management system.

Therefore, the correct sequence is:

1. Identifying the source of information 2. Gathering audit evidence 3. Sampling the available data 4. Verifying objective evidence 5. Evaluating evidence against the audit criteria 6. Recording audit findings 7. Making audit conclusions

The non-conformity you have identified relates to the organization's failure to implement adequate operational controls to ensure that service and regulatory requirements for data protection are met. This situation is particularly critical given the nature of the items being shipped, which include sensitive medical information and government documents. The fact that 15% of returned parcels have labels for different addresses, potentially exposing sensitive information to incorrect recipients, underscores the lack of effective information security practices.

The best description of the non-conformity, based on the details provided and the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, particularly clause 8.1 which deals with operational planning and control, would be:

C. The organisation does not have an effective process in place that ensures service requirements and regulatory requirements for data protection are met. Records show that 15% of returned parcels have disclosed information intended for another party to the recipient (which may include sensitive medical information or government department communications) without adequate operational controls to meet information security requirements.

This option accurately captures the essence of the non-conformity by highlighting the lack of effective operational controls to protect sensitive information, leading to potential unauthorized disclosure of information intended for another party. This is a direct violation of information security management principles, particularly those related to the protection of confidentiality and integrity of information as mandated by ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

•Minor Nonconformities: The identified nonconformities are minor, meaning they don't pose a significant risk to the information security management system (ISMS). They are likely to be easily rectified with focused corrective actions.

•Opportunity for Improvement: This is not a nonconformity but a suggestion for enhancing the ISMS. It doesn't require immediate corrective action but should be addressed in the organization's continual improvement efforts.

•Initial Certification: As this is an initial certification audit, the organization is expected to demonstrate its commitment to addressing any gaps identified. A partial audit allows for a focused follow-up on the specific areas of nonconformity, ensuring they have been adequately addressed.

Why other options are not suitable:

•A. Recommend certification after your approval of the proposed corrective action plan: While certification is the goal, it's premature to recommend it before verifying the effectiveness of the corrective actions.

•B. Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This is too extensive for minor nonconformities. A full re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or systemic issues.

•D. Recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year: This is too long a timeframe for addressing the nonconformities. Prompt corrective action is necessary to demonstrate commitment to the ISMS.

In summary, recommending a partial audit within 3 months strikes the right balance between allowing the organization time to implement corrective actions and ensuring timely verification of their effectiveness. This approach aligns with the principles of ISO 27001 and supports the organization's journey towards certification.