Isaca Updated CISM Exam Questions and Answers by wyatt

The technical capabilities of the provider are the MOST important thing for an information security manager to verify when selecting a third-party forensics provider because they determine the quality, reliability, and validity of the forensic services and results that the provider can deliver. The technical capabilities of the provider include the skills, experience, and qualifications of the forensic staff, the methods, tools, and standards that the forensic staff use, and the facilities, equipment, and resources that the forensic staff have. The information security manager should verify that the technical capabilities of the provider match the forensic needs and expectations of the organization, such as the type, scope, and complexity of the forensic investigation, the legal and regulatory requirements, and the time and cost constraints12. The existence of a right-to-audit clause (A) is an important thing for an information security manager to verify when selecting a third-party forensics provider, but it is not the MOST important thing. A right-to-audit clause is a contractual provision that grants the organization the right to audit or review the performance, compliance, and security of the provider. A right-to-audit clause can help to ensure the accountability, transparency, and quality of the provider, as well as to identify and resolve any issues or disputes that may arise during or after the forensic service. However, a right-to-audit clause does not guarantee that the provider has the technical capabilities to conduct the forensic service effectively and efficiently12. The results of the provider’s business continuity tests (B) are an important thing for an information security manager to verify when selecting a third-party forensics provider, but they are not the MOST important thing. The results of the provider’s business continuity tests can indicate the ability and readiness of the provider to continue or resume the forensic service in the event of a disruption, disaster, or emergency. The results of the provider’s business continuity tests can help to assess the availability, resilience, and recovery of the provider, as well as to mitigate the risks of losing or compromising the forensic evidence or data. However, the results of the provider’s business continuity tests do not ensure that the provider has the technical capabilities to perform the forensic service accurately and professionally12. The existence of the provider’s incident response plan (D) is an important thing for an information security manager to verify when selecting a third-party forensics provider, but it is not the MOST important thing. The existence of the provider’s incident response plan can demonstrate the preparedness and capability of the provider to detect, report, and respond to any security incidents that may affect the forensic service or the organization. The existence of the provider’s incident response plan can help to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the forensic evidence or data, as well as to comply with the legal and contractual obligations. However, the existence of the provider’s incident response plan does not confirm that the provider has the technical capabilities to execute the forensic service competently and ethically12. References = 1: CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, page 310-3111; 2: A Risk-Based Management Approach to Third-Party Data Security, Risk and Compliance - ISACA2

The greatest challenge with assessing emerging risk in an organization is the incomplete identification of threats, as emerging risks are often new, unknown, or unfamiliar, and may not be fully understood or assessed. Incomplete identification of threats can lead to gaps in risk analysis and management, and expose the organization to unexpected or unprepared scenarios. The other options, such as lack of a risk framework, ineffective security controls, or presence of known vulnerabilities, are not specific to emerging risks, and may apply to any type of risk assessment. References:

https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc262/home/projects/ongoing/iso-31022-guidelines-for-impl-2.html

https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/newsletters/atisaca/2023/volume-6/emerging-risk-analysis

https://projectriskcoach.com/emerging-risks/

An intrusion detection system (IDS) is a software or hardware device that monitors network traffic and detects unauthorized or malicious activities, such as attacks, intrusions, or breaches. An IDS can provide valuable evidence for an information security team to investigate an alleged breach of an organization’s network, as it can capture and analyze the network traffic in real time or after the fact. An IDS can help to identify the source, type, scope, and impact of the breach, as well as to generate alerts and reports for further investigation.

File integrity monitoring software (FIM), security information and event management (SIEM) tool, and antivirus software are not single sources of evidence for an information security team to review. FIM software monitors files and directories on a network or system and detects changes or modifications that may indicate unauthorized access or tampering. SIEM tool collects and correlates data from various sources, such as logs, events, alerts, incidents, and threats, and provides a unified view of the security posture of an organization. Antivirus software scans files and programs on a network or system and detects malware infections that may compromise the security or functionality of the system.

However, these tools are not sufficient by themselves to provide conclusive evidence for an information security team to investigate an alleged breach of an organization’s network. They may provide some clues or indicators of compromise (IOCs), but they may also generate false positives or negatives due to various factors, such as configuration errors, user behavior, benign activities, or evasion techniques. Therefore, an information security team should use multiple sources of evidence from different tools and methods to verify the validity and reliability of the findings.

References = CISM Manual, Chapter 6: Incident Response Planning (IRP), Section 6.2: Evidence Collection1

1: https://store.isaca.org/s/store#/store/browse/cat/a2D4w00000Ac6NNEAZ/tiles