Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by elle

The second line of defense is a group of functions that provide oversight, guidance, and monitoring of the risk management activities of the first line of defense. The second line of defense includes risk management, compliance, and internal control departments. Their key responsibility is to monitor the effectiveness of the control activities implemented by the first line of defense, and to report any issues or gaps to senior management and the board. The second line of defense also supports the first line of defense by providing frameworks, policies, tools,and techniques to identify, measure, and manage risks. The other options are not the key responsibility of the second line of defense, as explained below:

A. Implementing control activities is the responsibility of the first line of defense, which consists of the business units and process owners that own and manage the risks associated with their daily operations.

C. Conducting control self-assessments is a technique used by the first line of defense to evaluate the design and operation of their own controls, and to identify and report any deficiencies or improvement opportunities.

D. Owning risk scenarios is the responsibility of the first line of defense, which is accountable for the risks inherent in their business activities, and for developing and executing risk response strategies. References = Modernizing The Three Lines of Defense Model | Deloitte US, The second line of defence: fit for purpose, not an uncomfortable fit | Knowledge | Linklaters, COSO’s Take on the Three Lines of Defense | ERM - Enterprise Risk Management, Three Lines of Defense | Risk Management - Schneider Downs CPAs, What is the Three Lines of Defense Approach to Risk Management?

According to the Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture article, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite should be aligned with the organization’s strategy, goals, and values, and should reflect the organization’s risk culture and capabilities. One of the main considerations when validating an organization’s risk appetite is the capacity to withstand loss, which is the ability of the organization to absorb the impact of adverse events without jeopardizing its viability or reputation. The capacity to withstand loss depends on various factors, such as the financial strength, the operational resilience, the governance structure, and the stakeholder expectations of the organization. By assessing the capacity to withstand loss, the organization can determine if its risk appetite is realistic and appropriate, or if it needs to be adjusted to match its risk profile and environment. References = Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture

 A cost-benefit analysis of the control versus probable legal action is the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of a notice and consent control for the collection of personal information, as it quantifies the potential benefits and costs of implementing the control and compares them with the potential consequences of not implementing the control. This helps the decision-makers to evaluate the trade-offs and the return on investment of the control.

A comparison of the costs of notice and consent control options is not sufficient to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as it does not consider the benefits or the risks of the control.

Examples of regulatory fines incurred by industry peers for noncompliance are not the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as they are based on historical data and may not reflect the current or future situation of the enterprise.

A report of critical controls showing the importance of notice and consent is not the best way to inform decision-makers about the value of the control, as it does not provide any quantitative or comparative data to support the decision. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, page 140-1411

The most important factor to include in the analysis of the policy exception is the risk associated with the inability to implement the multi-factor authentication requirement. A policy exception is a temporary orpermanent deviation from the established policies or standards of the organization, due to various reasons, such as budget constraints, technical limitations, or business needs. A policy exception must be submitted and approved by the appropriate authority, and it must include a clear and comprehensive analysis of the rationale, impact, and mitigation of the exception. The risk associated with the inability to implement the multi-factor authentication requirement is the most important factor to include in the analysis, because it evaluates the probability and severity of potential threats or incidents that could exploit the lack of multi-factor authentication, such as unauthorized access, data breach, or identity theft. The risk analysis also helps to justify the need and urgency of the policy exception, and to propose alternative or compensating controls to reduce or transfer the risk, such as password policies, access restrictions, or encryption. The other options are not the most important factor, although they may be relevant or supportive to the policy exception analysis. Sections of the policy that may justify not implementing the requirement are the clauses or provisions in the policy that allow or enable the policy exception, such as exemptions, waivers, or variances. These sections can help to validate the legitimacy and feasibility of the policy exception, but they do not assess the risk or the impact of the exception. Budget justification to implement the new requirement during the current year is the explanation and evidence of the financial resources and constraints that affect the implementation of the multi-factor authentication requirement. This justification can help to demonstrate the cost-benefit and return on investment of the requirement, but it does not measure the risk or the mitigation of the exception. Industry best practices with respect to implementation of the proposed control are the proven methods and standards that are adopted by the leading organizations in a specific field or sector for implementing the multi-factor authentication requirement. These best practices can help to benchmark and improve the quality and effectiveness of the requirement, but they do not quantify the risk or the impact of the exception. References = Policy Exception Management - ISACA, Multi-Factor Authentication Policy - University of Arkansas, Common Conditional Access policy: Require MFA for all users