PECB Updated ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam Questions and Answers by alicja

Scenario 5

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

Based on Scenario 5, is the approach used by the audit team to assess the conformity of the ISMS to the standard requirements in line with audit recommended practices?

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:

According to Scenario 4, what type of audit evidence did the auditors collect to determine the source of the information security incidents?

Question

During an ISO/IEC 27001 certification audit, the audit team leader failed to follow established best practices for conducting the audit. In addition, they lacked the necessary expertise to assess some of the complex areas of the ISMS, leading to suboptimal results. While the audit findings were still reported, some areas of the audit are considered weak and the audit does not fully adhere to the required procedures.

Which level of responsibility does this scenario represent in the case of tortious acts?

Scenario 6

Sinvestment is an insurance provider that offers a wide range of coverage options, including home, commercial, and life insurance. Originally established in North California, the company has expanded its operations to other locations, including Europe and Africa. In addition to its growth, Sinvestment is committed to complying with laws and regulations applicable to its industry and preventing any information security incident. They have implemented an information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and have applied for certification.

A team of auditors was assigned by the certification body to conduct the audit. After signing a confidentiality agreement with Sinvestment, they started the audit activities. For the activities of the stage 1 audit, it was decided that they would be performed on site, except the review of documented information, which took place remotely, as requested by Sinvestment.

The audit team started the stage 1 audit by reviewing the documentation required, including the declaration of the ISMS scope, information security policies, and internal audit reports. The evaluation of the documented information was based on the content and procedure for managing the documented information.

In addition, the auditors found out that the documentation related to information security training and awareness programs was incomplete and lacked essential details. When asked, Sinvestment’s top management stated that the company has provided information security training sessions to all employees.

The stage 2 audit was conducted three weeks after the stage 1 audit. The audit team observed that the marketing department (not included in the audit scope) had no procedures to control employees’ access rights. Since controlling employees' access rights is one of the ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and was included in the company's information security policy, the issue was included in the audit report.

Question

Based on Scenario 6, what methods did the audit team use for evidence collection and analysis during the audit of Sinvestment's ISMS?