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

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.

According to scenario 6, the marketing department employees were not following the access control policy. Which option is correct in this case?

You ask the IT Manager why the organisation still uses the mobile app while personal data

encryption and pseudonymisation tests failed. Also, whether the Service Manager is authorised to approve the test.

The IT Manager explains the test results should be approved by him according to the software security management procedure. The reason why the encryption and pseudonymisation functions failed is that these functions heavily slowed down the system and service performance. An extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. The Service Manager agreed that access control is good enough and acceptable. That's why the Service Manager signed the approval.

You are preparing the audit findings. Select the correct option.

There is a nonconformity (NC). The organisation and developer do not perform acceptance tests. (Relevant to clause 8.1, control A.8.29)

Scenario 4: SendPay is a financial company that provides its services through a network of agents and financial institutions. One of their main services is transferring money worldwide. SendPay, as a new company, seeks to offer top quality services to its clients. Since the company offers international transactions, it requires from their clients to provide personal information, such as their identity, the reason for the transactions, and other details that might be needed to complete the transaction. Therefore, SendPay has implemented security measures to protect their clients' information, including detecting, investigating, and responding to any information security threats that may emerge. Their commitment to offering secure services was also reflected during the ISMS implementation where the company invested a lot of time and resources.

Last year, SendPay unveiled their digital platform that allows money transactions through electronic devices, such as smartphones or laptops, without requiring an additional fee. Through this platform, SendPay's clients can send and receive money from anywhere and at any time. The digital platform helped SendPay to simplify the company's operations and further expand its business. At the time, SendPay was outsourcing its software operations, hence the project was completed by the software development team of the outsourced company. The same team was also responsible for maintaining the technology infrastructure of SendPay.

Recently, the company applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification after having an ISMS in place for almost a year. They contracted a certification body that fit their criteria. Soon after, the certification body appointed a team of four auditors to audit SendPay's ISMS.

During the audit, among others, the following situations were observed:

1.The outsourced software company had terminated the contract with SendPay without prior notice. As a result, SendPay was unable to immediately bring the services back in-house and its operations were disrupted for five days. The auditors requested from SendPay's representatives to provide evidence that they have a plan to follow in cases of contract terminations. The representatives did not provide any documentary evidence but during an interview, they told the auditors that the top management of SendPay had identified two other software development companies that could provide services immediately if similar situations happen again.

2.There was no evidence available regarding the monitoring of the activities that were outsourced to the software development company. Once again, the representatives of SendPay told the auditors that they regularly communicate with the software development company and that they are appropriately informed for any possible change that might occur.

3.There was no nonconformity found during the firewall testing. The auditors tested the firewall configuration in order to determine the level of security provided by

these services. They used a packet analyzer to test the firewall policies which enabled them to check the packets sent or received in real-time.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

How do you evaluate the evidence obtained related to the monitoring process of outsourced operations? Refer to scenario 4.

Question

Which statement regarding the evaluation of materiality is NOT correct?