Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by audrey

A loss event is an occurrence that results in a negative consequence or damage for an organization, such as a data breach, a cyberattack, or a natural disaster. The impact of a loss event is the extent or magnitude of the harm or loss caused by the event, such as financial losses, reputational damage, operational disruptions, or legal liabilities. A newly enacted information privacy law that significantly increases financial penalties for breaches of personally identifiable information (PII) will most likely increase the impact of a loss event for an organization affected by the new law, because it will increase the potential cost and severity of a data breach involving PII. The other options are not as likely as an increase in loss event impact, because they do not directly result from the new law, but rather depend on other factors, such as the organization’s risk management capabilities, as explained below:

A. Increase in compliance breaches is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will not comply with the new law, which would expose it to more risks and penalties. A rational organization would try to comply with the new law by implementing appropriate controls and measures to protect PII and prevent data breaches.

C. Increase in residual risk is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will not adjust its risk response strategies to account for the new law, which would leave it with more risk exposure than desired. A prudent organization would try to reduce its residual risk by enhancing its risk mitigation controls or transferring its risk to a third party, such as an insurance company.

D. Increase in customer complaints is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will experience more data breaches involving PII, which would affect its customer satisfaction and loyalty. A responsible organization would try to avoid data breaches by improving its security posture and practices, and by communicating transparently and effectively with its customers about the new law and its implications. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 32.

 The ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is the best metric to determine if the change management program is performing as expected, because it reflects the quality and stability of the changes that are implemented in the production environment. A high ratio of emergency fixes to total changes indicates that the change management program is not effective, as it means that many changes are causing problems or failures that require urgent correction. A low ratio of emergency fixes to total changes indicates that the change management program is effective, as it means that most changes are well-planned, tested, and approved, and do not cause significant disruptions or defects. The ratio of emergency fixes to total changes can also help identify the root causes of the problems, the gaps in the change management process, and the areas for improvement. For example, if the ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is high, it may indicate that the change management program has issues with the following aspects: - Change request and approval: The change management program may not have a clear and consistent process for requesting, reviewing, and approving changes, or the process may not be followed by all stakeholders. - Change impact analysis: The change management program may not have a comprehensive and systematic method for assessing the potential impact of the changes on the business processes, the IT systems, the users, and the customers. - Change testing and validation: The change management program may not have adequate testing and validation procedures to ensure that the changes meet the requirements and specifications, and do not introduce errors or vulnerabilities. - Change communication and training: The change management program may not have effective communication and training strategies to inform and educate the affected parties about the changes and their implications. - Change implementation and monitoring: The change management program may not have proper implementation and monitoring plans or tools to ensure that the changes are executed smoothly and successfully, and that any issues or incidents are detected and resolved promptly. Therefore, the ratio of emergency fixes to total changes is the best metric to determine if the change management program is performing as expected, as it can provide valuable feedback and insights for the change management program and its improvement. References = How to Measure Change Management Effectiveness: Metrics, Tools & Processes1, Metrics for Measuring Change Management2, Driving Value with Change Management Metrics3, Must-Know Organizational Change Management Metrics

Key risk indicator (KRI): A metric that measures the level of risk exposure or the likelihood of a risk event1.

KRI threshold: A predefined value or range that triggers an alert or action when the KRI reaches or exceeds it2.

Loss expectancy: The estimated amount of loss that an organization may incur due to a risk event3.

The most helpful thing in developing KRI thresholds is loss expectancy information. Loss expectancy information provides an estimate of the potential or expected impact of a risk event on the organization’s operations, reputation, or objectives. Loss expectancy information can help an organization to:

Quantify and prioritize the risks that pose the greatest threat to the organization

Determine the acceptable level of risk exposure or tolerance for each risk

Set the appropriate value or range for the KRI threshold that reflects the risk appetite and the risk mitigation strategy

Monitor and measure the performance and effectiveness of the risk management process and controls

Loss expectancy information can be derived from various sources, such as historical data, statistical analysis, expert judgment, or simulation models3.

The other options are not as helpful as loss expectancy information in developing KRI thresholds, because they do not directly address the potential or expected impact of a risk event. Control performance predictions, which are the forecasts or estimates of how well the risk management controls will perform in preventing, detecting, or mitigating risks, may help to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the risk management process and controls, but they do not provide a clear and quantifiable measure of the risk impact. IT service level agreements (SLAs), which are the contracts or agreements that define the quality and availability of IT services, may help to establish the standards and expectations for IT service delivery and performance, but they do not provide a comprehensive and current view of the risk exposure or likelihood. Remediation activity progress, which is the status or outcome of the actions taken to address and resolve a risk event, may help to monitor and report the effectiveness and compliance of the risk management process and controls, but it is usually done after the risk event has occurred and resolved, not before.

References = Key Risk Indicators: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, Loss Expectancy: Definition, Calculation, and Examples

 A cost-benefit analysis is a technique that compares the costs and benefits of different risk response strategies, such as mitigating, transferring, avoiding, or accepting risks. A cost-benefit analysis can help justify investment in risk response strategies by showing the expected return on investment, the net present value, the break-even point, and the cost-effectiveness of each option. A cost-benefit analysis can also help prioritize the most optimal risk response strategies based on the available resources, the risk appetite, and the stakeholder expectations. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.4: Risk Response Selection, p. 156-157.