Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by emmanuel

The most important factor to consider when assessing the residual risk of implementing encryption for data at rest is the key management. Key management is the process of generating, storing, distributing, using, and destroying the cryptographic keys that are used to encrypt and decrypt the data. Key management is essential for ensuring the security, availability, and integrity of the encrypted data, as well as for complying with the legal and regulatory requirements. Poor key management could result in the loss, theft, compromise, or corruption of the keys, which could lead to unauthorized access, data breach, data loss, or data recovery failure. Therefore, key management must be considered to assess the residual risk, which is the risk that remains after the risk treatment, such as encryption, is applied. Data retention requirements, data destruction requirements, and cloud storage architecture are not as important as key management, as they do not directly affect the encryption and decryption of the data, and they may not introduce significant residual risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 217.

The management’s primary consideration when approving risk response action plans should be the changes in residual risk after implementing the plans. Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the implementation of risk responses1. It indicates the degree of exposure or uncertainty that the organization still faces, and the potential impact or consequences of the risk events. The management should evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the risk responses, and decide whether the residual risk is acceptable or not2. The management should also compare the residual risk with the risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept or pursue in order to achieve its objectives3. The management should ensure that the residual risk is aligned with the risk appetite, and that the risk responses are consistent and proportional to the risk level4.

The other options are not the primary consideration when approving risk response action plans, because:

Ability of the action plans to address multiple risk scenarios is a desirable but not essential criterion for approving risk response action plans. Risk scenarios are hypothetical situations that describe how a risk event could occur and what the consequences could be5. They can help to understand and communicate the nature and impact of the risks, and to design and evaluate the risk responses6. However, not all risk scenarios are equally likely or relevant, and some risk scenarios may be too complex or improbable to address. Therefore, the ability of the action plans to address multiple risk scenarios is not the primary consideration, but rather a secondary or supplementary one.

Ease of implementing the risk treatment solution is a practical but not critical criterion for approving risk response action plans. Risk treatment is the process of selecting and applying appropriate measures to modify the risk7. It can involve different strategies, such as avoid, reduce, transfer, or accept the risk8. The ease of implementing the risk treatment solution depends on various factors, such as the availability of resources, the feasibility of the solution, or the cooperation of the stakeholders. However, the ease of implementation is not the primary consideration, but rather a supporting or facilitating one.

Prioritization for implementing the action plans is a useful but not vital criterion for approving risk response action plans. Prioritization is the process of ranking the action plans according to their importance, urgency, or impact. It can help to allocate the resources, schedule the activities, and monitor the progress of the action plans. However, prioritization is not the primary consideration, but rather a subsequent or follow-up one.

References =

Residual Risk - CIO Wiki

What is Residual Risk? - Definition from Techopedia

Risk Appetite - CIO Wiki

Risk Appetite: What It Is and Why It Matters - Gartner

Risk Scenarios Toolkit - ISACA

Risk Scenarios Starter Pack - ISACA

Risk Treatment - CIO Wiki

Risk Treatment Plan - CIO Wiki

[Prioritization - CIO Wiki]

Conducting a root cause analysis is the best course of action for an IT business owner following an unexpected increase in emergency changes, as it helps to identify and address the underlying cause(s) of the problem and prevent it from recurring in the future. A root cause analysis is a systematic process of finding and resolving the fundamental factors that contribute to a specific issue or event. A root cause analysis can help to improve the quality and reliability of the IT services and processes, reduce the costs and risks associated with emergency changes, and enhance the customer satisfaction and trust.

The other options are not the best courses of action for an IT business owner following an unexpected increase in emergency changes. Evaluating the impact to control objectives is an important step to assess the potential consequences of the emergency changes on the IT governance and risk management, but it does not provide a solution or mitigation strategy for the problem. Validating the adequacy of current processes is a good practice to ensure that the IT processes are aligned with the business needs and objectives, but it does not address the specific cause(s) of the emergency changes. Reconfiguring the IT infrastructure is a possible action to implement the emergency changes, but it does not prevent the occurrence or recurrence of the problem. References = IT Business Owner’s Best Course of Action Following Unexpected Increase …, ITIL Change Types: Standard vs Normal vs Emergency - Freshworks, Emergency Change Management: Please Stop The Drama

Conducting social engineering testing is the best way to assess the effectiveness of the security awareness training, as it helps to measure and evaluate the actual behavior and response of the employees to simulated real-world attacks that exploit human vulnerabilities. Social engineering testing is a type of security testing that involves performing authorized and ethical hacking activities on the employees to manipulate them into revealing sensitive information, such as credentials, or performing malicious actions, suchas clicking on a phishing link or opening a malicious attachment. Social engineering testing can help to assess the effectiveness of the security awareness training by providing the following benefits:

It tests the employees’ knowledge and skills in recognizing and resisting social engineering attacks, such as phishing, vishing, baiting, or impersonation.

It identifies and measures the strengths and weaknesses of the employees’ security awareness and behavior, and the impact and severity of their actions on the security posture and risk exposure of the organization.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the employees to improve their security awareness and behavior, and to reinforce the key concepts and practices taught in the training.

It communicates and reports the results and findings of the testing to the management and the stakeholders, and supports the development and implementation of corrective or preventive actions.

The other options are not the best ways to assess the effectiveness of the security awareness training. Auditing security awareness training materials is a good practice to ensure that the training content is accurate, relevant, and up-to-date, but it does not measure or evaluate the employees’ security awareness and behavior. Administering an end-of-training quiz is a useful method to test the employees’ comprehension and retention of the training content, but it does not reflect or simulate the employees’ security awareness and behavior in real-world situations. Performing a vulnerability assessment is an important step to identify and analyze the potential vulnerabilities in the systems and software, but it does not assess or address the human vulnerabilities or the employees’ security awareness and behavior. References = 3 ways to assess the effectiveness of security awareness training …, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Measuring the Effectiveness of Security Awareness Training - Hut Six