Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by savanna

Risk transfer is a risk response strategy that involves shifting the responsibility or burden of a risk to another party, such as a third party, an insurance company, or a joint venture. Risk transfer does not eliminate the risk, but it reduces the exposure or impact of the risk to the enterprise. An example of risk transfer is engaging a third party to provide an Internet gateway encryption service that protects sensitive data uploaded to a cloud service. By doing so, the organization transfers the risk of data breach or loss to the third party, who is responsible for ensuring the security and availability of the data. The other options are not examples of risk transfer, as they involve different risk response strategies:

Risk mitigation is a risk response strategy that involves reducing the likelihood or impact of a risk to an acceptable level, such as by implementing controls, policies, or procedures.

Risk avoidance is a risk response strategy that involves eliminating the risk by not performing the activity that generates the risk, such as by discontinuing a product or service, or not entering a market.

Risk acceptance is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging the risk and taking no action to address it, such as by tolerating the risk, exploiting the risk, or sharing the risk. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.1, pp. 107-108.

Control ownership is the assignment of roles and responsibilities for the design, implementation, monitoring, and improvement of controls that mitigate risks. Control ownership can help ensure that the controls are effective, efficient, and aligned with the business objectives and risk appetite. Control ownership can also help facilitate the communication, coordination, and accountability among the stakeholders involved in the risk management process. One of the factors that would present the greatest challenge when assigning accountability for control ownership is unclear reporting relationships. Reporting relationships are the formal or informal lines of authority and communication that define who reports to whom, and who is accountable for what. Unclear reporting relationships can create confusion, ambiguity, and conflict among the control owners and other stakeholders, such as the risk owners, the business owners, the auditors, the regulators, etc. Unclear reporting relationships can also hinder the performance evaluation, feedback, and recognition of the control owners, and affect their motivation and commitment. Unclear reporting relationships can also increase the risk of duplication, inconsistency, or gaps in the control activities, and compromise the quality and reliability of the control environment. References = Defining, Assigning and Measuring: Accountability Challenges in 21st Century Governance, CRISC 351-400 topic3, Foundations of Project Management : Week 2.

 According to the CRISC Review Manual1, lessons learned from materialized risk scenarios are the insights and knowledge gained from analyzing the causes, impacts, and responses of actual risk events that occurred in the past. Lessons learned from materialized risk scenarios are the most helpful resource when creating a manageable set of IT risk scenarios, as they help to identify and prioritize the most relevant and realistic risks that could affect the organization’s objectives, processes, and resources. Lessons learned from materialized risk scenarios also help to improve the risk management practices and capabilities, and to avoid repeating the same mistakes or gaps in the future. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 206.

The observation that would be of GREATEST concern to a risk practitioner reviewing the implementation status of management action plans is that management has not begun the implementation, because it indicates that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored, and that the risks are not being addressed or mitigated. The lack of implementation may also imply that the management action plans are not realistic, feasible, or aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and objectives. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of implementation, because:

Option A: Management has not determined a final implementation date is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may affect the timely completion and delivery of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored.

Option B: Management has not completed an early mitigation milestone is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may indicate a delay or deviation in the progress and performance of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored.

Option C: Management has not secured resources for mitigation activities is a concern, but not the greatest one, because it may affect the quality and effectiveness of the management action plans, but it does not necessarily mean that the management action plans are not being executed or monitored. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 123.