Isaca Updated CISM Exam Questions and Answers by zayan

 The best way to test for the existence of backdoors in a mission-critical business application that was outsourced to a third-party developer is to perform security code reviews on the entire application. A backdoor is a hidden or undocumented feature or function in a software application that allows unauthorized or remote access, control, or manipulation of the application or the system it runs on. Backdoors can be intentionally or unintentionally introduced by the developers, or maliciously inserted by the attackers, and they can pose serious security risks and threats to the organization and its data. Security code reviews are the process of examining and analyzing the source code of a software application to identify and eliminate any security vulnerabilities, flaws, or weaknesses, such as backdoors, that may compromise the functionality, performance, or integrity of the application or the system. Security code reviews can be performed manually by the security experts, or automatically by the security tools, or both, and they can be done at different stages of the software development life cycle, such as design, coding, testing, or deployment. Security code reviews can help to detect and remove any backdoors in the application before they can be exploited by the attackers, and they can also help to improve the quality, reliability, and security of the application.

References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 3: Information Security Program Development and Management, Section: Information Security Program Development, page 1581; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, Question 87, page 812; CISM ITEM DEVELOPMENT GUIDE, page 63.

 = Identification of risk is the first and most important step in the IT risk management process, especially when the organization is undergoing a digital transformation that introduces new technologies, processes, and business models. Identification of risk involves determining the sources, causes, and potential consequences of IT-related risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, assets, and stakeholders. Identification of risk also helps to establish the risk context, scope, and criteria for the subsequent risk analysis, evaluation, and treatment. Without identifying the risks, the information security manager cannot effectively assess the risk exposure, prioritize the risks, implement appropriate controls, monitor the risk performance, or communicate the risk information to the relevant parties.

References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 2: Information Risk Management, Section: Risk Identification, page 841; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, Question 34, page 352.

= The primary area of focus when mitigating security risks associated with emerging technologies is unknown vulnerabilities. Emerging technologies are new and complex, and often involve multiple parties, interdependencies, and uncertainties. Therefore, they may have unknown vulnerabilities that could expose the organization to threats that are difficult to predict, detect, or prevent1. Unknown vulnerabilities could also result from the lack of experience, knowledge, or best practices in implementing, operating, or securing emerging technologies2. Unknown vulnerabilities could lead to serious consequences, such as data breaches, system failures, reputational damage, legal liabilities, or regulatory sanctions3. Therefore, it is important to focus on identifying, assessing, and addressing unknown vulnerabilities when mitigating security risks associated with emerging technologies.

The other options are not as important as unknown vulnerabilities, because they are either more predictable, manageable, or specific. Compatibility with legacy systems is a technical issue that could affect the performance, functionality, or reliability of emerging technologies, but it is not a security risk per se. It could be resolved by testing, upgrading, or replacing legacy systems4. Application of corporate hardening standards is a security measure that could reduce the attack surface and improve the resilience of emerging technologies, but it is not a sufficient or comprehensive solution. It could be limited by the availability, applicability, or effectiveness of the standards. Integration with existing access controls is a security requirement that could prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to emerging technologies, but it is not a guarantee of security. It could be challenged by the complexity, diversity, or dynamism of the access scenarios. References = 1: Performing Risk Assessments of Emerging Technologies - ISACA 2: Assessing the Risk of Emerging Technology - ISACA 3: Factors Influencing Public Risk Perception of Emerging Technologies: A … 4: CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 : CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4 : CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.5

= Annual loss expectancy (ALE) is the most important criterion when deciding whether to accept residual risk, because it represents the expected monetary loss for an asset due to a risk over a one-year period. ALE is calculated by multiplying the annual rate of occurrence (ARO) of a risk event by the single loss expectancy (SLE) of the asset. ARO is the estimated frequency of a risk event occurring within a one-year period, and SLE is the estimated cost of a single occurrence of a risk event. ALE helps to compare the cost and benefit of different risk responses, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer, or acceptance. Risk acceptance is appropriate when the ALE is lower than the cost of other risk responses, or when the risk is unavoidable or acceptable within the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. ALE also helps to prioritize the risks that need more attention and resources.

References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 2: Information Risk Management, Section: Risk Assessment, page 831; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, Question 22, page 242