Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by aminah

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, such as 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

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that help organizations monitor and assess potential risks that may impact their operations, financial health, or overall performance1. KRIs should have certain characteristics that make them effective for risk monitoring, such as:

Ability to measure the right thing (e.g., supports the decisions that need to be made)

Quantifiable (e.g., damages in dollars of profit loss)

Capability to be measured precisely and accurately

Relevant (measuring the right thing associated with decisions)2

Among the four options given, only option C (sensitivity to changes in risk levels) best enables effective risk monitoring. This is because KRIs should be able to capture the changes in risk levels over time and alert organizations to emerging or escalating risks3. A high sensitivity to changes in risk levels indicates that the KRI is responsive and timely, and can help organizations take preventive or corrective actions before the risks become too severe.

References = Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide, Key Risk Indicators: Examples & Definitions, Key Risk Indicators - Wikipedia

According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite is a key factor in communicating the risk associated with IT in business terms, because it helps to align the IT risk management with the business strategy and goals. Risk appetite also helps to define the risk tolerance and thresholds, which are the acceptable levels of variation around the objectives. The other options are not the correct answers, because they are not essential for communicating the risk associated with IT in business terms. Compliance objectives are the objectives that an organization must achieve to comply with the applicable laws, regulations, standards, and contracts. Organizational objectives are the objectives that an organization sets to achieve its mission, vision, and values. Inherent and residual risk are the risk levels before and after applying the risk responses, respectively. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 66.

 Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk is the best recommendation to senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated, as it helps to balance the costs and benefits of the risk management and control processes, and to align them with the organizational strategy and objectives. A risk and control assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks and controls associated with a specific activity, process, or objective. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that could cause harm or loss to the organization or its stakeholders. A risk scenario can only be partially mitigated when the existing or proposed controls are not sufficient or effective to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. A risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. A residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or risk treatments.

Implementing controls to bring the risk to a level within appetite and accept the residual risk helps to provide the following benefits:

It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to risk management and reporting, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.

It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of measuring and communicating risk levels and exposure across the organization and to the external stakeholders.

It supports the development and implementation of effective and efficient risk response and mitigation strategies and actions that are aligned with the business risk appetite and objectives.

It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the risk management and control processes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The other options are not the best recommendations to senior management when the results of a risk and control assessment indicate a risk scenario can only be partially mitigated. Implementing a key performance indicator (KPI) to monitor the existing control performance is a useful method to measure and monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, but it does not address the residual risk or the risk appetite. Accepting the residual risk in its entirety and obtaining executive management approval is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk, and it may not comply with the legal or regulatory obligations or requirements. Separating the risk into multiple components and avoiding the risk components that cannot be mitigated is a possible option to deal with the risk scenario, but it may not be feasible or practical, and it may create new or additional risks or challenges. References = Risk and Control Self-Assessment (RCSA) - Management Study Guide, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Risk Mitigation: What It Is and How to Implement It (Free Templates …