Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by zayd

The percentage of servers receiving automatic patches is the best key control indicator (KCI) to monitor the effectiveness of patch management, because it measures how well the patch management process is ensuring that the servers are updated with the latest security patches and fixes. A high percentage of servers receiving automatic patches indicates that the patch management process is effective and efficient, and that the servers are protected from known vulnerabilities and threats. The other options are not the best KCIs, because they do not directly measure the effectiveness of patch management. The percentage of legacy servers out of support, the number of unpatched vulnerabilities, and the number of intrusion attempts are examples of risk indicators or consequence indicators that measure the exposure or impact of the lack of patch management, but not the performance or outcome of the patch management process. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers

The average time between user transfers and access updates is a trend that would cause the greatest concern regarding the effectiveness of an organization’s user access control processes, as it indicates the delay or inefficiency in updating the user access rights and privileges according to the user’s current role and responsibilities. This can result in unauthorized or excessive access to the organization’s information assets, and increase the risk of data leakage, fraud, or misuse. The user access control processes should ensure that the user access rights and privileges are reviewed and modified regularly, and especially when the user’s role or status changes, such as transfer, promotion, demotion, or termination. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, Question 241. CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions, Question 241. CRISC Sample Questions 2024, Question 241.

The risk manager’s best course of action when discovering significant vulnerabilities in a commercial off-the-shelf software product is to review the risk of implementing versus postponing with stakeholders. This means that the risk manager should assess the potential impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities being exploited, as well as the benefits and costs of using the software product. The risk manager should also consult with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business owners, the IT department, the security team, and the vendor, to understand their perspectives, expectations, and requirements. Based on this analysis, the risk manager should decide whether to proceed with the implementation, delay it until the next release, or look for alternative solutions. The risk manager should also document and communicate the decision and the rationale behind it, and monitor the situation for any changes or new developments.

The other options are not the best course of action, because:

Running vulnerability testing tools to independently verify the vulnerabilities is a useful step to confirm the existence and severity of the vulnerabilities, but it is not sufficient to address the risk. The risk manager still needs to evaluate the trade-offs between implementing and postponing the software product, and involve the stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Reviewing the software license to determine the vendor’s responsibility regarding vulnerabilities is an important step to understand the contractual obligations and liabilities of the vendor, but it is not enough to mitigate the risk. The risk manager still needs to consider the impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities, and the benefits and costs of the software product, and consult with the stakeholders to decide the best course of action.

Requiring the vendor to correct significant vulnerabilities prior to installation is an unrealistic and impractical option, as the vendor has already stated that the vulnerabilities will not be corrected until the next release. The risk manager cannot force the vendor to change their schedule or priorities, and may risk damaging the relationship with the vendor. The risk manager should instead work with the vendor to understand the nature and scope of the vulnerabilities, and the expected timeline and features of the next release, and use this information to inform the risk assessment and decision-making process.

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics or measures that provide information on the current or potential exposure and performance of an organization in relation to specific risks. KRIs can help to monitor and track the changes or trends in the risk level and the risk response over time, identify and alert the risk issues or events that require attention or action, evaluate and report the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and practices, and support and inform the risk decision making and improvement1.

The best way to enable the identification of trends in risk levels is to ensure that the correlation between risk levels and KRIs is positive, because it means that the KRIs are aligned with and reflective of the risk levels, and that they can capture and indicate the variations or movements in the risk levels accurately and reliably. A positive correlation between risk levels and KRIs can be achieved by:

Selecting and defining the KRIs that are relevant and appropriate for the specific risks that the organization faces, and that are consistent and comparable across different domains and contexts

Collecting and analyzing the data and information that are reliable and sufficient for the KRIs, and that are sourced from various methods and sources, such as risk assessments, audits, monitoring, alerts, or incidents

Applying and using the tools and techniques that are suitable and feasible for the KRIs, such as risk matrices, risk registers, risk indicators, or risk models

Reviewing and updating the KRIs periodically or as needed, and ensuring that they reflect the current or accurate risk levels, which may change over time or due to external factors23

The other options are not the best ways to enable the identification of trends in risk levels, but rather some of the factors or aspects of KRIs. Measurements for KRIs are repeatable is a factor that can enhance the reliability and validity of the KRIs, as it means that the KRIs can produce the same or similar results under the same or similar conditions. However, repeatability does not necessarily imply accuracy or sensitivity, and it may not capture or reflect the changes or trends in the risk levels. Quantitative measurements are used for KRIs is an aspect that can improve the objectivity and precision of the KRIs, as it means that the KRIs are expressed in numerical or measurable values, such as percentages, probabilities, or monetary amounts. However, quantitative measurements may not be suitable or feasible for all types of risks or KRIs, and they may not capture or reflect the complexity or uncertainty of the risk levels. Qualitative definitions for KRIs are used is an aspect that can enhance the understanding and communication of the KRIs, as it means that the KRIs are expressed in descriptive or subjective terms, such as high, medium, or low, based on criteria such as likelihood, impact, or severity. However, qualitative definitions may not be consistent or comparable across different risks or KRIs, and they may not capture or reflect the magnitude or variation of the risk levels. References =

Key Risk Indicators: What They Are and How to Use Them

Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide | SafetyCulture

Key Risk Indicators: Types and Examples

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]