Isaca Updated CRISC Exam Questions and Answers by husna

 The best way to facilitate the development of effective IT risk scenarios is to utilize a cross-functional team. A cross-functional team is a group of people with different skills, expertise, and perspectives who work together to achieve a common goal. A cross-functional team can help to create realistic, comprehensive, and relevant IT risk scenarios by bringing diverse knowledge, experience, and insights from various domains and functions. A cross-functional team can alsohelp to identify and address the interdependencies, interactions, and impacts of IT risks across the organization. The other options are not the best ways to facilitate the development of effective IT risk scenarios, although they may be useful or necessary depending on the context and nature of the IT risks. Participation by IT subject matter experts is important, but it is notsufficient, as IT risks may affect or be affected by non-IT factors and stakeholders. Integration of contingency planning is a part of the risk response process, which follows the risk scenario development process, but it is not the same as creating the risk scenarios. Validation by senior management is a quality assurance step that ensures the accuracy and completeness of the risk scenarios, but it is not the same as facilitating the development of the risk scenarios. References = Six Steps to Using Risk Scenarios for Improved Risk Management, IT Risk Scenarios - Morland-Austin, IT Risk Resources | ISACA

When vulnerabilities are discovered, the CRISC approach requires first understanding theriskthose vulnerabilities represent before deciding on actions. Evaluating the associated risk means analyzing the likelihood that the vulnerabilities will be exploited and the potential impact on financial reporting, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of core systems. Only after this analysis can the risk practitioner prioritize which vulnerabilities to address, decide on appropriate treatment options, and determine whether remediation is cost-effective and aligned to risk appetite. Immediately remediating without assessment may misallocate resources or disrupt critical services. Initiating incident response is appropriate when an actual incident or compromise is detected, not merely the existence of vulnerabilities. Estimating remediation cost is important but comes after understanding the significance of the risk.

The primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan should be that the risk response reduces risk to an acceptable level. A risk response action plan is a document that describes the actions or measures that are taken or planned to modify the risk, such as reducing, avoiding, transferring, or accepting the risk1. Validating a risk response action plan means verifying whether the plan is feasible, effective, and efficient in addressing the risk2. The main objective of validating a risk response action plan is to ensure that the risk response reduces risk to an acceptable level, which is the level of risk that the organization is willing to tolerate or bear, based on its risk appetite and risk criteria3. Reducing risk to an acceptable level means that the risk response actions can lower the likelihood or impact of the risk to a point where the risk does not pose a significant threat or challenge to the organization’s objectives, operations, or performance. Reducing risk to an acceptable level also means that the risk response actions can balance the benefits and costs of the risk response, and that they can provide a reasonable assurance of the risk management effectiveness and efficiency4. The other options are not the primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as they are either less relevant or less specific than reducing risk to an acceptable level. Quantifying risk impact is a component or element of validating a risk response action plan, notafocus of it. Quantifying risk impact means measuring or estimating the potential effects or consequences of the risk on the organization5. Quantifying risk impact can help to evaluate the severity and priority of the risk, as well as to compare the risk against the risk criteria and the risk appetite. However, quantifying risk impact is not the primary focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not address the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. Aligning with business strategy is a secondary or incidental benefit of validating a risk response action plan, not a primary or essential focus of it. Aligning with business strategy means ensuring that the risk response actions are consistent and coherent with the organization’s goals and values6. Aligning with business strategy can help to integrate the risk response actions with the organization’s culture and governance, as well as to support and enable the achievement of the organization’s mission and vision. However, aligning with business strategy is not the main focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not indicate the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. Advancing business objectives is a tertiary or indirect outcome of validating a risk response action plan, not a primary or direct focus of it. Advancing business objectives means contributing to the improvement and enhancement of the organization’s performance and results7. Advancing business objectives can help to create value and deliver benefits for the organization and its stakeholders, as well as to optimize the use of the organization’s resources and capabilities. However, advancing business objectives is not the main focus of a risk practitioner when validating a risk response action plan, as it does not address the feasibility, effectiveness, or efficiency of the risk response actions, or the level of risk reduction that they can achieve. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.8, Page 61.

 A review of a third-party vendor is a process that involves examining and evaluating the performance, quality, and compliance of the vendor that provides a product or service to the organization1. A review of a third-party vendor can help to identify and address the risks and issues that may arise from the vendorrelationship, such as data breaches, service disruptions, contract violations, or reputation damage2. Following a review of a third-party vendor, it is most important for an organization to ensure that the results of the review are accurately reported to management, as this will enable the management to make informed and timely decisions and actions based on the findings and recommendations of the review. Accurate reporting of the results of the review will also help to establish and maintain the trust and transparency between the organization and the vendor, and to demonstrate the accountability and responsibility of the organization for its vendor risk management3. Identified findings are reviewed by the organization, results of the review are validated by internal audit, and identified findings are approved by the vendor are not the most important things to ensure following a review of a third-party vendor, as they do not provide the same level of impact and value as accurate reporting of the results of the review. Identified findings are reviewed by the organization is a process that involves analyzing and interpreting the outcomes and implications of the review of a third-party vendor, and determining the appropriate risk responses and actions to address the findings4. Thisis an important step in the vendor risk management process, but it is not the most important thing to ensure following a review of a third-party vendor, as it does not communicate or inform the management or the vendor of the results of the review. Results of the review are validated by internal audit is a process that involves verifying and confirming the accuracy and reliability of the review of a third-party vendor, and providing assurance and advice on the adequacy and effectiveness of the vendor risk management. This is an important step in the vendor risk management process, but it is not the most important thing to ensure following a review of a third-party vendor, as it does not report or share the results of the review with the management or the vendor. Identified findings are approved by the vendor is a process that involves obtaining the consent and agreement of the vendor on the outcomes and recommendations of the review of a third-party vendor, and ensuring their cooperation and compliance with the risk responses and actions. This is an important step in the vendor risk management process, but it is not the most important thing to ensure following a review of a third-party vendor, as it does not report or inform the management of the results of the review. References = 1: The guide to third-party vendor reviews - TerraTrue HQ | TerraTrue2: 4 Tips For Organizations To Evaluate Third-Party Vendors – Forbes Advisor3: Vendor Risk Management: Best Practices for 2023 - Venminder4: [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response, Section 3.1: Risk Response Options, pp. 113-115.] : [IT Risk Resources | ISACA] : Who Is Considered a Third Party or Vendor? - Venminder : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.1: Risk Identification, pp. 57-59.] : [Risk and Information SystemsControl Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.1:Control Design, pp. 233-235.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.2: Control Implementation, pp. 243-245.] : [Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 5: Information Systems Control Design and Implementation, Section 5.3: Control Monitoring and Maintenance, pp. 251-253.]