PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 2022 Lead Auditor exam Exam Practice Test

The stages of information are creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and disposition. These are the phases that information goes through during its lifecycle, from the moment it is generated to the moment it is destroyed or archived. Each stage of information has different security requirements and risks, and should be managed accordingly. Creation, evolution, maintenance, use, and disposition are not the correct stages of information, as evolution is not a distinct stage, but a process that can occur in any stage. Creation, use, disposition, maintenance, and evolution are not the correct stages of information, as they are not in the right order. Creation, distribution, maintenance, disposition, and use are not the correct stages of information, as they are not in the right order. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 32. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 12.

The use of clear text passwords for authentication in FTP is a vulnerability because it is a weakness that can be exploited by threat actors. Clear text passwords can be intercepted easily by network sniffers or through man-in-the-middle attacks, making them a significant security risk1. References: = This explanation is consistent with the understanding of vulnerabilities within the field of information security, particularly as it relates to network protocols like FTP and their associated risks

The overall competence of the12:

• The audit scope and criteria: The audit scope defines the extent and boundaries of the audit, such as the locations, processes, functions, and time period to be audited. The audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures, standards, or requirements used as a reference against which the audit evidence is compared. The audit scope and criteria determine the complexity and extent of the audit, and thus influence the number and expertise of the auditors needed to cover all the relevant aspects of the audit.
• The overall competence of the audit team needed to achieve audit objectives: The audit team should have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently, and to provide credible and reliable audit results. The audit team competence should include the following elements12:

The person responsible for managing the audit programme should not consider the following factors when deciding the size and composition of the audit team for a specific audit, as they are either irrelevant or inappropriate for the audit process12:

• Customer relationships: The audit team should not be influenced by any personal or professional relationships with the auditee or other interested parties, as this may compromise the objectivity and impartiality of the audit. The audit team should avoid any conflicts of interest or self-interest that may affect the audit results or the audit decisions.
• Seniority of the audit team leader: The audit team leader should be selected based on their competence and experience, not on their seniority or rank within the organization or the audit programme. The audit team leader should have the authority and responsibility to manage the audit team and the audit process, regardless of their seniority or position.
• The cost of the audit: The cost of the audit should not be the primary factor for determining the size and composition of the audit team, as this may compromise the quality and effectiveness of the audit. The audit team should have sufficient resources and time to conduct the audit in accordance with the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and to provide accurate and reliable audit results and recommendations.
• The duration preferred by the auditee: The duration of the audit should be based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the availability and cooperation of the auditee, not on the preference or convenience of the auditee. The audit team should have enough time to conduct the audit in a thorough and systematic manner, and to collect and evaluate sufficient and relevant audit evidence.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-20

Prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit, Lawsy should review and confirm the audit plan with the certification body. This ensures that both parties agree on the objectives, scope, and procedures for the stage 2 audit, thus aligning expectations and facilitating a smoother audit process.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook1, one of the principles of auditing is confidentiality, which means that auditors should respect the confidentiality of information obtained during the audit and not disclose it to unauthorized parties. The handbook also states that auditors should only report audit results to those who have a legitimate need to know, such as the client, the auditee, and the certification body. Therefore, sharing the findings with other relevant managers in A or B’s other customers would be a breach of confidentiality, as they are not directly involved in the audit process or the information security management system of B. Sharing the findings with B’s Information Security Manager or other relevant managers in B would be appropriate, as they are part of the auditee organization and responsible for the implementation and improvement of the ISMS. Sharing the findings with A’s supplier evaluation team or B’s certification body would also be acceptable, as they have a legitimate need to know the audit results for the purpose of supplier selection or certification, respectively. References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 7-8.

• Review is the third stage of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, which is a four-step model for implementing and improving an information security management system (ISMS) according to ISO/IEC 27001:202212. Review involves assessing and measuring the performance of the ISMS against the established policies, objectives, and criteria12.
• Assess is the verb that describes the action of reviewing the ISMS. Assess means to evaluate, analyze, or measure something in a systematic and objective manner3. Assessing the ISMS involves collecting and verifying audit evidence, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and determining the degree of conformity or nonconformity12.
• Regular is the adjective that describes the frequency or interval of reviewing the ISMS. Regular means occurring or done at fixed or uniform intervals4. Reviewing the ISMS at regular intervals means conducting internal audits and management reviews periodically, such as annually, quarterly, or monthly, depending on the needs and risks of the organization12.
• Suitability is one of the attributes that describes the quality or outcome of reviewing the ISMS. Suitability means being appropriate or fitting for a particular purpose, person, or situation5. Reviewing the ISMS for suitability means ensuring that it is aligned with the organization’s strategic direction, business objectives, and information security requirements12.

References :=

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27003:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Guidance
• Assess | Definition of Assess by Merriam-Webster
• Regular | Definition of Regular by Merriam-Webster
• Suitability | Definition of Suitability by Merriam-Webster

Leaving the cabinet unlocked while the technician is on a lunch break exposes the client’s equipment and data to potential physical security risks, such as theft, damage, or tampering. This is a violation of the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements for physical entry (control 7.2) and physical security monitoring (control 7.4), which aim to prevent unauthorized access to information processing facilities and assets. Therefore, the appropriate actions for the auditor are:

• Raise an opportunity for improvement (OFI) suggesting that the cabinet doors are locked whenever clients leave their suites, even if they intend to return within a short time. This would enhance the security of the client’s equipment and data, and reduce the likelihood of security incidents.
• Review the CCTV records to ensure that only the client has accessed the cabinet since it was last confirmed as locked. This would verify the integrity and availability of the client’s equipment and data, and identify any possible unauthorized access or interference.
• With the permission of the guide, speak to the customer to confirm that they are in the process of swapping out a drive. This would validate the reason for leaving the cabinet unlocked, and assess the impact and risk of the activity on the client’s information security.

References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.2, Physical entry
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.4, Physical security monitoring
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19, Audit Process
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 21, Audit Findings

The definition of information that is not correct is C: mature and measurable data. This is not a valid definition of information, as information does not have to be mature or measurable to be considered as such. Information can be any data that has meaning or value for someone or something in a certain context. Information can be subjective, qualitative, incomplete or uncertain, depending on how it is interpreted or used. Mature and measurable data are characteristics that may apply to some types of information, but not all. The other definitions of information are correct, as they describe different aspects of information, such as accuracy and timeliness (A), specificity and organization (B), and understanding and uncertainty reduction (D). ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines information as “any data that has meaning” (see clause 3.25). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Information?

Auditors have the authority to object or even refuse an audit mandate if they believe that the audit duration proposed by the auditee is not sufficient to thoroughly assess the ISMS. It is crucial for the audit to be comprehensive enough to cover all necessary aspects of the system, ensuring its effectiveness and compliance.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

An audit finding is the result of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria.

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, an auditor conducting a certification audit should prepare for an audit by reviewing relevant information about the auditee’s context and processes1. This may include reviewing documented information related to the audited management system (such as policies, procedures, manuals), previous audit reports and records (such as findings, nonconformities, corrective actions), relevant legal and regulatory requirements (such as laws, standards), relevant risks and opportunities (such as internal and external issues), relevant performance indicators (such as objectives, targets), etc1. Therefore, an auditor may need work documents such as an audit plan (which defines what will be done during an audit), a sample plan (which defines how many samples will be taken from a population), and a checklist (which helps to ensure that all relevant aspects are covered during an audit)1. However, an auditor does not need work documents such as an organisation’s financial statement (which is not directly related to information security management), a career history of the IT manager (which is not relevant to assessing conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022), or a list of external providers (which is not necessary for planning an audit)1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Management review is a crucial component of an ISMS that helps determine opportunities for continual improvement. Through management review, an organization assesses the performance and effectiveness of its ISMS, including reviewing opportunities for improvements and the need for changes to the ISMS, including the security policy and security objectives.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 9.3 (Management Review)

The mail sent by the CEO giving his views on the status of the company and the company’s future strategy and the CEO’s vision and the employee’s part in it should be classified as internal mail. Internal mail is a type of classification that indicates that the information is intended for internal use only, and should not be disclosed to external parties without authorization. The mail sent by the CEO contains information that is relevant and important for the employees of the company, but may not be suitable for public disclosure, as it may contain sensitive or confidential information about the company’s performance, goals, or plans. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

These three characteristics are the fundamental properties of information security, as defined by the ISO/IEC 27000 standard, which provides the overview and vocabulary of information security, cybersecurity, and privacy protection12. They are also the basis for the information security objectives and controls of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system34. The definitions of these characteristics are as follows12:

•Availability: The property of being accessible and usable upon demand by an authorized entity.

•Confidentiality: The property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes.

•Integrity: The property of safeguarding the accuracy and completeness of information and processing methods.

The other characteristics listed in the question, such as clarity, accessibility, completeness, importance, and efficiency, are not directly related to information security, although they may be relevant for other aspects of information management, such as quality, usability, or performance.

References: = 1: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary, clause 32: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary13: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.24: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements1

The appropriate actions to take next are to investigate whether pest infestation is an identified risk and if so, what risk treatment is to be applied, to determine whether the high levels of rainfall have had other impacts on data centre operations, and to check with the guide that they intend to initiate the organisation’s information security incident process. These actions are relevant to the ISMS audit objectives and criteria, as they relate to the organisation’s risk assessment and treatment, security performance, and incident management processes. The other actions are either not within the scope of the ISMS audit, not required by the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, or not the responsibility of the auditor. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 21-22; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)2, clauses 6.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.2.

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, one of the professional behaviours expected from an audit team leader is to be decisive, which means to “reach timely conclusions based on logical reasoning and analysis” (page 8). Being open minded, ethical, and perceptive are also desirable qualities for an audit team leader, but they do not match the description given in the question. References: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 8.

The audit report is a confidential document that contains sensitive information about the auditee’s ISMS and its performance. The audit team has a duty to protect the confidentiality of the audit report and only disclose it to authorized parties, such as the audit client, the certification body, and the accreditation body. Therefore, the following responses are false:

• A: The audit team cannot decide to release the report to third parties without the consent of the audit client, as this would breach the confidentiality agreement and the audit code of conduct. The audit team should always inform the audit client before disclosing the report to any third party, and obtain their explicit, prior approval.
• F: Not every auditor employed by the auditing organization can access the audit report, as this would violate the principle of need-to-know. Only auditors who are involved in the audit process, such as the audit team leader, the audit team members, the audit programme manager, and the certification decision maker, can access the audit report. Other auditors who are not related to the audit have no legitimate reason to access the report, and should be prevented from doing so by appropriate security measures.
• G: The duty of confidentiality does not expire after a certain period of time, as this would compromise the trust and integrity of the audit process. The audit report remains confidential indefinitely, unless there is a legal or contractual obligation to disclose it, or the audit client agrees to release it. Third parties cannot access the audit report by making a subject access request, as this would infringe the privacy and data protection rights of the audit client and the auditee.
• H: Subcontracted auditors are not considered to be third parties regarding confidentiality, as they are part of the audit team and have a contractual relationship with the auditing organization. Subcontracted auditors are typically bound by the same confidentiality agreement and audit code of conduct as the employed auditors, and have the same rights and responsibilities to access and protect the audit report.

References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 9.2, Internal audit
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015, clause 7.2.3, Confidentiality
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 22, Audit Report
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, Audit Code of Conduct

The conclusion in the audit report that is not required by the certification body when deciding to grant certification is that the organisation fully complies with all legal and other requirements applicable to the ISMS. This is because the certification body does not have the authority or the responsibility to verify the legal compliance of the organisation, as this is outside the scope of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. The certification body only evaluates the conformity of the organisation’s ISMS with the requirements of the standard, which include the establishment of a process to identify and evaluate the legal and other requirements that are relevant to the ISMS. The organisation is responsible for ensuring its own legal compliance and for providing evidence of such compliance to the certification body if requested. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3; ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.4; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 29.

Lawsy's lack of specific procedures for the use of laptops outside the workplace, despite allowing such use, represents a nonconformity. ISO/IEC 27001 requires that security controls and management processes be clearly defined, documented, and implemented. Relying solely on employees' common knowledge does not fulfill the standard's requirements for managing information security risks associated with mobile and teleworking.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.6.2 (Mobile device and teleworking management)

The four statements that are true are:

•Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

•The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities

•Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

•Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance

According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are:

•A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5.

•A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5.

The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution.

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually.

The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example:

•Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’ are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3.

•Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement.

•Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics.

•Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.13; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.2; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.3; 4: ISO Audit Findings :Non-conformance - AUVA Certification1; 5: Annex III: Nonconformity grading - FSSC2; : ISO 27001 Certification – Major vs. Minor Nonconformities - Advisera3; : GUIDANCE FOR ADDRESSING AND CLEARING NONCONFORMITIES - SADCAS4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; : ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7.2; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]

The correct action to take in this situation is to raise it as an opportunity for improvement. This is because the auditee is not violating any requirement of the standard, but rather using outdated terminology that does not reflect the current version of the standard. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the ISMS1. It is not a nonconformity, which is a failure to fulfil a requirement2. Therefore, option B is incorrect. Option A is also incorrect, because noting the issue in the audit report without raising it as an opportunity for improvement would not provide any value or feedback to the auditee. Option D is also incorrect, because bringing the matter up at the closing meeting without documenting it as an opportunity for improvement would not ensure that the auditee takes any action to address it. References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 11; 2: ISO/IEC 27000:2022, 3.28; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : ISO/IEC 27000:2022

In the context of ISO/IEC 27001 audits, the audit team is appointed by the certification body, not by the organization being audited. Data Grid Inc. is responsible for specifying the audit criteria and defining the audit scope, but not for appointing the audit team.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

• A. I will check the other data centres are treated as external providers, even though they are part of the same telecommunication group. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. Externally provided processes, products or services are those that are provided by any external party, regardless of the degree of its relationship with the organisation. Therefore, the other data centres within the same telecommunication group should be treated as external providers and subject to the same controls as any other external provider12
• B. I will ensure external providers have a documented process in place to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security with external providers. One of the contractual requirements could be the obligation of the external provider to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services, such as security incidents, vulnerabilities, or changes that could affect the information security of the organisation. The external provider should have a documented process in place to ensure that such notification is timely, accurate, and complete12
• E. I will ensure the organisation is regularly monitoring, reviewing and evaluating external provider performance. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to monitor, review and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the externally provided processes, products or services. The organisation should have a process in place to measure and verify the conformity and suitability of the external provider’s deliverables and activities, and to provide feedback and improvement actions as necessary. The organisation should also maintain records of the monitoring, review and evaluation results12
• F. I will ensure the organisation has determined the need to communicate with external providers regarding the ISMS. This is appropriate because clause 7.4.2 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to determine the need for internal and external communications relevant to the information security management system, including the communication with external providers. The organisation should define the purpose, content, frequency, methods, and responsibilities for such communication, and ensure that it is consistent with the information security policy and objectives. The organisation should also retain documented information of the communication as evidence of its implementation12

The following activities are not appropriate for the assessment of external providers according to ISO 27001:2022:

• C. I will ensure that the organisation has a reserve external provider for each process it has identified as critical to preservation of the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of its information. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to have a reserve external provider for each critical process. The organisation may choose to have a contingency plan or a backup solution in case of failure or disruption of the external provider, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should assess the risks and opportunities associated with the external provider and determine the appropriate treatment options, which may or may not include having a reserve external provider12
• D. I will limit my audit activity to externally provided processes as there is no need to audit externally provided products or services. This is not appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to control the externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system. Externally provided products or services may include software, hardware, data, or cloud services that could affect the information security of the organisation. Therefore, the audit activity should cover both externally provided processes and products or services, as applicable12
• G. I will ensure that top management have assigned roles and responsibilities for those providing external ISMS processes as well as internal ISMS processes. This is not appropriate because clause 5.3 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the top management to assign the roles and responsibilities for the information security management system within the organisation, not for the external providers. The external providers are responsible for assigning their own roles and responsibilities for the processes, products or services they provide to the organisation. The organisation should ensure that the external providers have adequate competence and awareness for their roles and responsibilities, and that they are contractually bound to comply with the information security requirements of the organisation12
• H. I will ensure that the organisation ranks its external providers and allocates the majority of its work to those providers who are rated the highest. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to rank its external providers or to allocate its work based on such ranking. The organisation may choose to evaluate and compare the performance and effectiveness of its external providers, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should select and use its external providers based on the information security criteria and objectives that are relevant to the organisation12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

This is a minor nonconformity. The backup frequency not adhering to the company's procedure of daily backups but occurring once a month represents a deviation from established processes, yet it might not immediately impact the effectiveness of the information security management system.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.3 (Backup)

According to the ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam preparation guide1, audit evidence can be in various formats, such as records, statements of fact, or other information that is relevant and verifiable. Audit evidence can be collected by means of interviews, observation, sampling, testing, or other techniques. However, not all formats of audit evidence are acceptable or reliable. For example, unsigned hand written changes to test results (A) are not verifiable and may indicate tampering or falsification. Statements by a system engineer that cannot be verified (D) are also not reliable and may be biased or inaccurate. An audio recording of a dialog between the IT manager and a system engineer (F) may not be relevant to the audit criteria or may violate the confidentiality or consent of the parties involved. A statement of facts by the IT manager (B) may be relevant and verifiable, but it is not sufficient as audit evidence unless it is supported by other sources of information. Therefore, the two acceptable formats of audit evidence are documented information on results of IT audits © and observation of a previously recorded video demonstrating the performance of a hazardous activity (E), as they are relevant to the audit criteria and can be verified by other means. References: 1: https://pecb.com/pdf/exam-preparation-guides/pecb-iso-iec-27001-lead-auditor-exam-preparation-guide.pdf (page 9)

According to ISO 27001:2013, clause 5.2, the top management of an organization must establish, implement and maintain an information security policy that is appropriate to the purpose of the organization and provides a framework for setting information security objectives. The information security policy must also include a commitment to comply with the applicable legal, regulatory and contractual requirements, as well as any other requirements that the organization subscribes to. Therefore, maintaining regulatory compliance is part of fulfilling the management system policy and ensuring its effectiveness and suitability. References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 5.2
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 10
• ISO 27001 Policy: How to write it according to ISO 27001

The three audit findings that would prompt you to raise a nonconformity report are:

•The organisation is treating information security risks in the order in which they are identified

•The organisation’s risk assessment criteria have not been reviewed and approved by top management

•The organisation’s information security risk assessment process is based solely on an assessment of the impact of each risk

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.2, the organisation must establish and maintain an information security risk management process that is consistent with the organisation’s context and aligned with its overall risk management approach1. This process must include the following steps:

•Establishing the risk assessment criteria, which must be approved by top management and reflect the organisation’s risk appetite and objectives2

•Identifying the information security risks, which must consider the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, and likelihoods3

•Analysing the information security risks, which must determine the levels of risk and compare them with the risk criteria4

•Evaluating the information security risks, which must prioritise the risks and decide whether they need treatment or not5

Therefore, the audit findings B, E, and F indicate that the organisation is not following the required steps of the information security risk management process, and thus are nonconformities with the standard.

The other audit findings are not necessarily nonconformities, as they may be acceptable depending on the organisation’s context and justification. For example:

•Audit finding A may be acceptable if the organisation has identified and treated the additional information security risks that are relevant to its scope and objectives, and has documented the rationale for doing so6

•Audit finding C may be acceptable if the organisation has assigned clear roles and responsibilities for the information security risk management process, and has ensured that the risk owners have the authority and competence to manage the risks7

•Audit finding D may be acceptable if the organisation has defined and communicated the meaning and implications of the emoji-based risk classification, and has ensured that it is consistent with the risk criteria and the risk treatment process8

•Audit finding G may be acceptable if the organisation has justified the use of discrete values for the probability of the information security risks, and has ensured that they are realistic and consistent with the risk criteria and the risk analysis method9

•Audit finding H may be acceptable if the organisation has established and maintained different systems for assessing operational and strategic information security risks, and has ensured that they are integrated and aligned with the overall risk management approach and the ISMS objectives10

References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a); 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 b); 4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 c); 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 d); 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.0.2; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.3; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a) 2); 9: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 c) 2); 10: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2 a) 1); : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

In the Act phase of the PDCA cycle, the process is reviewed and evaluated based on the results from the Check phase. The actions taken in this phase aim to continually improve the process performance by addressing the root causes of problems, implementing corrective and preventive actions, and updating the process documentation1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

You are an experienced ISMS auditor conducting a third-party surveillance audit at an organisation which offers ICT reclamation services. ICT equipment which companies no longer require is processed by the organisation. It is either recommissioned and reused or is securely destroyed.

You notice two servers on a bench in the corner of the room. Both have stickers on them with the server's name, IP address and admin password. You ask the ICT Manager about them, and he tells you they were part of a shipment received yesterday from a regular customer.

Which one action should you take?

A.Ask the auditee to remove the labels, then carry on with the audit

B.Ask the ICT Manager to record an information security incident and initiate the information security incident management process

C.Note the audit finding and check the process for dealing with incoming shipments relating to customer IT security

D.Raise a nonconformity against control 5.31 'Legal, staturary, regulatory and contractual requirements'

E.Raise a nonconformity against control 8.20 'network security' (networks and network devices shall be secured, managed and controlled to protect information in systems and applications)

F.Record what you have seen in your audit findings, but take no further action

Answer: C

You are an experienced ISMS audit team leader. You are currently conducting a third-party surveillance audit of an

international haulage organisation. You have sampled four internal audit reports which state:

Report 1 - Auditor: Mr James.

Over the year the organisation has failed to meet its promised delivery dates on 23 occasions out of 100. This is against a target of '95% of deliveries on time'.

Grading - Minor

Corrective Action due: Within 9 months.

Report 2 - Auditor: Mr James.

Between January and March, it was noted 125 complaints were received about the Service Desk Team. Clients

accused them of being rude and unresponsive.

Grading - Minor

Corrective Action due: Within 12 months.

Report 3 - Auditor: Mr James.

Of the 40 customer orders received last month, 38 were correctly processed. Of the remaining 2, one was missing a

signature and one was missing a date.

Grading -

Corrections due: Within 3 weeks

Report 4 - Auditor: Mr Rogers.

Of the 30 personnel records examined, 26 were found to be fully completed whilst the remaining 4 were all missing

the individual's start date.

Grading – Major

Corrections due: Within 1 week

Which four of the options demonstrate the concerns you would have about these reports?

A.I would be concerned as to whether criteria for grading nonconformities are in existence in this organisation

B.I would be concerned as to whether the auditors understand the difference between corrections and corrective actions

C.I would be concerned because action taken to address a major nonconformity should always be completed sooner than action taken to address minor nonconformities

D.I would be concerned that no grading is recorded for Report 3. This could indicate that the auditor did not complete the report correctly or that they failed to make a determination as to severity

E.I would be concerned that the auditors focussed only on information security processes

F.I would be concerned that timing for addressing the nonconformities is significantly different in the four reports

G.I would have a concern that no nonconformity review was conducted

H.I would have a concern that one auditor appeared to be conducting most of the internal audits

Answer: ABDF

As the Information Security Management System audit team leader, you are conducting a second-party audit of an international logistics company on behalf of an online retailer. During the audit, one of your team members reports a nonconformity relating to control 5.18 (Access rights) of Appendix A of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. She found evidence that removing the server access protocols of 20 people who left in the last 3 months took up to 1 week whereas the policy required removing access within 24 hours of their departure.

When the auditee was asked why there was a delay in removing access they replied, 'no one was available in the IT department during that period as a result of COVID-19. As soon as an IT officer became available the rights were removed.

You note that she intends to raise a minor non-conformity against Access rights control (5.18). How should you respond to this?

A.Agree with the raising of a minor non-conformity but against control 5.15, not 5.18.

B.Agree with the raising of the minor non-conformity against 5.18.

C.Disagree with the raising of a minor conformity as appropriate action was taken at the earliest opportunity Take no further action.

D.Disagree with the raising of the minor nonconformity as appropriate action was taken at the earliest opportunity. Instead raise an opportunity for improvement.

E.Disagree with the raising of the minor nonconformity, there is sufficient evidence to justify an escalation to a major non-conformity.

F.Require additional audit evidence to be obtained before determining whether a non-conformity is appropriate.

Answer: A

Integrity is one of the basic components of information security, along with confidentiality and availability. Integrity means that information is safeguarded from unauthorized or accidental changes that could affect its accuracy and completeness. Integrity ensures that information is reliable and trustworthy3. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course - BSI

The correct option is D. There is a nonconformity (NC). The Service Manager does not comply with the software security management procedure. (Relevant to clause 8.1, control A.8.30). The IT Manager should have approved the test results according to the software security management procedure, not the Service Manager. The Service Manager’s decision to accept the failed security tests also violates the “security-by-design” and “security-by-default” principles that the organization adopted. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant. The organization and developer did perform acceptance tests, but they failed (B, C). The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service does not justify the nonconformity (A). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 8.1 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a framework that describes the key elements of an effective software process. It defines five levels of maturity for software development organizations, from initial to optimized. The CMM helps organizations to assess their current level of process capability and identify the areas for improvement1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - IECB

A sampling plan for the audit is a method of selecting a representative subset of the audit evidence to evaluate the conformity of the ISMS1. The advantages of using a sampling plan are:

• It reduces the audit duration by focusing on the most relevant and significant aspects of the ISMS2.
• It gives confidence in the audit results by ensuring that the sample is sufficient, reliable, and unbiased3.

References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 9; 2: Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; 3: A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit, Step 4; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; : A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit

The words that best complete the sentence are assess and recommendation. The sentence would read as follows:

“An audit plan is a statement of the intent of the audit team to assess all areas of the company with a view to determining a recommendation for certification approval.”

Explanation: According to the web search results from my predefined tool, a third-party audit plan is a document that describes the scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology of an external audit conducted by an independent certification body to verify the conformity of an organization’s ISMS with the ISO 27001 standard12. The audit plan also includes the audit schedule, the audit team, the audit locations, and the audit deliverables23. One of the main deliverables of a third-party audit is the audit report, which summarizes the audit findings, the audit conclusions, and the audit recommendation34. The audit recommendation is the opinion of the audit team on whether the organization’s ISMS meets the certification requirements and whether the certification should be granted, maintained, suspended, or withdrawn45.

Therefore, the purpose of the audit plan is to state the intention of the audit team to assess all areas of the company, meaning to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS, and to determine a recommendation for certification approval, meaning to provide a judgment on the certification status of the ISMS. The other words in the options, such as verdict, permit, report, inspect, and question, do not accurately reflect the meaning of the audit plan. A verdict is a formal decision made by a judge or a jury, not by an audit team. A permit is a legal authorization to do something, not a certification of conformity. A report is a document that presents the audit results, not the audit intention. An inspection is a visual examination of something, not a comprehensive assessment of an ISMS. A question is a request for information, not a determination of a recommendation.

The main purpose of a Stage 1 third-party audit is to determine readiness for a Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit is a preliminary assessment that evaluates the organization’s ISMS documentation, scope, context, and objectives, and identifies any major gaps or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not introduce the audit team to the client, as this is done during the audit planning phase. A Stage 1 audit does not check for legal compliance by the organization, as this is done during the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not prepare an independent audit report, as this is done after the Stage 2 audit. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 70. : ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB, page 23.

Information security is a matter of building and maintaining trust. Trust is the confidence that information and information processing facilities are protected from unauthorized or malicious actions that could compromise their confidentiality, integrity or availability. Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, employees and other stakeholders who rely on the organization’s information and services. Trust is also a key factor for achieving compliance with legal, regulatory and contractual obligations, as well as meeting the organization’s own information security objectives and policies. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines information security as “preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information” (see clause 3.28) and states that “the purpose of an information security management system is to provide a framework for managing activities that influence the trustworthiness of information” (see Introduction). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Trust?

These four scenarios are examples of a lack of competence, which is defined as the ability to apply the knowledge and skills needed to perform a work role or a task effectively and efficiently12. Competence in ISO 27001:2022 is determined by the organisation’s needs and expectations, and it is based on the relevant education, training, or experience of the people involved in the ISMS34. The organisation is required to ensure that all the people who affect the performance of the ISMS are competent, and to provide them with the necessary training and awareness to fulfil their roles and responsibilities35. The four scenarios indicate that the people involved either lack the knowledge or skills to perform their tasks, or have not received the appropriate training or guidance to do so. The other scenarios are not related to competence, but to other factors such as negligence, error, or policy violation.

References: = 1: ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 3.72: ISO/IEC 27007:2011 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing, clause 53: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 7.24: ISO 27001 Requirement 7.2 – Competence | ISMS.online15: ISO27001 Clause 7.2 Competence - Ultimate Certification Guide - High Table3

The options that represent valid audit trails for assessing the organisation's application of control 5.7 - Threat Intelligence, according to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, are:

Option A: I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence. This is relevant because effective threat intelligence typically requires gathering information from multiple sources to be comprehensive.

Option D: I will check that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process. Proper documentation is a core requirement in ISO standards to ensure processes are defined, implemented, and maintained consistently.

Option E: I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organisation's information assets. This verifies that the output of threat intelligence is being used effectively within the organisation's information security practices.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 8.30, the organisation shall ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. This includes developing and entering into licensing agreements that cover code ownership and intellectual property rights, and implementing appropriate contractual requirements related to secure design and coding in accordance with Annex A 8.25 and 8.2912

In this case, the organisation and the developer have performed security tests that failed, which indicates that the secure design and coding requirements of Annex A 8.29 were not met. The IT Manager explains that the encryption and pseudonymization functions failed because they slowed down the system and service performance, and that an extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. However, this does not justify the acceptance of the test results by the Service Manager, who is not authorised to approve the test according to the software security management procedure. The Service Manager should have consulted with the IT Manager, who is the owner of the process, and followed the procedure for handling nonconformities and corrective actions. The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service based on access control alone exposes the organisation to the risk of compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal data processed by the mobile app. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1, control A.8.30.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Clause 8.1, the organisation shall plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet information security requirements, and to implement the actions determined in Clause 6.1. The organisation shall also control planned changes and review the consequences of unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary12

In this case, the organisation has not controlled the planned change of the mobile app from version 1.0 to version 1.01, which was a minor update provided by the outsourced developer in response to frequent ransomware attacks. The IT Manager explains that the developer performed an emergency release of the updated software, and gave a verbal guarantee that there will be no impact on any security functions. However, this is not sufficient to ensure that the change is properly assessed, tested, documented, and approved before deployment. The IT Manager should have followed the change management process and procedure, and verified that the updated software meets the security requirements and does not introduce any new vulnerabilities or risks. The IT Manager’s reliance on his 20 years of information security experience and the developer’s verbal guarantee is not a valid basis for skipping the re-testing of the software. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.2.2, the organization shall ensure that all persons who have access to information are aware of the information security policy and their contribution to the effectiveness of the ISMS, including the benefits of improved information security performance2. Therefore, awareness training on information security is a requirement for all persons, not just new hires. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

The difference between a restricted and confidential document is that a restricted document is to be shared among named individuals, while a confidential document is to be shared among an authorized group. Restricted and confidential are examples of information classification levels that indicate the sensitivity and value of information and the degree of protection required for it. Restricted documents contain information that could cause serious damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders if disclosed to unauthorized persons. Therefore, they should only be accessed by specific individuals who have a legitimate need to know and are authorized by the information owner. Confidential documents contain information that could cause damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders if disclosed to unauthorized persons. Therefore, they should only be accessed by a defined group of people who have a legitimate need to know and are authorized by the information owner. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to classify information in terms of legal requirements, value, criticality and sensitivity to unauthorized disclosure or modification (see clause A.8.2.1). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Information Classification?

Materiality should be considered during the initial contact to obtain reasonable assurance that the audit can be successfully completed. Determining materiality helps establish the threshold for the significance of audit findings, ensuring that the audit focuses on substantial issues that could impact the audit conclusions.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

One of the advantages of having accredited certification of ISMS to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is that it demonstrates the recognition of the credibility of the certification process. Accredited certification means that the certification body has been assessed and approved by an accreditation body, which ensures that the certification body operates according to international standards and follows impartiality, competence and consistency principles. Accredited certification also enhances the confidence of the organisation’s customers, partners, regulators and other interested parties in the organisation’s information security performance and compliance. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 0.2; [PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor], page 6; Key Benefits of ISO 27001 Certification - IT Governance.

The two statements that are valid audit conclusions are:

•The ISMS policy has been effectively communicated to the organisation

•The organisation’s ISMS objectives meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, an audit conclusion is the outcome of an audit, provided by the audit team after considering the audit objectives and all audit findings1. An audit conclusion can be positive or negative, depending on whether the audit criteria are fulfilled or not. An audit conclusion can also include recommendations for improvement or recognition of good practices.

The statements D and E are valid audit conclusions, because they express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. For example:

•Statement D is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 5.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the ISMS policy must be communicated within the organisation and to relevant interested parties2. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of communication, awareness activities, feedback, etc.

•Statement E is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must establish ISMS objectives that are consistent with the ISMS policy and relevant to the information security risks3. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of objective setting, risk assessment, alignment with policy, etc.

The other statements are not valid audit conclusions, because they do not express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. They are rather examples of audit findings, which are the results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against the audit criteria4. Audit findings can indicate either conformity or nonconformity with the audit criteria, or opportunities for improvement. For example:

•Statement A is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 7.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must provide information security awareness education and training to persons under its control5. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement B is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must maintain and review the information security risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur6. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement C is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must take action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities and prevent recurrence7. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement F is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must determine the controls that are necessary to implement the risk treatment plan, and document them in the statement of applicability8. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.15; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.2.2; 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.2.2; 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 10.1; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

The Act phase of the PDCA cycle is where the organisation takes actions to improve its processes and performance based on the results of the Check phase. This may involve resetting objectives to make them more realistic, achievable or challenging, or implementing changes to address the root causes of problems and achieve the desired outcomes. The Act phase is also where the organisation monitors the effects of the actions taken and evaluates their effectiveness and efficiency. The Act phase is important because it enables the organisation to learn from its experience and continually improve its ISMS. References: What is ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’? A framework for continuous improvement, PDCA in ISO27001 - Free guide to learn | Dr. Erdal Ozkaya, PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor (page 12)

This is the definition of an interested party according to ISO 27001:2013, clause 3.16. An interested party is essentially a stakeholder, i.e., a person or organization that can influence or be influenced by the information security management system (ISMS) or its activities. Interested parties can have different needs and expectations regarding the ISMS, and these should be identified and addressed by the organization. References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 3.16
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 10
• Identifying interested parties and their expectations for an ISO 27001 ISMS
• Examples of ISO 27001 interested parties

It is acceptable and often necessary for auditors to test technical controls such as firewalls to validate the operation and effectiveness of these processes during an ISMS audit. This hands-on testing provides concrete, technical evidence of the security measures' performance.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause A.13 (Communications security), ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

No, a general action plan is not acceptable in this context because it lacks specific details on systems, controls, or operations impacted by the nonconformities. An effective action plan should detail the specific corrective actions for each nonconformity to ensure comprehensive resolution and prevent recurrence.

Jack collected mathematical evidence when he identified nonconformities by comparing the number of purchased invoices for software licenses with the software inventory. This type of evidence involves numerical, quantifiable data that highlights discrepancies and supports findings of compliance or non-compliance.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, general guidelines on auditing

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, an audit programme is a set of one or more audits planned for a specific time frame and directed towards a specific purpose1. The individual(s) managing the audit programme are responsible for establishing, implementing and maintaining the audit programme in accordance with the organization’s policies and objectives1. This includes defining the extent of the audit programme based on strategic direction, risks and opportunities; establishing the audit programme by defining its objectives, scope and criteria; determining the resources necessary for the audit programme; selecting competent auditors and assigning them to appropriate audits; defining the objectives, scope and criteria for each individual audit; defining the plan of each individual audit; retaining documented information of the audit results; reviewing and improving the performance of the audit programme1. Therefore, these six actions are part of the responsibilities of the individual(s) managing the audit programme. The other option, communicating with the auditee during the audit, is not a responsibility of the individual(s) managing the audit programme, but rather a responsibility of the audit team leader1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Yes, it is acceptable for Sinvestment to request that the review of documented information occur on-site. The company has the right to stipulate that no documents be carried off-site, especially to maintain control over sensitive information and ensure confidentiality, which aligns with the security controls expected in ISO/IEC 27001.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 7.5 (Documented information)

One possible way to complete the sentence is:

“When reviewing the effectiveness of action taken in response to a nonconformity, an auditor seeks evidence of change that will prevent recurrence of the issue.”

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.1, the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the ISMS by evaluating the performance and the effectiveness of the ISMS, ensuring that the policy and objectives are aligned with the strategic direction of the organization, and taking actions to achieve the intended outcomes of the ISMS. One of the ways to achieve continual improvement is to identify and correct nonconformities and take actions to eliminate their causes and prevent their recurrence. Therefore, when reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective actions, an auditor should look for evidence that the organization has analyzed the root cause of the nonconformity, implemented appropriate changes to the ISMS, and verified that the changes have resulted in the desired improvement and prevented the recurrence of the issue. References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.1, Nonconformity and corrective action
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.2, Continual improvement
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19, Audit Process
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 21, Audit Findings

The audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in Data Grid Inc.'s ISMS was low. This refers to "Control Risk," which is the risk that a misstatement could occur in any relevant assertion related to an ISMS and that the risk could not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the organization's internal control systems.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

A checklist is a tool that helps auditors to collect and verify information relevant to the audit objectives and scope. It can provide the following advantages:

• Ensuring relevant audit trails are followed: A checklist can help auditors to identify and trace the sources of evidence that support the conformity or nonconformity of the audited criteria. It can also help auditors to avoid missing or overlooking any important aspects of the audit.
• Ensuring the audit plan is implemented: A checklist can help auditors to follow and fulfil the audit plan, which describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. It can also help auditors to manage their time and resources effectively and efficiently.

The other options are not advantages of using a checklist, but rather:

• Using the same checklist for every audit without review: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can lead to a rigid and ineffective audit approach. A checklist should be tailored and adapted to each specific audit, taking into account the context, risks, and changes of the auditee and the audit criteria. A checklist should also be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure its validity and relevance.
• Restricting interviews to nominated parties: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can limit the scope and depth of the audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from interviewing other relevant parties or sources of information that may provide valuable evidence or insights for the audit. A checklist should be used as a guide, not as a constraint.
• Reducing audit duration: This is not necessarily an advantage of using a checklist, as it depends on various factors, such as the complexity, size, and maturity of the auditee’s ISMS, the availability and quality of evidence, the competence and experience of the auditors, and the level of cooperation and communication between the auditors and the auditee. A checklist may help reduce audit duration by improving efficiency and organization, but it may also increase audit duration by requiring more evidence or verification.
• Not varying from the checklist when necessary: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can result in a superficial or incomplete audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from exploring or investigating any issues or concerns that arise during the audit, even if they are not included in the checklist. A checklist should be used as a support, not as a substitute.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems [Section 6.2.2]

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.2 requires an organization to determine the needs and expectations of interested parties that are relevant to its ISMS1. This includes identifying the legal, regulatory, contractual and other requirements that apply to its information security activities1. Therefore, collecting more evidence on what the service requirements of healthcare monitoring are may not be relevant to verifying the information security incident management process, as it is not directly related to the audit objective or criteria. This option will not be in the audit trail.

The three options for findings that are justified in the scenario are:

•Nonconformity (NC) - The information for the acceptance of residual information security risks should be updated after the risk treatment is implemented. Clause 6.1.3.f

•Nonconformity (NC) - The IT security manager should be aware of and understand his authority and area of responsibility. Clause 7.3

•Nonconformity (NC) - The risk treatment plan No. 123 should be approved by the risk owner, the Facility Manager in this case. Clause 6.1.3.f

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.f, the organisation must retain documented information that includes the information for the acceptance of residual information security risks, and the approval of the risk treatment plan by the risk owner1. Therefore, option A and G are justified as nonconformities, because the organisation failed to update the information for the acceptance of residual risks, and the risk treatment plan was approved by the IT security manager, who is not the risk owner.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.3, the organisation must ensure that the persons assigned to perform the roles and responsibilities for the ISMS are competent, and are aware of the consequences of not conforming to the ISMS requirements2. Therefore, option E is justified as a nonconformity, because the IT security manager, who is responsible for the information security risk management process, was not aware of his authority and area of responsibility.

The other options are not justified as findings, because they are either irrelevant or incorrect. For example:

•Option B is irrelevant, because it is not related to the information security risk treatment plan No. 123, which is the focus of the audit.

•Option C is incorrect, because it is not an opportunity for improvement, but rather a benefit of the risk treatment plan No. 123, which is already implemented.

•Option D is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.

•Option F is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the continual improvement of the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.

•Option H is irrelevant, because it is not a finding, but rather a good practice, which is not the objective of the audit.

References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3.f; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.3; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

 Integrity of data means accuracy and completeness of the data. Integrity is one of the three main objectives of information security, along with confidentiality and availability. Integrity ensures that information and systems are not corrupted, modified, or deleted by unauthorized actions or events. Data should be viewable at all times is not related to integrity, but to availability. Data should be accessed by only the right people is not related to integrity, but to confidentiality. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 24. : [ISO/IEC 27001 Brochures | PECB], page 4.

ISO/IEC 27001 emphasizes the need for organizations to have a comprehensive incident management and recovery plan for various situations, including the termination of contracts with key service providers. In the case of SendPay, having a specific, documented recovery plan that outlines steps and protocols in case of sudden termination is necessary to ensure business continuity and compliance with the standard.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clauses 6.1.3, A.16 (Information security incident management)

The main purpose of a Stage 1 audit is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation’s ISMS documentation, and to assess whether the organisation is prepared for the Stage 2 audit, where the implementation and operation of the ISMS will be verified. The Stage 1 audit also involves verifying the scope, objectives, and context of the ISMS, as well as identifying any areas of concern or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems Section 7.3.1

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, clause 9.4.9 requires the certification body to make a certification decision based on the information obtained during the audit and any other relevant information1. The certification body should also consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee to address any nonconformities identified during the audit1. Therefore, when making a recommendation to the audit programme manager, an ISMS auditor should consider the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the proposed corrective actions.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should recommend certification after their approval of the proposed corrective action plan and recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year. The auditor should provide the following justification for their recommendation:

• Justification: This recommendation is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has only two minor nonconformities and one opportunity for improvement, which do not indicate a significant or systemic failure of their ISMS. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. An opportunity for improvement is defined as a suggestion for improvement beyond what is required by ISO/IEC 27001:20222. Therefore, these findings do not prevent or preclude certification, as long as they are addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should approve the proposed corrective action plan before recommending certification, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable, and effective. The auditor should also recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year, to verify that the corrective actions have been implemented and are working as intended.

The other options are not valid recommendations for the audit programme manager, as they are either too lenient or too strict for the given scenario. For example:

• Recommend certification immediately: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee before making a certification decision.
• Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor overreacts or exaggerates the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a re-audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A full scope re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or multiple minor nonconformities that indicate a serious or widespread failure of an ISMS.
• Recommend that an unannounced audit is carried out at a future date: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor distrusts or doubts the auditee’s commitment or capability to implement corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to conduct unannounced audits only under certain conditions, such as when there are indications of serious problems with an ISMS or when required by sector-specific schemes.
• Recommend that a partial audit is required within 3 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor imposes or prescribes a specific time frame or scope for verifying corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a partial audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A partial audit may be appropriate for minor nonconformities, but the time frame and scope should be agreed upon with the auditee and based on the proposed corrective action plan.

References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 - Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems – Part 1: Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Risk modification involves implementing controls to reduce the likelihood or impact of a risk. By replacing FTP with SSH, Knight has modified the risk associated with the transfer of files by ensuring that the data is encrypted, thereby reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access through traffic capturing1. References: = This answer is based on the standard risk treatment options provided in ISO/IEC 27001, which include avoiding, modifying, sharing, or retaining risks as part of the risk management process

ISO/IEC 27001 requires organizations to comply with applicable legal, statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements, including those pertaining to information security. These requirements must be identified, documented, and kept up to date as part of the organization's ISMS.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 6.1.3 (Information security requirements)

According to ISO 19011:2018, clause 5.3, the person responsible for managing the audit programme should determine the resources necessary for the audit programme, such as the audit team members, the budget, the time, the tools, etc. The audit resources should be sufficient and appropriate to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the audit programme and the audit results. The audit resources include the following elements12:

• Essential resources: These are the resources that are required to conduct the audit programme and the individual audits, such as the audit documents, the audit methods, the audit tools, the audit schedule, the audit budget, etc. The essential resources should be identified and allocated based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the availability and cooperation of the auditee. The essential resources should also be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect any changes or deviations in the audit programme or the individual audits.
• Competent personnel: These are the audit team members who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently, and to provide credible and reliable audit results and recommendations. The competent personnel should include the audit team leader, the auditors, and any technical experts or observers who support the audit team. The competent personnel should be selected and appointed based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the specific competence requirements for the audit programme and the individual audits. The competent personnel should also be independent and impartial, and avoid any conflicts of interest or self-interest that may affect the audit results or the audit decisions.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 5.3
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19

Audit methods are techniques used by auditors to obtain audit evidence. Audit methods can be classified into two categories: those that involve human interaction and those that do not2. Audit methods that involve human interaction require direct communication between the auditor and the auditee or other relevant parties, such as interviews, questionnaires, surveys, meetings, etc. Audit methods that do not involve human interaction rely on observation, inspection, measurement, testing, sampling, analysis, etc., without requiring any verbal or written exchange2. Therefore, performing an independent review of procedures in preparation for an audit and reviewing the auditee’s response to an audit finding are examples of audit methods that involve human interaction, as they require reading and evaluating documents provided by the auditee or other sources. On the other hand, analysing data by remotely accessing the auditee’s server and observing work performed by remote surveillance are examples of audit methods that do not involve human interaction, as they do not require any direct communication with the auditee or other parties. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Sinvestment should correct the identified issue related to the lack of documentation on information security training and awareness before the stage 2 audit. Addressing this gap promptly ensures that the ISMS is fully compliant and effective when assessed in the subsequent audit stage.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 7.2 (Competence)

These two options are not required for audit planning of a certification audit, as they are not relevant to the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods. The working experience of the management system representative is not a requirement of ISO/IEC 27001, nor does it affect the conformity or effectiveness of the ISMS. The organisation’s financial statement is not part of the ISMS documentation, nor does it provide evidence of the ISMS performance or improvement. The other options are required for audit planning, as they help to determine the audit activities, resources, schedule, and sampling strategy. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 19-20; ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on2, page 1-2; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)3, clause 9.2.

 Information or data that are classified as public do not require labeling. Public information or data are those that are intended for general disclosure and have no impact on the organization’s operations or reputation if disclosed. Labeling is a method of implementing classification, which is a process of structuring information according to its sensitivity and value for the organization. Labeling helps to identify the level of protection and handling required for each type of information. Information or data that are classified as internal, confidential, or highly confidential require labeling, as they contain information that is not suitable for public disclosure and may cause harm or loss to the organization if disclosed. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

This scenario represents an "audit finding." An audit finding refers to results that indicate a deviation from the expected performance or standards. Discovering that two employees have not received the required training is an audit finding indicating noncompliance with the organization's training requirements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control A.7.2 requires an organization to implement appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas1. The organization should define and document the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, and should monitor and record the use of such access rights1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control A.7.2, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should raise a nonconformity against control A.7.2, as the secure area is not adequately protected from unauthorized access. The auditor should provide the following evidence and justification for the nonconformity:

• Evidence: The auditor observed two external contractors using a swipe card and combination number provided by the centre’s reception desk to gain access to a client’s suite to carry out authorized electrical repairs. The auditor checked the door access record for the client’s suite and found that only one card was swiped. The auditor asked the receptionist and was told that it was a common problem that contractors tend to swipe one card and tailgate their way in, but they were known from the reception sign-in.
• Justification: This evidence indicates that the organization has not implemented appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas, as required by control A.7.2. The organization has not defined and documented the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, as there is no verification or authorization process for providing swipe cards and combination numbers to external contractors. The organization has not monitored and recorded the use of access rights to secure areas, as there is no mechanism to ensure that each individual swipes their card and enters their combination number before entering a secure area. The organization has relied on the reception sign-in as a means of identification, which is not sufficient or reliable for ensuring information security.

The other options are not valid actions for auditing control A.7.2, as they are not related to the control or its requirements, or they are not appropriate or effective for addressing the nonconformity. For example:

• Take no action: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformity, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.5.20 ‘addressing information security in supplier relationships’ as information security requirements have not been agreed upon with the supplier: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not supplier relationships. Control A.5.20 requires an organization to agree on information security requirements with suppliers that may access, process, store, communicate or provide IT infrastructure components for its information assets1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security in supplier relationships, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ as security measures for working in secure areas have not been defined: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not working in secure areas. Control A.7.6 requires an organization to define and apply security measures for working in secure areas1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security when working in secure areas, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas e.g. CCTV: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather attempts to find alternative or compensating controls that may mitigate its impact or likelihood. While additional arrangements such as CCTV may be useful for verifying individual access to secure areas, they do not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement that contractors must be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may prevent or reduce its recurrence or severity. While accompanying contractors at all times when accessing secure facilities may be a good practice for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement to have a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may increase awareness or compliance with the existing controls. While having a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times may be a helpful reminder for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Tell the organisation they must write to their contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather instructs the organization to take a corrective action that may not be effective or sufficient for ensuring information security. While writing to contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately may be a communication measure for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Materiality in the context of an audit involves assessing what level of nonconformities or failures, including those related to legal and contractual compliance, would be significant enough to affect the audit conclusions. Costs related to these issues are considered when determining materiality.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

The technical expert can communicate their audit findings to the auditee only through one of the audit team members. This ensures that communications remain coordinated and that the audit team maintains control over the audit process.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Internal audits and external audits are integral components of the certification cycle, ensuring regular monitoring of the management system. Internal audits help organizations prepare for external audits by identifying and addressing potential nonconformities, while external audits validate the compliance of the management system with ISO/IEC 27001 standards.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material; ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clauses 9.2 (Internal audit) and 9.3 (Management review)

• Risk analysis is the process by which the nature of the risk is determined along with its probability and impact. Risk analysis involves estimating the likelihood and consequences of potential events or situations that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk analysis could use qualitative or quantitative methods, or a combination of both12.
• Risk management is the process by which a risk is controlled at all stages of its life cycle by means of the application of organisational policies, procedures and practices. Risk management involves establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and reviewing the risks that could affect the organization’s information security performance or compliance12. Risk management aims to ensure that risks are identified and treated in a timely and effective manner, and that opportunities for improvement are exploited12.
• Risk identification is the process by which a risk is recognised and described. Risk identification involves identifying and documenting the sources, causes, events, scenarios, and potential impacts of risks that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk identification could use various techniques, such as brainstorming, interviews, checklists, surveys, or historical data12.
• Risk evaluation is the process by which the impact and/or probability of a risk is compared against risk criteria to determine if it is tolerable. Risk evaluation involves comparing the results of risk analysis with predefined criteria that reflect the organization’s risk appetite, tolerance, or acceptance12. Risk evaluation could use various methods, such as ranking, scoring, or matrix12. Risk evaluation helps to prioritize and decide on the appropriate risk treatment options12.
• Risk mitigation is the process by which the impact and/or probability of a risk is reduced by means of the application of controls. Risk mitigation involves selecting and implementing measures that are designed to prevent, reduce, transfer, or accept risks that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk mitigation could include various types of controls, such as technical, organizational, legal, or physical12. Risk mitigation should be based on a cost-benefit analysis and a residual risk assessment12.
• Risk transfer is the process by which a risk is passed to a third party, for example through obtaining appropriate insurance. Risk transfer involves sharing or shifting some or all of the responsibility or liability for a risk to another party that has more capacity or capability to manage it12. Risk transfer could include various methods, such as contracts, agreements, partnerships, outsourcing, or insurance12. Risk transfer should not be used as a substitute for effective risk management within the organization12.

References :=

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management

Yes, according to ISO/IEC 27001, the company needs to provide evidence of the implementation of procedures regarding the logging of user activities. This requirement is essential to ensure that events are recorded and regularly reviewed, supporting the detection and prevention of security incidents.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.4 (Logging and monitoring)

Yes, it is acceptable for the internal auditor to follow-up on the implementation of corrective actions until verified by the external auditor during the next surveillance audit. This practice supports continuous improvement and ensures that corrective actions are effectively implemented and maintained over time.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material; ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 9.2 (Internal audit)

The following four statements are true according to ISO/IEC 27001’s risk management requirements: 12

• The results of risk assessments must be maintained. This is true because clause 8.2.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to retain documented information of the information security risk assessment process and the results12
• ISO/IEC 27001 provides an outline approach for the management of risk. This is true because clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 specifies the general steps for the information security risk management process, which include establishing the risk criteria, assessing the risks, treating the risks, and monitoring and reviewing the risks12
• The organisation must produce a risk treatment plan for every business risk identified. This is true because clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to produce a risk treatment plan that defines the actions to be taken to address the unacceptable risks, the responsibilities, the expected dates, and the resources required12
• Risk assessments should be undertaken following significant changes. This is true because clause 8.2.4 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organisation to review and update the risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur12

The following four statements are false according to ISO/IEC 27001’s risk management requirements:

• Risk identification is used to determine the severity of an information security risk. This is false because risk identification is used to identify the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, and existing controls that are relevant to the information security risk management process. The severity of an information security risk is determined by the risk analysis, which evaluates the likelihood and impact of the risk scenarios12
• The organisation must operate a risk treatment process to eliminate its information security risks. This is false because the organisation can choose from four options to treat its information security risks: avoid, transfer, mitigate, or accept. The organisation does not have to eliminate all its information security risks, but only those that are unacceptable according to its risk criteria12
• The initial phase in an organisation’s risk management process should be information security risk assessment. This is false because the initial phase in an organisation’s risk management process should be establishing the risk management framework, which includes defining the risk management policy, objectives, scope, roles, responsibilities, and criteria. The information security risk assessment is the second phase in the risk management process12
• Risks assessments should be undertaken at monthly intervals. This is false because there is no fixed frequency for conducting risk assessments in ISO/IEC 27001. The organisation should determine the appropriate intervals for reviewing and updating the risk assessment based on its risk appetite, risk profile, and operational context12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

• B. 8.12 Data leakage protection. This is true because the auditee should have implemented measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, such as personal data, medical records, or official documents, that are contained in the parcels. Data leakage protection could include encryption, authentication, access control, logging, and monitoring of data transfers12.
• D. 6.3 Information security awareness, education, and training. This is true because the auditee should have ensured that all employees and contractors involved in the shipping process are aware of the information security policies and procedures, and have received appropriate training on how to handle and protect the information assets in their custody. Information security awareness, education, and training could include induction programmes, periodic refreshers, awareness campaigns, e-learning modules, and feedback mechanisms13.
• E. 7.10 Storage media. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to protect the storage media that contain information assets from unauthorized access, misuse, theft, loss, or damage. Storage media could include paper documents, optical disks, magnetic tapes, flash drives, or hard disks14. Storage media controls could include physical locks, encryption, backup, disposal, or destruction14.
• F. 8.3 Information access restriction. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to restrict access to information assets based on the principle of least privilege and the need-to-know basis. Information access restriction could include identification, authentication, authorization, accountability, and auditability of users and systems that access information assets15.
• I. 7.4 Physical security monitoring. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to monitor the physical security of the premises where information assets are stored or processed. Physical security monitoring could include CCTV cameras, alarms, sensors, guards, or patrols16. Physical security monitoring could help detect and deter unauthorized physical access or intrusion attempts16.
• J. 5.13 Labelling of information. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to label information assets according to their classification level and handling instructions. Labelling of information could include markings, tags, stamps, stickers, or barcodes1 . Labelling of information could help identify and protect information assets from unauthorized disclosure or misuse1 .

References :=

• ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27003:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Guidance
• ISO/IEC 27004:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Monitoring measurement analysis and evaluation
• ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management
• ISO/IEC 27006:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems
• [ISO/IEC 27007:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing]

According to the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, the following corrections and corrective actions are expected from ABC in response to the nonconformity:

• B. The Service Manager provides evidence of analysis of the cause of nonconformity and how the ABC evaluates the effectiveness of implemented corrective actions. This is part of the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall determine the causes of nonconformities and evaluate the need for action to ensure that they do not recur or occur elsewhere12. The organization shall also evaluate the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken12.
• F. ABC identifies and checks compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties. This is part of the requirement of clause 4.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall determine the external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its information security management system12. This includes the legal and contractual requirements related to the information security aspects of the organization’s activities, products and services12.
• G. The Service Manager implements the corrective actions and Customer Service Representatives evaluate the effectiveness of implemented corrective actions. This is part of the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall implement any action needed and retain documented information as evidence of the results of any action taken12. The organization shall also monitor, measure, analyze and evaluate the information security performance and the effectiveness of the information security management system12.

References:

• 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, CQI and IRCA Certified Training, 1
• 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course, PECB, 2

The auditor should consider "audit risks" when determining the "audit objectives." Understanding the risks associated with the audit helps define the objectives clearly, ensuring that the audit focuses on the most significant areas of concern, aligns with the audit scope, and adequately addresses the risks identified.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems