Isaca CISM Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 36

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are the most useful to include in an information security status report for management because they measure and report the level of risk exposure or performance against predefined risk thresholds or targets, and alert management of any deviations or issues that may require attention or action. List of recent security events is not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because it does not provide any analysis or evaluation of the events or their impact on the organization's objectives or performance. Review of information security policies is not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because it does not reflect any progress or results of implementing or enforcing the policies. Information security budget requests are not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because they do not indicate any value or benefit of investing in information security initiatives or controls.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-6/how-to-measure-the-effectiveness-of-information-security-using-iso-27004

A security information and event management (SIEM) system is a type of detective control because it monitors and analyzes the security events or logs from different sources or systems, and detects any anomalies or incidents that may indicate a security breach or compromise. A preventive control is a type of control that prevents or blocks any unauthorized or malicious activity or access from occurring. A deterrent control is a type of control that discourages or warns any potential attackers or intruders from attempting any unauthorized or malicious activity or access. A corrective control is a type of control that restores or repairs any damage or disruption caused by an unauthorized or malicious activity or access.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-6/the-value-of-penetration-testing https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-5/security-scanning-versus-penetration-testing

The organizational risk register is the most useful for an information security manager when determining the need to escalate an incident to senior management because it contains a list of identified risks to the organization, their likelihood and impact, and their predefined risk thresholds or targets, which can help the information security manager assess the severity and urgency of the incident and decide whether it requires senior management's attention or action. Incident management procedures are not very useful for this purpose because they do not provide any specific criteria or guidance on when to escalate an incident to senior management. Incident management policy is not very useful for this purpose because it does not provide any specific criteria or guidance on when to escalate an incident to senior management. System risk assessment is not very useful for this purpose because it does not reflect the current risk exposure or status of the organization as a whole.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-6/how-to-measure-the-effectiveness-of-information-security-using-iso-27004 https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-5/incident-response-lessons-learned

Laws and regulations provide the most useful input to determine the organization's information security strategy because they define the legal and compliance requirements and obligations that the organization must adhere to, and guide the development and implementation of the security policies and controls that support them. Security budget is not a useful input to determine the organization's information security strategy because it does not reflect the organization's security needs or goals, but rather a resource to enable the security activities and initiatives. Risk register is not a useful input to determine the organization's information security strategy because it does not reflect the organization's security vision or mission, but rather a tool to identify and manage the security risks. Risk score is not a useful input to determine the organization's information security strategy because it does not reflect the organization's security priorities or objectives, but rather a measure of the level of risk exposure or performance.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-4/technical-security-standards-for-information-systems https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-2/how-to-align-security-initiatives-with-business-goals-and-objectives

Isolating the impacted endpoints is the best course of action for the information security manager after an employee clicked on a link in a phishing email, triggering a ransomware attack because it prevents the ransomware from spreading to other systems or devices on the network, and minimizes the damage or disruption caused by the attack. Wiping the affected system is not a good course of action because it may destroy any evidence or data that could be used for investigation or recovery. Notifying internal legal counsel is not a good course of action because it does not address the immediate threat or impact of the ransomware attack. Notifying senior management is not a good course of action because it does not address the immediate threat or impact of the ransomware attack.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-5/incident-response-lessons-learned https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-3/incident-response-lessons-learned

Initiating incident response is the best course of action after a server has been attacked because it activates the incident response plan or process, which defines the roles and responsibilities, procedures and protocols, tools and techniques for responding to and managing a security incident effectively and efficiently. Reviewing vulnerability assessment is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather evaluates the potential weaknesses or exposures of the server. Conducting a security audit is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather verifies and validates the compliance or performance of the server's security controls or systems. Isolating the system is not a good course of action because it does not address the current attack or its impact, but rather stops or limits any communication or interaction with the server.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-5/incident-response-lessons-learned https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-3/incident-response-lessons-learned

The greatest concern resulting from the lack of severity criteria in incident classification is that escalation procedures will be ineffective because they rely on severity criteria to determine when and how to escalate an incident to higher levels of authority or responsibility, and what actions or resources are required for resolving an incident. Statistical reports will be incorrect is not a great concern because they do not affect the incident response process directly, but rather provide information or analysis for improvement or evaluation purposes. The service desk will be staffed incorrectly is not a great concern because it does not affect the incident response process directly, but rather affects the availability or efficiency of one of its components. Timely detection of attacks will be impossible is not a great concern because it does not depend on severity criteria, but rather on monitoring and alerting mechanisms.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-5/incident-response-lessons-learned https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-3/incident-response-lessons-learned

The best reason to conduct a social engineering test in a call center is to identify candidates for additional security training because it helps to assess the level of awareness and skills of the call center staff in recognizing and resisting social engineering attacks, and provide them with the necessary training or education to improve their security posture. Minimizing the likelihood of successful attacks is not a reason to conduct a social engineering test, but rather a possible outcome or benefit of conducting such a test. Gaining funding for information security initiatives is not a reason to conduct a social engineering test, but rather a possible outcome or benefit of conducting such a test. Improving password policy is not a reason to conduct a social engineering test, but rather a possible outcome or benefit of conducting such a test.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-6/the-value-of-penetration-testing https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-5/security-scanning-versus-penetration-testing

Performing a vulnerability analysis is the best option to ensure that a new application complies with information security policy because it helps to identify and evaluate any security flaws or weaknesses in the application that may expose it to potential threats or attacks, and provide recommendations or solutions to mitigate them. Reviewing the security of the application before implementation is not a good option because it may not detect or prevent all security issues that may arise after implementation or deployment. Integrating security functionality at the development stage is not a good option because it may not account for all security requirements or challenges of the application or its environment. Periodically auditing the security of the application is not a good option because it may not address any security issues that may occur between audits or after deployment.

Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-2/secure-software-development-lifecycle https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-4/integrating-assurance-functions