Summer Certification Limited Time 70% Discount Offer - Ends in 0d 00h 00m 00s - Coupon code = getmirror

Pass the PECB ISO 27001 ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Practice at least 50% of the questions to maximize your chances of passing.

Exam ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Premium Access

View all detail and faqs for the ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor exam

Go to Exam

777 Students Passed

96% Average Score

93% Same Questions

Viewing page 2 out of 13 pages

Viewing questions 11-20 out of questions

Questions # 11:

You are performing an ISMS audit at a residential nursing home that provides healthcare services. The next step in your audit plan is to verify the information security incident management process. The IT Security Manager presents the information security incident management procedure and explains that the process is based on ISO/IEC 27035-1:2016.

You review the document and notice a statement "any information security weakness, event, and incident should be reported to the Point of Contact (PoC) within 1 hour after identification". When interviewing staff, you found that there were differences in the understanding of the meaning of "weakness, event, and incident".

You sample incident report records from the event tracking system for the last 6 months with summarized results in the following table.

Question # 11

You would like to further investigate other areas to collect more audit evidence. Select two options that will not be in your audit trail.

Options:

Collect more evidence by interviewing more staff about their understanding of the reporting process. (Relevant to control A.6.8)

Collect more evidence on how and when the company pays the ransom fee to unlock the company's mobile phone and data, i.e., credit card, and bank transfer. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

Collect more evidence on how and when the Human Resources manager pays the ransom fee to unlock personal mobile data, i.e., credit card, and bank transfer. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

Collect more evidence on how the organisation determined the incident recovery time. (Relevant to control A.5.27)

Collect more evidence on how the organization determined no further action was needed after the incident. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

Collect more evidence on the incident recovery procedures. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

Answer

B, C

Explanation

•C. Collect more evidence on how and when the Human Resources manager pays the ransom fee to unlock personal mobile data, i.e., credit card, and bank transfer. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

This is not relevant to the audit of the organization's incident management process. The HR manager's personal phone and how they handle a ransomware attack on it falls outside the scope of the ISMS audit. The organization is not responsible for personal devices.

•B. Collect more evidence on how and when the company pays the ransom fee to unlock the company's mobile phone and data, i.e., credit card, and bank transfer. (Relevant to control A.5.26)

While seemingly relevant, this focuses on the method of payment for the ransom. The core issue is the organization paying the ransom at all, which is generally not best practice in incident response. The audit should focus on why this decision was made and if alternative solutions were considered (e.g., data backups, device wiping and restoration).

Why the other options ARE relevant:

•A. Collect more evidence by interviewing more staff about their understanding of the reporting process. (Relevant to control A.6.8) This directly addresses the identified discrepancy in understanding "weakness, event, and incident," which is crucial for proper incident reporting.

•D. Collect more evidence on how the organisation determined the incident recovery time. (Relevant to control A.5.27) This investigates the basis for the 24-hour recovery time, which seems arbitrary and may not be appropriate for all incidents.

•E. Collect more evidence on how the organization determined no further action was needed after the incident. (Relevant to control A.5.26) This probes the adequacy of the incident response, especially the lack of preventative measures after paying the ransom.

•F. Collect more evidence on the incident recovery procedures. (Relevant to control A.5.26) This examines the actual procedures to assess their effectiveness and alignment with best practices.

Questions # 12:

Scenario 8: Tessa. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

The audit team did not accept Clastus's additional information because they had already made the certification recommendation. Is this acceptable?

Options:

Yes, once the audit team decides on a certification recommendation, they cannot accept any additional information

No, the auditee can provide additional information if they disagree with the certification recommendation

No, the auditor should not consider revisions that resulted from discussions with the auditee in the certification recommendation decision

Questions # 13:

A decent visitor is roaming around without visitor's ID. As an employee you should do the following, except:

Options:

Say "hi" and offer coffee

Call the receptionist and inform about the visitor

Greet and ask him what is his business

Escort him to his destination

Questions # 14:

You are an experienced ISMS audit team leader guiding an auditor in training. She asks you about the grading of nonconformities in audit reports. You decide to test her knowledge by asking her which four of the following statements are true.

Options:

Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

Nonconformities must be graded only using the terms 'major' or 'minor'

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

Very minor nonconformities should be re-graded as opportunities for improvement

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

The grading of nonconformities must be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting

The auditee is always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities

Answer

A, C, E, H

Explanation

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]

Questions # 15:

Scenario 6: Cyber ACrypt is a cybersecurity company that provides endpoint protection by offering anti-malware and device security, asset life cycle management, and device encryption. To validate its ISMS against ISO/IEC 27001 and demonstrate its commitment to cybersecurity excellence, the company underwent a meticulous audit process led by John, the appointed audit team leader.

Upon accepting the audit mandate, John promptly organized a meeting to outline the audit plan and team roles This phase was crucial for aligning the team with the audit's objectives and scope However, the initial presentation to Cyber ACrypt’s staff revealed a significant gap in understanding the audit's scope and objectives, indicating potential readiness challenges within the company

As the stage 1 audit commenced, the team prepared for on-site activities. They reviewed Cyber ACrypt's documented information, including the information security policy and operational procedures ensuring each piece conformed to and was standardized in format with author identification, production date, version number, and approval date Additionally, the audit team ensured that each document contained the information required by the respective clause of the standard This phase revealed that a detailed audit of the documentation describing task execution was unnecessary, streamlining the process and focusing the team's efforts on critical areas During the phase of conducting on-site activities, the team evaluated management responsibility for the Cyber Acrypt's policies This thorough examination aimed to ascertain continual improvement and adherence to ISMS requirements Subsequently, in the document, the stage 1 audit outputs phase, the audit team meticulously documented their findings, underscoring their conclusions regarding the fulfillment of the stage 1 objectives. This documentation was vital for the audit team and Cyber ACrypt to understand the preliminary audit outcomes and areas requiring attention.

The audit team also decided to conduct interviews with key interested parties. This decision was motivated by the objective of collecting robust audit evidence to validate the management system’s compliance with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. Engaging with interested parties across various levels of Cyber ACrypt provided the audit team with invaluable perspectives and an understanding of the ISMS's implementation and effectiveness.

The stage 1 audit report unveiled critical areas of concern. The Statement of Applicability (SoA) and the ISMS policy were found to be lacking in several respects, including insufficient risk assessment, inadequate access controls, and lack of regular policy reviews. This prompted Cyber ACrypt to take immediate action to address these shortcomings. Their prompt response and modifications to the strategic documents reflected a strong commitment to achieving compliance.

The technical expertise introduced to bridge the audit team's cybersecurity knowledge gap played a pivotal role in identifying shortcomings in the risk assessment methodology and reviewing network architecture. This included evaluating firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and other network security measures, as well as assessing how Cyber ACrypt detects, responds to, and recovers from external and internal threats. Under John's supervision, the technical expert communicated the audit findings to the representatives of Cyber ACrypt. However, the audit team observed that the expert s objectivity might have been compromised due to receiving consultancy fees from the auditee. Considering the behavior of the technical expert during the audit, the audit team leader decided to discuss this concern with the certification body.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

Which criteria for evaluating documented information was NOT validated by the audit team? (Refer to Scenario 6)

Options:

Content of the documented information

Format of the documented information

Procedure for managing the documented information

Questions # 16:

Scenario 7: Lawsy is a leading law firm with offices in New Jersey and New York City. It has over 50 attorneys offering sophisticated legal services to clients in business and commercial law, intellectual property, banking, and financial services. They believe they have a comfortable position in the market thanks to their commitment to implement information security best practices and remain up to date with technological developments.

Lawsy has implemented, evaluated, and conducted internal audits for an ISMS rigorously for two years now. Now, they have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification to ISMA, a well-known and trusted certification body.

During stage 1 audit, the audit team reviewed all the ISMS documents created during the implementation. They also reviewed and evaluated the records from management reviews and internal audits.

Lawsy submitted records of evidence that corrective actions on nonconformities were performed when necessary, so the audit team interviewed the internal auditor. The interview validated the adequacy and frequency of the internal audits by providing detailed insight into the internal audit plan and procedures.

The audit team continued with the verification of strategic documents, including the information security policy and risk evaluation criteria. During the information security policy review, the team noticed inconsistencies between the documented information describing governance framework (i.e., the information security policy) and the procedures.

Although the employees were allowed to take the laptops outside the workplace, Lawsy did not have procedures in place regarding the use of laptops in such cases. The policy only provided general information about the use of laptops. The company relied on employees' common knowledge to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information stored in the laptops. This issue was documented in the stage 1 audit report.

Upon completing stage 1 audit, the audit team leader prepared the audit plan, which addressed the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and procedures.

During stage 2 audit, the audit team interviewed the information security manager, who drafted the information security policy. He justified the Issue identified in stage 1 by stating that Lawsy conducts mandatory information security training and awareness sessions every three months.

Following the interview, the audit team examined 15 employee training records (out of 50) and concluded that Lawsy meets requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 related to training and awareness. To support this conclusion, they photocopied the examined employee training records.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Based on scenario 7, what should Lawsy do prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit?

Options:

Perform a quality review of audit findings from stage 1 audit

Define which audit test plans can be combined to verify compliance

Review and confirm the audit plan with the certification body

Questions # 17:

Question:

When multiple offices of a certification body are involved, what must be ensured?

Options:

Each office has a separate legally enforceable agreement with the client

A legally enforceable agreement that covers all sites within the certification scope

Only the main office has a legally enforceable agreement with the client

Questions # 18:

Question:

Prior to initiating the audit activities, the auditors considered the auditee’s context, critical processes, and expectations. Which auditing principle has been applied?

Options:

Due professional care

Professional skepticism

Integrity

Questions # 19:

Why should materiality be considered during the initial contact?

Options:

To determine the audit duration

To obtain reasonable assurance that the audit can be successfully completed

To define processes for minimizing detection risks

Questions # 20:

You are an experienced audit team leader guiding an auditor in training.

Your team is currently conducting a third-party surveillance audit of an organisation that stores data on behalf of external clients. The auditor in training has been tasked with reviewing the TECHNOLOGICAL controls listed in

the Statement of Applicability (SoA) and implemented at the site.

Select four controls from the following that would you expect the auditor in training to review.

Options:

Confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements

How access to source code and development tools are managed

How power and data cables enter the building

How protection against malware is implemented

How the organisation evaluates its exposure to technical vulnerabilities

Information security awareness, education and training

The organisation's arrangements for information deletion

Answer

B, D, E, G

Explanation

The four controls from the list that the auditor in training should review are:

•B. How access to source code and development tools are managed: This control requires the organisation to restrict and monitor the access to the source code and development tools that are used to create, modify, or maintain the software applications and systems that process or store the data of external clients. This is important for ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the software and the data, as well as for preventing unauthorized changes, errors, or malicious code injection.

•D. How protection against malware is implemented: This control requires the organisation to implement appropriate measures to detect, prevent, and remove malware from the IT systems and devices that process or store the data of external clients. This includes using antivirus software, firewalls, email filtering, web filtering, and other tools to protect against viruses, worms, ransomware, spyware, and other malicious software. This is essential for safeguarding the data and the systems from corruption, theft, or damage caused by malware.

•E. How the organisation evaluates its exposure to technical vulnerabilities: This control requires the organisation to identify and assess the technical vulnerabilities that may affect the IT systems and devices that process or store the data of external clients. This includes using vulnerability scanning tools, penetration testing tools, threat intelligence sources, and other methods to discover and evaluate the weaknesses and gaps in the security of the systems and the devices. This is necessary for prioritizing and implementing the appropriate corrective actions and controls to mitigate the risks posed by the vulnerabilities.

•G. The organisation’s arrangements for information deletion: This control requires the organisation to establish and implement policies and procedures for deleting the data of external clients from the IT systems and devices when it is no longer needed or required. This includes defining the criteria and methods for data deletion, such as secure erasure, encryption, or physical destruction. This is important for complying with the contractual obligations and the legal and regulatory requirements regarding the retention and disposal of the data, as well as for protecting the confidentiality and integrity of the data.

References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Annex A, clauses A.8.9, A.8.10, A.8.11, and A.8.28; Understanding ISO 27001:2022: People, process, and technology, pages 6-7; What are the 11 new security controls in ISO 27001:2022? - Advisera.

Viewing page 2 out of 13 pages

Viewing questions 11-20 out of questions