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

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:

Should the auditor archive the copies of employee training records after the completion of the audit? Refer to scenario 7.

Scenario 5

CyberShielding Systems Inc. provides security services spanning the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. CyberShielding Systems Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks for two decades through advanced products and services. Having achieved a reputation in the information and network security sector, CyberShielding Systems Inc. decided to implement a security information management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and obtain a certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain a competitive advantage.

The certification body initiated the process by selecting the audit team for CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s ISO/IEC 27001 certification. They provided the company with the name and background information of each audit member. However, upon review, CyberShielding Systems Inc. discovered that one of the auditors did not hold the security clearance required by them. Consequently, the company objected to the appointment of this auditor. Upon review, the certification body replaced the auditor in response to CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s objection.

As part of the audit process, CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s approach to risk and opportunity determination was assessed as a standalone activity. This involved examining the organization’s methods for identifying and managing risks and opportunities. The audit team’s core objectives encompassed providing assurance on the effectiveness of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity identification mechanisms and reviewing the organization's strategies for addressing these determined risks and opportunities. During this, the audit team also identified a risk due to a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval, potentially exposing the company to vulnerabilities. This finding highlighted the need for stronger internal controls to prevent such issues.

The audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts to understand the main business processes and controls. They performed a limited analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was limited by third-party service provider restrictions. However, the audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in CyberShielding’s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by questioning CyberShielding representatives on IT responsibilities, control effectiveness, and anti-malware measures. CyberShielding’s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

Despite the agreement signed before the audit, which outlined the audit scope, criteria, and objectives, the audit was primarily focused on assessing conformity with established criteria and ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Question

Did the certification body have a valid reason to accept CyberShielding Systems Inc.’s objection to the appointed auditor for their ISO/IEC 27001 certification audit?

Scenario 5: Data Grid Inc. is a well-known company that delivers security services across the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. For two decades, Data Grid Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks through advanced products and services. Having achieved reputation in the information and network security field, Data Grid Inc. decided to obtain the ISO/IEC 27001 certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain competitive advantage.

Data Grid Inc. appointed the audit team, who agreed on the terms of the audit mandate. In addition, Data Grid Inc. defined the audit scope, specified the audit criteria, and proposed to close the audit within five days. The audit team rejected Data Grid Inc.'s proposal to conduct the audit within five days, since the company has a large number of employees and complex processes. Data Grid Inc. insisted that they have planned to complete the audit within five days, so both parties agreed upon conducting the audit within the defined duration. The audit team followed a risk-based auditing approach.

To gain an overview of the main business processes and controls, the audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts. They were unable to perform a deeper analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was restricted. However, the audit team stated that the risk that a significant defect could occur to Data Grid Inc.'s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by asking the representatives of Data Grid Inc. the following questions:

•How are responsibilities for IT and IT controls defined and assigned?

•How does Data Grid Inc. assess whether the controls have achieved the desired results?

•What controls does Data Grid Inc. have in place to protect the operating environment and data from malicious software?

•Are firewall-related controls implemented?

Data Grid Inc.'s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

The audit team leader drafted the audit conclusions and reported them to Data Grid Inc.'s top management. Though Data Grid Inc. was recommended for certification by the auditors, misunderstandings were raised between Data Grid Inc. and the certification body in regards to audit objectives. Data Grid Inc. stated that even though the audit objectives included the identification of areas for potential improvement, the audit team did not provide such information.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

Which type of audit risk was defined as “low* by the audit team? Refer to scenario 5.

Question

To verify conformity to control 8.15 Logging of ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A, the audit team studied a sample of server logs to determine if they could be edited or deleted. Which audit procedure did the audit team use?

Question

Which statement regarding maintaining objectivity and impartiality of the internal audit is correct?

An audit team leader is planning a follow-up audit after the completion of a third-party surveillance audit earlier in the year. They have decided they will verify the nonconformities that require corrections before they move on to consider corrective actions.

Based on the descriptions below, which four of the following are corrections for nonconformities identified at the surveillance?

Which two of the following options do not participate in a second-party audit to ISO/IEC 27001?

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.

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

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:

Based on Scenario 6, was the objective of the interviews during the Stage 1 audit accordingly set by the audit team?

A data processing tool crashed when a user added more data in the buffer than its storage capacity allows. The incident was caused by the tool's inability to bound check arrays. What kind of vulnerability is this?