PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Implementer Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Scenario 10: ProEBank

ProEBank is an Austrian financial institution known for its comprehensive range of banking services. Headquartered in Vienna, it leaverages the city's advanced technological and financial ecosystem To enhance its security posture, ProEBank has implementied an information security management system (ISMS) based on the ISO/IEC 27001. After a year of having the ISMS in place, the company decided to apply for a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 27001.

To prepare for the audit, the company first informed its employees for the audit and organized training sessions to prepare them. It also prepared documented information in advance, so that the documents would be ready when external auditors asked to review them Additionally, it determined which of its employees have the knowledge to help the external auditors understand and evaluate the processes.

During the planning phase for the audit, ProEBank reviewed the list of assigned auditors provided by the certification body. Upon reviewing the list, ProEBank identified a potential conflict of interest with one of the auditors, who had previously worked for ProEBank's mein competitor in the banking industry To ensure the integrity of the audit process. ProEBank refused to undergo the audit until a completely new audit team was assigned. In response, the certification body acknowledged the conflict of interest and made the necessary adjustments to ensure the impartiality of the audit team

After the resolution of this issue, the audit team assessed whether the ISMS met both the standard's requirements and the company's objectives. During this process, the audit team focused on reviewing documented information.

Three weeks later, the team conducted an on-site visit to the auditee’s location where they aimed to evaluate whether the ISMS conformed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001. was effectively implemented, and enabled the auditee to reach its information security objectives. After the on-site visit the team prepared the audit conclusions and notified the auditee that some minor nonconformities had been detected The audit team leader then issued a recommendation for certification.

After receiving the recommendation from the audit team leader, the certification body established a committee to make the decision for certification. The committee included one member from the audit team and two other experts working for the certification body.

The certification body’s final decision for certification was made by a committee that included one auditor from the audit team and two other experts.

Question:

Is this acceptable?

Scenario 10: CircuitLinking is a company specializing in water purification solutions, designing and manufacturing efficient filtration and treatment systems for both residential and commercial applications. Over the past two years, the company has actively implemented an integrated management system (IMS) that aligns with both ISO/IEC 27001 for information security and ISO 9001 for quality management. Recently, the company has taken a significant step forward by applying for a combined audit, aiming to achieve certification against both ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001.

In preparation for the certification audit, CircuitLinking ensured a clear understanding of ISO/IEC 27001 within the company, identified key subject-matter experts to assist the auditors, allocated sufficient resources, performed a self-assessment, and gathered all necessary documentation in advance. Following the successful completion of the Stage 1 audit (which focused on verifying the design of the management system), the Stage 2 audit was conducted to examine the implementation and effectiveness of the information security and quality management systems.

One of the auditors, Megan, was a previous employee of the company. To uphold the integrity of the certification process, the company notified the certification body about the potential conflict of interest and requested an auditor change. Subsequently, the certification body selected a replacement, ensuring impartiality. Additionally, the company requested a background check of the audit team members; however, the certification body denied this request. The necessary adjustments to the audit plan were made, and transparent communication with stakeholders was maintained.

The audit process continued seamlessly under the new auditor’s guidance. Upon audit completion, the certification body evaluated the results and conclusions of the audit and CircuitLinking's public information, and awarded CircuitLinking the combined certification.

A recertification audit for CircuitLinking was conducted to verify that the company's management system continued to meet the required standards and remained effective within the defined scope of certification. CircuitLinking had implemented significant changes, including a major overhaul of its information security processes, new technology platforms, and adjustments to comply with recent legislative changes. Due to these updates, the recertification audit required a Stage 1 assessment to evaluate the impact.

Which of the following does NOT follow auditing best practices? Refer to Scenario 10.

An internal auditor at a mid-sized company is asked to conduct an internal ISMS audit of the IT Department, where the auditor held daily operational responsibilities just three months ago The company has well-documented job descriptions distinguishing between The auditor's current audit duties and their previous operational role in the IT Department. What is the most appropriate act on to uphold the objectivity and impartiality of the audit?