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

Scenario 9: CoreBit Systems

CoreBit Systems, with its headquarters m San Francisco, specializes in information and communication technology (ICT) solutions, its clientele primarily includes data communication enterprises and network operators. The company's core objective is to enable its clients a smooth transition into multi-service providers, aligning their operations with the complex demands of the digital landscape.

Recently. John, the internal auditor of CoreBit Systems, conducted an internal audit which uncovered nonconformities related to their monitoring procedures and system vulnerabilities, in response to the identified nonconformities. CoreBit Systems decided to employ a comprehensive problem-solving approach to solve these issues systematically. The method encompasses a team-oriented approach, aiming to identify, correct, and eliminate the root causes of issues. This approach involves several steps. First, establish a group of experts with deep knowledge of processes and controls. Next, break down the nonconformity into measurable components and implement interim containment measures. Then, identify potential root causes and select and verify permanent corrective actions. Finally, put those actions into practice, validate them, take steps to prevent recurrence, and recognize and acknowledge the team's efforts.

Following the analysis of the root cause of the nonconformities, CoreBit Systems's ISMS project manager. Julia, developed a list of potential actions to address the identified nonconformities. Julia carefully evaluated the list to ensure that each action would effectively eliminate the root cause of the respective nonconformity. While assessing potential corrective action for addressing a nonconformity, Julia identified the issue as significant and assessed a high likelihood of its reoccurrence Consequently, she chose to implement temporary corrective actions. Afterward. Julia combined all the nonconformities Into a single action plan and sought approval from the top management.

The submitted action plan was written as follows:

A new version of the access control policy will be established and new restrictions will be created to ensure that network access is effectively managed and monitored by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department.

However. Julia's submitted action plan was not approved by top management The reason cited was that a general action plan meant to address all nonconformities was deemed unacceptable. Consequently, Julia revised the action plan and submitted separate ones for approval Unfortunately, Julia did not adhere to the organization's specified deadline for submission, resulting in a delay in the corrective action process, and notably, the revised action plans lacked a defined schedule for execution.

Julia, the ISMS project manager, developed a combined action plan for all nonconformities. However, it was rejected, revised, and resubmitted late—without defined execution schedules.

Question:

Did CoreBit Systems have a plan in place to implement permanent corrective action to address the identified nonconformities?

Scenario 10: NetworkFuse develops, manufactures, and sells network hardware. The company has had an operational information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and a quality management system (QMS) based on ISO 9001 for approximately two years. Recently, it has applied for a j^ombined certification audit in order to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001.

After selecting the certification body, NetworkFuse prepared the employees for the audit The company decided to not conduct a self-evaluation before the audit since, according to the top management, it was not necessary. In addition, it ensured the availability of documented information, including internal audit reports and management reviews, technologies in place, and the general operations of the ISMS and the QMS. However, the company requested from the certification body that the documentation could not be carried off-site

However, the audit was not performed within the scheduled days because NetworkFuse rejected the audit team leader assigned and requested their replacement The company asserted that the same audit team leader issued a recommendation for certification to its main competitor, which, for the company's top management, was a potential conflict of interest. The request was not accepted by the certification body

NetworkFuse should_________________to ensure that employees are prepared for the audit. Refer to scenario 10.

Scenario 9:

OpenTech, headquartered in San Francisco, specializes in information and communication technology (ICT) solutions. Its clientele primarily includes data communication enterprises and network operators. The company's core objective is to enable its clients to transition smoothly into multi-service providers, aligning their operations with the complex demands of the digital landscape.

Recently, Tim, the internal auditor of OpenTech, conducted an internal audit that uncovered nonconformities related to their monitoring procedures and system vulnerabilities. In response to these nonconformities, OpenTech decided to employ a comprehensive problem-solving approach to address the issues systematically. This method encompasses a team-oriented approach, aiming to identify, correct, and eliminate the root causes of the issues. The approach involves several steps: First, establish a group of experts with deep knowledge of processes and controls. Next, break down the nonconformity into measurable components and implement interim containment measures. Then, identify potential root causes and select and verify permanent corrective actions. Finally, put those actions into practice, validate them, take steps to prevent recurrence, and recognize and acknowledge the team's efforts.

Following the analysis of the root causes of the nonconformities, OpenTech's ISMS project manager, Julia, developed a list of potential actions to address the identified nonconformities. Julia carefully evaluated the list to ensure that each action would effectively eliminate the root cause of the respective nonconformity. While assessing potential corrective actions, Julia identified one issue as significant and assessed a high likelihood of its recurrence. Consequently, she chose to implement temporary corrective actions. Julia then combined all the nonconformities into a single action plan and sought approval from top management. The submitted action plan was written as follows:

"A new version of the access control policy will be established and new restrictions will be created to ensure that network access is effectively managed and monitored by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department."

However, Julia's submitted action plan was not approved by top management. The reason cited was that a general action plan meant to address all nonconformities was deemed unacceptable. Consequently, Julia revised the action plan and submitted separate ones for approval. Unfortunately, Julia did not adhere to the organization's specified deadline for submission, resulting in a delay in the corrective action process. Additionally, the revised action plans lacked a defined schedule for execution.

Did OpenTech have a plan in place to implement permanent corrective action to address the identified nonconformities?