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.

Question:

Which method did CoreBit Systems use to address and prevent reoccurring problems after identifying the nonconformities?

Which option below should be addressed in an information security policy?

Scenario 8: SunDee is a biopharmaceutical firm headquartered in California, US. Renowned for its pioneering work in the field of human therapeutics, SunDee places a strong emphasis on addressing critical healthcare concerns, particularly in the domains of cardiovascular diseases, oncology, bone health, and inflammation. SunDee has demonstrated its commitment to data security and integrity by maintaining an effective information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 for the past two years.

In preparation for the recertification audit, SunDee conducted an internal audit. The company's top management appointed Alex, who has actively managed the Compliance Department's day-to-day operations for the last six months, as the internal auditor. With this dual role assignment, Alex is tasked with conducting an audit that ensures compliance and provides valuable recommendations to improve operational efficiency.

During the internal audit, a few nonconformities were identified. To address them comprehensively, the company created action plans for each nonconformity, working closely with the audit team leader.

SunDee's senior management conducted a comprehensive review of the ISMS to evaluate its appropriateness, sufficiency, and efficiency. This was integrated into their regular management meetings. Essential documents, including audit reports, action plans, and review outcomes, were distributed to all members before the meeting. The agenda covered the status of previous review actions, changes affecting the ISMS, feedback, stakeholder inputs, and opportunities for improvement. Decisions and actions targeting ISMS improvements were made, with a significant role played by the ISMS coordinator and the internal audit team in preparing follow-up action plans, which were then approved by top management.

In response to the review outcomes, SunDee promptly implemented corrective actions, strengthening its information security measures. Additionally, dashboard tools were introduced to provide a high-level overview of key performance indicators essential for monitoring the organization's information security management. These indicators included metrics on security incidents, their costs, system vulnerability tests, nonconformity detection, and resolution times, facilitating effective recording, reporting, and tracking of monitoring activities. Furthermore, SunDee embarked on a comprehensive measurement process to assess the progress and outcomes of ongoing projects, implementing extensive measures across all processes. The top management determined that the individual responsible for the information, aside from owning the data that contributes to the measures, would also be designated accountable for executing these measurement activities.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Is Alex suitable for the position of internal auditor within the company?