Free and Premium Isaca CCAK Dumps Questions Answers

According to the web search results, the most critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding indicates a serious lack of security by design and security by default principles, which are essential for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the application and its data . If the application architecture and configurations are not secure, they could expose the application to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as unauthorized access, data breaches, denial-of-service attacks, injection attacks, cross-site scripting attacks, and others . This finding could also result in non-compliance with relevant security standards and regulations, such as ISO 27001, PCI DSS, GDPR, and others . Therefore, this finding should be addressed with high priority and urgency by implementing appropriate security measures and controls in the application architecture and configurations.

The other options are not as critical as option B. Option A is a moderate finding that indicates a lack of awareness and assessment of the global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO 27017, ISO 27018, CSA CCM, NIST SP 800-53, and others . This finding could affect the security and compliance of the cloud services used by the application, but it does not directly impact the application itself. Option C is a severe finding that indicates a major incident that occurred at the cloud service provider level, such as a service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data. This finding could affect the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the application and its data, but it is not caused by the application itself. Option D is a minor finding that indicates a lack of efficiency and consistency in integrating cloud compliance with regulatory requirements. This finding could affect the compliance posture of the application and its data, but it does not directly impact the security or functionality of the application. References:

[Application Security Best Practices - OWASP]

[DevSecOps: What It Is and How to Get Started - ISACA]

[Cloud Security Standards: What to Expect & What to Negotiate - CSA]

[Cloud Computing Security Audit - ISACA]

[Cloud Computing Incident Response - ISACA]

[Cloud Compliance: A Framework for Using Cloud Services While Maintaining Compliance - ISACA]

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the cloud customer is the entity that retains accountability for the business outcome of the system or the processes that are supported by the cloud service1. The cloud customer is also responsible for ensuring that the cloud service meets the legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations that apply to the customer’s business context1. The cloud customer should also perform due diligence and risk assessment before selecting a cloud service provider, and establish a clear and enforceable contract that defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties1.

The cloud user is the entity that uses the cloud service on behalf of the cloud customer, but it is not necessarily accountable for the compliance of the service1. The cloud service provider is the entity that makes the cloud service available to the cloud customer, but it is not accountable for the compliance of the customer’s business context1. The certification authority (CA) is an entity that issues digital certificates to verify the identity or authenticity of other entities, but it is not accountable for the compliance of the cloud service2. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 10-11.

Certification authority - Wikipedia

The first step to switch from the ISO/IEC 27002 control framework to the NIST 800-53 control framework is to map ISO/IEC 27002 and NIST 800-53 and detect gaps and commonalities. This step can help the organization to understand the similarities and differences between the two frameworks, and to identify which controls are already implemented, which controls need to be added or modified, and which controls are no longer applicable. Mapping can also help the organization to leverage the existing work done under ISO/IEC 27002 and avoid starting from scratch or discarding valuable information. Mapping can also help the organization to align with both frameworks, as they are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. In fact, NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 provides a mapping table between NIST 800-53 and ISO/IEC 27001 in Appendix H-21. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that is based on ISO/IEC 27002, which is a code of practice for information security controls2.

References:

NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 Control Mappings to ISO/IEC 27001

ISO - ISO/IEC 27002:2013 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls

 When designing a cloud compliance program, the first key stakeholders to identify are the cloud strategy owners. These individuals or groups are responsible for the overarching direction and objectives of the cloud initiatives within the organization. They play a crucial role in aligning the compliance program with the business goals and ensuring that the cloud services are used effectively and in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. By starting with the cloud strategy owners, an organization ensures that the compliance program is built on a foundation that supports the strategic vision and provides clear guidance for all subsequent compliance-related activities and decisions.

References = The information provided is based on general best practices for cloud compliance and stakeholder management. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the answer aligns with the recognized approach of prioritizing strategic leadership in the initial stages of designing a compliance program.

Periodic documentation review is a critical process that helps organizations identify control gaps and shortcomings, particularly in the context of cloud computing. This process involves regularly examining the documentation of processes, controls, and policies to ensure they are up-to-date and effective. It allows an organization to verify that the controls are operating as intended and to discover any areas where the controls may not fully address the organization’s requirements or the unique risks associated with cloud services. By conducting these reviews, organizations can maintain compliance with relevant regulations and standards, and ensure continuous improvement in their cloud security posture.

References = The significance of periodic documentation review is highlighted in cloud auditing and security best practices, as outlined by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) program12. These resources emphasize the importance of regular reviews as part of a comprehensive cloud governance and compliance strategy.

Exception reporting is crucial for maintaining effective cloud application controls within an organization. It involves monitoring and reporting deviations from standard operating procedures, which can indicate potential security issues. This proactive approach allows organizations to address vulnerabilities promptly before they can be exploited. Exception reporting is a key component of a robust security posture, as it provides real-time insights into the operational effectiveness of controls and helps maintain compliance with security policies.

References = The importance of exception reporting is highlighted in best practices for cloud security, which emphasize the need for continuous monitoring and immediate response to any anomalies detected in cloud applications

 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 270011. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a standard that provides a code of practice for information security controls, but it does not provide specific guidance for cloud services. NIST SP 800-146 is a publication that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, and security considerations, but it does not provide a standard for selecting controls for cloud services. CSA CCM is a framework that provides detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the Cloud Security Alliance guidance in 13 domains, but it is not a standard that is based on ISO/IEC 27001. References:

ISO/IEC 27017:2015

[ISO/IEC 27001:2013]

[ISO/IEC 27002:2013]

[NIST SP 800-146]

[CSA CCM]

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation. A policy violation refers to the breach or violation of a written policy or rule of the organization. A policy or rule is a statement that defines the expectations, standards, or requirements for the behavior, conduct, or performance of the organization’s members, such as employees, customers, partners, or suppliers. Policies and rules can be based on various sources, such as laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, principles, values, ethics, or best practices12.

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation because it is responsible for establishing, communicating, enforcing, and monitoring its own policies and rules. The organization should also define the consequences and remedies for policy violations, such as warnings, sanctions, penalties, termination, or legal action. The organization should ensure that its policies and rules are clear, consistent, fair, and aligned with its mission, vision, and goals12.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the external auditor, is incorrect because the external auditor is an independent party that provides assurance or verification of the organization’s financial statements, internal controls, compliance status, or performance. The external auditor does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but evaluates them against relevant standards or criteria3. Option C, the Internet service provider (ISP), is incorrect because the ISP is a company that provides access to the Internet and related services to the organization. The ISP does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer4. Option D, the cloud provider, is incorrect because the cloud provider is a company that provides cloud computing services to the organization. The cloud provider does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer5. References :=

Policy Violation Definition | Law Insider1

How to Write Policies and Procedures | Smartsheet2

What is an External Auditor? - Definition from Safeopedia3

What is an Internet Service Provider (ISP)? - Definition from Techopedia4

What is Cloud Provider? - Definition from Techopedia

The optimal and most efficient mechanism to assess the controls that the provider is responsible for is to review third-party audit reports. Third-party audit reports are independent and objective assessments of the provider’s security, compliance, and performance, conducted by qualified and reputable auditors. Third-party audit reports can provide assurance and evidence that the provider meets the industry standards and best practices, as well as the contractual and legal obligations with the SaaS company. Third-party audit reports can also cover a wide range of controls, such as data security, encryption, identity and access management, incident response, disaster recovery, and service level agreements. Some examples of third-party audit reports are ISO 27001 certification, SOC 1/2/3 reports, CSA STAR certification, and FedRAMP authorization123.

Reviewing the provider’s published questionnaires (A) may not be optimal or efficient, as the published questionnaires may not be comprehensive or up-to-date, and may not reflect the actual state of the provider’s controls. The published questionnaires may also be biased or inaccurate, as they are produced by the provider themselves.

Directly auditing the provider © may not be feasible or necessary, as the independent contractor may not have access to the provider’s environment or data, and may not have the authority or expertise to conduct such an audit. The independent contractor should rely on the third-party audit reports and certifications to assess the provider’s compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Sending a supplier questionnaire to the provider (D) may not be optimal or efficient, as the supplier questionnaire may not cover all the aspects of the provider’s controls, and may not provide sufficient evidence or assurance of the provider’s security maturity. The supplier questionnaire may also take a long time to complete and verify, and may not be consistent with the industry standards and best practices. References :=

How to Evaluate Cloud Service Provider Security (Checklist)

Cloud service review process - Cloud Adoption Framework

How to choose a cloud service provider | Microsoft Azure

The most significant difference between a cloud risk management program and a traditional risk management program is the shared responsibility model. The shared responsibility model is the division of security and compliance responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, depending on the type of cloud service model (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS). The shared responsibility model implies that both parties have to collaborate and coordinate to ensure that the cloud service meets the required level of security and compliance, as well as to identify and mitigate any risks that may arise from the cloud environment123.

Virtualization of the IT landscape (A) is a difference between a cloud risk management program and a traditional risk management program, but it is not the most significant one. Virtualization of the IT landscape refers to the abstraction of physical IT resources, such as servers, storage, network, or applications, into virtual ones that can be accessed and managed over the internet. Virtualization of the IT landscape enables the cloud service provider to offer scalable, flexible, and efficient cloud services to the cloud service customer. However, virtualization of the IT landscape also introduces new risks, such as data leakage, unauthorized access, misconfiguration, or performance degradation123.

Risk management practices adopted by the cloud service provider © are a difference between a cloud risk management program and a traditional risk management program, but they are not the most significant one. Risk management practices adopted by the cloud service provider refer to the methods or techniques that the cloud service provider uses to identify, assess, treat, monitor, and report on the risks that affect their cloud services. Risk management practices adopted by the cloud service provider may include policies, standards, procedures, controls, audits, certifications, or attestations that demonstrate their security and compliance posture. However, risk management practices adopted by the cloud service provider are not sufficient or reliable on their own, as they may not cover all aspects of cloud security and compliance, or may not align with the expectations or requirements of the cloud service customer123.

Hosting sensitive information in the cloud environment (D) is a difference between a cloud risk management program and a traditional risk management program, but it is not the most significant one. Hosting sensitive information in the cloud environment refers to storing or processing data that are confidential, personal, or valuable in the cloud infrastructure or platform that is owned and operated by the cloud service provider. Hosting sensitive information in the cloud environment can offer benefits such as cost savings, accessibility, availability, or backup. However, hosting sensitive information in the cloud environment also poses risks such as data breaches, privacy violations, compliance failures, or legal disputes123. References :=

Cloud Risk Management - ISACA

Cloud Risk Management: A Primer for Security Professionals - Infosec …

Cloud Risk Management: A Primer for Security Professionals - Infosec …

A security categorization of the information systems should be performed first to properly implement the NIST SP 800-53 r4 control framework in an organization. Security categorization is the process of determining the potential impact on organizational operations, organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation resulting from a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system and the information processed, stored, or transmitted by that system. Security categorization is based on the application of FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, which defines three levels of impact: low, moderate, and high. Security categorization is the first step in the Risk Management Framework (RMF) described in NIST SP 800-37, Revision 2, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy. Security categorization helps to identify the security requirements for the information system and to select an initial set of baseline security controls from NIST SP 800-53 r4, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. The baseline security controls can then be tailored and supplemented as needed to address specific organizational needs, risk factors, and compliance obligations12.

References:

SP 800-53 Rev. 4, Security & Privacy Controls for Federal Info Sys …

SP 800-37 Rev. 2, Risk Management Framework for Information …

The best method to report continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) is through a set of dedicated application programming interfaces (APIs). According to the CSA website1, the STAR Continuous program is a component of the STAR certification that allows cloud service providers to validate their security posture on an ongoing basis. The STAR Continuous program leverages a set of APIs that can integrate with the cloud provider’s existing tools and processes, such as security information and event management (SIEM), governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC), or continuous monitoring systems. The APIs enable the cloud provider to collect, analyze, and report security-related data to the CSA STAR registry in near real-time. The APIs also allow the CSA to verify the data and provide feedback to the cloud provider and the customers. The STAR Continuous program aims to provide more transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling continuous visibility into the security performance of cloud services.

The other methods listed are not suitable for reporting continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the CSA. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) assessment by a third-party auditor on a periodic basis is part of the STAR Certification Level 2 program, which provides a point-in-time validation of the cloud provider’s security controls. However, this method does not provide continuous assessment or reporting, as it only occurs once every 12 or 24 months2. The tools selected by the third-party auditor may vary depending on the scope, criteria, and methodology of the audit, and they may not be compatible or consistent with the CSA’s standards and frameworks. Moreover, the tools may not be able to report the audit results to the CSA STAR registry automatically or frequently. The SOC 2 Type 2 attestation is an independent audit report that evaluates the cloud provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. However, this report is not specific to cloud computing and does not cover all aspects of the CCM. Furthermore, this report is not intended to be shared publicly or reported to the CSA STAR registry3.

References:

STAR Continuous | CSA

STAR Certification | CSA

SOC 2 vs CSA STAR: Which One Should You Choose?

The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings1 The registry is designed for users of cloud services to assess their cloud providers’ security and compliance posture, including the regulations, standards, and frameworks they adhere to1 The registry also promotes industry transparency and reduces complexity and costs for both providers and customers2

The provider can direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, as this would be the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. By publishing to the registry, the provider can show current and potential customers their security and compliance posture, without having to fill out multiple customer questionnaires or requests for proposal (RFPs)2 The provider can also leverage the different levels of assurance available in the registry, such as self-assessment, third-party audit, or certification, to demonstrate their security maturity and trustworthiness1 The provider can also benefit from the CSA Trusted Cloud Providers program, which recognizes providers that have fulfilled additional training and volunteer requirements with CSA, demonstrating their commitment to cloud security competency and industry best practices3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the provider can schedule a call with each customer is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Scheduling a call with each customer would be time-consuming, inefficient, and impractical, especially if the provider receives multiple inquiries and RFPs every month. Scheduling a call would also not guarantee that the customer would be satisfied with the provider’s security and compliance posture, as they may still request additional information or evidence. Scheduling a call would also not help the provider differentiate themselves from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to showcase their security maturity and trustworthiness effectively.

Option B is not correct because the provider can share all security reports with customers to streamline the process is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Sharing all security reports with customers may not be feasible, as some reports may contain sensitive or confidential information that should not be disclosed to external parties. Sharing all security reports may also not be desirable, as some reports may be outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent, which could undermine the provider’s credibility and reputation. Sharing all security reports may also not be effective, as some customers may not have the expertise or resources to review and understand them properly.

Option C is not correct because the provider can answer each customer individually is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Answering each customer individually would be tedious, repetitive, and costly, as the provider would have to provide similar or identical information to different customers over and over again. Answering each customer individually would also not ensure that the provider’s security and compliance posture is consistent and accurate, as they may make mistakes or omissions in their responses. Answering each customer individually would also not help the provider stand out from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to highlight their security achievements and certifications.

References: 1: STAR | CSA 2: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing 3: STAR Registry | CSA

The cloud service provider is responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer in all three cloud deployment models (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). The hypervisor layer is the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. The hypervisor layer is part of the cloud infrastructure, which is owned and operated by the cloud service provider. The cloud service provider is responsible for ensuring that the hypervisor layer is secure, reliable, and up to date with the latest patches and updates. The cloud service provider should also monitor and report on the status and performance of the hypervisor layer, as well as any issues or incidents that may affect it.

The cloud service customer is not responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer, as they do not have access or control over the cloud infrastructure. The cloud service customer only has access and control over the cloud resources and services that they consume from the cloud service provider, such as virtual machines, storage, databases, applications, etc. The cloud service customer is responsible for ensuring that their own cloud resources and services are secure, compliant, and updated with the latest patches and updates.

The patching of the hypervisor layer is not a shared responsibility between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, as it is solely under the domain of the cloud service provider. The shared responsibility model in cloud computing refers to the division of security and compliance responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, depending on the type of cloud deployment model. For example, in IaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing the physical infrastructure, network, and hypervisor layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own operating systems, applications, data, etc. In PaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the platform layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own applications and data. In SaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the application layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own data and user access.

Patching on hypervisor layer is required, as it is essential for maintaining the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure. Patching on hypervisor layer can help prevent vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the virtual machines or other cloud resources and services. Patching on hypervisor layer can also help improve or enhance the features or capabilities of the hypervisor software or hardware. References :=

Patching process - AWS Prescriptive Guidance

What is a Hypervisor in Cloud Computing and Its Types? - Simplilearn

In all three cloud deployment models, (IaaS, PaaS, and … - Exam4Training

Reference Architecture: App Layering | Citrix Tech Zone

Hypervisor - GeeksforGeeks

 Access controls are an assurance requirement when an organization is migrating to a SaaS provider because they ensure that only authorized users can access the cloud services and data. Access controls also help to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the cloud resources. Access controls are part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain IAM-01: Identity and Access Management Policy and Procedures, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage user identities and access to cloud services and data."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 751

Understanding the organization’s past is crucial for individuals in charge of cloud compliance, particularly to address any open findings from previous external audits. This historical perspective is essential because it allows the compliance team to identify recurring issues, understand the context of past non-compliances, and ensure that corrective actions have been taken and are effective. It also helps in anticipating potential future compliance challenges based on past trends and patterns.

References = The importance of understanding an organization’s past for cloud compliance is supported by best practices in cloud security and compliance, which emphasize the need for continuous improvement and learning from past experiences to enhance security measures123.

Cryptography and authentication are good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are critical aspects of cloud security that require constant monitoring and verification. Cryptography and authentication refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and communications in the cloud environment. Cryptography involves the use of encryption algorithms and keys to protect data from unauthorized access or modification. Authentication involves the use of credentials and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Continuous auditing can help to assess the effectiveness and compliance of cryptography and authentication controls, such as data encryption, key management, password policies, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. Continuous auditing can also help to detect and alert any anomalies or issues that may compromise or affect cryptography and authentication, such as data breaches, key leakage, password cracking, unauthorized access, etc123.

Procedures (A) are not good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Procedures refer to the steps or actions that are performed to achieve a certain objective or result in a specific domain or context. Procedures may vary depending on the type, nature, or complexity of the task or process involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Procedures may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess their effectiveness or compliance123.

Governance (B) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Governance refers to the framework or system that defines the roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, procedures, and practices for managing and overseeing an organization or a domain. Governance may involve multiple stakeholders, such as management, board of directors, regulators, auditors, customers, etc., who have different interests, expectations, or perspectives. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Governance may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123.

Documentation quality (D) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Documentation quality refers to the degree to which the documents that describe or support an organization or a domain are accurate, complete, consistent, relevant, and understandable. Documentation quality may depend on various factors, such as the purpose, audience, format, style, language, structure, content, etc., of the documents involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Documentation quality may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Organizations maintain mappings between the different control frameworks they adopt to avoid duplication of work when assessing compliance. This is because different control frameworks may have overlapping or equivalent controls that address the same objectives or risks. By mapping these controls, organizations can streamline their compliance assessment process and reduce the cost and effort involved. Mappings also help organizations to identify any gaps or inconsistencies in their control coverage and address them accordingly. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-03: Control Frameworks, which states that "The organization should identify and adopt applicable control frameworks, standards, and best practices to support the cloud compliance program."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 54

The CSA STAR Certification is based on criteria outlined in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) in addition to ISO/IEC 27001 implementation. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that covers 17 domains and 197 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud technology. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. The CSA STAR Certification demonstrates that a cloud service provider conforms to the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, has addressed issues critical to cloud security as outlined in the CCM, and has been assessed against the STAR Capability Maturity Model for the management of activities in CCM control areas1. The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider and provides a high level of assurance and trust to customers2.

References:

CSA STAR Certification - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

STAR | CSA

A detective control is a type of internal control that seeks to uncover problems in a company’s processes once they have occurred1. Examples of detective controls include physical inventory checks, reviews of account reports and reconciliations, as well as assessments of current controls1. Detective controls use platform telemetry to detect misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and potentially malicious activity in the cloud environment2.

In a Software as a Service (SaaS) service provider, privileged access monitoring is a detective control that can help identify unauthorized or suspicious activities by users who have elevated permissions to access or modify cloud resources, data, or configurations. Privileged access monitoring can involve logging, auditing, alerting, and reporting on the actions performed by privileged users3. This can help detect security incidents, compliance violations, or operational errors in a timely manner and enable appropriate responses.

Data encryption, incident management, and network segmentation are examples of preventive controls, which are designed to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. Data encryption protects the confidentiality and integrity of data by transforming it into an unreadable format that can only be decrypted with a valid key1. Incident management is a process that aims to restore normal service operations as quickly as possible after a disruption or an adverse event4. Network segmentation divides a network into smaller subnetworks that have different access levels and security policies, reducing the attack surface and limiting the impact of a breach1.

References:

Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com3, section on Privileged access monitoring

Detective controls | Cloud Architecture Center | Google Cloud2, section on Detective controls

Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?4, section on SaaS Solutions to Support Internal Control

Detective Control: Definition, Examples, Vs. Preventive Control1, section on What Is a Detective Control?

The greatest governance challenge in the scenario where production is hosted in a public cloud and backups are held on-premises is aligning the shared responsibilities between the provider and the customer. This is because the division of security and compliance duties must be clearly understood and managed to ensure that all aspects of the cloud services are adequately protected and meet regulatory requirements. The customer is responsible for the security ‘in’ the cloud (i.e., the data and applications), while the provider is responsible for the security ‘of’ the cloud (i.e., the infrastructure). Misalignment in this shared responsibility model can lead to gaps in security and compliance, making it a significant governance challenge.

References = This answer is verified by the information available in the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which discuss the shared responsibility model and its implications for governance in cloud environments12.

A double blind penetration test is a type of pen test where the hacker has no prior knowledge of the target’s defenses, assets, or channels, and the target’s security team is not notified in advance of the scope of the audit and the test vectors. This mode simulates a real-world attack scenario, where both the attacker and the defender have to rely on their skills and resources to achieve their objectives. A double blind penetration test can help evaluate the effectiveness of the target’s security posture, detection and response capabilities, and incident management procedures12.

References:

What is Penetration Testing | Step-By-Step Process & Methods | Imperva

7 Types of Penetration Testing: Guide to Pentest Methods & Types

 The greatest risk associated with hidden interdependencies between cloud services is the lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain. Hidden interdependencies are the complex and often unknown relationships and dependencies between different cloud services, providers, sub-providers, and customers. These interdependencies can create challenges and risks for the security, availability, performance, and compliance of the cloud services and data. For example, a failure or breach in one cloud service can affect other cloud services that depend on it, or a change in one cloud provider’s policy or contract can impact other cloud providers or customers that rely on it.12

The lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain means that the customers do not have enough information or control over how their cloud services and data are delivered, managed, and protected by the providers and their sub-providers. This can expose the customers to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as data breaches, data loss, service outages, compliance violations, legal disputes, or contractual conflicts. The customers may also face difficulties in monitoring, auditing, or verifying the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. Therefore, it is important for the customers to understand the hidden interdependencies between cloud services and to establish clear and transparent agreements with their cloud providers and sub-providers regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.3

References := How to identify and map service dependencies - Gremlin1; Mitigate Risk for Data Center Network Migration - Cisco2; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.03; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, a cloud auditor should use statistical sampling rather than judgment (nonstatistical) sampling when the probability of error must be objectively quantified1. Statistical sampling is a sampling technique that uses random selection methods and mathematical calculations to draw conclusions about the population from the sample results. Statistical sampling allows the auditor to measure the sampling risk, which is the risk that the sample results do not represent the population, and to express the confidence level and precision of the sample1. Statistical sampling also enables the auditor to estimate the rate of exceptions or errors in the population based on the sample1.

The other options are not valid reasons for using statistical sampling rather than judgment sampling. Option A is irrelevant, as generalized audit software is a tool that can facilitate both statistical and judgment sampling, but it is not a requirement for either technique. Option B is incorrect, as statistical sampling does not avoid sampling risk, but rather measures and controls it. Option D is illogical, as the tolerable error rate is a parameter that must be determined before conducting any sampling technique, whether statistical or judgmental. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 17-18.

 For a European manufacturing corporation migrating to the cloud, the best control framework would be the Cloud Security Alliance’s (CSA) General Data Protection Regulation Code of Conduct (GDPR CoC). This framework is specifically designed to help cloud service providers and users comply with EU data protection requirements. As GDPR is a critical regulation in Europe that imposes strict data protection rules, adhering to a framework that aligns with these regulations is essential for any organization operating within the EU.

References = The CSA’s GDPR CoC is recognized as a robust framework for ensuring compliance with GDPR, which is a key consideration for European organizations migrating to the cloud. This is supported by the resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance and ISACA in their Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials1.

The Architectural Relevance feature within the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) allows for the filtering of security controls based on relevant delivery models like SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS. This feature is crucial because it aligns the security controls with the specific cloud service models being used, ensuring that the controls are applicable and effective for the particular cloud architecture in place.

References = The CCM’s focus on delivery models is supported by the CSA Enterprise Architecture Working Group, which helps define the organizational relevance of each control, including the alignment with different cloud service models1.

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the auditor should report the findings to the management of the organization being audited, as they are the primary stakeholders and decision makers for the audit. The management is responsible for ensuring that the cloud service provider meets the contractual obligations and service level agreements, as well as the security and compliance requirements of the community cloud. The auditor should also communicate with the cloud service provider and other relevant parties, such as regulators or customers, as appropriate, but the final report should be addressed to the management of the organization being audited. References: ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 17

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) by the Cloud Security Alliance provides a comprehensive control framework that aligns with industry standards, regulations, and best practices, offering a structured approach for cloud security and compliance management. This mapping capability makes it highly valuable in cloud audits as noted in the CCAK, which relies on CCM for its comprehensive applicability in regulatory compliance and security (referenced in CSA CCM V4 documentation and ISACA CCAK content).

A distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours is an example of availability technical impact. Availability is the protection of data and services from disruption or denial, and it is one of the three dimensions of information security, along with confidentiality and integrity. Availability technical impact refers to the extent of damage or harm that a threat can cause to the availability of the information system and its components, such as servers, networks, applications, and data. A DDoS attack is a malicious attempt to overwhelm a target system with a large volume of traffic or requests from multiple sources, making it unable to respond to legitimate requests or perform its normal functions. A DDoS attack can cause a significant availability technical impact by rendering the customer’s cloud inaccessible for a prolonged period of time, resulting in loss of productivity, revenue, customer satisfaction, and reputation. References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 81; What is a DDoS Attack? | Cloudflare

When reviewing a third-party agreement with a cloud service provider, the greatest concern regarding customer data privacy is the return or destruction of information. This is because customer data may contain sensitive or personal information that needs to be protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. The cloud service provider should have clear and transparent policies and procedures for returning or destroying customer data upon termination of the agreement or upon customer request. The cloud service provider should also provide evidence of the return or destruction of customer data, such as certificates of destruction, audit logs, or reports. The return or destruction of information should comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The cloud service provider should also ensure that any subcontractors or affiliates that have access to customer data follow the same policies and procedures12.

References:

Cloud Services Agreements – Protecting Your Hosted Environment

CSP agreements, price lists, and offers - Partner Center

 Deleting subscription owner accounts is an activity that MUST obtain a client’s approval in the context of cloud service provider activities. Subscription owner accounts are critical as they hold the ownership and control over the resources and services within a cloud subscription. Deleting these accounts can have significant implications, including loss of access, control, and potential data loss. Therefore, it is essential for a cloud service provider to seek explicit approval from the client before proceeding with such an action to ensure transparency, maintain trust, and avoid any unintended consequences.

References:

Microsoft Trust Center, Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist1.

Google Cloud, What is a Cloud Service Provider?2.

Partner Center, CSP agreements, price lists, and offers3.

Microsoft Azure, How to choose a cloud service provider4.

FCA, FG16/5 Guidance for firms outsourcing to the ‘cloud’ and other third-party IT services

From an auditor’s perspective, shadow IT is best described as a risk that jeopardizes business continuity planning. Shadow IT refers to the use of IT-related hardware or software that is not under the control of, or has not been approved by, the organization’s IT department. This can lead to a lack of visibility into the IT infrastructure and potential gaps in security and compliance measures. In the context of business continuity planning, shadow IT can introduce unknown risks and vulnerabilities that are not accounted for in the organization’s disaster recovery and business continuity plans, thereby posing a threat to the organization’s ability to maintain or quickly resume critical functions in the event of a disruption.

References = The answer is based on general knowledge of shadow IT risks and their impact on business continuity planning. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of shadow IT as a risk to business continuity is a recognized concern in IT governance and auditing practices1234.

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the final decision to include a material finding in a cloud audit report should be made by the cloud auditor1. A material finding is a significant error or risk in the cloud service that could affect the achievement of the audit objectives or the cloud customer’s business outcomes. The cloud auditor is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and reporting the material findings based on the audit criteria, methodology, and evidence. The cloud auditor should also communicate the material findings to the auditee and other relevant stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and responses.

The other options are not correct. Option A is incorrect, as the auditee’s senior management is not in charge of the audit report, but rather the subject of the audit. The auditee’s senior management should provide their perspective and action plans for the material findings, but they cannot decide whether to include or exclude them from the report. Option B is incorrect, as the organization’s CEO is not involved in the audit process, but rather the ultimate recipient of the audit report. The organization’s CEO should review and act upon the audit report, but they cannot influence the content of the report. Option D is incorrect, as the organization’s CISO is not an independent party, but rather a stakeholder of the audit. The organization’s CISO should support and collaborate with the cloud auditor, but they cannot make the final decision on the material findings. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 19-20.

 An organization employing the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) to perform a compliance assessment leverages the Scope Applicability direct mapping to understand which controls encompassed by the CCM may already be partially or fully implemented because of the compliance with other standards. The Scope Applicability direct mapping is a worksheet within the CCM that maps the CCM control specifications to several standards within the ISO/IEC 27000 series, such as ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27002, ISO/IEC 27017, and ISO/IEC 27018. The mapping helps the organization to identify the commonalities and differences between the CCM and the ISO/IEC standards, and to determine the level of compliance with each standard based on the implementation of the CCM controls. The mapping also helps the organization to avoid duplication of work and to streamline the compliance assessment process.12 References := What you need to know: Transitioning CSA STAR for Cloud Controls Matrix …1; Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA3

The primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, and trusted certification of the cloud service provider. According to the CSA website1, the OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework. The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services. The OCF also integrates with popular third-party assessment and attestation statements developed within the public accounting community to avoid duplication of effort and cost. The OCF manages the foundation that runs and monitors the CSA STAR Certification program, which is an assurance framework that enables cloud service providers to embed cloud-specific security controls. The STAR Certification program has three levels of assurance, each based on a different type of audit or assessment: Level 1: Self-Assessment, Level 2: Third-Party Audit, and Level 3: Continuous Auditing. The OCF also oversees the CSA STAR Registry, which is a publicly accessible repository that documents the security controls provided by various cloud computing offerings2. The OCF helps consumers to evaluate and compare their providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy capabilities, and service portability. It also helps providers to demonstrate their compliance with industry standards and best practices.

References:

Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA

STAR | CSA

Identity and access management (IAM) and data protection are the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are the key aspects of cloud security and compliance that affect both the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. IAM and data protection refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and resources in the cloud environment. IAM involves the use of credentials, policies, roles, permissions, and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Data protection involves the use of encryption, backup, recovery, deletion, and retention to protect data from unauthorized access, modification, loss, or disclosure123.

Patching and configuration (A) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not the key aspects of cloud security and compliance that affect both the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Patching and configuration refer to the processes and practices that ensure the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. Patching involves the use of updates or fixes to address vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the cloud components. Configuration involves the use of settings or parameters to customize or optimize the functionality of the cloud components. Patching and configuration are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud service customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123.

Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews (B) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security and compliance that can be easily audited or tested. Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews refer to the processes and practices that identify, assess, treat, monitor, and report on the risks that affect the security posture of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management involves the use of tools or techniques to scan, analyze, prioritize, remediate, or mitigate vulnerabilities that may expose an organization or a domain to threats or attacks. Cyber security reviews involve the use of tools or techniques to evaluate, measure, benchmark, or improve the security capabilities or maturity of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews are general or broad terms that encompass various aspects of cloud security and compliance, such as IAM, data protection, patching, configuration, etc. Therefore, they are not specific or measurable areas that can be audited or tested individually123.

Source code reviews and hypervisor (D) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not relevant or accessible aspects of cloud security and compliance for most cloud service customers. Source code reviews refer to the processes and practices that examine the source code of software applications or systems to identify errors, bugs, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies that may affect their quality, functionality, or security. Hypervisor refers to the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. Source code reviews and hypervisor are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the software applications or systems that deliver cloud services. The cloud service customer has no access or control over these aspects123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Role-based access controls (RBAC) are a method of restricting access to resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization. RBAC allows administrators to assign permissions to roles, rather than to specific users, and then assign users to those roles. This simplifies the management of access rights and reduces the risk of unauthorized or excessive access. RBAC is especially important for ensuring adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment, which is the final stage of the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) process where code is deployed to the end-users. Access to the production environment should be limited to only those who are responsible for deploying, monitoring, and maintaining the code, such as production engineers, release managers, or site reliability engineers. Developers, testers, or other stakeholders should not have access to the production environment, as this could compromise the security, quality, and performance of the code. RBAC can help enforce this separation of duties and responsibilities by defining different roles for different pipeline stages and granting appropriate permissions to each role. For example, developers may have permission to create, edit, and test code in the development pipeline, but not to deploy or modify code in the production pipeline. Conversely, production engineers may have permission to deploy, monitor, and troubleshoot code in the production pipeline, but not to create or edit code in the development pipeline. RBAC can also help implement the principle of least privilege, which states that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks. This reduces the attack surface and minimizes the potential damage in case of a breach or misuse. RBAC can be configured at different levels of granularity, such as at the organization, project, or object level, depending on the needs and complexity of the organization. RBAC can also leverage existing identity and access management (IAM) solutions, such as Azure Active Directory or AWS IAM, to integrate with cloud services and applications.

References:

Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines

Azure DevOps: Access, Roles and Permissions

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know

 An auditor examining a cloud service provider’s SLA should be most concerned about whether the agreement excludes any operational matters that are material to the service operations, as this could indicate a lack of transparency, accountability, and quality assurance from the provider. Operational matters are the aspects of the cloud service that affect its functionality, performance, availability, reliability, security, and compliance. Examples of operational matters include service scope, roles and responsibilities, service levels and metrics, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, incident and problem management, change management, backup and recovery, data protection and privacy, and termination and exit clauses12. These matters are material to the service operations if they have a significant impact on the achievement of the service objectives and expectations of the cloud customer. The auditor should verify that the SLA covers all the relevant and material operational matters in a clear and comprehensive manner, and that the provider adheres to the SLA terms and conditions.

The other options are not the most concerning for the auditor. Option A is a desirable feature of an SLA, but not a concern if it is missing. Option B is an unrealistic expectation of an SLA, as sourcing and financial matters are usually essential in meeting the SLA. Option C is a specific example of an operational matter that is material to the service operations, but not the only one that should be included in the SLA. References:

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist

Cloud Computing: Agencies Need to Incorporate Key Practices to Ensure Effective Performance

 An example of financial business impact is a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours, resulting in millions in lost sales. Financial business impact refers to the monetary losses or gains that an organization may experience as a result of a cloud security incident. Financial business impact can be measured by factors such as revenue, profit, cost, cash flow, market share, and stock price .

Option A is an example of financial business impact because it shows how a DDoS attack, which is a type of cyberattack that overwhelms a system or network with malicious traffic and prevents legitimate users from accessing it, can cause direct and significant financial losses for the customer’s organization due to the interruption of its cloud services and the inability to generate sales. Option A also implies that the customer’s organization depends on the availability of its cloud services for its core business operations.

The other options are not examples of financial business impact. Option B is an example of operational business impact, which refers to the disruption or degradation of the organization’s processes, functions, or activities as a result of a cloud security incident. Operational business impact can be measured by factors such as productivity, efficiency, quality, performance, and customer satisfaction . Option B shows how a hacker using a stolen administrator identity, which is a type of identity theft or impersonation attack that exploits the credentials or privileges of a legitimate user to access or manipulate a system or network, can cause operational business impact for the customer’s organization by bringing down its SaaS sales and marketing systems, which are essential for its business functions.

Option C is an example of reputational business impact, which refers to the damage or enhancement of the organization’s image, brand, or reputation as a result of a cloud security incident. Reputational business impact can be measured by factors such as trust, loyalty, satisfaction, awareness, and perception of the organization’s stakeholders, such as customers, partners, investors, regulators, and media . Option C shows how a breach reported in a timely manner to the CEO, which is a good practice for ensuring transparency and accountability in the event of a cloud security incident, can still cause reputational business impact for the customer’s organization due to the public blame game between the CFO and CISO, which reflects poorly on the organization’s leadership and culture and leads to the board replacing all three. References :=

Business Impact Analysis - Ready.gov

Business Impact Analysis - Cloud Security Alliance

What Is A Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Attack? | Cloudflare

What is Identity Theft? - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. This will help the auditor to verify if the provider has a DR plan that meets the organization’s requirements and expectations, and if the provider has evidence of testing and validating the plan annually. The auditor should also check if the contract specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the RTO and RPO values, the SLA terms, and the penalties for non-compliance.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider (option A) might give some information about the provider’s security practices and controls, but it might not be sufficient or relevant to assess the DR plan. Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (option B) might also provide some assurance about the provider’s compliance with standards and regulations, but it might not address the specific DR needs of the organization. Planning an audit of the provider (option D) might be a possible course of action, but it would require more time and resources, and it might not be feasible or necessary if the contract and DR capability are already satisfactory. References:

Disaster recovery planning guide

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan

Continuous auditing is a method of auditing that provides assurance on the current state of controls and compliance in a cloud environment, rather than relying on periodic snapshots or attestations. Continuous auditing can leverage continuous monitoring data and automated tools to collect and analyze evidence of compliance, as well as alert auditors and stakeholders of any deviations or issues. Continuous auditing can complement point-in-time assurance approaches, such as certifications or audits, by providing more timely and frequent feedback on the effectiveness of controls and compliance in a cloud environment. References :=

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 821

ISACA, Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam, 2021, p. 30

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 27001, which is the international standard for information security management systems1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 can help organizations to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve their information security in the cloud environment, as well as to demonstrate compliance with contractual and legal obligations1.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a code of practice for information security controls that provides best practice recommendations on information security management for use by those who are responsible for initiating, implementing or maintaining information security management systems2. However, ISO/IEC 27002 does not provide specific guidance for cloud services, which is why ISO/IEC 27017:2015 was developed as an extension to ISO/IEC 27002 for cloud services1.

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a set of security controls that provides organizations with a detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the cloud model. The CCM is not a standard, but rather a framework that can be used to assess the overall security risk of a cloud provider. The CCM can also be mapped to other standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27017:2015, to facilitate compliance and assurance activities.

NIST SP 800-146 is a publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, benefits, challenges and considerations. NIST SP 800-146 is not a standard, but rather a reference document that can help organizations to understand the basics of cloud computing and its implications for information security. NIST SP 800-146 does not provide specific guidance or controls for cloud services, but rather refers to other standards and frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA CCM, for more detailed information on cloud security. References :=

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology ? Security techniques …

ISO 27017 Certification - Cloud Security Services | NQA

An introduction to ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - 6clicks

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

[Cloud Controls Matrix | Cloud Security Alliance]

[NIST Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations]

A SOC 2 Type 2 report is the most comprehensive type of report for cloud service providers, as it evaluates the design and operating effectiveness of a service organization’s controls over a period of time. This type of report is specifically intended to meet the needs of customers who need assurance about the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy of the data processed by the service provider1234.

References = The importance of SOC 2 Type 2 reports for cloud service providers is discussed in various resources, including those provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance, which highlight the need for such reports to ensure the operating effectiveness of controls5678.

To qualify for CSA STAR attestation, the SOC 2 report must cover both the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) and ISO/IEC 27001:2013 controls. The CSA STAR Attestation integrates SOC 2 reporting with additional cloud security criteria from the CSA CCM. This combination provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the security and privacy controls of cloud services, ensuring that they meet the rigorous standards required for STAR attestation. References = The information is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance’s resources, which outline the STAR program’s emphasis on transparency, rigorous auditing, and harmonization of standards as per the CCM. Additionally, the CSA STAR Certification process leverages the requirements of the ISO/IEC 27001:2013 management system standard together with the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix

The technical impact of this incident would be categorized as an integrity breach in reference to the Top Threats Analysis methodology. The Top Threats Analysis methodology is a process developed by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) to help organizations identify, analyze, and mitigate the top threats to cloud computing, as defined in the CSA Top Threats reports. The methodology consists of six steps: scope definition, threat identification, technical impact identification, business impact identification, risk assessment, and risk treatment. Each of these provides different insights and visibility into the organization’s security posture.1

The technical impact identification step involves determining the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system caused by each threat. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure. Integrity refers to the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Availability refers to the protection of data and services from disruption or denial.2

An integrity breach occurs when a threat compromises the accuracy and consistency of the data or system. An integrity breach can result in data corruption, falsification, or manipulation, which can affect the reliability and trustworthiness of the data or system. An integrity breach can also have serious consequences for the business operations and decisions that depend on the data or system.3

In this case, the cybersecurity criminal was able to access an encrypted file system and overwrite parts of some files with random data. This means that the data in those files was altered without authorization and became unusable or invalid. This is a clear example of an integrity breach, as it violated the principle of ensuring that data is accurate and consistent throughout its lifecycle.4

References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 811; What is CIA Triad? Definition and Examples2; Data Integrity vs Data Security: What’s The Difference?3; Data Integrity: Definition & Examples

Using a standardized control framework enables auditors to conduct gap analyses of what a cloud service provider (CSP) offers versus what the customer requires. A standardized control framework is a set of guidelines, best practices, and criteria that help to evaluate and improve the security, privacy, and compliance of cloud computing environments. Examples of standardized control frameworks include ISO/IEC 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), COBIT, etc. By using a standardized control framework, auditors can compare the CSP’s policies, procedures, and practices with the customer’s expectations and requirements, and identify any gaps or discrepancies that may pose risks or issues. A gap analysis can help the auditors to provide recommendations and suggestions to the CSP and the customer on how to close the gaps and enhance the quality and performance of the cloud services12.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

Cloud Computing Audit Program - ISACA

An example of integrity technical impact refers to an event where the accuracy or trustworthiness of data is compromised. Option D, where a hacker uses a stolen administrator identity to alter the discount percentage in the product database, directly affects the integrity of the data. This action leads to unauthorized changes to data, which is a clear violation of data integrity. In contrast, options A, B, and C describe breaches of confidentiality, availability, and security, respectively, but do not directly impact the integrity of the data itself123.

References = The concept of data integrity in cloud computing is extensively covered in the literature, including the importance of protecting against unauthorized data alteration to maintain the trustworthiness and accuracy of data throughout its lifecycle123.

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is the best tool to perform cloud security control audits, as it is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that is aligned to the CSA best practices and is considered the de-facto standard for cloud security and privacy1. The CCM provides a set of 197 control objectives that are structured in 17 domains covering all key aspects of cloud technology, such as identity and access management, data security, encryption and key management, business continuity and disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, and risk management1. The CCM also maps the controls to various industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and control frameworks, such as ISO 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, PCI DSS, GDPR, and others1. The CCM can be used as a tool for the systematic assessment of a cloud implementation, and provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by which actor within the cloud supply chain1. The CCM also includes the Consensus Assessment Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), which provides a set of “yes or no” questions based on the security controls in the CCM that can be used to assess a cloud service provider2.

The other options are not the best tools to perform cloud security control audits, as they are either not specific to cloud computing or not comprehensive enough. GDPR is a regulation that aims to protect the personal data and privacy of individuals in the European Union and the European Economic Area3, but it does not provide a framework for cloud security controls. FIPS 140-2 is a standard that specifies the security requirements for cryptographic modules used by federal agencies in the United States, but it does not cover other aspects of cloud security. ISO 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization, but it does not provide specific guidance for cloud services. References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

Cloud Controls Matrix and CAIQ v4 | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

General Data Protection Regulation - Wikipedia

[FIPS 140-2 - Wikipedia]

[ISO/IEC 27001:2013]

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

Heat maps are graphical representations of data that use color-coding to show the relative intensity, frequency, or magnitude of a variable1. Heat maps can be used to visualize the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, along with their dependencies and risks, by mapping the cloud services to different dimensions, such as business impact, availability, security, performance, cost, etc. Heat maps can help auditors identify the most important or vulnerable cloud services, as well as the relationships and trade-offs among them2.

For example, Azure Charts provides heat maps for various aspects of Azure cloud services, such as updates, trends, pillars, areas, geos, categories, etc3. These heat maps can help auditors understand the current state and dynamics of Azure cloud services and compare them across different dimensions4.

Contractual documents of the cloud service provider are the legal agreements that define the terms and conditions of the cloud service, including the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved. They may provide some information on the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, but they are not as visual or comprehensive as heat maps. Data security process flow is a diagram that shows the steps and activities involved in protecting data from unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure. It may help auditors understand the data security controls and risks of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not cover other aspects of criticality, such as business impact or performance. Turtle diagram is a tool that helps analyze a process by showing its inputs, outputs, resources, criteria, methods, and interactions. It may help auditors understand the process flow and dependencies of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not show the relative importance or risks of each process element.

References:

What is a Heat Map? Definition from WhatIs.com1, section on Heat Map

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au2, section on Cloud service criticality

Azure Charts - Clarity for the Cloud3, section on Heat Maps

Azure Services Overview4, section on Heat Maps

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center, section on How to use the checklist

Data Security Process Flow - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, section on Data Security Process Flow

What is a Turtle Diagram? Definition from WhatIs.com, section on Turtle Diagram

Regarding cloud service provider agreements and contracts, unless otherwise stated, the provider is responsible only to the cloud customer. This means that the provider has a contractual obligation to deliver the agreed-upon services and meet the service level agreements (SLAs) with the cloud customer, who is the direct payer of the services. The provider is not responsible for any other parties, such as the cloud customer’s clients, end users, or regulators, unless explicitly specified in the contract. The cloud customer is responsible for ensuring that the provider’s services meet their own compliance and security requirements, as well as those of their stakeholders12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Cloud security shared responsibility model - NCSC

 The objective that is most appropriate to measure the effectiveness of password policy is newly created account credentials satisfy requirements. This is because password policy is a set of rules and guidelines that define the characteristics and usage of passwords in a system or network. Password policy aims to enhance the security and confidentiality of the system or network by preventing unauthorized access, data breaches, and identity theft. Therefore, the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of password policy is to check whether the newly created account credentials meet the requirements of the policy, such as length, complexity, expiration, and history. This objective can be measured by conducting periodic audits, reviews, or tests of the account creation process and verifying that the passwords comply with the policy standards. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain IAM-02: User ID Credentials, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage user ID credentials for cloud services and data."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 76

 Metrics around Platform as a Service (PaaS) development environments are frequently immature, as PaaS is a relatively new and evolving cloud service model that offers various tools and platforms for developing, testing, deploying, and managing cloud applications. PaaS metrics are often not well-defined, standardized, or consistent across different providers and platforms, and may not capture the full value and performance of PaaS services. PaaS metrics may also be difficult to measure, monitor, and compare, as they depend on various factors, such as the type, complexity, and quality of the applications, the level of customization and integration, the usage patterns and demand, and the security and compliance requirements. Therefore, PaaS metrics may not provide sufficient insight or assurance to cloud customers and auditors on the effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, and security of PaaS services12.

References:

Cloud Computing Service Metrics Description - NIST

Cloud KPIs You Need to Measure Success - VMware Blogs

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a cybersecurity control framework specifically designed for cloud computing environments. A key benefit of using the CCM is that it maps to existing security standards, best practices, and regulations. This mapping allows organizations to ensure that their cloud security posture aligns with industry-recognized frameworks, thereby facilitating compliance and security assurance efforts. The CCM’s comprehensive set of control objectives covers all key aspects of cloud technology and provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by various actors within the cloud supply chain.

References = This answer is supported by the information provided in the Cloud Controls Matrix documentation and related resources, which highlight the CCM’s alignment with other security standards and its role in helping organizations navigate the complex landscape of cloud security and compliance12.