Free and Premium Isaca CCAK Dumps Questions Answers

 The primary component to determine the success or failure of an organization’s cloud compliance program is mapping who possesses the information and data that should drive the compliance goals. This is because the cloud compliance program should be aligned with the organization’s business objectives and risk appetite, and the information and data that support these objectives and risks are often distributed across different cloud service providers, business units, and stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential to identify who owns, controls, and accesses the information and data, and how they are protected, processed, and shared in the cloud environment. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-02: Data Governance, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage data throughout its lifecycle in accordance with regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and industry standards."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 53

 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

Mapping the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) to other international standards and regulations allows cloud service providers (CSPs) and customers to align their security and compliance measures with a broad range of industry-accepted frameworks. This alignment helps in simplifying compliance processes by ensuring that fulfilling the controls in the CCM also satisfies the requirements of the mapped standards and regulations. It reduces the need for multiple assessments and streamlines the compliance and security efforts, making it more efficient for both CSPs and customers to demonstrate adherence to various regulatory requirements.

References = The benefits of CCM mapping are discussed in resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which detail how the CCM’s controls are aligned with other security standards, regulations, and control frameworks, thus aiding organizations in their compliance and security strategies12.

 The best approach for an auditor to review the operating effectiveness of the password requirement is to review the configuration settings on the Configuration Management (CM) tool and verify that the CM tool agents are functioning correctly on the VMs. This method ensures that the password policies are being enforced as intended and that the CM tool is effectively managing the configurations across the organization’s virtual machines. It provides a balance between relying solely on automated tools and manual verification processes.

References = This approach is supported by best practices in cloud security and auditing, which recommend a combination of automated tools and manual checks to ensure the effectiveness of security controls123. The use of CM tools for enforcing password policies is a common practice, and their effectiveness must be regularly verified to maintain the security posture of cloud services.

Establishing ownership and accountability most enhances the internal stakeholder decision-making process for the remediation of risks identified from an organization’s cloud compliance program. Cloud compliance refers to the principle that cloud-delivered systems must comply with the standards required by their customers. Compliance requirements may include data protection regulations such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001, NIST, and SOX. A cloud compliance program is a set of policies, procedures, and controls that help an organization to achieve and maintain compliance with these requirements12.

A cloud compliance program involves identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating the risks associated with using cloud services. To effectively manage these risks, an organization needs to establish ownership and accountability for each risk and its remediation. Ownership and accountability mean assigning clear roles and responsibilities to the internal stakeholders who are involved in the cloud compliance program, such as the cloud service provider, the cloud customer, the cloud users, the cloud auditors, and the cloud regulators. By doing so, an organization can ensure that the internal stakeholders have the authority, resources, and incentives to make timely and informed decisions for the remediation of risks123.

The other options are not the most effective ways to enhance the internal stakeholder decision-making process for the remediation of risks. Option A, automating risk monitoring and reporting processes, is a good practice for improving the efficiency and accuracy of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of who is responsible for making decisions based on the monitoring and reporting results. Option B, reporting emerging threats to senior stakeholders, is a good practice for increasing the awareness and visibility of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of how to prioritize and respond to the emerging threats. Option D, monitoring key risk indicators (KRIs) for multi-cloud environments, is a good practice for measuring and tracking the performance and effectiveness of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of how to align and coordinate the decisions across different cloud environments123. References :=

Cloud Compliance Frameworks: What You Need to Know1

Cloud Compliance: What It Is + 8 Best Practices for Improving It2

Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA

A SOC2 Type 2 report can best help an auditor to get information about the operating effectiveness of controls addressing privacy, availability, and confidentiality of a service organization. A SOC2 Type 2 report is an internal control report that examines the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of a service organization’s system and data over a specified period of time, typically 3-12 months. A SOC2 Type 2 report is based on the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and provides an independent auditor’s opinion on the design and operating effectiveness of the service organization’s controls. A SOC2 Type 2 report can help an auditor to assess the risks and challenges associated with outsourcing services to a cloud provider and to verify that the provider meets the relevant compliance requirements and industry standards.12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 971; SOC 2 Type II Compliance: Definition, Requirements, and Why You Need It2

Reputation-based trust is a category of trust in cloud computing that relies on the feedback, ratings, reviews, or recommendations of other users or third parties who have used or evaluated the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust reflects the collective opinion and experience of the cloud community regarding the quality, reliability, security, and performance of the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust can help potential customers to make informed decisions about choosing a cloud service provider or a cloud service based on the reputation score or ranking of the provider or the service. Reputation-based trust can also motivate cloud service providers to improve their services and maintain their reputation by meeting or exceeding customer expectations.

Reputation-based trust is one of the most common and widely used forms of trust in cloud computing, as it is easy to access and understand. However, reputation-based trust also has some limitations and challenges, such as:

The accuracy and validity of the reputation data may depend on the source, method, and frequency of data collection and aggregation. For example, some reputation data may be outdated, incomplete, biased, manipulated, or falsified by malicious actors or competitors.

The interpretation and comparison of the reputation data may vary depending on the context, criteria, and preferences of the customers. For example, some customers may value different aspects of the cloud service more than others, such as security, availability, cost, or functionality.

The trustworthiness and accountability of the reputation system itself may be questionable. For example, some reputation systems may lack transparency, consistency, or standardization in their design, implementation, or operation.

Therefore, reputation-based trust should not be the only factor for trusting a cloud service provider or a cloud service. Customers should also consider other forms of trust in cloud computing, such as evidence-based trust, policy-based trust, or certification-based trust

 The CSA STAR Attestation allows for the immediate adoption of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) as additional criteria alongside the AICPA Trust Service Criteria. It also offers the flexibility to update the criteria as technology and market requirements evolve. This is because the CSA STAR Attestation is a combination of SOC 2 and additional cloud security criteria from the CSA CCM, providing guidelines for CPAs to conduct SOC 2 engagements using criteria from both the AICPA and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix.

References = The information is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance’s resources, which explain that the CSA STAR Attestation integrates SOC 2 with additional criteria from the CCM, allowing for a comprehensive approach to cloud security that aligns with evolving technologies and market needs1.

 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

In the context of cloud operationalization, “below the waterline” refers to the aspects of cloud services that are managed and controlled by the cloud service provider (CSP) rather than the customer. This analogy is often used to describe the shared responsibility model in cloud computing, where the CSP is responsible for the infrastructure’s security and stability, akin to the submerged part of an iceberg that supports the structure above water. The customer, on the other hand, is responsible for managing the controls and security measures “above the waterline,” which include the applications, data, and access management they deploy in the cloud environment.

References = The information provided is based on standard cloud computing models and the shared responsibility concept, which is a fundamental principle discussed in cloud auditing and security literature, including the CCAK curriculum and related resources1.

The shift-left concept of code release cycles is an approach that moves testing, quality, and performance evaluation early in the development process, often before any code is written. The goal of shift-left testing is to anticipate and resolve software defects, bugs, errors, and vulnerabilities as soon as possible, reducing the cost and time of fixing them later in the production stage. To achieve this, shift-left testing relies on automation tools and techniques that enable continuous integration, continuous delivery, and continuous deployment of code. Automation also facilitates collaboration and feedback among developers, testers, security experts, and other stakeholders throughout the development lifecycle. Therefore, the incorporation of automation to identify and address software code problems early is a sign that an organization has adopted a shift-left concept of code release cycles. References:

The ‘Shift Left’ Is A Growing Theme For Cloud Cybersecurity In 2022

Shift left vs shift right: A DevOps mystery solved

How to shift left with continuous integration

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

SLAs in cloud computing define performance metrics and uptime commitments, making them crucial for monitoring and measuring service delivery against predefined benchmarks. Metrics from SLAs help in tracking service performance, compliance with contractual obligations, and cloud service provider accountability. ISACA’s CCAK outlines the importance of SLAs for cloud governance and risk management, as they provide a measurable baseline that informs cloud audit activities (referenced in CCM under Governance, Risk, and Compliance - GOV-05).

=========================

It is most important for an auditor to be aware that an inventory of assets within a cloud environment is fundamental for the security management program. An inventory of assets is a list of all the hardware, software, data, and services that are owned, used, or managed by an organization in the cloud. An inventory of assets helps the organization to identify, classify, and prioritize its cloud resources and to implement appropriate security controls and policies to protect them. An inventory of assets also helps the organization to comply with relevant regulations, standards, and contracts that may apply to its cloud environment.12

An auditor should be aware of the importance of an inventory of assets in the cloud because it provides a baseline for assessing the security posture and compliance status of the organization’s cloud environment. An auditor can use the inventory of assets to verify that the organization has a clear and accurate understanding of its cloud resources and their characteristics, such as location, ownership, configuration, dependencies, vulnerabilities, and risks. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to evaluate whether the organization has implemented adequate security measures and processes to protect its cloud resources from threats and incidents. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the organization’s security management program and to provide recommendations for improvement.34

References := Why is IT Asset Inventory Management Critical? - Fresh Security1; Use asset inventory to manage your resources’ security posture2; The importance of asset inventory in cybersecurity3; The Importance Of Asset Inventory In Cyber Security And CMDB - Visore4

The correct answer is B. Network security is the type of control that best matches the control description given in the question. Network security involves designing and configuring network environments and virtual instances to restrict and monitor traffic between trusted and untrusted connections, such as firewalls, routers, switches, VPNs, and network segmentation. Network security also requires periodic reviews and documentation of the network configurations and the justification for the allowed services, protocols, ports, and compensating controls.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, virtual instance and OS hardening, refers to the process of applying security configurations and patches to virtual instances and operating systems to reduce their attack surface and vulnerabilities. Option C, network vulnerability management, refers to the process of identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and remediating network vulnerabilities using tools such as scanners, analyzers, and testers. Option D, change detection, refers to the process of monitoring and detecting changes in the system or network environment that could affect the security posture or performance of the system or network.

References :=

IVS-01: Network Security - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 6: Cloud Security Controls

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

 When establishing cloud governance, an organization should first test by migrating a few applications to the cloud. Cloud governance is the process of defining and implementing policies, procedures, standards, and controls to ensure the effective, efficient, secure, and compliant use of cloud services. Cloud governance requires a clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and objectives of both the cloud service provider and the cloud customer, as well as the alignment of the cloud strategy with the business strategy. Cloud governance also involves monitoring, measuring, and reporting on the performance, availability, security, compliance, and cost of cloud services.

Migrating a few applications to the cloud can help an organization to test and validate its cloud governance approach before scaling up to more complex or critical applications. Migrating a few applications can also help an organization to:

Identify and prioritize the business requirements, risks, and benefits of moving to the cloud.

Assess the readiness, suitability, and compatibility of the applications for the cloud.

Choose the appropriate cloud service model (such as SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS) and deployment model (such as public, private, hybrid, or multi-cloud) for each application.

Define and implement the necessary security, compliance, privacy, and data protection measures for each application.

Establish and enforce the roles and responsibilities of the cloud governance team and other stakeholders involved in the migration process.

Develop and execute a migration plan that includes testing, validation, verification, and rollback procedures for each application.

Monitor and measure the performance, availability, security, compliance, and cost of each application in the cloud.

Collect feedback and lessons learned from the migration process and use them to improve the cloud governance approach.

Migrating a few applications to the cloud can also help an organization to avoid some common pitfalls and challenges of cloud migration, such as:

Migrating legacy or incompatible applications that require significant re-engineering or refactoring to work in the cloud.

Migrating all applications at once without proper planning, testing, or governance, which can result in operational disruptions, data loss, security breaches, or compliance violations.

Migrating complex or critical applications without adequate testing or governance, which can increase the risk of failure or downtime.

Migrating applications without considering the impact on the end-users or customers, who may experience changes in functionality, performance, usability, or accessibility.

Therefore, migrating a few applications to the cloud is a recommended best practice for establishing cloud governance. It can help an organization to gain experience and confidence in using cloud services while ensuring that its cloud governance approach is effective, efficient, secure, and compliant.

References:

Migration environment planning checklist - Cloud Adoption Framework

Cloud Governance: What You Need To Know - Forbes

Cloud Governance: A Comprehensive Guide - BMC Blogs

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 …

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

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

 A contract containing the phrase “You automatically consent to these terms by using or logging into the service to which they pertain” is establishing a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is a type of legal agreement that involves one party setting the terms and conditions and the other party having no choice but to accept or reject them without bargaining. These contracts are often used in situations where one party has more power or resources than the other, such as in online services, insurance, leases, or consumer credit. These contracts may be unfair or unclear to the weaker party and may be challenged in court for unconscionability or ambiguity12.

References:

adhesion contract | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

What is a contract of adhesion? A complete guide - PandaDoc

 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.

 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

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

One possible reason why the results of third-party audits and certification should be relied on when analyzing and assessing the cybersecurity risks in the cloud is to contrast the risk generated by the loss of control. When an organization moves its data and processes to the cloud, it inevitably loses some degree of control over its security and compliance posture, as it depends on the cloud service provider (CSP) to implement and maintain adequate security measures and controls1 This loss of control can increase the organization’s exposure to various cybersecurity risks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, denial of service, malware infection, etc2

To mitigate these risks, the organization needs to have a clear understanding of the security and compliance level of the CSP, as well as the shared responsibility model that defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties3 Third-party audits and certification can provide some level of assurance that the CSP meets certain standards and requirements related to security and compliance, such as ISO/IEC 27001, CSA STAR, SOC 2, etc. These audits and certification can also help the organization compare and contrast the security posture of different CSPs in the market, as well as identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed or compensated.

Therefore, relying on the results of third-party audits and certification can help the organization contrast the risk generated by the loss of control in the cloud, and make informed decisions about selecting and managing its cloud services.

References: 1: Security in the Cloud: Are Audits and Certifications Really Enough?3 2: Understanding The Third-Party Impact On Cybersecurity Risk - Forbes2 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance : Reducing Cybersecurity Security Risk From and to Third Parties - ISACA1 : Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

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

Regression testing is a type of software testing that confirms that a recent program or code change has not adversely affected existing features1 It involves re-running functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change2 Regression testing is suitable for large code sets in environments where time to completion is critical, as it can help detect and prevent defects, improve quality, and enable faster delivery of secure software. Regression testing can be automated to reduce manual errors, speed up feedback loops, and increase efficiency and reliability3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because parallel testing is a type of software testing that involves testing multiple applications or subsystems concurrently to reduce the test time4 Parallel testing does not necessarily ensure the integration of security testing, as it depends on the quality and coverage of the test cases and scenarios used for each application or subsystem. Parallel testing may also introduce challenges such as synchronization, coordination, and communication among the testers and developers5

Option B is not correct because full application stack unit testing is a type of software testing that involves testing individual units or components of an application in isolation to verify their functionality, logic, interfaces, and performance6 Full application stack unit testing does not ensure the integration of security testing, as it does not consider the interactions and dependencies among the units or components, or the behavior of the application as a whole. Unit testing is typically performed by developers at an early stage of the software development life cycle, and may not cover all the security aspects or requirements of the application7

Option C is not correct because functional verification is a type of software testing that involves verifying that the software meets the specified requirements and satisfies the user needs. Functional verification does not ensure the integration of security testing, as it does not focus on how the software is designed or configured, or how it handles malicious or unexpected inputs. Functional verification is typically performed by quality assurance teams at a later stage of the software development life cycle, and may not detect all the security vulnerabilities or risks of the software.

References: 1: Wikipedia. Regression testing - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Katalon. What is Regression Testing? Definition, Tools, Examples - Katalon. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: BMC Software. Shift Left Testing: What, Why & How To Shift Left – BMC Software | Blogs. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Guru99. What is Parallel Testing? with Example - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: LambdaTest. Parallel Testing In Selenium WebDriver | LambdaTest Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Guru99. What is Unit Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 7: Software Testing Help. Unit Testing Vs Integration Testing: Difference Between These Two - SoftwareTestingHelp.com Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : Guru99. What is Functional Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : Software Testing Help. Functional Testing Vs Non-Functional Testing - SoftwareTestingHelp.com Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

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]

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the regulation that is suitable if health information needs to be protected in the European Union. The GDPR provides the legal framework for the protection of personal data, including health data, and sets out directly applicable rules for the processing of the personal data of individuals1. The GDPR defines health data as personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveal information about his or her health status2. The GDPR applies to any organization that processes health data of individuals who are in the EU, regardless of where the organization is established3.

The other options are not correct. Option B, DPIA, is incorrect because DPIA stands for Data Protection Impact Assessment, which is a process that helps organizations to identify and minimize the data protection risks of a project or activity that involves processing personal data. A DPIA is not a regulation, but a tool or a requirement under the GDPR4. Option C, DPA, is incorrect because DPA stands for Data Protection Authority, which is an independent public authority that supervises, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. A DPA is not a regulation, but an institution or a body under the GDPR5. Option D, HIPAA, is incorrect because HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is a US federal law that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. HIPAA does not apply to the EU, but to the US6. References :=

European Health Data Space1

Article 4 - Definitions | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2

Article 3 - Territorial scope | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3

Data protection impact assessment | European Commission4

Data protection authorities | European Commission5

What is HIPAA? - Definition from WhatIs.com6

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

 The reason for designing the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) is to help cloud service providers document their security and compliance controls. The CAIQ is a survey provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) that consists of a set of yes/no questions that correspond to the controls of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a cybersecurity framework for cloud computing. The CAIQ allows cloud service providers to demonstrate their security posture and compliance status to potential customers and auditors, as well as to identify any gaps or risks that need to be addressed. The CAIQ also enables cloud customers to assess the security capabilities of different cloud service providers and compare them based on their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, cloud users can use CAIQ to sign statement of work (SOW) with cloud access security brokers (CASBs), is incorrect because CAIQ is not a contract or an agreement, but a questionnaire that provides information about the security controls of a cloud service provider. A statement of work (SOW) is a document that defines the scope, deliverables, and terms of a project or service. A cloud access security broker (CASB) is a software tool or service that acts as an intermediary between cloud users and cloud service providers, providing visibility, data security, threat protection, and compliance4. Option B, cloud service providers can document roles and responsibilities for cloud security, is incorrect because CAIQ is not designed to document roles and responsibilities, but security and compliance controls. Roles and responsibilities for cloud security are defined by the shared responsibility model, which outlines how the security tasks and obligations are divided between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer5. Option D, cloud service providers need the CAIQ to improve quality of customer service, is incorrect because CAIQ is not a measure of customer service quality, but a measure of security control transparency. Customer service quality refers to how well a cloud service provider meets or exceeds the expectations and satisfaction of its customers6. References :=

What is CASB? - Cloud Security Alliance4

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Shared Responsibility Model - Cloud Security Alliance5

What is CAIQ? - Panorays2

What is the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ …3

What Is Customer Service Quality? - Salesforce.com

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

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.

 When developing a cloud compliance program, the primary reason for a cloud customer to determine how those services will fit within its policies and procedures is to ensure that the cloud services are aligned with the customer’s business objectives, risk appetite, and compliance obligations. Cloud services may have different characteristics, features, and capabilities than traditional on-premises services, and may require different or additional controls to meet the customer’s security and compliance requirements. Therefore, the customer needs to assess how the cloud services will fit within its existing policies and procedures, such as data classification, data protection, access management, incident response, audit, and reporting. The customer also needs to identify any gaps or conflicts between the cloud services and its policies and procedures, and implement appropriate measures to address them. By doing so, the customer can ensure that the cloud services are used in a secure, compliant, and effective manner12.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 19-20.

Cloud Compliance Frameworks: What You Need to Know

 Cloud service providers offer application programming interfaces (APIs) to encourage clients to extend the cloud platform. APIs are sets of rules and protocols that define how different software components or applications can communicate and interact with each other. APIs enable clients to access the cloud services and data, integrate them with their own applications or systems, and customize or enhance their functionality and performance. APIs also allow clients to leverage the cloud platform’s features and capabilities, such as scalability, reliability, security, and analytics.12

Some examples of cloud service providers that offer APIs are Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services (AWS), IBM Cloud, and Oracle Cloud. These providers offer various types of APIs for different purposes and domains, such as compute, storage, database, networking, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, internet of things, and blockchain. These APIs help clients to build, deploy, manage, and optimize their cloud applications and solutions.34567

References := What is an API? - Definition from WhatIs.com1; What is a Cloud API? - Definition from Techopedia2; Cloud APIs | Google Cloud3; Cloud Services - Deploy Cloud Apps & APIs | Microsoft Azure4; AWS Application Programming Interface (API) | AWS5; IBM Cloud API Docs6; Oracle Cloud Infrastructure API Documentation

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?

When an organization is moving to the cloud, responsibilities are shared based upon the cloud service provider’s model and accountability is maintained. This means that the organization remains accountable for the security and compliance of its data and applications in the cloud, even if some of the security responsibilities are delegated to the cloud service provider (CSP). The organization cannot transfer or avoid its accountability to the CSP or any other third party, as it is ultimately responsible for its own business outcomes, legal obligations, and reputation. Therefore, the organization must understand the shared responsibility model and which security tasks are handled by the CSP and which tasks are handled by itself. The organization must also monitor and audit the CSP’s performance and security, and mitigate any risks or issues that may arise12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

When applying the Top Threats Analysis methodology following an incident, the scope of the technical impact identification step is to determine the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system. The Top Threats Analysis methodology is a framework developed by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) to help organizations identify, analyze, and mitigate the most critical threats to cloud computing. The methodology consists of six steps: threat identification, threat analysis, technical impact identification, business impact analysis, risk assessment, and risk treatment12.

The technical impact identification step is the third step of the methodology, and it aims to assess how the incident affected the security properties of the information system, namely confidentiality, integrity, and availability. 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. The technical impact identification step can help organizations to understand the severity and extent of the incident and its consequences on the information system12.

The other options are not within the scope of the technical impact identification step. Option A, determine the impact on the controls that were selected by the organization to respond to identified risks, is not within the scope because it is part of the risk treatment step, which is the sixth and final step of the methodology. Option C, determine the impact on the physical and environmental security of the organization, excluding informational assets, is not within the scope because it is not related to the information system or its security properties. Option D, determine the impact on the financial, operational, compliance, and reputation of the organization, is not within the scope because it is part of the business impact analysis step, which is the fourth step of the methodology. References :=

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - CSA1

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - Cloud Security Alliance

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

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. The contract should specify the roles and responsibilities of both parties regarding disaster recovery, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the critical application. The DR capability should demonstrate that the cloud service provider has a plan that is aligned with the organization’s requirements and expectations, and that it is tested annually and validated by independent auditors. The auditor should also verify that the organization has a process to monitor and review the cloud service provider’s performance and compliance with the contract and SLAs.

Planning an audit of the provider (B) may not be feasible or necessary, as the auditor 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 auditor should rely on the provider’s audit reports and certifications to assess their compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider © may not be sufficient or relevant, as the security white paper may not cover the specific aspects of disaster recovery for the critical application, or may not reflect the current state of the provider’s security controls and practices. The security white paper may also be biased or outdated, as it is produced by the provider themselves.

Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (D) may be helpful, but not enough, as the audit reports may not address the specific requirements and expectations of the organization for disaster recovery, or may not cover the latest changes or incidents that may affect the provider’s DR capability. The audit reports may also have limitations or qualifications that may affect their reliability or validity. References :=

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan | AlertFind

ISACA Introduces New Audit Programs for Business Continuity/Disaster …

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

Rotating cryptographic keys regularly is a security best practice that helps to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to encrypted data. When keys are rotated, old keys are retired and replaced with new ones, making any compromised keys useless to an attacker. This process helps to limit the time window during which a stolen key can be used to breach data. Key rotation is a fundamental aspect of key management lifecycle best practices, which include generating new key pairs, rotating keys at set intervals, revoking access to keys, and destroying out-of-date or compromised keys.

References = The importance of key rotation is supported by various security standards and best practices, including recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)1 and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)23. These sources emphasize the need for periodic renewal and decommissioning of old keys as part of a comprehensive key management strategy.

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit is to validate an understanding of the organization’s current state and how the cloud audit plan fits into the existing audit approach1. The auditor should consider the organization’s business objectives, strategies, risks, and opportunities, as well as the regulatory and contractual requirements that apply to the organization’s use of cloud services. The auditor should also assess the organization’s cloud maturity level, governance structure, policies and procedures, roles and responsibilities, and existing controls related to cloud services. The auditor should then align the cloud audit plan with the organization’s context and ensure that it covers the relevant scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology.

The other options are not the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit. Option A is a possible audit procedure, but not the main goal of understanding the organization’s context. Option C is a possible audit outcome, but not the main purpose of understanding the organization’s context. Option D is a possible audit finding, but not the main reason for understanding the organization’s context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 12-13.

The most effective way to enhance the internal stakeholder decision-making process for the remediation of risks identified from an organization’s cloud compliance program is to establish ownership and accountability for each risk and its corresponding control. Ownership and accountability mean that the stakeholders who are responsible for managing, implementing, monitoring, and reporting on the cloud compliance program have clearly defined roles, responsibilities, expectations, and authorities. Ownership and accountability also mean that the stakeholders who are affected by or involved in the cloud compliance program have sufficient awareness, communication, collaboration, and feedback mechanisms. Establishing ownership and accountability helps to ensure that the risks and controls are properly identified, assessed, prioritized, treated, and reviewed in a timely and consistent manner. It also helps to foster a culture of trust, transparency, and accountability among the internal stakeholders and to align their goals and interests with the organization’s cloud compliance objectives.1 [2][2]

References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 521; Cloud Compliance: A Framework for Using Cloud Services While Maintaining Data Protection Compliance[

A RACI chart is a tool used to clarify the roles and responsibilities in processes, projects, or operations. In the context of cloud compliance, documenting these responsibilities in a RACI chart ensures that all parties within the enterprise are aware of their specific obligations regarding compliance with laws and regulations. This helps in creating a clear, organized view of how each part of the organization contributes to overall compliance, facilitating better coordination and accountability.

References = The answer is informed by general best practices in cloud compliance and governance, which recommend the use of RACI charts or similar tools to delineate responsibilities clearly. While I can’t reference specific documents from the CCAK or related resources, these practices are widely accepted in the field of cloud security and compliance.

The first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework is to identify key risk categories. Key risk categories are the broad areas or domains of cloud security and compliance that may affect the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Key risk categories may include data security, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, etc. Identifying key risk categories helps to scope and focus the cloud risk assessment process, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their relevance and significance. Identifying key risk categories also helps to align and map the risks with the applicable standards, regulations, or frameworks that govern cloud security and compliance12.

Analyzing potential impact and likelihood (A) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the third step. Analyzing potential impact and likelihood is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions (impact), as well as the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring (likelihood). Analyzing potential impact and likelihood helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact and likelihood12.

Establishing cloud risk profile (B) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the second step. Establishing cloud risk profile is the process of defining and documenting the expected level of risk that an organization is willing to accept or tolerate in relation to its cloud services (risk appetite), as well as the actual level of risk that an organization faces or encounters in relation to its cloud services (risk exposure). Establishing cloud risk profile helps to determine and communicate the objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of cloud security and compliance, as well as to align and integrate them with the business strategy and goals12.

Evaluating and documenting the risks © is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the fourth step. Evaluating and documenting the risks is the process of assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls or actions that are implemented or applied to prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event (risk treatment), as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise (risk monitoring). Evaluating and documenting the risks helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan12. References :=

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA

A Type 1 SOC report assesses whether controls are appropriately designed at a specific point in time, while a Type 2 SOC report tests the operating effectiveness of these controls over a period. For cloud auditing, Type 2 is often preferred for its comprehensive approach to both design and effectiveness over time. The CCAK curriculum emphasizes understanding these reports as critical tools in auditing cloud service providers (referenced in the CCAK content on Assurance and Transparency and the CSA STAR framework).

=========================

According to the CSA website, the primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, trusted certification of cloud providers1 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 framework2 The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services, such as the lack of simple, cost effective ways to evaluate and compare providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy, and service portability2 The OCF also aims to promote industry transparency and reduce complexity and costs for both providers and customers3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because facilitating an effective relationship between the cloud service provider and cloud client is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential benefit or outcome of it. The OCF can help facilitate an effective relationship between the provider and the client by providing a common language and framework for assessing and communicating the security and compliance posture of the provider, as well as enabling trust and confidence in the provider’s capabilities and performance. However, this is not the main goal or objective of the OCF, but rather a means to achieve it.

Option B is not correct because ensuring understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a possible implication or consequence of it. The OCF can help ensure understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users by providing objective and verifiable information and evidence about the provider’s security and compliance level, as well as allowing comparison and benchmarking with other providers in the market. However, this is not the main aim or intention of the OCF, but rather a result or effect of it.

Option D is not correct because enabling the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential advantage or opportunity for it. The OCF can enable the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements by providing a flexible, incremental and multi-layered approach to certification and/or attestation that allows the provider to choose the level of assurance that suits their business needs and goals. However, this is not the main reason or motivation for the OCF, but rather a benefit or option for it.

References: 1: Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA 2: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 3: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

According to the blog article “Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification” by the Cloud Security Alliance, a certification target helps in the formation of a continuous certification framework by incorporating the scope description and security attributes to be tested1 A certification target is a set of security objectives that a cloud service provider (CSP) defines and commits to fulfill as part of the continuous certification process1 Each security objective is associated with a policy that specifies the assessment frequency, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 A certification target also includes a set of tools that are capable of verifying that the security objectives are met, such as automated scripts, APIs, or third-party services1

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the service level objective (SLO) and service qualitative objective (SQO) are not part of the certification target, but rather part of the service level agreement (SLA) between the CSP and the cloud customer. An SLO is a measurable characteristic of the cloud service, such as availability, performance, or reliability. An SQO is a qualitative characteristic of the cloud service, such as security, privacy, or compliance2 The SLA defines the expected level of service and the consequences of not meeting it. The SLA may be used as an input for defining the certification target, but it is not equivalent or synonymous with it.

Option C is not correct because the frequency of evaluating security attributes is not the only component of the certification target, but rather one aspect of it. The frequency of evaluating security attributes is determined by the policy that is associated with each security objective in the certification target. The policy defines how often the security objective should be verified by the tools, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 However, the frequency alone does not define the certification target, as it also depends on the scope description and the security attributes to be tested.

Option D is not correct because CSA STAR level 2 attestation is not a component of the certification target, but rather a prerequisite for it. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is a third-party independent assessment of the CSP’s security posture based on ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)3 CSA STAR level 2 attestation provides a baseline assurance level for the CSP before they can define and implement their certification target for continuous certification. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is also required for CSA STAR level 3 certification, which is based on continuous auditing and continuous certification3

References: 1: Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification - Cloud Security Alliance 2: Service Level Agreement | CSA 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

When auditing a public cloud, it is essential to review areas such as Identity and Access Management (IAM) and data protection. IAM involves ensuring that only authorized individuals have access to the cloud resources, and that their access is appropriately managed and monitored. This includes reviewing user authentication methods, access control policies, role-based access controls, and user activity monitoring1.

Data protection is another critical area to review. It involves ensuring that the data stored in the public cloud is secure from unauthorized access, breaches, and leaks. This includes reviewing data encryption methods, data backup and recovery processes, data privacy policies, and compliance with relevant data protection regulations1.

While the other options may also be relevant in certain contexts, they are not as universally applicable as IAM and data protection for auditing a public cloud. Source code reviews and hypervisor (option B), patching and configuration (option C), and vulnerability management and cybersecurity reviews (option D) are important but are more specific to certain types of cloud services or deployment models. References:

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know - ISACA

Continuous integration (CI) is the most critical concept for managing the building and testing of code in DevOps. CI is the practice of merging all developers’ working copies of code to a shared mainline several times a day. This enables early detection and resolution of bugs, conflicts, and errors, as well as faster and more frequent feedback loops. CI also facilitates the automation of building, testing, and deploying code, which improves the quality, reliability, and security of the software delivery process. CI is a prerequisite for continuous delivery (CD) and continuous deployment (CD), which are the next stages of DevOps maturity that aim to deliver software to customers faster and more frequently. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 114-115

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, DCS-01: Datacenter Security - Build and Test

What is Continuous Integration?

Continuous Integration vs Continuous Delivery vs Continuous Deployment

The correct answer is A. To providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. This is the main purpose of FedRAMP, which is a government-wide program that promotes the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government. FedRAMP provides a standardized methodology for assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the security of cloud products and services, and enables agencies to leverage the security assessments of cloud service providers (CSPs) that have been approved by FedRAMP. FedRAMP also establishes a baseline set of security controls for cloud computing, based on NIST SP 800-53, and provides guidance and templates for implementing and documenting the controls1.

The other options are incorrect because:

B. To provide agencies of the federal government a dedicated tool to certify Authority to Operate (ATO): FedRAMP does not provide a tool to certify ATO, but rather a process to obtain a provisional ATO (P-ATO) from the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an agency ATO from a federal agency. ATO is the official management decision given by a senior official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations, agency assets, or individuals based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls2.

C. To enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of cloud service providers: FedRAMP does not enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of CSPs, but rather requires CSPs to use 3PAOs for conducting independent security assessments as part of the FedRAMP process. 3PAOs are independent entities that have been accredited by FedRAMP to perform initial and periodic security assessments of CSPs’ systems and provide evidence of compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.

D. To publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security: FedRAMP does not publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security, but rather adopts and adapts the existing framework of NIST SP 800-53, which provides a catalog of security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations. FedRAMP tailors the NIST SP 800-53 controls to provide a subset of controls that are specific to cloud computing, and categorizes them into low, moderate, and high impact levels based on FIPS 1994.

References:

Learn What FedRAMP is All About | FedRAMP | FedRAMP.gov

Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems - NIST

Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAO) | FedRAMP.gov

Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations - NIST

 The organization (client) is accountable for the use of a cloud service. Accountability in cloud computing is the responsibility of cloud service providers and other parties in the cloud ecosystem to protect and properly process the data of their clients and users. However, accountability ultimately rests with the organization (client) that uses the cloud service, as it is the data owner and controller. The organization (client) has to ensure that the cloud service provider and its suppliers meet the agreed-upon service levels, security standards, and regulatory requirements. The organization (client) also has to perform due diligence and oversight on the cloud service provider and its suppliers, as well as to comply with the shared responsibility model, which defines how the security and compliance tasks and obligations are divided between the cloud service provider and the organization (client)123.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the cloud access security broker (CASB), is incorrect because a CASB is a software tool or service that acts as an intermediary between cloud users and cloud service providers, providing visibility, data security, threat protection, and compliance. A CASB does not use the cloud service, but facilitates its secure and compliant use4. Option B, the supplier, is incorrect because a supplier is a third-party entity that provides services or products to the cloud service provider, such as infrastructure, software, hardware, or support. A supplier does not use the cloud service, but supports its delivery5. Option C, the cloud service provider, is incorrect because a cloud service provider is a company that provides cloud computing services to the organization (client). A cloud service provider does not use the cloud service, but offers it to the organization (client)6. References :=

Accountability Issues in Cloud Computing (5 Step … - Medium1

Shared responsibility in the \uE000cloud\uE001 - Microsoft Azure2

Who Is Responsible for Cloud Security? - Security Intelligence3

What is CASB? - Cloud Security Alliance4

Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA5

What is Cloud Provider? - Definition from Techopedia

Controls mapping found in the Scope Applicability column of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) may help organizations to realize cost savings by avoiding duplication of efforts in the compliance evaluation and for the eventual control design and implementation. The Scope Applicability column is a feature of the CCM that indicates which cloud model type (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) or cloud environment (public, hybrid, private) a control applies to. This feature can help organizations to identify and select the most relevant and appropriate controls for their specific cloud scenario, as well as to map them to multiple industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. By doing so, organizations can reduce the time, resources, and costs involved in achieving and maintaining compliance with various cloud security requirements123.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option B, by implementing layered security, thus reducing the likelihood of data breaches and the associated costs, is not a valid reason because layered security is a general principle of defense in depth, not a specific feature of the CCM or the Scope Applicability column. Option C, by avoiding the need to hire a cloud security specialist to perform the periodic risk assessment exercise, is not a valid reason because using the CCM or the Scope Applicability column does not eliminate the need for a cloud security specialist or a periodic risk assessment exercise, which are essential for ensuring the effectiveness and adequacy of the cloud security controls. Option D, by avoiding fines for breaching those regulations that impose a controls mapping in order to prove compliance, is not a valid reason because controls mapping is not a mandatory requirement for proving compliance, but a voluntary tool for facilitating compliance. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software2

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

 A dot release of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) indicates a technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is smaller than 10% compared to the previous full release. A dot release is a minor update to the CCM that reflects the feedback from the cloud security community and the changes in the cloud technology landscape. A dot release does not change the domain structure or the overall scope of the CCM, but rather improves the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the existing controls. A dot release is denoted by a decimal number after the major version number, such as CCM v4.1 or CCM v4.2. The current version of the CCM is v4.0, which was released in October 20211.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. a revision of the CCM domain structure: A revision of the CCM domain structure is a major change that affects the organization and categorization of the controls into different domains. A revision of the CCM domain structure requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

C. the introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls: The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls is an additional feature that enhances the usability and applicability of the CCM. The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls does not require a dot release or a full release, but rather an update to the mapping table that shows the relationship between the CCM controls and other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks3.

D. technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release: A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release is a significant change that affects the content and scope of the CCM. A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) V4: Raising the cloud security bar

Cloud Security Alliance Releases New Cloud Controls Matrix Auditing Guidelines

The shift-left concept of code release cycles is a practice that aims to integrate testing, quality, and performance evaluation early in the software development life cycle, often before any code is written. This helps to find and prevent defects, improve quality, and enable faster delivery of secure software. One of the key aspects of the shift-left concept is the incorporation of automation to identify and address software code problems early, such as using continuous integration, continuous delivery, and continuous testing tools. Automation can help reduce manual errors, speed up feedback loops, and increase efficiency and reliability123

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because large entities with slower release cadences and geographically dispersed systems are more likely to face challenges in adopting the shift-left concept, as they may have more complex and legacy systems, dependencies, and processes that hinder agility and collaboration. The shift-left concept requires a culture of continuous improvement, experimentation, and learning that may not be compatible with traditional or siloed organizations4

Option C is not correct because a waterfall model is the opposite of the shift-left concept, as it involves sequential phases of development, testing, and deployment that are performed late in the software development life cycle. A waterfall model does not allow for early detection and correction of defects, feedback, or changes, and can result in higher costs, delays, and risks5

Option D is not correct because maturity of start-up entities with high-iteration to low-volume code commits is not a sign of the shift-left concept, but rather a sign of the agile or lean software development methodologies. These methodologies focus on delivering value to customers by delivering working software in short iterations or sprints, with frequent feedback and adaptation. While these methodologies can support the shift-left concept by enabling faster testing and delivery cycles, they are not equivalent or synonymous with it6

References: 1: AWS. What is DevSecOps? - Developer Security Operations Explained - AWS. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Dynatrace. Shift left vs shift right: A DevOps mystery solved - Dynatrace news. [Online]. Available: 2. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: BMC Software. Shift Left Testing: What, Why & How To Shift Left – BMC Software | Blogs. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: GitLab. How to shift left with continuous integration | GitLab. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: DZone. DevOps and The Shift-Left Principle - DZone. [Online]. Available: 5. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Devopedia. Shift Left - Devopedia. [Online]. Available: 6. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].