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

Scenario 8

Trustingo has been providing banking and financial services in Estonia since 2010. The company has a network of 30 branches with over 100 ATMs nationwide. To meet strict data security and privacy regulations, Trustingo implemented an information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001, ensuring better security, improved risk management, and compliance with legal requirements.

Nine months after the successful implementation of the ISMS, Trustingo decided to pursue certification for their ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 by an independent certification body. The certification audit included Trustingo's systems, processes, and technologies.

The audit team conducted the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits jointly, and several nonconformities were detected. The first nonconformity was related to Trustingo's labeling of information. The company had an information classification scheme but no information labeling procedure. As a result, documents requiring the same level of protection would be labeled differently.

The nonconformity also impacted media handling. The audit team used sampling and concluded that 50 of 200 removable media stored sensitive information mistakenly classified as confidential. According to the information classification scheme, confidential information can be stored in removable media, whereas storing sensitive information is strictly prohibited.

The audit team drafted the nonconformity report and discussed the audit conclusions with Trustingo's representatives, who agreed to submit an action plan for the detected nonconformities within two months. Since the certification recommendation is conditional upon filing corrective actions, Trustingo must submit corrective action plans to show how they will address and resolve these nonconformities. Trustingo accepted the audit team leader's proposed solution and addressed the nonconformities by drafting an information labeling procedure and updating the removable media procedure.

Two weeks after the audit completion, Trustingo submitted a general action plan. Although the plan addressed the detected nonconformities and corrective actions taken, it lacked detailed action steps for each nonconformity and did not include specific details on the impacted systems, controls, or operations. The audit team evaluated the action plan. Nevertheless, Trustingo received an unfavorable recommendation for certification.

Question

Which option justifies the unfavorable recommendation for certification? Refer to Scenario 8.

Scenario 5

CyberShielding Systems Inc. provides security services spanning the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. CyberShielding Systems Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks for two decades through advanced products and services. Having achieved a reputation in the information and network security sector, CyberShielding Systems Inc. decided to implement a security information management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and obtain a certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain a competitive advantage.

The certification body initiated the process by selecting the audit team for CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s ISO/IEC 27001 certification. They provided the company with the name and background information of each audit member. However, upon review, CyberShielding Systems Inc. discovered that one of the auditors did not hold the security clearance required by them. Consequently, the company objected to the appointment of this auditor. Upon review, the certification body replaced the auditor in response to CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s objection.

As part of the audit process, CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s approach to risk and opportunity determination was assessed as a standalone activity. This involved examining the organization’s methods for identifying and managing risks and opportunities. The audit team’s core objectives encompassed providing assurance on the effectiveness of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity identification mechanisms and reviewing the organization's strategies for addressing these determined risks and opportunities. During this, the audit team also identified a risk due to a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval, potentially exposing the company to vulnerabilities. This finding highlighted the need for stronger internal controls to prevent such issues.

The audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts to understand the main business processes and controls. They performed a limited analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was limited by third-party service provider restrictions. However, the audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in CyberShielding’s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by questioning CyberShielding representatives on IT responsibilities, control effectiveness, and anti-malware measures. CyberShielding’s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

Despite the agreement signed before the audit, which outlined the audit scope, criteria, and objectives, the audit was primarily focused on assessing conformity with established criteria and ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Question

Did the certification body have a valid reason to accept CyberShielding Systems Inc.’s objection to the appointed auditor for their ISO/IEC 27001 certification audit?

You are carrying out your first third-party ISMS surveillance audit as an Audit Team Leader. You are presently in

the auditee's data centre with another member of your audit team.

You are currently in a large room that is subdivided into several smaller rooms, each of which has a numeric

combination lock and swipe card reader on the door. You notice two external contractors using a swipe card and

combination number provided by the centre's reception desk to gain access to a client's suite to carry out authorised electrical repairs.

You go to reception and ask to see the door access record for the client's suite. This indicates only one card was

swiped. You ask the receptionist and they reply, "yes it's a common problem. We ask everyone to swipe their

cards but with contractors especially, one tends to swipe and the rest simply 'tailgate' their way in" but we know who they are from the reception sign-in.

Based on the scenario above which one of the following actions would you now take?