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

Scenario 1: Fintive is a distinguished security provider for online payments and protection solutions. Founded in 1999 by Thomas Fin in San Jose, California, Fintive

offers services to companies that operate online and want to improve their information security, prevent fraud, and protect user information such as PII. Fintive centers

its decision-making and operating process based on previous cases. They gather customer data, classify them depending on the case, and analyze them. The company

needed a large number of employees to be able to conduct such complex analyses. After some years, however, the technology that assists in conducting such analyses

advanced as well. Now, Fintive is planning on using a modern tool, a chatbot, to achieve pattern analyses toward preventing fraud in real-time. This tool would also be

used to assist in improving customer service.

This initial idea was communicated to the software development team, who supported it and were assigned to work on this project. They began integrating the chatbot

on their existing system. In addition, the team set an objective regarding the chatbot which was to answer 85% of all chat queries.

After the successful integration of the chatbot, the company immediately released it to their customers for use. The chatbot, however, appeared to have some issues.

Due to insufficient testing and lack of samples provided to the chatbot during the training phase, in which it was supposed "to learn" the queries pattern, the chatbot

failed to address user queries and provide the right answers. Furthermore, the chatbot sent random files to users when it received invalid inputs such as odd patterns

of dots and special characters. Therefore, the chatbot was unable to properly answer customer queries and the traditional customer support was overwhelmed with

chat queries and thus was unable to help customers with their requests.

Consequently, Fintive established a software development policy. This policy specified that whether the software is developed in-house or outsourced, it will undergo a

black box testing prior to its implementation on operational systems.

According to scenario 1, the chatbot sent random files to users when it received invalid inputs. What impact might that lead to?

Scenario 8: EsBank provides banking and financial solutions to the Estonian banking sector since September 2010. The company has a network of 30 branches with over 100 ATMs across the country.

Operating in a highly regulated industry, EsBank must comply with many laws and regulations regarding the security and privacy of data. They need to manage information security across their operations by implementing technical and nontechnical controls. EsBank decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 because it provided better security, more risk control, and compliance with key requirements of laws and regulations.

Nine months after the successful implementation of the ISMS, EsBank decided to pursue certification of their ISMS by an independent certification body against ISO/IEC 27001 .The certification audit included all of EsBank’s systems, processes, and technologies.

The stage 1 and stage 2 audits were conducted jointly and several nonconformities were detected. The first nonconformity was related to EsBank’s labeling of information. The company had an information classification scheme but there was no information labeling procedure. As a result, documents requiring the same level of protection would be labeled differently (sometimes as confidential, other times sensitive).

Considering that all the documents were also stored electronically, 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 is allowed to be stored in removable media, whereas storing sensitive information is strictly prohibited. This marked the other nonconformity.

They drafted the nonconformity report and discussed the audit conclusions with EsBank’s representatives, who agreed to submit an action plan for the detected nonconformities within two months.

EsBank accepted the audit team leader's proposed solution. They resolved the nonconformities by drafting a procedure for information labeling based on the classification scheme for both physical and electronic formats. The removable media procedure was also updated based on this procedure.

Two weeks after the audit completion, EsBank submitted a general action plan. There, they addressed the detected nonconformities and the corrective actions taken, but did not include any details on systems, controls, or operations impacted. The audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded that it would resolve the nonconformities. Yet, EsBank received an unfavorable recommendation for certification.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

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

After conducting an external audit, the auditor decided that the internal auditor would follow-up on the implementation of corrective actions until the next surveillance audit. Is this acceptable?