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

Scenario 7: Lawsy is a leading law firm with offices in New Jersey and New York City. It has over 50 attorneys offering sophisticated legal services to clients in business and commercial law, intellectual property, banking, and financial services. They believe they have a comfortable position in the market thanks to their commitment to implement information security best practices and remain up to date with technological developments.

Lawsy has implemented, evaluated, and conducted internal audits for an ISMS rigorously for two years now. Now, they have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification to ISMA, a well-known and trusted certification body.

During stage 1 audit, the audit team reviewed all the ISMS documents created during the implementation. They also reviewed and evaluated the records from management reviews and internal audits.

Lawsy submitted records of evidence that corrective actions on nonconformities were performed when necessary, so the audit team interviewed the internal auditor. The interview validated the adequacy and frequency of the internal audits by providing detailed insight into the internal audit plan and procedures.

The audit team continued with the verification of strategic documents, including the information security policy and risk evaluation criteria. During the information security policy review, the team noticed inconsistencies between the documented information describing governance framework (i.e., the information security policy) and the procedures.

Although the employees were allowed to take the laptops outside the workplace, Lawsy did not have procedures in place regarding the use of laptops in such cases. The policy only provided general information about the use of laptops. The company relied on employees' common knowledge to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information stored in the laptops. This issue was documented in the stage 1 audit report.

Upon completing stage 1 audit, the audit team leader prepared the audit plan, which addressed the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and procedures.

During stage 2 audit, the audit team interviewed the information security manager, who drafted the information security policy. He justified the Issue identified in stage 1 by stating that Lawsy conducts mandatory information security training and awareness sessions every three months.

Following the interview, the audit team examined 15 employee training records (out of 50) and concluded that Lawsy meets requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 related to training and awareness. To support this conclusion, they photocopied the examined employee training records.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Based on scenario 7, what should Lawsy do prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit?

Which statement below best describes the relationship between information security aspects?

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

Based on Scenario 5, what else should CyberShielding Systems Inc. have included when defining the audit objectives?