Changed CRISC Exam Questions

Scanning the Internet for Unauthorized Usage:

Proactive Detection: Continuously scanning the internet helps in identifying unauthorized use of the enterprise’s brand, allowing for timely action to mitigate such activities.

Protection of Brand Integrity: By detecting unauthorized usage early, the organization can take steps to protect its brand reputation and prevent potential misuse or fraud.

Steps Involved:

Automated Monitoring Tools: Use automated tools to scan websites, social media platforms, and other online spaces for unauthorized use of the brand.

Incident Response: Develop a response plan to address incidents of unauthorized usage, including legal actions and takedown requests.

Comparison with Other Options:

Utilizing Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Technology: DLP focuses on preventing data breaches and leaks within the organization, not on monitoring external brand misuse.

Monitoring the Enterprise's Use of the Internet: Internal monitoring does not address external unauthorized use of the brand.

Developing Training and Awareness Campaigns: These are important for internal awareness but do not directly mitigate the risk of external fraudulent use.

Best Practices:

Regular Updates: Continuously update scanning tools and techniques to adapt to new methods of brand misuse.

Legal Support: Ensure legal frameworks are in place to act quickly against unauthorized usage.

CRISC Review Manual: Highlights the importance of proactive monitoring for brand protection and provides guidelines for effective implementation​​.

ISACA Guidelines: Discuss the role of external monitoring in identifying and addressing unauthorized use of the organization’s brand​​.

References:

When assessing the likelihood that a recently discovered software vulnerability will be exploited, the most important consideration is the skill level required of a threat actor. Here's an explanation:

Skill Level of Threat Actors:

The skill level required to exploit a vulnerability determines how accessible the exploit is to potential attackers.

If a vulnerability requires advanced technical skills to exploit, it is less likely to be targeted by less sophisticated attackers.

Conversely, if the exploit can be easily executed with minimal skills, it increases the likelihood of widespread exploitation.

Factors Influencing Likelihood of Exploitation:

Availability of Exploit Tools: If automated tools or scripts are available to exploit the vulnerability, even less skilled attackers can take advantage of it.

Publication of Exploit Details: If the vulnerability and its exploitation method are widely published, it becomes more accessible to a broader range of attackers.

Assessment of Likelihood:

Security teams assess the skill level required by analyzing whether the exploit is straightforward or complex.

They also consider the presence of exploit kits in the wild that could lower the barrier to entry for potential attackers.

Comparison with Other Factors:

Amount of PII Disclosed: While important, it relates more to the impact rather than the likelihood of exploitation.

Ability to Detect and Trace: This is crucial for response but does not directly influence the likelihood of exploitation.

Amount of Data Exposed: Similar to PII, this factor pertains to the impact rather than the likelihood of exploitation.

References:

The CRISC Review Manual discusses the importance of understanding the threat landscape, including the skill level of potential attackers (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 2: IT Risk Assessment, Section 2.2.1 Internal Threats).

Addressing Technical Complexity:

Security Architecture Alignment: Aligning with a security architecture helps manage the complexity by providing a structured framework for implementing and managing security controls.

Comprehensive Framework: A security architecture ensures that all security controls are integrated and aligned with the organization’s overall security strategy, reducing the risk associated with technical complexity.

Steps Involved:

Develop or Adopt a Security Architecture: Use established frameworks such as SABSA, TOGAF, or Zachman.

Implementation: Apply the security architecture across all systems and processes to ensure consistency and integration.

Monitoring and Maintenance: Continuously monitor the security architecture and update it as necessary to address new threats and technologies.

Comparison with Other Options:

Documenting System Hardening Requirements: Important but does not address the overall complexity.

Minimizing Dependency on Technology: Not always feasible and does not fully address the inherent complexity.

Establishing Configuration Guidelines: Helpful but should be part of the broader security architecture.

Best Practices:

Continuous Improvement: Regularly update and improve the security architecture to adapt to evolving threats and technologies.

Training and Awareness: Ensure that all relevant personnel understand the security architecture and their role in maintaining it.

CRISC Review Manual: Discusses the importance of aligning with a security architecture to manage technical complexity and ensure comprehensive security controls​​.

ISACA Standards: Emphasize the role of security architecture in providing a structured approach to managing security across the organization​​.

References:

According to the CRISC Review Manual, enterprise architecture (EA) is a comprehensive framework that defines the structure and operation of an organization, including its business processes, information systems, technology infrastructure, organizational structure, and strategic objectives2. An EA program is a set of principles, policies, standards, and guidelines that govern the development and implementation of the EA3. By having an approved EA program, an organization can ensure that its risk management is aligned with its goals and objectives, as the EA provides a clear and consistent vision of the desired state and direction of the organization, as well as the means to achieve and measure it4. The EA also helps to identify and prioritize the risks and opportunities that may affect the organization’s performance and resilience. The other options are not as effective or relevant as option D, as they do not directly relate to the alignment of risk management with organizational goals and objectives. Option A, having approved policies that provide operational boundaries, is more related to the governance and compliance of risk management, not its alignment. Option B, having organizational controls to manage risk appetite, is more related to the implementation and monitoring of risk management, not its alignment. Option C, continually evaluating environmental changes that impact risk, is more related to the identification and assessment of risk management, not its alignment.