CISM Exam Questions Tutorials

The most likely reason for executive management to take no further action related to the risk of a denial of service (DoS) attack is that the cost of implementing controls exceeds the potential financial losses. This means that the risk is acceptable or tolerable for the organization, and that the benefits of reducing the risk do not outweigh the costs of applying the controls. This decision is based on a cost-benefit analysis, which is a common technique for evaluating and comparing different risk response options. A cost-benefit analysis considers the following factors:

The estimated impact of the risk, which is the potential loss or damage that the organization may suffer if the risk materializes. The impact can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, such as monetary value, reputation, customer satisfaction, legal liability, etc.

The estimated likelihood of occurrence, which is the probability or frequency that the risk will occur within a given time period. The likelihood can be expressed in numerical or descriptive terms, such as percentage, rating, high, medium, low, etc.

The estimated cost of controls, which is the total amount of resources that the organization needs to invest in order to implement and maintain the controls. The cost can include direct and indirect expenses, such as hardware, software, personnel, training, maintenance, etc.

The estimated benefit of controls, which is the reduction in the impact or likelihood of the risk as a result of implementing the controls. The benefit can be expressed in the same terms as the impact or likelihood, such as monetary value, percentage, rating, etc.

A cost-benefit analysis can be performed using various methods, such as net present value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), internal rate of return (IRR), etc. The general principle is to compare the cost and benefit of each control option, and select the one that provides the highest net benefit or the lowest net cost. A control option is considered feasible and desirable if its benefit exceeds its cost, or if its cost is lower than the impact of the risk.

In this case, executive management has decided to take no further action related to the risk of a DoS attack, which implies that the cost of implementing controls exceeds the potential financial losses. This could be because the impact or likelihood of the risk is low, or because the cost or complexity of the controls is high, or both. For example, the organization may have a robust backup and recovery system, a diversified network infrastructure, a strong customer loyalty, or a low dependency on online services, which reduce the impact or likelihood of a DoS attack. Alternatively, the organization may face technical, financial, or operational challenges in implementing effective controls, such as firewalls, load balancers, traffic filters, or cloud services, which increase the cost or complexity of the controls. Therefore, executive management may have concluded that the risk is acceptable or tolerable, and that taking no further action is the most rational and economical choice.

The other options are not the most likely reasons for executive management to take no further action related to the risk of a DoS attack, as they indicate a lack of proper risk assessment or validation. The risk assessment should define the likelihood of occurrence and the reported vulnerability should be validated, as these are essential steps for identifying and analyzing the risk. Executive management should be aware of the impact potential, as this is a key factor for evaluating and prioritizing the risk. If any of these options were true, executive management would not have enough information or evidence to make an informed and justified decision about the risk response. References =

CISM Review Manual, Chapter 2, pages 67-69

CISM Exam Content Outline | CISM Certification | ISACA, Domain 2, Task 2.2

Information Security Risk Management for CISM® - Pluralsight, Module 2, Section 2.3

CISM: Information Risk Management Part 2 from Skillsoft - NICCS, Section 2.4

Executive management may not take action related to a risk if they have determined that the cost of implementing necessary controls to mitigate the risk exceeds the potential financial losses that the organization may incur if the risk were to materialize. In cases such as this, it is important for the information security team to provide the executive team with thorough cost-benefit analysis that outlines the cost of implementing the controls versus the expected losses from the risk.

A balanced scorecard is a tool that can be used to demonstrate the added value of an information security program by measuring and reporting on key performance indicators (KPIs) and key risk indicators (KRIs) aligned with strategic objectives. Security baselines, a gap analysis and a SWOT analysis are all useful for assessing and improving security posture, but they do not necessarily show how security contributes to business value.

= Security reporting is the process of providing relevant and timely information on the status and performance of the information security program to the stakeholders. Security reporting should be aligned with the business objectives and risk appetite of the organization, and should provide meaningful insights and recommendations for decision making and improvement. Security reporting should also include forward-looking trends, which are projections or predictions of future events or conditions based on historical data, current situation, and external factors. Forward-looking trends can help the organization anticipate and prepare for potential risks and opportunities, and adjust their strategies and plans accordingly.

One of the most effective ways to communicate forward-looking trends within security reporting is to use key risk indicators (KRIs). KRIs are metrics that measure the level of exposure or likelihood of a risk event occurring, and provide early warning signals of potential changes in the risk profile. KRIs can help the organization monitor and manage the key risks that may affect the achievement of their objectives, and take proactive actions to mitigate or avoid them. KRIs can also help the organization identify emerging risks and trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of their risk treatment options. KRIs should be aligned with the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization, and should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the changing risk environment.

The other options are not the most effective ways to communicate forward-looking trends within security reporting. Key control indicators (KCIs) are metrics that measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the security controls implemented to reduce the impact or likelihood of a risk event. KCIs can help the organization assess and improve the performance of their security processes and activities, and ensure compliance with the security policies and standards. However, KCIs do not directly measure the level of exposure or likelihood of a risk event, and may not provide sufficient information on the future trends and scenarios. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics that measure the achievement of the security objectives and goals, and demonstrate the value and contribution of the information security program to the organization. KPIs can help the organization evaluate and communicate the results and outcomes of their security initiatives and projects, and align them with the business strategy and vision. However, KPIs do not directly measure the level of exposure or likelihood of a risk event, and may not provide sufficient information on the future trends and scenarios. Key goal indicators (KGIs) are metrics that measure the progress and completion of the security goals and targets, and indicate the degree of success and satisfaction of the information security program. KGIs can help the organization track and report the status and milestones of their security plans and actions, and ensure alignment with the stakeholder expectations and requirements. However, KGIs do not directly measure the level of exposure or likelihood of a risk event, and may not provide sufficient information on the future trends and scenarios. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, ISACA, 2020, pp. 77-78, 81-821; CISM Online Review Course, Domain 3: Information Security Program Development and Management, Module 4: Information Security Program Resources, ISACA2

Results from a gap analysis would provide the most useful information for planning purposes when preparing an action plan to achieve compliance with local regulatory requirements by an established deadline. A gap analysis is an assessment of the difference between an organization’s current state of compliance and its desired level or standard. It is a process used to identify potential areas for improvement by comparing actual performance with expected performance. A gap analysis can help to prioritize the actions needed to close the gaps and comply with the regulatory requirements, as well as to estimate the resources and time required for each action1. The other options are not as useful as results from a gap analysis for planning purposes when preparing an action plan to achieve compliance with local regulatory requirements by an established deadline. Deadlines and penalties for noncompliance are important factors to consider, but they do not provide information on how to achieve compliance or what actions are needed2. Results from a business impact analysis (BIA) are useful for identifying the critical processes and assets that need to be protected, but they do not provide information on how to comply with the regulatory requirements or what actions are needed3. An inventory of security controls currently in place is useful for assessing the current state of compliance, but it does not provide information on how to comply with the regulatory requirements or what actions are needed4. References: 3: Business impact analysis (BIA) - Wikipedia 2: Compliance Gap Analysis & Effectiveness Evaluation | SMS 1: What is Gap Analysis in Compliance | Scytale 4: Gap Analysis & Risk Assessment — Riddle Compliance