CRISC Questions Bank

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), threat analysis would be the most helpful when estimating the likelihood of negative events, as it involves identifying and evaluating the sources and causes of potential harm or loss to the IT assets and processes. Threat analysis helps to:

Determine the frequency and probability of occurrence of different types of threats, such as natural disasters, human errors, malicious attacks, system failures, etc.

Assess the impact and severity of the threats on the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the IT assets and processes

Prioritize the threats based on their likelihood and impact

Develop appropriate risk response strategies to prevent, mitigate, transfer or accept the threats

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.5: IT Risk Identification Methods and Techniques, pp. 35-361

A consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is a comprehensive and integrated representation of the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives, performance, and value creation12.

The most helpful material to provide a consolidated view into the organization’s risk profile is the IT risk register, which is a document that records and tracks the IT-related risks, their sources, impacts, likelihoods, responses, owners, and statuses within the organization34.

The IT risk register is the most helpful material because it provides a complete and consistent overview of the IT risk landscape, and enables the identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring, and communication of IT risks across the organization34.

The IT risk register is also the most helpful material because it supports the project prioritization and resource allocation decisions, by highlighting the most significant and relevant IT risks, and by showing the alignment of the IT risk responses with the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and objectives34.

The other options are not the most helpful materials, but rather possible inputs or outputs of the IT risk register. For example:

A list of key risk indicators (KRIs) is a set of metrics that measure the occurrence or status of IT risks, and provide timely and relevant information and feedback to the organization56. However, a list of KRIs is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a snapshot or a trend of selected IT risks56.

Internal audit reports are documents that present the findings and recommendations of the internal audit function, which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the IT risk management and control processes within the organization78. However, internal audit reports are not the most helpful material because they do not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a periodic and independent assessment of specific IT risk areas78.

A list of approved projects is a document that records and tracks the IT projects that have been authorized and funded by the organization, and their objectives, scope, schedule, budget, and status . However, a list of approved projects is not the most helpful material because it does not provide a comprehensive and integrated view of the IT risk profile, but rather a summary of the IT project portfolio . References =

1: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

2: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

3: IT Risk Register Template, ISACA, 2019

4: IT Risk Register Toolkit, ISACA, 2019

5: KPIs for Security Operations & Incident Response, SecurityScorecard Blog, June 7, 2021

6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response, DFLabs White Paper, 2018

7: IT Audit and Assurance Standards, ISACA, 2014

8: IT Audit and Assurance Guidelines, ISACA, 2014

: IT Project Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

: IT Project Management Best Practices, ISACA Journal, Volume 1, 2018

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), key risk indicator (KRI) thresholds are the most likely elements of a risk register to change as a result of change in management’s risk appetite, as they reflect the acceptable levels of risk exposure for the organization. KRI thresholds are the values or ranges that trigger an alert or a response when the actual KRI values deviate from the expected or desired values. KRI thresholds help to:

Monitor and measure the current risk levels and performance of the IT assets and processes

Identify and report any risk issues or incidents that may require attention or action

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response actions and controls

Align the risk management activities and decisions with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance

If the management’s risk appetite changes, the KRI thresholds may need to be adjusted accordingly to ensure that the risk register reflects the current risk preferences and expectations of the organization.

References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: IT Risk Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.1: IT Risk Monitoring, pp. 217-2181

Corporate culture is the set of values, beliefs, and norms that shape the behavior and attitude of an organization and its people. Corporate culture alignment is the degree of consistency and compatibility between the corporate culture and the organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and objectives. Corporate culture misalignment is the situation where the corporate culture is not aligned with the organization’s goals and expectations, and may hinder or undermine the achievement of those goals. The acceptance of control costs that exceed risk exposure is most likely an example of corporate culture misalignment, as it indicates that the organization is not following a rational and optimal approach to risk management. The organization is spending more resources on controlling risks than the potential benefits or losses that the risks entail, which may result in inefficiency, waste, or opportunity cost. The organization may also be overemphasizing the importance of risk avoidance or mitigation, and neglecting the potential value creation or innovation that may arise from taking or accepting some risks. The other options are not the best answers, as they do not explain the situation of accepting control costs that exceed risk exposure. Low risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is not willing to accept. Low risk tolerance may lead to excessive or unnecessary controls, but it does not necessarily mean that the control costs exceed the risk exposure. High risk tolerance is the degree of variation from the risk appetite that the organization is willing to accept. High risk tolerance may lead to insufficient or ineffective controls, but it does not imply that the control costs exceed the risk exposure. Corporate culture alignment is the situation where the corporate culture is aligned with the organization’s goals and expectations, and supports and facilitates the achievement of those goals. Corporate culture alignment would not result in accepting control costs that exceed risk exposure, as it would imply a balanced and rational approach to risk management. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 812