Last Attempt CISM Questions

Assessing the consequences of noncompliance is the next step that should be done after determining that there are a significant number of exceptions to a newly released industry-required security standard. The information security manager should evaluate the potential impact and exposure of the organization due to the noncompliance with the security standard. The assessment should consider the legal, regulatory, contractual, and reputational implications of the noncompliance, as well as the likelihood and severity of the incidents or penalties that may result from the noncompliance. The assessment should also compare the cost and benefit of complying with the security standard versus accepting the risk of noncompliance. The assessment should provide the basis for making informed and rational decisions about how to address the noncompliance issue and prioritize the actions and resources needed to achieve compliance. Documenting risk acceptances, revising the organization’s security policy, and conducting an information security audit are all possible actions that may be taken to address the noncompliance issue, but they are not the next steps that should be done. These actions should be performed after assessing the consequences of noncompliance, and based on the results and recommendations of the assessment. Documenting risk acceptances may be appropriate if the organization decides to accept the risk of noncompliance, and if the risk is within the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. Revising the organization’s security policy may be necessary if the organization decides to comply with the security standard, and if the policy needs to be updated to reflect the new requirements and expectations. Conducting an information security audit may be useful if the organization wants to verify the level of compliance and identify the gaps and weaknesses in the security controls and processes. Therefore, assessing the consequences of noncompliance is the next step that should be done after determining that there are a significant number of exceptions to a newly released industry-required security standard, as it helps the information security manager to understand the risk and impact of the noncompliance and to make informed and rational decisions about how to address it. References = CISM Review Manual 2023, page 43 1; CISM Practice Quiz 2

= The allocation of resources during a security incident response depends on the defined levels of severity, which indicate the potential impact and urgency of the incident. The levels of severity help prioritize the response activities and assign the appropriate roles and responsibilities. Senior management commitment, a business continuity plan (BCP), and an established escalation process are important factors for an effective incident response, but they do not directly determine the allocation of resources. References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, page 3011; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, 10th Edition, page 1462

Learn more:

1. isaca.org2. amazon.com3. gov.uk

Defined levels of severity is the best determinant of the allocation of resources during a security incident response. Having defined levels of severity allows organizations to plan for and allocate resources for each level of incident, depending on the severity of the incident. This ensures that the right resources are allocated in a timely manner and that incidents are addressed appropriately.

A disaster recovery plan (DRP) test is a simulation of a disaster scenario to evaluate the effectiveness and readiness of the DRP. The greatest inherent risk when performing a DRP test is the disruption to the production environment, which could cause operational issues, data loss, or system damage. Therefore, it is essential to plan and execute the DRP test carefully, with proper backup, isolation, and rollback procedures. Poor documentation, lack of communication, and lack of coordination are also potential risks, but they are not as severe as disrupting the production environment. References = CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, page 253; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription, QID 224.

The greatest inherent risk when performing a disaster recovery plan (DRP) test is disruption to the production environment. A DRP test involves simulating a disaster scenario to ensure that the organization's plans are effective and that it is able to recover from an incident. However, this involves running tests on the production environment, which has the potential to disrupt the normal operations of the organization. This inherent risk can be mitigated by running tests on a non-production environment or by running tests at times when disruption will be minimized.

= The primary objective of performing a post-incident review is to identify the root cause of the incident, which is the underlying factor or condition that enabled or facilitated the occurrence of the incident. Identifying the root cause helps to understand the nature and origin of the incident, and to prevent or mitigate similar incidents in the future. A post-incident review also aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the incident response process, identify lessons learned and best practices, and recommend improvements for the incident management policies, procedures, controls, and tools. However, these are secondary objectives that depend on the identification of the root cause as the first step.

Re-evaluating the impact of incidents is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is already done during the incident response process. The impact of incidents is the extent and severity of the damage or harm caused by the incident to the organization’s assets, operations, reputation, or stakeholders. Re-evaluating the impact of incidents may be part of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal.

Identifying vulnerabilities is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is also done during the incident response process. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses or flaws in the system or network that can be exploited by attackers to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information or resources. Identifying vulnerabilities may be part of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal.

Identifying control improvements is not the primary objective of performing a post-incident review, as it is a result of the root cause analysis. Controls are measures or mechanisms that are implemented to protect the system or network from threats, reduce risks, or ensure compliance with policies and standards. Identifying control improvements is an important outcome of the post-incident review, but it is not the main goal. References =

ISACA CISM: PRIMARY goal of a post-incident review should be to?

CISM Exam Overview - Vinsys

CISM Review Manual, Chapter 4, page 176

CISM Exam Content Outline | CISM Certification | ISACA, Domain 4, Task 4.3