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

Question:

Which of the following statements regarding documented information in an organization's ISMS is incorrect?

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:

The audit team photocopied the examined employee training records to support their conclusion. Should the audit team obtain an approval from Lawsy before taking this action? Refer to scenario 7.

Scenario 8: EsBank provides banking and financial solutions to the Estonian banking sector since September 2010. The company has a network of 30 branches with over 100 ATMs across the country.

Operating in a highly regulated industry, EsBank must comply with many laws and regulations regarding the security and privacy of data. They need to manage information security across their operations by implementing technical and nontechnical controls. EsBank decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 because it provided better security, more risk control, and compliance with key requirements of laws and regulations.

Nine months after the successful implementation of the ISMS, EsBank decided to pursue certification of their ISMS by an independent certification body against ISO/IEC 27001 .The certification audit included all of EsBank’s systems, processes, and technologies.

The stage 1 and stage 2 audits were conducted jointly and several nonconformities were detected. The first nonconformity was related to EsBank’s labeling of information. The company had an information classification scheme but there was no information labeling procedure. As a result, documents requiring the same level of protection would be labeled differently (sometimes as confidential, other times sensitive).

Considering that all the documents were also stored electronically, the nonconformity also impacted media handling. The audit team used sampling and concluded that 50 of 200 removable media stored sensitive information mistakenly classified as confidential. According to the information classification scheme, confidential information is allowed to be stored in removable media, whereas storing sensitive information is strictly prohibited. This marked the other nonconformity.

They drafted the nonconformity report and discussed the audit conclusions with EsBank’s representatives, who agreed to submit an action plan for the detected nonconformities within two months.

EsBank accepted the audit team leader's proposed solution. They resolved the nonconformities by drafting a procedure for information labeling based on the classification scheme for both physical and electronic formats. The removable media procedure was also updated based on this procedure.

Two weeks after the audit completion, EsBank submitted a general action plan. There, they addressed the detected nonconformities and the corrective actions taken, but did not include any details on systems, controls, or operations impacted. The audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded that it would resolve the nonconformities. Yet, EsBank received an unfavorable recommendation for certification.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Which option justifies the unfavorable recommendation for certification? Refer to scenario 8.