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

The four statements that are true are:

•Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

•The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities

•Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

•Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance

According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are:

•A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5.

•A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5.

The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution.

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually.

The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example:

•Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’ are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3.

•Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement.

•Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics.

•Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness.

The four options for the actions you could take are A, C, F, and G. These options are consistent with the guidance and requirements of ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. You could agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified (A), and document the agreement in the audit report1. You could close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised ©, and report the outcome to the audit client and other relevant parties1. You could note the progress made but hold the audit open until all corrective action has been cleared (F), and determine the need for another follow-up audit or other actions1. You could also advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity (G), as they are responsible for the overall management and coordination of the audit programme3. The other options are either not appropriate or not necessary for the situation. You should not recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit (B), as this may compromise the audit objectives and the audit programme1. You should not recommend suspension of the organisation’s certification as they have failed to implement the agreed corrections and corrective actions within the agreed timescale (D), as this is not within your role or authority as an ISMS auditor4. You should not advise the auditee that you will arrange for the next audit to be an online audit to deal with the outstanding nonconformity (E), as this may not be feasible or effective depending on the nature and complexity of the nonconformity1. You should not conduct an unannounced follow-up audit on-site to review the one outstanding minor nonconformity once it has been cleared (H), as this may not be in accordance with the audit agreement or the audit programme1. References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6: Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit \n3: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 5.3 \n4: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 9.6

A certification body cannot certify an organization if it has provided consultancy services to that organization. This situation presents a conflict of interest, as the certification body is required to maintain impartiality and objectivity. The ISO/IEC 17021-1 standard, which sets out requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies that providing both services to the same client is incompatible.