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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Assigning responsibilities to the audit team members (Correct Answer) – This is not Sarah’s responsibility. The certification body assigns the audit team and defines responsibilities, ensuring independence and objectivity.

B. Defining the audit criteria and objectives (Correct Responsibility) – Sarah, as the audit team leader, must establish audit criteria and objectives, per ISO 19011 (Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems).

C. Planning the audit (Correct Responsibility) – The audit team leader is responsible for planning the audit, including timelines and resource allocation.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 9.2 (Internal Audit)

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.5.2 (Defining Audit Objectives and Criteria)

These three options represent valid audit trails for control 5.7, as they are aligned with the control’s requirements and objectives. According to the web search results from my predefined tool, control 5.7 requires organisations to collect and analyse information relating to information security threats and use that information to take mitigation actions12. The control also specifies that threat intelligence should be relevant, perceptive, contextual, and actionable, and that it should be used to prevent, detect, or respond to threats34. Therefore, the auditor should verify how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, how it uses threat intelligence to protect its information assets, and how it monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its threat intelligence arrangements. The other options are not valid audit trails, as they are either irrelevant, incorrect, or incomplete. For example:

•The task of producing threat intelligence is not assigned to the organisation’s internal audit team, but to the person or team responsible for the ISMS, such as the information security manager or the information security committee5 .

•The organisation’s risk assessment process does not begin with effective threat intelligence, but with the identification of the context, scope, and objectives of the ISMS . Threat intelligence is an input for the risk identification and analysis, but not the starting point of the risk assessment process.

•Speaking to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats is not sufficient to audit the control, as it does not address how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, nor how it uses it to take mitigation actions. The auditor should also speak to the staff involved in the threat intelligence process, and review the relevant documents and records.

•Checking that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process is not enough to audit the control, as it does not verify the implementation and effectiveness of the process. The auditor should also observe the process in action, and examine the outputs and outcomes of the process.

•Determining whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence is a partial audit trail, as it only covers one aspect of the control. The auditor should also assess the quality, reliability, and relevance of the sources, and how the information is analysed and used.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 5.2 requires top management to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting information security objectives1. Clause 6.2 requires top management to ensure that the information security objectives are established at relevant functions and levels1. Therefore, when verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate top management’s involvement and commitment.

To verify that the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented and effective, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate how the policy and objectives are communicated, monitored, measured, analyzed, and evaluated. The auditor should also sample and verify the implementation of the controls that are stated in the policy.

Three options for the audit trail that are relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives are:

Review the internal audit report to make sure the IT department has been audited: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the IT department, which is responsible for managing the mobile devices and their security, has been evaluated for its conformity and effectiveness in implementing the mobile device policy and objectives. The internal audit report can also reveal any nonconformities, corrective actions, or opportunities for improvement related to the mobile device policy and objectives.

Sampling some mobile devices from on-duty medical staff and validate the mobile device information with the asset register: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the mobile devices that are used by the medical staff, who are involved in processing and storing residents’ data, are registered in the asset register and have physical protection enabled. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of two of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.

Review the asset register to make sure all company’s mobile devices are registered: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the company’s mobile devices that are within the ISMS scope are identified and accounted for. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of one of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.

The other options for the audit trail are not relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives, as they are not related to the policy or objectives or their implementation or effectiveness. For example:

Interview the reception personnel to make sure all visitor and employee bags are checked before entering the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding physical security or access control, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Review visitors’ register book to make sure no visitor can have their personal mobile phone in the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security awareness or compliance, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Interview the supplier of the devices to make sure they are aware of the ISMS policy: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security within supplier relationships, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Interview top management to verify their involvement in establishing the information security policy and the information security objectives: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, but not specifically to mobile devices.