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

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, a sampling plan is a method for selecting a representative subset of the audit evidence from a defined population1. A sampling plan can have several advantages for the audit, such as providing a suitable understanding of the ISMS by covering its key processes, activities, and controls; implementing the audit plan efficiently by optimizing the use of time and resources; and giving confidence in the audit results by ensuring that the sample is sufficient, reliable, and unbiased1. Therefore, these three options are examples of advantages of using a sampling plan for the audit. The other options are not advantages, but rather disadvantages or risks of using a sampling plan. For example, overruling the auditor’s instincts may lead to missing important evidence or issues that are not covered by the sampling plan; using the same plan for consecutive audits may reduce the effectiveness and validity of the audit results; and missing key issues may result from an inadequate or inappropriate sampling plan1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

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.

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 9.1.2, the organisation shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the information security management system conforms to the organisation’s own requirements, the requirements of ISO 27001:2022, and is effectively implemented and maintained12

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 10.1, the organisation shall react to the nonconformities and take action, as applicable, to control and correct them and deal with the consequences. The organisation shall also evaluate the need for action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities, in order to prevent recurrence or occurrence. The organisation shall implement any action needed, review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken, and make changes to the information security management system, if necessary12

A follow-up audit is a type of internal audit that is conducted after a previous audit to verify whether the nonconformities and corrective actions have been addressed and resolved, and whether the information security management system has been improved12

Therefore, the following statements are true for preparing a follow-up audit plan:

Verification should focus on whether any action undertaken is complete. This means that the auditor should check whether the organisation has implemented all the planned actions to correct and prevent the nonconformities, and whether the actions have been documented and communicated as required12

Verification should focus on whether any action undertaken has been undertaken effectively. This means that the auditor should check whether the organisation has achieved the intended results and objectives of the actions, and whether the actions have eliminated or reduced the nonconformities and their causes and consequences12

The following statements are false for preparing a follow-up audit plan:

Verification should focus on whether any action undertaken has been undertaken efficiently. This is false because efficiency is not a criterion for verifying the actions taken to address the nonconformities and corrective actions. Efficiency refers to the optimal use of resources to achieve the desired outcomes, but it is not a requirement of ISO 27001:2022. The auditor should focus on the effectiveness and completeness of the actions, not on the efficiency12

Corrections should be verified first, followed by corrective actions and finally opportunities for improvement. This is false because there is no prescribed order for verifying the corrections, corrective actions, and opportunities for improvement. The auditor should verify all the actions taken by the organisation, regardless of their sequence or priority. The auditor may choose to verify the actions based on their relevance, significance, or impact, but this is not a mandatory requirement12

Opportunities for improvement should be verified first, followed by corrections and finally corrective actions. This is false because there is no prescribed order for verifying the opportunities for improvement, corrections, and corrective actions. The auditor should verify all the actions taken by the organisation, regardless of their sequence or priority. The auditor may choose to verify the actions based on their relevance, significance, or impact, but this is not a mandatory requirement12

Corrective actions should be reviewed first, followed by corrections and finally opportunities for improvement. This is false because there is no prescribed order for reviewing the corrective actions, corrections, and opportunities for improvement. The auditor should review all the actions taken by the organisation, regardless of their sequence or priority. The auditor may choose to review the actions based on their relevance, significance, or impact, but this is not a mandatory requirement12