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

Scenario 6: Sinvestment is an insurance company that offers home, commercial, and life insurance. The company was founded in North Carolina, but have recently expanded in other locations, including Europe and Africa.

Sinvestment is committed to complying with laws and regulations applicable to their industry and preventing any information security incident. They have implemented an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 and have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification.

Two auditors were assigned by the certification body to conduct the audit. After signing a confidentiality agreement with Sinvestment. they started the audit activities. First, they reviewed the documentation required by the standard, including the declaration of the ISMS scope, information security policies, and internal audits reports. The review process was not easy because, although Sinvestment stated that they had a documentation procedure in place, not all documents had the same format.

Then, the audit team conducted several interviews with Sinvestment's top management to understand their role in the ISMS implementation. All activities of the stage 1 audit were performed remotely, except the review of documented information, which took place on-site, as requested by Sinvestment.

During this stage, the auditors found out that there was no documentation related to information security training and awareness program. When asked, Sinvestment's representatives stated that the company has provided information security training sessions to all employees. Stage 1 audit gave the audit team a general understanding of Sinvestment's operations and ISMS.

The stage 2 audit was conducted three weeks after stage 1 audit. The audit team observed that the marketing department (which was not included in the audit scope) had no procedures in place to control employees’ access rights. Since controlling employees' access rights is one of the ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and was included in the information security policy of the company, the issue was included in the audit report. In addition, during stage 2 audit, the audit team observed that Sinvestment did not record logs of user activities. The procedures of the company stated that "Logs recording user activities should be retained and regularly reviewed," yet the company did not present any evidence of the implementation of such procedure.

During all audit activities, the auditors used observation, interviews, documented information review, analysis, and technical verification to collect information and evidence. All the audit findings during stages 1 and 2 were analyzed and the audit team decided to issue a positive recommendation for certification.

According to ISO/IEC 27001 requirements, does the company need to provide evidence of implementation of the procedure regarding logs recording user activities? Refer to scenario 6.

Scenario 5

CyberShielding Systems Inc. provides security services spanning the entire information technology infrastructure. It provides cybersecurity software, including endpoint security, firewalls, and antivirus software. CyberShielding Systems Inc. has helped various companies secure their networks for two decades through advanced products and services. Having achieved a reputation in the information and network security sector, CyberShielding Systems Inc. decided to implement a security information management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 and obtain a certification to better secure its internal and customer assets and gain a competitive advantage.

The certification body initiated the process by selecting the audit team for CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s ISO/IEC 27001 certification. They provided the company with the name and background information of each audit member. However, upon review, CyberShielding Systems Inc. discovered that one of the auditors did not hold the security clearance required by them. Consequently, the company objected to the appointment of this auditor. Upon review, the certification body replaced the auditor in response to CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s objection.

As part of the audit process, CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s approach to risk and opportunity determination was assessed as a standalone activity. This involved examining the organization’s methods for identifying and managing risks and opportunities. The audit team’s core objectives encompassed providing assurance on the effectiveness of CyberShielding Systems Inc.'s risk and opportunity identification mechanisms and reviewing the organization's strategies for addressing these determined risks and opportunities. During this, the audit team also identified a risk due to a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval, potentially exposing the company to vulnerabilities. This finding highlighted the need for stronger internal controls to prevent such issues.

The audit team accessed process descriptions and organizational charts to understand the main business processes and controls. They performed a limited analysis of the IT risks and controls because their access to the IT infrastructure and applications was limited by third-party service provider restrictions. However, the audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in CyberShielding’s ISMS was low since most of the company's processes were automated. They therefore evaluated that the ISMS, as a whole, conforms to the standard requirements by questioning CyberShielding representatives on IT responsibilities, control effectiveness, and anti-malware measures. CyberShielding’s representatives provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to address all these questions.

Despite the agreement signed before the audit, which outlined the audit scope, criteria, and objectives, the audit was primarily focused on assessing conformity with established criteria and ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Question

Based on Scenario 5, what else should CyberShielding Systems Inc. have included when defining the audit objectives?

Scenario 3: NightCore is a multinational technology company based in the United States that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. After having an information security management system (ISMS) implemented for over 8 months, they contracted a certification body to conduct a third party audit in order to get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

The certification body set up a team of seven auditors. Jack, the most experienced auditor, was assigned as the audit team leader. Over the years, he received many well known certifications, such as the ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, CISA, CISSP, and CISM.

Jack conducted thorough analyses on each phase of the ISMS audit, by studying and evaluating every information security requirement and control that was implemented by NightCore. During stage 2 audit. Jack detected several nonconformities. After comparing the number of purchased invoices for software licenses with the software inventory, Jack found out that the company has been using the illegal versions of a software for many computers. He decided to ask for an explanation from the top management about this nonconformity and see whether they were aware about this. His next step was to audit NightCore's IT Department. The top management assigned Tom, NightCore's system administrator, to act as a guide and accompany Jack and the audit team toward the inner workings of their system and their digital assets infrastructure.

While interviewing a member of the Department of Finance, the auditors discovered that the company had recently made some unusual large transactions to one of their consultants. After gathering all the necessary details regarding the transactions. Jack decided to directly interview the top management.

When discussing about the first nonconformity, the top management told Jack that they willingly decided to use a copied software over the original one since it was cheaper. Jack explained to the top management of NightCore that using illegal versions of software is against the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and the national laws and regulations. However, they seemed to be fine with it.

Several months after the audit, Jack sold some of NightCore's information that he collected during the audit for a huge amount of money to competitors of NightCore.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

Does ISO/IEC 27001 require organizations to comply with national laws and regulations?