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

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:

Based on scenario 3. which ISO/IEC 27001 control has NightCore ignored when they used an illegal version of software?

Scenario 8: Tessa. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

The audit team did not accept Clastus's additional information because they had already made the certification recommendation. Is this acceptable?

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.

Based on scenario 6, during stage 1 audit, the auditor found out that some documents regarding the ISMS had different format. What should the auditor do in this case?