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

Scenario 9: CoreBit Systems

CoreBit Systems, with its headquarters m San Francisco, specializes in information and communication technology (ICT) solutions, its clientele primarily includes data communication enterprises and network operators. The company's core objective is to enable its clients a smooth transition into multi-service providers, aligning their operations with the complex demands of the digital landscape.

Recently. John, the internal auditor of CoreBit Systems, conducted an internal audit which uncovered nonconformities related to their monitoring procedures and system vulnerabilities, in response to the identified nonconformities. CoreBit Systems decided to employ a comprehensive problem-solving approach to solve these issues systematically. The method encompasses a team-oriented approach, aiming to identify, correct, and eliminate the root causes of issues. This approach involves several steps. First, establish a group of experts with deep knowledge of processes and controls. Next, break down the nonconformity into measurable components and implement interim containment measures. Then, identify potential root causes and select and verify permanent corrective actions. Finally, put those actions into practice, validate them, take steps to prevent recurrence, and recognize and acknowledge the team's efforts.

Following the analysis of the root cause of the nonconformities, CoreBit Systems's ISMS project manager. Julia, developed a list of potential actions to address the identified nonconformities. Julia carefully evaluated the list to ensure that each action would effectively eliminate the root cause of the respective nonconformity. While assessing potential corrective action for addressing a nonconformity, Julia identified the issue as significant and assessed a high likelihood of its reoccurrence Consequently, she chose to implement temporary corrective actions. Afterward. Julia combined all the nonconformities Into a single action plan and sought approval from the top management.

The submitted action plan was written as follows:

A new version of the access control policy will be established and new restrictions will be created to ensure that network access is effectively managed and monitored by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department.

However. Julia's submitted action plan was not approved by top management The reason cited was that a general action plan meant to address all nonconformities was deemed unacceptable. Consequently, Julia revised the action plan and submitted separate ones for approval Unfortunately, Julia did not adhere to the organization's specified deadline for submission, resulting in a delay in the corrective action process, and notably, the revised action plans lacked a defined schedule for execution.

Question:

Which method did CoreBit Systems use to address and prevent reoccurring problems after identifying the nonconformities?

Which option below should be addressed in an information security policy?

Scenario 10: CircuitLinking is a company specializing in water purification solutions, designing and manufacturing efficient filtration and treatment systems for both residential and commercial applications. Over the past two years, the company has actively implemented an integrated management system (IMS) that aligns with both ISO/IEC 27001 for information security and ISO 9001 for quality management. Recently, the company has taken a significant step forward by applying for a combined audit, aiming to achieve certification against both ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001.

In preparation for the certification audit, CircuitLinking ensured a clear understanding of ISO/IEC 27001 within the company, identified key subject-matter experts to assist the auditors, allocated sufficient resources, performed a self-assessment, and gathered all necessary documentation in advance. Following the successful completion of the Stage 1 audit (which focused on verifying the design of the management system), the Stage 2 audit was conducted to examine the implementation and effectiveness of the information security and quality management systems.

One of the auditors, Megan, was a previous employee of the company. To uphold the integrity of the certification process, the company notified the certification body about the potential conflict of interest and requested an auditor change. Subsequently, the certification body selected a replacement, ensuring impartiality. Additionally, the company requested a background check of the audit team members; however, the certification body denied this request. The necessary adjustments to the audit plan were made, and transparent communication with stakeholders was maintained.

The audit process continued seamlessly under the new auditor’s guidance. Upon audit completion, the certification body evaluated the results and conclusions of the audit and CircuitLinking's public information, and awarded CircuitLinking the combined certification.

A recertification audit for CircuitLinking was conducted to verify that the company's management system continued to meet the required standards and remained effective within the defined scope of certification. CircuitLinking had implemented significant changes, including a major overhaul of its information security processes, new technology platforms, and adjustments to comply with recent legislative changes. Due to these updates, the recertification audit required a Stage 1 assessment to evaluate the impact.

Which of the following does NOT follow auditing best practices? Refer to Scenario 10.