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

Scenario 9: OpenTech provides IT and communications services. It helps data communication enterprises and network operators become multi-service providers During an internal audit, its internal auditor, Tim, has identified nonconformities related to the monitoring procedures He identified and evaluated several system Invulnerabilities.

Tim found out that user IDs for systems and services that process sensitive information have been reused and the access control policy has not been followed After analyzing the root causes of this nonconformity, the ISMS project manager developed a list of possible actions to resolve the nonconformity. Then, the ISMS project manager analyzed the list and selected the activities that would allow the elimination of the root cause and the prevention of a similar situation in the future. These activities were included in an action plan The action plan, approved by the top management, 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

The approved action plan was implemented and all actions described in the plan were documented.

Based on this scenario, answer the following question:

OpenTech has decided to establish a new version of its access control policy. What should the company do when such changes occur?

Scenario 10: ProEBank

ProEBank is an Austrian financial institution known for its comprehensive range of banking services. Headquartered in Vienna, it leaverages the city's advanced technological and financial ecosystem To enhance its security posture, ProEBank has implementied an information security management system (ISMS) based on the ISO/IEC 27001. After a year of having the ISMS in place, the company decided to apply for a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 27001.

To prepare for the audit, the company first informed its employees for the audit and organized training sessions to prepare them. It also prepared documented information in advance, so that the documents would be ready when external auditors asked to review them Additionally, it determined which of its employees have the knowledge to help the external auditors understand and evaluate the processes.

During the planning phase for the audit, ProEBank reviewed the list of assigned auditors provided by the certification body. Upon reviewing the list, ProEBank identified a potential conflict of interest with one of the auditors, who had previously worked for ProEBank's mein competitor in the banking industry To ensure the integrity of the audit process. ProEBank refused to undergo the audit until a completely new audit team was assigned. In response, the certification body acknowledged the conflict of interest and made the necessary adjustments to ensure the impartiality of the audit team

After the resolution of this issue, the audit team assessed whether the ISMS met both the standard's requirements and the company's objectives. During this process, the audit team focused on reviewing documented information.

Three weeks later, the team conducted an on-site visit to the auditee’s location where they aimed to evaluate whether the ISMS conformed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001. was effectively implemented, and enabled the auditee to reach its information security objectives. After the on-site visit the team prepared the audit conclusions and notified the auditee that some minor nonconformities had been detected The audit team leader then issued a recommendation for certification.

After receiving the recommendation from the audit team leader, the certification body established a committee to make the decision for certification. The committee included one member from the audit team and two other experts working for the certification body.

The certification body’s final decision for certification was made by a committee that included one auditor from the audit team and two other experts.

Question:

Is this acceptable?

NeuroTrustMed is a leading medical technology company based in Seoul, South Korea. The company specializes in developing AI-assisted neuroimaging solutions used in early diagnosis and treatment planning for neurological disorders. As a data-intensive company handling sensitive patient health records and medical research data, NeuroTrustMed places a strong emphasis on cybersecurity and regulatory compliance. The company has maintained an ISO/IEC 27001-certified ISMS for the past three years. It continuously reviews and improves its ISMS to address emerging threats, support innovation in medical diagnostics, and maintain stakeholder trust. As part of its commitment to continual improvement, NeuroTrustMed actively tracks potential nonconformities, performs root-cause analyses, implements corrective and preventive actions, and ensures all changes are documented and aligned with the company’s strategic objectives. When a new data protection regulation came into effect affecting cross-regional data handling, the information security team conducted a gap assessment between current policies and the new regulation. Then, it updated relevant documentation and processes to meet compliance. Following these revisions, NeuroTrustMed updated the ISMS documentation and added a new entry in the improvement register. The register, maintained in the form of a structured spreadsheet, included a unique change number, a description of the update, and a high-priority classification due to legal compliance, the dates of initiation and completion, and the sign-off by the information security manager. Around the same period, during a scheduled management review, the information security team also identified a pattern of onboarding errors. While these had not resulted in any data breaches, they posed a risk of unauthorized access. In response, the onboarding procedure was revised and an automated verification step was added to ensure accuracy before access is granted. To understand the underlying cause, the team collected data on the provisioning process. They analyzed process logs, interviewed onboarding staff, and traced access errors back to a misconfigured step in the HR-to-IT handover workflow. The team validated this finding through test cases before implementing any changes. Once confirmed, the information security team documented the nonconformity in the ISMS log. The documentation included a description of the issue, impacted systems, affected users, and a brief risk assessment of potential consequences related to access management. Based on the scenario above, answer the following question.

What step of the collective action process did NeuroTrustMed apply when it confirmed the onboarding misconsistencies were caused by a misconfigured step in the HR-to-IT workflow? Refer to scenario 9.